I chose Charles Martin’s poem From Komarovo, 1962 because I was interested in the title of the poem. My source was The Yale Review via Wiley Online Library 2015 Full Collection (Vol. 104, Iss. 2). The chosen poem was presented as a stand-alone poem. The rest poems had the same subject, they were all related to each other, because all can be attributed to the romantic lyrics. The poem, which I chose can be attributed to civil lyrics. The reason why I chose this poem was its name, which is a hint, an allusion to the character that will be discussed in the poem. This character is a Russian-American poet, essayist and writer Joseph Brodsky, who lived for a while in the village of Komarovo in 1962, before the emigration to the United States. It was in Komarovo in those years Brodsky opens and is actively develops his talent as a writer under the influence of prominent Russian poets such as Anna Akhmatova, whom he met it in Komarovo. After the first reading of this poem, it etched in my mind immediately, the way of writing and the language itself are dynamic, they provoke a thought, as in the poem there are many codes and allusions, after their decoding offers an incredible picture.
If we translate this verse into prose, the story is as follows. Two opposites sit with wicker chairs. The first is Granfather Frost, and the second - the author himself (Charles Martin - M). The author (M) wonders how the countries that produced them can push so unlike poets in their lives. The author writes that it sounds as if it means that other, if he were given the right to speak, with all the honors that he met on the way. Could one imagine that the author lived in the dacha, where he found him, or to understand what was his life. And if the other is clear that their meeting was planned by those responsible for it all. Here the author speaks on behalf of another (Brodsky – B), that he honored guest of President, burdened by his attention, he collector of apples, which collects the last apple before going to bed. His writing was also depressed, while another (M) was highly appreciated by noble people, and all those that only can be offered to someone else living, fame, recognition, honors. While his (B) poetry clung to people’s lives as the memory of the web on the verge of extinction. They all practiced until the years passed, while it was impossible even to mention his name, his poetry and even himself, so he moonlighted avoiding attention. Some still exist, others were burned by the authorized bodies of the state, or were given to those who read them, and who in the future would have been concluded. The second (M) has always had the freedom to be free, and now he thinks he writes, though it is not. The strong talk only when they see, but here the strong got used to be careful, they have learned not to say anything until the strongest would raise a hand vote. They also own communication, which weak, whose speech can be ignored, can never achieve. The weak have the right to self-esteem and can smile in response to deceptive smiles or notice condemnation in long applause. But here they are, two poets of their times, each of them is a different cipher. Two elderly practitioners rhyme sat in a wicker chair together. Perhaps they are not so different, the curtain that was a long time ago veiled in their time is now falling, after finishing all the toasts and feasts. It is said that both of them will get the Prize. Let another take it, as the doctor had forbidden him to travel due to health, particularly to Sweden.
The poem can be attributed to the civil lyrics with elements of political content. The basis of the content of the poem the experiences of lyrical personage about his fate and the fate of his country. But this poem is interesting because here are two heroes, one real, the other - prospective. These characters are the author himself (Charles Martin), and Joseph Brodsky (prospective). These characters are connected as an antonymous bond (opposition: the US – Russia, recognized – casted away), which appears at the beginning of the poem, and the synonymous relationship (two poets, the two witnesses of unjust system of the state, two victims). The main theme, which concerns the author is a problem with the position of poet in society. The main problem here is the political regime, which equates all at one level, driving them into a framework for their own benefit. Thus, remains the question of those who do not fall within the scope, the one who opposes the system on their own, and who, as a result, suffers. This poem can be seen as a reflection on the choice of the poet, or the principle of popularity, and as an example for this is a successful allusion on Joseph Brodsky. As for the ideological level, the author of this poem wanted to convey to the reader the idea that the fate of the poet’s envy of his determination and participation, each chooses for himself the way and then paying for it. In the poem clearly captures the revolutionary mood, besides this poem is full of provocative ideas, which makes it very sharp and memorable. The poem is called so as to touch up the reader to a deeper analysis and reasoning. In order to fully understand it, the reader will learn about the ivents in village of Komarovo in 1962.
As for the speaker, the poem has two – the major and minor, all of which complement each other. Physically, is represented only one speaker, the author himself (Martin), he reflects on his fate, and the fate of his imaginary (but very real) poet (Joseph Brodsky), comparing himself with him. The culmination become a time when the voice of the author said the poet himself (Brodsky). At the beginning of the poem, Martin believes that poets are not similar to each other, at the end of the poem he comes to the conclusion that they are similar in many ways. In the poem there is a kind of dialogue (Martin - Brodsky) in the form of a monologue (Martin always speaks, though the name of Brodsky). This scheme is as follows: Martin - Brodsky - Martin. This dialogue is aimed to call a strong emotion and interest, and a large number of encrypted information encourages readers to search for the missing encryption and analysis. This poem is as a kind of challenge to the aggressive action to fight the oppressive regime.
With regard to the structure of the poem, it is Alexandrine, not with 12 syllabes, but with 13, with caesura after the seventh syllable, with mandatory emphasis on the first, seventh and theertinth syllables and with the obligatory arrangement adjacent alternately the two masculin, the two feminine rhymes. It is pentameter with a caesura after the third syllabe. The author chose an Alexandrian type of structure of the verse, while remaking it a little. Instead of the standard 12, it adds one syllabe, thereby shifts the emphasis and accentuation instead of the usual (6 and 12 syllabes) he had new (1 - 7 - 13 syllabes). This makes it more expressive, the poem becomes the culmination in the 7th syllabe. It is in this stack is said about the sad fate of the poet and those who supported his work. For example:
Some still exist ', | others have been burn'ed _ _ _ _ _ _ '| _ _ _ _ _ _ '͜
As for the rhyme, then there is a cross, the first verse rhyme with the third, the second with the fourth (ABAB). For example:
Two opposites, each in a wicker chair, (A)
Grandfather Frost and I: could our nations (B)
Not have produced a less unlikely pair (A)
Of poets unlike in their situations? (B)
Although the scheme is a little more complicated, but it is more flexible in terms of rhythm and makes it easier to pass the necessary mood. Here rhyme is mixed, as the idea of the author that intersect to form some kind of plot.
As for the images here and in the first place, there is a clear reference allusion to the poet Joseph Brodsky (which was not mentioned directly). The evidence is the poem title (in Komarovo in 1962, Brodsky wrote poetry), and such mention as a Grandfather Frost, the dacha (that is inherent in Russian culture) and the Prize from Sweden (it means the Nobel Prize in literature that Brodsky won in 1987). All this is connected directly with the theme of the poem about the persecution and harassment of poets.
As for the stylistic figures, the poem is full of them. In the text there is an allusion to the Russian author (Grandfather Frost - Russian Santa Claus; dacha - Russian country house). The antithesis, the opposition of two thesis, that poets are alike and unlike (‘less unlikely pair, Of poets unlike in their situations’ – ‘Perhaps we’re not that unlike at all’). The graduation, in order to emphasize the recognition of the author (‘All fame, all glory, accolades, distinction!’). The paraphrase ('the responsible organs of the state' - the communist regime in Russia; practitioners of rhyme – poets; ‘It's said that we are both up for the Prize. They advise especially against a trip to Sweden – the Nobel Prize). All these trails and stylistic figures have been used to enhance the effect produced on the reader.
For the experiment, I chose my mother and the neighbor guy. I deliberately chose one adult and one young man, one woman, one man, in order to compare results. The result, which was released was about the same, both did not understand the essence of the poem, without any additional tips and explanations. The main information that was realized while the experimentation, was that it was about two poets from different periods, but whose fate was about the same. This experiment showed once again that without additional information this poem is difficult to understand for ordinary readers.
The analysis of this poem from the point of view of its considerations from different perspectives showed that this poem is a complex phenomenon which can be understood only after studying all of its aspects. To understand this verse the perception is not enough, as well it is needed athe expertise, which is owned by a few. But if the reader follows the author’s prompts-ciphers, in the end, then he will come to the desired result, will fill the missing gaps, and gather a picture of the whole poem.