We can identify the following provisions that define and characterize Mayakovsky’s work:
1.Early work of V.V. Mayakovsky is closely connected with futurism, without knowledge of the basic principles and features of which it is impossible to understand the poet’s pre-revolutionary work and understand a number of his post-revolutionary works. It is in the acceptance or rejection of the postulates of futurism and their embodiment in the poetry of V. Mayakovsky that the basis of different points of view on the poet’s creative experiments.
2. When considering the criticism of Russian diaspora, the previously overlooked significance of Mayakovsky’s personality and creativity is revealed - to be a connecting element in the division of Russian literature into domestic and emigrant. Through the attitude towards Mayakovsky, all the main points of political, moral and aesthetic confrontation and interaction between two lines of Russian literature were revealed. Through interest in him and recognition of his talent, there was a rapprochement between them, continuity with the pre-revolutionary development of literature, with the literary process of the 20s.
3. The Soviet period of development of science about Mayakovsky is characterized by the mythologization of the poet’s image and consideration of his work in an ideological aspect.
4. Post-Soviet lighthouse studies are trying to reinterpret the life and work of Mayakovsky, with an emphasis on demythologizing and reinterpreting the image of the poet.
5. At the present stage of development of the history of literature, it is impossible to separate the poet’s work from literary discourse, without taking into account the intertextuality of literature, which links various texts together in the process of perceiving real and literary spaces, in the artistic reproduction of human experience.
1.3 General characteristics and classification of poet researchers
1. The poet’s contemporaries (futurists themselves, symbolists, poets of other movements, philologists of the 1920s - Y. Tynyanov, V. Shklovsky, R. Yakobson) adhere to a mainly descriptive approach in their assessment of Mayakovsky’s work.
2).A characteristic feature of the works of scientists of the Soviet period in the development
domestic literary criticism (A. Metchenko, A. Subbotin and others) is to ignore the early futuristic period, with a special emphasis on political and social motives; an ideologized approach is being implemented.
3. Literary studies of the 1980-1990s. (Yu. Karabchievsky, M. Gasparov, M. Vainman and others), which is represented by two directions: either belittling the importance of V.V. Mayakovsky due to political motives (subjective approach), or a more thorough and in-depth analysis of all possible aspects of creativity (S. Komarov, A. Mikhailov and others).
The development of modern lighthouse science is due to the above-mentioned periods, but has its own specifics. In the late 1990s - early 2000s, the poet’s work was introduced into the sphere of world history and culture, while Mayakovsky’s work was considered in the context of reinterpretation and detfologization. We believe that it is possible to objectively comprehend and evaluate the work of a poet like Mayakovsky only by taking into account contradictory views on creativity, and this inconsistency is explained by the inconsistency of the era in which he lived and worked. It is known that V.V. Mayakovsky entered literature as a participant in futurist performances, and the attitude of criticism towards him in the first years of his work is inseparable from the attitude towards futurism as a whole, which was negative. The titles of articles about futurists speak for themselves: “Clowns in literature”, “Knights of a donkey’s tail”, “Evening of buffoons”, “Futurist performance: Who are crazy - the futurists or the public?” . However, after the appearance of the first futuristic collections, thoughtful observers of literary life made attempts to consider futurism and its representatives as a new phenomenon in literature and poetry. There is a well-known statement by A.M. Gorky, who singled out Mayakovsky among the futurists. One of the first who attempted a serious analysis of the work of V.V. Mayakovsky was the symbolist poet and critic V.Ya. Bryusov, who in his articles of 1913-1914. spoke about Mayakovsky as an accomplished poet.
In the 1920s the polemics with Mayakovsky were carried out in the process of struggle between literary groups and sometimes went beyond the bounds of decency (suffice it to recall Mayakovsky’s polemics with Polonsky and Professor Shengeli). At the same time, it is necessary to pay attention to the critical remarks addressed to Mayakovsky by Russian poets of different literary schools and movements, and to the attitude of Marxist critics towards the poet. Thus, Napostovist G. Lelevich in the article “Vladimir Mayakovsky” declared the poet “a declassed intellectual,” “an intelligent lumpen-proletarian, a representative of bohemia.” Another famous critic of the 1920s also belittled the role of the poet’s work. – leader of the group “Pereval” A.K. Voronsky, who made such conclusions about the future fate of the poet’s works, saying that Mayakovsky will not become a poet of millions: he is “not allowed” by individualism, futuristic burden, he “lacks simplicity and publicity.” Noting that V.V. Mayakovsky is the leader of Russian futurism, a reaction to symbolism, who rebelled against “symbolist quests, everyday life, wingless realism”, A.K. Voronsky emphasizes that “Marxists reacted coldly to futurism,” “the futurists’ claims to speak on behalf of communist art are unfounded.” Summing up my thoughts about V.V. Mayakovsky, the critic stated: “In Marxist circles, it is customary to think of Mayakovsky that in poetry he is a representative... of the individualistic bohemia of the period... of the decomposition of bourgeois culture.” These definitions gave rise to “labels that became popular in the 20s and migrated to teaching aids and anthologies of the 20s and 30s.”
The attitude of figures from the Russian diaspora towards Mayakovsky’s poetry was also ambiguous. The assessment of his work was subject to stereotypes that had developed in the literary environment of the Russian emigration in relation to futurism, which did not accept cultural traditions, and the new Soviet government in Russia. Representatives of the Russian diaspora assessed the poet’s work from a political point of view and within the framework of a larger problem - the possibility of the existence of literature in a totalitarian state. Naturally, the negative attitude towards totalitarianism in our country left its mark on the assessment of Mayakovsky’s work. The assessment of the poet’s work by the writer I.A. is widely known. Bunin, who called Mayakovsky “the lowest, most cynical and harmful servant of Soviet cannibalism.” However, it was abroad in the 1920s that the poet’s work became the object of scientific analysis and was included in the lecture courses of A. Bem and V. Pogodin.
If in the 1920s not only critics, but also many poets reproached V.V. Mayakovsky for reducing high poetry to everyday everyday themes, then a look at the poetry of V.V. Mayakovsky in the early 30s was developed in fierce polemics, in the clash of different, sometimes mutually exclusive points of view. One of the interpretations of the poet’s work, which made itself known back in the 1920s, is associated with a vulgar sociological approach to literature, and was especially clearly manifested in the position of RAPP. The Rappovites sharply criticized his first collection of poems for young readers, “Mayakovsky for Children,” published in 1931. Critics did not accept such a seemingly harmless poem as “What is good...”, since in it “neatness is taken as the main feature “goodness,” and the whole thing is built on the glorification of “well-bred boys,” the concept of which the children of NEPmen would more rightly fit than the children of workers.”
Despite the mentioned negative trends that existed in Russian literary criticism from 1917 to 1990, it was at this time
there is a clarification and bringing into the system of information about creative and
biographical, publications of the Complete Works, studies of form and content are being undertaken. Since the 1950s, the poet’s work has become the object of scientific analysis, articles and monographs have been published about Mayakovsky’s work, candidate and doctoral dissertations have been defended, which have laid the foundation for Russian Mayakovsky studies. During the named period of time, problems of periodization of the poet’s work are raised, disputes arise when determining the genre (lyrics, epic or lyrical epic), direction (romanticism or realism), problems of creativity (theme of bifurcation, rebellion or something else).
During the perestroika and post-Soviet periods, the process of demythologizing Mayakovsky began. This process coincided with the economic and political changes that occurred in the history of our country in the late 80s - early 90s of the twentieth century, which left its mark on the science of Mayakovsky, it fell to a new extreme - it began to deny the work of V.V. Mayakovsky, based on the psychological interpretation of his works without taking into account the cultural and historical context in which the poet lived and worked.
The wave of “exposing Mayakovsky” was opened by the book by Yu.A. Karabchievsky "The Resurrection of Mayakovsky", which at one time caused a lot of controversy. An unkind attitude towards the poet is evident in almost every line of his “philological novel”: “He was endowed with a wonderful sense of words - but only in a limited, superficial layer, accessible to the eye and ear. Mayakovsky's image is not a bundle of associations, but a linear sequential series, at best branched into two or three predetermined directions. Mayakovsky in general is a poet without a reader. A reader of Mayakovsky is always a listener, even if he is not sitting in the hall, but at home, with a book in his hands. Mayakovsky’s poems can be liked, admired, loved - but they cannot be experienced, they are not about us.” Refusing V.V. Mayakovsky in the reader, Yu.A. Karabchievsky thereby says that there is no need to study his work, assessing his work as the final point in Mayakovsky studies. The emotionality of Yu. Karabchievsky’s book, which became the reason for its popularity, is its main drawback: Yu. Karabchievsky’s opinion is too biased, too subjective, based on his personal reader's sympathies, his own reader's reaction.
In 2006, the anthology “V.V. Mayakovsky: pro et contra” was published, which included the most important lifetime and first posthumous critical and memoir responses to the poet’s contemporaries; many materials were published for the first time. Of particular value is the introductory article and comments prepared by V.N. Dyadichev. The materials presented in the anthology allow us to trace the history of perception and understanding of the phenomenon of Mayakovsky, whose work fell on a difficult and responsible period in the history of our country, when serious changes took place in economic, political and social life.
In 2008, a book by the famous philosopher, sociologist, expert on life and creativity V.V. was published. Mayakovsky - Karl Cantor “The Thirteenth Apostle”, in which the author proposed a new approach to the study of the poet’s personality - theological and historiosophical. When talking about this book, one should take into account the author's worldview: K. Cantor is known in philosophical circles as the author of the original idea of Marxism. The essence of the idea is that Kantor views Marxism as one of two global projects of world history, along with Christianity, as Christianity in new world conditions. For him, Marxism became a form through which a person can enter the sphere of culture. Kantor views the revolution from a broad perspective; it is not just a seizure of power, it is a way to live in history. In connection with which Kantor looks at the revolution with special eyes - the eyes of people who sang it in literature and art, it is no coincidence that in the book “The Thirteenth Apostle” there is a romanticization of the revolutionary process and revolutionary figures.
Much in the history of studying the work of V. Mayakovsky needs critical rethinking, but the assessment of certain provisions should be based on a reasoned analysis of sources and should not lead to their exclusion from historical and literary memory. We believe that some aspects of the normative culture of the Soviet era should be understood through serious analytical studies, devoid of bias.
Plan
Introduction
V.V. Mayakovsky is an original poet.
Main part
The artistic originality of Mayakovsky's poetry:
- rhymes, truncated lines, multi-accent verses;
- highlighting with pauses, significant semantic lines;
- unconventional breakdown of the poem;
- author's neologisms;
- sound writing;
- mixing different language styles.
Conclusion
Mayakovsky created his own poetic style.
V.V. Mayakovsky is an original poet of the early 20th century, who created many original poetic works and an innovator in the field of versification. His special artistic style, attention to the rhythm of the poem, original rhymes, the use of new words - all this distinguishes the poetry of V.V. Mayakovsky from traditional lyrics.
In the poetic works of Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky, rhymes, truncated lines, and multi-accent verses are especially important. The poet uses his own style of writing a poem, that is, V.V. Mayakovsky highlights significant semantic lines with pauses. This is how the oppressive atmosphere of hopelessness is created in the poem “A Good Treatment for Horses”:
Horse on croup (pause)
crashed (pause - the reader focuses his attention),
and immediately (pause)
behind the onlooker there is an onlooker (pause),
Kuznetsky came to flare the pants (pause),
huddled...
This unconventional breakdown of the poem into lines helps the poet draw the reader's attention to the most important things. The state of the horse is conveyed through lexical artistic means: verb - crashed, noun - on the croup. The feeling of hopelessness is also conveyed syntactically, through a special line breakdown.
V.V. Mayakovsky saw the power of words and tried to influence the reader through the creation of his own author's neologisms - words or phrases invented by the poet himself, they most fully reveal the essence of the poetic intent and convey the shades of the author's speech. In the poem “An Unusual Adventure that Vladimir Mayakovsky had in the Summer at the Dacha” there are many original author’s neologisms: “golden-faced”, “yasya”, “ringing”, “let’s sing”. The poet plays with words and rhymes to attract the reader's attention. For example, in this poem there are homonyms: “I am driving back the lights for the first time since creation. Did you call me? Drive the tea, drive it, poet, jam!”, synonyms: sun, golden forehead, luminary. Poetic vocabulary of V.V. Mayakovsky is always expressive; this is the main uniqueness of the poet’s artistic creativity.
In poetic works, such a phonetic device as sound writing is used. Thus, the reader not only imagines the picture depicted by the poet (most of Mayakovsky’s poems have a plot), but also hears what is happening. In the poem “Being Good to Horses,” the sound of a dying horse’s hooves is expressed as follows:
The hooves beat, / They sang as if:
- Mushroom. / - Rob.
- Coffin. / - Coarse
What is important here is not the lexical meaning of words, but the combination of sounds. They sound in a new way in the poetry of V.V. Mayakovsky traditional themes. For example, in the poem “The Satisfied,” the theme of bureaucracy is revealed by the poet through a mixture of fantasy and reality, the creation of grotesque situations where people
“...at two meetings at once.
per day
Twenty meetings
We need to keep up.
Involuntarily you have to break up.
Up to the waist here
And the rest
There".
This poem also uses another special artistic technique of V. Mayakovsky: mixing different linguistic styles. Within one work there are words and expressions that are closely related to the realities of the poet’s contemporary world, and on the other hand, there are outdated forms and words. For example, within the boundaries of one work there are the following words and expressions: Teo, Gukon (abbreviations of the early twentieth century) and the ancient form of the verb to yell - orya; neologism of that time - audience and archaism - from the time it.
So, V.V. Mayakovsky created his own poetic style, which made his works of art original and unique.
Mayakovsky listened closely to the pulse of his time and constantly looked for new poetic solutions that would correspond to the spirit of the era of great changes.
His favorite technique is metaphor, especially hyperbolic, built on exaggeration. For example, in the poem “Cloud in Pants” we read: “And here is a huge one, / I’m hunched over in the window, / I’m melting the window glass with my forehead.” The poet plays up his extraordinary height and conveys the strength of feelings with the help of hyperbole: the glass melts under the hero’s forehead, hot from the heat of love. Mayakovsky often used the so-called futuristic metaphor, which establishes connections between the most distant things and objects. Remember the poem “Could You?”, in which readers are struck by the metaphorical image of a “flute of drainpipes.”
Futuristic shocking is also inherent in Mayakovsky - shocking the “respectable public” when the poet uses rude, provocative, emphatically unaesthetic images or statements, as, for example, in the poem “Nata!”: “I will laugh and joyfully spit, I will spit in your face...”.
Mayakovsky also often uses ellipses - omissions of significant words, which is typical for colloquial, emotional speech (compare the title of the poem “The Violin and a Little Nervously,” which, apparently, should look like “The Violin [sounded sad] and a little nervously”). Such violations are explained by the negative program of the futurists: they are characterized by a declarative rejection of the norms of the existing language. But destruction for avant-garde artists has always been a creative act, for which grammatical irregularities are not an end in themselves, but a way of generating new meanings.
The lexical composition of Mayakovsky's poetry is also unique. His works are full of colloquial vocabulary, irregular and colloquial forms (“here”, “want”). A feature of the poet’s artistic world is the frequent use of neologisms (“skyscrapers”, “airplane”, “cars”). He himself loved to invent new words (hulk, copper-throated, endlessly, verse, piano, legend, Broadway and many others). Mayakovsky is rightfully considered a master of rhyming. Overcoming the established traditions in poetry, he sought to use different types of rhymes:
Truncated (“brain flap”, “tone in pants”);
inaccurate (“madness -Vesuvius”, “jacket -scaffold”);
compound (“there is no tenderness in her -twenty-two years old”) and others.
Almost all of his rhymes are exotic, that is, they are not familiar to the reader, and are not always even recognizable as rhymes. So, in the poem “Listen!” A fairly consistent cross-rhyme is not immediately visible, since this rather large poem consists of only four quatrains, each line is divided into segments by writing them in a “ladder”.
It should be noted that the “ladder” is Mayakovsky’s innovation. It was expressed in the fact that the poet broke up the poetic lines, each individual word became like a step (hence the name - ladder), prompting the reader to stop, like a pause, to highlight the meaning of the word. The usual punctuation marks seemed insufficient to the poet. This innovation has remained unusual to this day, but it is justified, since Mayakovsky believed that poetry is intended not only to be read with the eyes, but also to be spoken out loud. “Ladder” is a kind of hint to the performer about the tempo of reading, the nature of intonation, and the place of pauses.
The overcoming of traditions is also manifested in Mayakovsky’s rejection of the old laws of melody in poetic speech. He does not strive for sweetness, as the poets of the 19th century did, but on the contrary, he creates poems in such a way that they grind and grate the ear. The poet seems to be specially selecting dissonant words: “It took him a long time, short-haired, rough…” (“Mother and the evening killed by the Germans”). Such roughness of the poetic material has increased expressiveness and contributes to the creation of a special image of the lyrical hero of the poet, the leader of the street crowds, the singer of the urban lower classes.
- New!
Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky is one of the most prominent figures not only of Russian futurism, but of all Russian poetry. The young, revolutionary-minded Vladimir Mayakovsky joined the Futurists in 1912. Futurism arose as one of the trends...
Mayakovsky's innovation was manifested primarily in the variety of styles, genres, and writing styles that he used. It is natural, therefore, that the poet’s early work developed in the outline of Russian futurism: * I immediately blurred the map of everyday life, ...
It seems to me that we live in unusual and very interesting times. Life around us is in full swing and being rebuilt. Everything changes: cities and cars, people and their way of life, politics and thinking. Even that which cannot change is changing - the history of our country....
Vladimir Mayakovsky is widely known primarily as a poet of the revolution. This is not surprising - for a long time his poems were a kind of manifesto of Soviet Russia. The poet lived in a very difficult time, a time of social upheaval and great changes in society....
Vladimir Vladimirovich Mayakovsky began his autobiographical narrative this way: “ I myself": "I am a poet. This is what makes it interesting. This is what I am writing about.” His poetic word has always been focused on creative experimentation, innovation, and aspirations for the future world and future art. He always wanted to be heard, so he had to force his voice very much, as if shouting at the top of his lungs; in this sense, the title of the unfinished poem is “ Out loud"can characterize the entire work of Mayakovsky.
His aspiration for the future was expressed at the very beginning of his journey: in 1912, together with the poets D. Burliuk, V. Khlebnikov and A. Kruchenykh, he signed the manifesto “A Slap in the Face of Public Opinion.” The futuristic worldview remained with him throughout his life: this includes the deification of the future, its immense idealization and the idea that it is much more valuable than the present and the past; this is also “aspiration towards the extreme, the ultimate,” as N. Berdyaev characterized such a worldview; this is a radical negation of modern principles of life, which are conceived as bourgeois, shocking as the most important goal of the poetic word. The programmatic works of this period of Mayakovsky’s work are the tragedy of the twenty-year-old poet “ Vladimir Mayakovsky", staged in St. Petersburg and failed, the poem " Could you?" and the poem " Cloud in my pants"(1915). Its leitmotif turns out to be the word “down,” expressing a trait that is organic to the poet’s personality: extreme revolutionaryism and the need for a radical restructuring of the world order as a whole - a trait that led Mayakovsky to futurism in poetry and to the Bolsheviks in politics. In the same year the poem “ Flute-spine" Its plot was the beginning of a dramatic and even tragic relationship with a woman who went through Mayakovsky’s entire life and played a very ambiguous role in it - Liliya Brik.
After the revolution, Mayakovsky feels like its poet, accepts it completely and uncompromisingly. The task of art is to serve it, to bring practical benefit. Practicalism and even utilitarianism of the poetic word is one of the fundamental axioms of futurism, and then of LEF, a literary group that accepted all the fundamental futurist ideas for practical development. It is precisely with this utilitarian attitude towards poetry that Mayakovsky’s propaganda work in ROSTA is connected, which published “Windows of Satire” - topical leaflets and posters with rhyming lines for them. The basic principles of futuristic aesthetics were reflected in the poet’s post-revolutionary program poems: “ Our march" (1917), " Left march" And " Order for the Army of Arts"(1918). The theme of love - the poem " I love"(1922); " About this"(1923), although here too the gigantism and excessive hyperbolization characteristic of the lyrical hero’s worldview, the desire to present exceptional and impossible demands to himself and the object of his love, are manifested.
In the second half of the 20s, Mayakovsky increasingly felt like an official poet, a plenipotentiary representative not only of Russian poetry, but also of the Soviet state - both at home and abroad. A peculiar lyrical plot of his poetry is the situation of traveling abroad and clashing with representatives of an alien, bourgeois world (“ Poems about the Soviet passport", 1929; cycle " Poems about America", 1925). His lines can be considered a kind of motto of the “plenipotentiary representative of poetry”: “The Soviets / have their own pride: / we look down on the bourgeoisie.”
At the same time, in the second half of the 20s, a note of disappointment in revolutionary ideals, or rather, in the real embodiment they found in Soviet reality, began to sound in Mayakovsky’s work. This somewhat changes the problematic of his lyrics. The volume of satire is increasing, its object is changing: it is no longer a counter-revolution, but the party’s own, home-grown bureaucracy, the “philistine’s mug” crawling out from behind the back of the RSFSR. The ranks of this bureaucracy are filled with people who went through the civil war, were tested in battle, reliable party members, who did not find the strength to resist the temptations of nomenklatura life, the delights of the NEP, who experienced the so-called degeneration. Similar motives can be heard not only in lyrics, but also in drama (comedy " Bug", 1928, and " Bath", 1929). It is no longer the wonderful socialist future that is put forward as an ideal, but the revolutionary past, the goals and meaning of which are distorted by the present. It is precisely this understanding of the past that characterizes the poem “ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin"(1924) and the October poem " Fine"(1927), written for the tenth anniversary of the revolution and addressed to the ideals of October.
So, we examined Mayakovsky’s work briefly. The poet passed away on April 14, 1930. The cause of his tragic death, suicide, was probably a whole complex of insoluble contradictions, both creative and deeply personal.
And today it is believed that Mayakovsky’s satire is one of his most striking poetic sides. He was considered an unsurpassed master of this genre. His works often contained exciting civic pathos, which organically coexisted with soulful lyricism. And also the merciless satire that filled many of his poems.
Features of Mayakovsky's satirical creativity
Speaking about Mayakovsky's satire, many compare it with Swift's mocking laughter. This English writer also shocked his contemporaries in his caustic pamphlets.
Many researchers have long noticed that the purer and higher the poet imagined the ideal of the new Soviet man, which the authorities dreamed of so much, the more ruthlessly he attacked with all his might the vulgarity and bad taste that surrounded him. And also base predation and greed.
Critics of those years argued that the philistinism met in the person of the poet Mayakovsky too strong and biting an enemy. Satire in Mayakovsky’s works also often attacks clumsy and thieving officials, general rudeness and sycophancy. The poet categorically did not tolerate spiritual hardness in a person; he called it “mentally lying on the stove.”
menacing laughter
Satire occupied an important place in Mayakovsky's poetry. He himself called it “a menacing laugh.” The poet was sure that his poems helped burn out all sorts of nonsense and rubbish from life.
At the same time, he attached great importance to precise and vivid rhyme. He believed that it could be not only a slogan and a caress, but also a whip and a bayonet. All sorts of bureaucrats and slackers, as well as scoundrels and plunderers of people's property, suffered greatly from him. The objects to which Mayakovsky's satire was directed were very diverse. Almost like the reality around him.
The poet's satirical whip was so sophisticated that the enemy got it, no matter where he was, no matter what guise he was hiding under. Mayakovsky denounced sycophants, interventionists, enemies of the Soviet people, officials who received a party card only for the sake of profit and their own benefit.
"Oh crap"
Speaking about Mayakovsky's satire, one can cite the poem "On Rubbish" as a striking example. In it, the author describes a classic tradesman who seems to be sticking out from behind the back of the RSFSR. An inimitable and memorable image of Comrade Nadya.
Mayakovsky describes her as a woman who has emblems on her dress, and without a hammer and sickle one cannot appear in society.
Mayakovsky’s rejection of philistinism is similar to Gorky’s attitude towards this class. He also hates him and ridicules him, exposing him for any reason. This happens both in everyday life and in art, as well as among a large number of contemporary youth.
Similar themes can be found in Mayakovsky’s poems “You Give an Graceful Life”, “Love”, “Marusya Poisoned”, “Beer and Socialism”, “Letter to Molchanov’s Beloved”.
Mayakovsky's satirical themes
The relevance of Mayakovsky’s satire at that time was felt, perhaps, by everyone. He did not shy away from touching on the most pressing and problematic issues. It is noteworthy that not only his poems were satirical, but also his dramatic works. For example, the comedies “Bathhouse” and “Bedbug” are still popular.
At the center of the narrative of the play “The Bedbug” is a character named Prisypkin. He doesn’t like this surname, he wants elegance and renames himself Pierre Skripkin. The author characterizes him as a former worker who today became a groom. He marries a girl named Elzevira Renaissance. She also has a lot of grace. She works as a manicurist.
Prisypkin in the future
Prisypkin is carefully preparing for the upcoming wedding. To do this, he buys red ham and red-headed bottles, because there is a red wedding coming up. Next, a whole list of fantastic and incredible events occurs, as a result of which Prisypkin manages to survive in frozen form until the bright future of communist society.
People who meet him in the future unfreeze the hero and look in surprise at a human being who eats vodka, as they note. Around himself, Prisypkin begins to spread the fetid bacilli of alcoholism, begins to infect everyone around him with the worst human qualities that were inherent in many of his contemporaries. Thus, in a satirical form, Mayakovsky ridicules sycophancy, as well as excessive sensitivity, which the author calls “guitar-romance.”
In this society of the future, Prisypkin becomes a unique specimen, for which there is a place in the zoological garden. He is placed there along with the bug, which has been his constant companion all this time. Now he is an exhibit that people specially go to look at.
Play "Bath"
As an example of satire in the works of V. Mayakovsky, many cite another of his plays “Bathhouse”. In it, the poet sharply ridicules the bureaucratic Soviet institution.
Mayakovsky wrote that the bathhouse washes or simply erases bureaucrats of all stripes. The main character of this work is the chief supervisor of coordination management. His job title is abbreviated as chief officer. With this detail, the author caustically notes the passion of the Soviet authorities for such abbreviations and abbreviations. The surname of this character is Pobedonosikov.
The Komsomol members who surround him invent an amazing time machine. In it, the main character strives to leave for a bright future. In the so-called communist age. In preparation for the trip, he even prepares mandates and corresponding travel certificates, and writes out his own daily allowance.
But the whole plan ultimately fails. The machine sets off, moving through five-year plans, it carries hardworking and honest workers behind it, spitting out Pobedonosikov himself and useless officials like him as it goes.
Set of satirical means
Satire in Mayakovsky's work is one of the popular and widespread techniques. Working with him, the poet uses a wide range of different means. Mayakovsky himself repeatedly called satire his favorite formidable weapon. He had his own cavalry of witticisms, whose heroic raids almost no one could repel.
One of the poet's favorite techniques was extreme hyperbolism. Hyperbolizing everything around him, Mayakovsky created truly fantastic phenomena in his poems. He used these grotesque techniques in his early creations, which are called “Hymns.”
He was also very fond of literary cartoons. In it, he satirically emphasized the shortcomings of the subject being described and condensed the features he exposed. An example of the use of such satire in Mayakovsky's poems is "Nuns".
Hatred of religious bigotry
Mayakovsky, like no one else, ridiculed religious bigotry. All kinds of literary parodies also played an important role in his work. For example, in the poem "Good!" he brilliantly parodied the text of Pushkin himself.
The witty parody that Mayakovsky presents to our court greatly enhances the effect of satirical exposure, which he achieves by all means. The poet's satire is always sharp, it stings flawlessly and always remains original and unique.
"Sitting Over"
One of the classic examples of this poet’s satire is “The Sitting Ones.” This poem was first published in 1922 in the newspaper Izvestia. Mayakovsky begins with calm and even light irony, gradually increasing his righteous anger towards the bureaucratic apparatus.
In the beginning, he tells how the working day of the “over-sitting” begins. At dawn they rush to their offices, trying to surrender there to the power of “paperwork.”
Already in the second stanza, a petitioner appears, knocking doorsteps in the hope of getting an audience with the leadership and solving his long-standing problem. He has long dreamed of getting to the elusive “Ivan Vanych,” as everyone calls him here. He cannot condescend to become a common man by constantly disappearing from meetings.
Mayakovsky writes mockingly about the imaginary nature of the supposedly important matters in which such an Ivan Vanych is busy. And after that he immediately resorts to hyperbole. It turns out that their concerns, which they are poring over, are the merger of the theater department of the People's Commissariat for Education with the Main Directorate of Horse Breeding, as well as the issue of purchasing ink and other office supplies. They solve such problems instead of really helping people.
