alexander Puskin's "THe Bronze horseman"
This page contains my process for writing about Alexander Pushkin's "The Bronze Horseman."
Research
Mini reflection: The process of writing this research paper began with research. Per Mrs. Boyd's instructions, research was completed on note cards such as the one shown above. Personally, I dislike notecards because they are cumbersome to carry around. Some argue that notecards are good because one can merely arrange them in the desired order and write an essay off of them, but that it not my process. I like to write an essay and then pull the evidence that I remember would support my arguments. I write my essay, not the notecards. However, I can see how notecards would be good for some people. I have to admit that I did the notecards en masse, and I still like my system better.
Brainstorming
Mini reflection: Brainstorming for this essay was minimal because Mrs. Boyd provided a very specific structure for the essay that did not leave much wiggle room. In fact, this made my job easier because I did not have to brainstorm in terms of organization. Really, all I did was write some notes in the margins of the outline and pull notecards that I new I absolutely had to use because their ideas were so profound. The ideas were not refined in this brainstorming phase. Rather, my ideas were refined through the many drafts that I produced. Despite that, the outline and my minimal notes are shown above.
First Draft
Poets have a predilection to mirror their own lives while writing verse. These tendencies exist due to the comfort that comes from writing about what one is familiar with, for little is more familiar than one’s own life. In “The Bronze Horseman,” the protagonist, Yevgeny, is placed in an undesirable situation when the Neva floods St. Petersburg, and, though Pushkin was not in the city during the November flood of 1824 (Vickery, 116), he has faced adversity comparable to that which Yevgeny faced as a result of the natural
disaster. Due to these parallels, it is evident that Pushkin identified with Yevgeny, and, through that identification, Yevgeny is a literary representation of Pushkin himself.
Pushkin’s milieu lends perhaps the most substantial evidence to his comparison with Yevgeny. Pushkin, “came of formerly but illustrious but now impoverished stock” (Vickery 121). Yevgeny, too, is in a humble societal position having avoided, “The paths of the famous” (Pushkin). This status creates problems for both Pushkin and Yevengy in their pursuit of their goals. Pushkin’s goal of literary freedom was severely limited by Tsar Nicholas I, who was his censor and, in many cases, oppressor (The Bronze Horseman). Yevgeny’s situation, “Constitutes at least as much a writer's problem… as it does a purely political issue. Pushkin's own tormented relationship with the tsar is [makes one recall] the extent to which it dominated Pushkin's literary fortunes” (Nepomnyashchy). On the other hand, Yevgeny’s dream of marrying Parasha is halted by the flood of the Neva in the middle of St. Petersburg that washed away his lover’s abode. Instead of marrying, Yevgeny must live as, “A madman” (Pushkin). Similarities between Pushkin and Yevgeny are also apparent in examining their reactions to what harmed them. Pushkin was constantly beat down by Russian rulers, having lived for years in exile, but, “Pushkin believed in Russia— although with gritted teeth” (Vickery 121). He never to reside in another country when he had the opportunity, and he put up with censorship until his death. Similarly, Yevgeny never leaves St. Petersburg, the city where Parasha was killed. Instead, Yevgeny merely avoided the statue of St. Peter and, “Would go on by some roundabout way” (Pushkin). The stubborn resilience of both Pushkin and Yevgeny in adoring a place they are justified in hating is the spiritual similarity between the two cohorts. Both Yevgeny and Pushkin are similar due to Pushkin’s milieu that influenced his writings.
Criticism abounds about “The Bronze Horseman,” and the most telling touch on the parallels between Pushkin and his writings and Yevgeny and his thoughts. First, the adverse relations between Yevgeny and the Tsar represent, to Pushkin, the process of creative writing in the face of criticism and censors. When Yevgeny addresses the Tsar, critics suggest that is shows how, “The creative imagination may yield to political reality on the historical plane—Peter's city will remain standing long after [Yevgeny’s] fleeting moment of poetic inspiration has passed. Yet, at the same time, the artistic act… has the power to transform… the historical world” (Nepomnyashchy). In other words, Pushkin is trying to say that historical artifacts remain, but the ideas of poets shape how
the future views the world, both past and present. In addition, many critics point out that Pushkin’s hopes for the future of Russia are expressed in his fate for Yevgeny. Pushkin feels that, “Nature's elements have been temporarily suppressed, but not conquered...
Nature and civilization, like… the common people and their rulers, are destined to coexist…” (Robinson). The Yevgeny’s conflict with nature and Pushkin’s conflict with Russian rulers, according to Pushkin, are destined to happen in Russia. Finally, critics create parallels between Yevgeny and Pushkin when they realize the idea that Pushkin, like Yevgeny, was not one to succumb to the forces of the outside world. Yevgeny refused to assimilate back into Russian society after the flood, and Pushkin refused to “make the cuts [to ‘The Bronze Horseman’] and withheld [it’s] publication” (The Bronze Horseman) despite pressure from Tsar Nicholas I. Critics accept that the stubbornness of both men, real and imaginary, are what create a common parallel in personality. Throughout criticism, it is easy to find the relations between Yevgeny and Pushkin.
The title of “The Bronze Horseman” evokes an image of a heroic character, but both Yevgeny and Pushkin were merely dreaming of heroicness while being stuck in reality. First, the setting of the poem in Russia and the common characters of the Neva as Tsar Nicholas I and Yevgeny as Pushkin allow for a blatant comparison between the poem and its author. This was most likely intentionally created by Pushkin because the situation was a familiar one, and that initial similarity lends to the future comparisons. In addition, the personification of the Neva while flooding through the phrase, “…Satiated with destruction, wearied / By her insolent violence, the Neva drew back” (Pushkin) creates a parallel between the Neva and the Russian aristocracy through which Pushkin is able to draw parallels between himself and his protagonist, for it shows a common oppressor both unheroic men that molds a stark reality. Also, Pushkin’s tone and Yevgeny’s attitude of acceptance and fate is evident through phrases like, “Fate awaits him with unknown tidings,” and, “Stranger to the world” (Pushkin). This creates a common thought between Pushkin and Yevgeny. Finally, the main shift in the poem from when the narrator describes St. Peter as a God to when it details the events of the flood demonstrate the intense highs and lows of Pushkin’s life and the lives of all writers, for Pushkin experienced some success despite the opposition from rulers in Russia. These facets of “The Bronze Horseman” all contribute to a common theme of the non-favored against the world, which is exactly how Pushkin viewed himself and his protagonist.
As Pushkin wrote about a character that mimics himself, he influenced the world of his fictitious character as well as the world of those who read “The Bronze Horseman.” First, Pushkin transferred his viewpoints and made them the viewpoints of Yevgeny, which, in turn, made the attitude of the poem similar to Pushkin’s tone. This almost one-sidedness allows for intense introspection on the part of Pushkin as well as those who read his poetry in order to glean insight into his own thoughts. In addition, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman” was created by his own whim with his own personal viewpoints because Yevgeny is similar to Pushkin. This created problems for Pushkin in the form of adverse conditions when dealing with the censoring Tsar. Unfortunately, the more a poets put themselves into their work, the more they open themselves up to criticism. Pushkin was not deterred by this fact. Rather, he embraced it. Finally, the human ingenuity of “The Bronze Horseman” is exhibited in the fact that readers of the poem are more likely to side with Pushkin after subconsciously receiving his ideas when reading “The Bronze Horseman.” Unbeknownst to the reader of any piece of literature, authors manipulate their opinions to come to a certain conclusion. Indeed, human ingenuity is what made the conclusions of “The Bronze Horseman” possible.
Pushkin’s evident identification with his fictitious Yevgeny created a situation in which the protagonist of his works most closely represents himself. This, indeed, created a variety of criticism about “The Bronze Horseman.” Most notably, critics have argued about the power of poets to shape history, the power of nature and autocrats to shape humanity, and the power of the human spirit in the face of adversity. However, little of this was intended by Pushkin himself. In fact, Pushkin did not intend to create a character like himself. Rather, Pushkin formed a provocative story about situations and ideas that were familiar to him. Familiarity is the only thing from which truly authentic pieces of poetry like “The Bronze Horseman” can come. That makes poetry itself far more abstract and valuable as a representation of a poet.
disaster. Due to these parallels, it is evident that Pushkin identified with Yevgeny, and, through that identification, Yevgeny is a literary representation of Pushkin himself.
Pushkin’s milieu lends perhaps the most substantial evidence to his comparison with Yevgeny. Pushkin, “came of formerly but illustrious but now impoverished stock” (Vickery 121). Yevgeny, too, is in a humble societal position having avoided, “The paths of the famous” (Pushkin). This status creates problems for both Pushkin and Yevengy in their pursuit of their goals. Pushkin’s goal of literary freedom was severely limited by Tsar Nicholas I, who was his censor and, in many cases, oppressor (The Bronze Horseman). Yevgeny’s situation, “Constitutes at least as much a writer's problem… as it does a purely political issue. Pushkin's own tormented relationship with the tsar is [makes one recall] the extent to which it dominated Pushkin's literary fortunes” (Nepomnyashchy). On the other hand, Yevgeny’s dream of marrying Parasha is halted by the flood of the Neva in the middle of St. Petersburg that washed away his lover’s abode. Instead of marrying, Yevgeny must live as, “A madman” (Pushkin). Similarities between Pushkin and Yevgeny are also apparent in examining their reactions to what harmed them. Pushkin was constantly beat down by Russian rulers, having lived for years in exile, but, “Pushkin believed in Russia— although with gritted teeth” (Vickery 121). He never to reside in another country when he had the opportunity, and he put up with censorship until his death. Similarly, Yevgeny never leaves St. Petersburg, the city where Parasha was killed. Instead, Yevgeny merely avoided the statue of St. Peter and, “Would go on by some roundabout way” (Pushkin). The stubborn resilience of both Pushkin and Yevgeny in adoring a place they are justified in hating is the spiritual similarity between the two cohorts. Both Yevgeny and Pushkin are similar due to Pushkin’s milieu that influenced his writings.
Criticism abounds about “The Bronze Horseman,” and the most telling touch on the parallels between Pushkin and his writings and Yevgeny and his thoughts. First, the adverse relations between Yevgeny and the Tsar represent, to Pushkin, the process of creative writing in the face of criticism and censors. When Yevgeny addresses the Tsar, critics suggest that is shows how, “The creative imagination may yield to political reality on the historical plane—Peter's city will remain standing long after [Yevgeny’s] fleeting moment of poetic inspiration has passed. Yet, at the same time, the artistic act… has the power to transform… the historical world” (Nepomnyashchy). In other words, Pushkin is trying to say that historical artifacts remain, but the ideas of poets shape how
the future views the world, both past and present. In addition, many critics point out that Pushkin’s hopes for the future of Russia are expressed in his fate for Yevgeny. Pushkin feels that, “Nature's elements have been temporarily suppressed, but not conquered...
Nature and civilization, like… the common people and their rulers, are destined to coexist…” (Robinson). The Yevgeny’s conflict with nature and Pushkin’s conflict with Russian rulers, according to Pushkin, are destined to happen in Russia. Finally, critics create parallels between Yevgeny and Pushkin when they realize the idea that Pushkin, like Yevgeny, was not one to succumb to the forces of the outside world. Yevgeny refused to assimilate back into Russian society after the flood, and Pushkin refused to “make the cuts [to ‘The Bronze Horseman’] and withheld [it’s] publication” (The Bronze Horseman) despite pressure from Tsar Nicholas I. Critics accept that the stubbornness of both men, real and imaginary, are what create a common parallel in personality. Throughout criticism, it is easy to find the relations between Yevgeny and Pushkin.
The title of “The Bronze Horseman” evokes an image of a heroic character, but both Yevgeny and Pushkin were merely dreaming of heroicness while being stuck in reality. First, the setting of the poem in Russia and the common characters of the Neva as Tsar Nicholas I and Yevgeny as Pushkin allow for a blatant comparison between the poem and its author. This was most likely intentionally created by Pushkin because the situation was a familiar one, and that initial similarity lends to the future comparisons. In addition, the personification of the Neva while flooding through the phrase, “…Satiated with destruction, wearied / By her insolent violence, the Neva drew back” (Pushkin) creates a parallel between the Neva and the Russian aristocracy through which Pushkin is able to draw parallels between himself and his protagonist, for it shows a common oppressor both unheroic men that molds a stark reality. Also, Pushkin’s tone and Yevgeny’s attitude of acceptance and fate is evident through phrases like, “Fate awaits him with unknown tidings,” and, “Stranger to the world” (Pushkin). This creates a common thought between Pushkin and Yevgeny. Finally, the main shift in the poem from when the narrator describes St. Peter as a God to when it details the events of the flood demonstrate the intense highs and lows of Pushkin’s life and the lives of all writers, for Pushkin experienced some success despite the opposition from rulers in Russia. These facets of “The Bronze Horseman” all contribute to a common theme of the non-favored against the world, which is exactly how Pushkin viewed himself and his protagonist.
As Pushkin wrote about a character that mimics himself, he influenced the world of his fictitious character as well as the world of those who read “The Bronze Horseman.” First, Pushkin transferred his viewpoints and made them the viewpoints of Yevgeny, which, in turn, made the attitude of the poem similar to Pushkin’s tone. This almost one-sidedness allows for intense introspection on the part of Pushkin as well as those who read his poetry in order to glean insight into his own thoughts. In addition, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman” was created by his own whim with his own personal viewpoints because Yevgeny is similar to Pushkin. This created problems for Pushkin in the form of adverse conditions when dealing with the censoring Tsar. Unfortunately, the more a poets put themselves into their work, the more they open themselves up to criticism. Pushkin was not deterred by this fact. Rather, he embraced it. Finally, the human ingenuity of “The Bronze Horseman” is exhibited in the fact that readers of the poem are more likely to side with Pushkin after subconsciously receiving his ideas when reading “The Bronze Horseman.” Unbeknownst to the reader of any piece of literature, authors manipulate their opinions to come to a certain conclusion. Indeed, human ingenuity is what made the conclusions of “The Bronze Horseman” possible.
Pushkin’s evident identification with his fictitious Yevgeny created a situation in which the protagonist of his works most closely represents himself. This, indeed, created a variety of criticism about “The Bronze Horseman.” Most notably, critics have argued about the power of poets to shape history, the power of nature and autocrats to shape humanity, and the power of the human spirit in the face of adversity. However, little of this was intended by Pushkin himself. In fact, Pushkin did not intend to create a character like himself. Rather, Pushkin formed a provocative story about situations and ideas that were familiar to him. Familiarity is the only thing from which truly authentic pieces of poetry like “The Bronze Horseman” can come. That makes poetry itself far more abstract and valuable as a representation of a poet.
Mini reflection: I feel like this draft is more of a brainstorm than a draft, and, of course, it is a very loquacious brainstorm. Here, I used far fewer sources and quotations than in my final draft. Also, I had many different unifying threads here such as heroism, familiarity in writing, and many others. This is, in reality, a hodge-podge of my ideas. Also, there were points like the very first sentence's use of "predilection" where I substituted words that did not really fit until I could think of the word I was thinking of yet did not remember at the time. I have a propensity to do that in early drafts. Another notable part of this draft is the fact that it is characterized by some lower-level choices in terms of syntax and diction. In future drafts, those childish errors will be fixed. To be sure, it pains me, in a way, to read this first draft because it is so far from what I want in a piece of writing.
Second Draft
Poets have a propensity to mirror their own lives while writing verse. These tendencies exist due to the comfort that comes from writing about that with which one is most familiar, for little is more familiar than one’s own life. In “The Bronze Horseman,” the protagonist, Yevgeny, is placed in an undesirable situation when the Neva floods St. Petersburg, and, though Pushkin was not in the city during the November flood of 1824 (Vickery 116), he has faced adversity in various forms comparable to that which Yevgeny faces as a result of the natural disaster and ensuing turmoil. Due to these parallels, it is evident that Pushkin identified with Yevgeny, and, through that identification, Yevgeny is a literary representation of Pushkin himself.
Pushkin’s milieu lends perhaps the most substantial evidence to his comparison with Yevgeny. Pushkin, “came of formerly but illustrious but now impoverished stock” (Vickery 121), which was only worsened by the fact that, “Pushkin's childhood was unhappy” (Senechal). Indeed, Pushkin’s environment was less than favorable. Yevgeny, too, is in a humble societal position having avoided, “The paths of the famous” (Pushkin). This status creates problems for both Pushkin and Yevengy in their pursuit of goals. Pushkin’s goal of literary freedom was severely limited by Tsar Nicholas I, who was his censor and, in many cases, oppressor (The Bronze Horseman). Pushkin’s lack of literary freedom is expressed in The Bronze Horseman through Yevgeny’s own situation, which, “constitutes at least as much a writer's problem… as it does a purely political issue” (Nepomnyashchy). On the other hand, Yevgeny, “…has the most modest of plans: to marry his beloved Parasha and raise a small family” (Barta), but, like Pushkin, cannot do so. Instead of marrying, Yevgeny must live as, “a madman” (Pushkin) because of the impacts of the flood. Similarities between Pushkin and Yevgeny are also apparent in examining their reactions to that which harms them. Pushkin was constantly belittled by Russian rulers, but, “Pushkin believed in Russia— although with gritted teeth” (Vickery 121). Contrary to other savants of the time like Mickiewicz, Pushkin tolerated the autocrats and remained in Russia throughout his life. Similarly, Yevgeny never leaves St. Petersburg, the city where Parasha is killed. Instead, Yevgeny merely avoids the statue of St. Peter and, “Would go on by some roundabout way” (Pushkin). The stubborn resilience of both Pushkin and Yevgeny through their adoration of a place they are justified
in hating is the spiritual similarity between the two. In terms of milieu, Pushkin did, indeed, create a situation in which to place Yevgeny that mirrors his own life and milieu.
Criticism abounds about “The Bronze Horseman,” and the most telling touch on the parallels between Pushkin and his writings and Yevgeny and his thoughts. First, the adverse relations between Yevgeny and the Tsar represent, to Pushkin, the conflict between writers and rulers. When Yevgeny addresses the Tsar, critics suggest that is shows how, “The creative imagination may yield to political reality on the historical plane—Peter's city will remain standing long after [Yevgeny’s] fleeting moment of poetic inspiration has passed. Yet, at the same time, the artistic act… has the power to transform… the historical world” (Nepomnyashchy). In other words, Pushkin is trying to say that historical artifacts remain, but the ideas of poets shape how the future views the world, both past and present. In addition, many critics point out that Pushkin’s hopes for the future of Russia are expressed in his fate for Yevgeny. Pushkin feels that, “Nature's elements have been temporarily suppressed, but not conquered... Nature and civilization, like… the common people and their rulers, are destined to coexist…” (Robinson). Yevgeny’s conflict with nature and Pushkin’s conflict with Russian rulers, according to Pushkin, are destined to happen in Russia. Finally, critics create parallels between Yevgeny and Pushkin when they realize the idea that Pushkin, like Yevgeny, was not one to succumb to the forces of the outside world. Yevgeny refused to assimilate again into Russian society after the flood, and Pushkin refused to “make the cuts [to ‘The Bronze Horseman’] and withheld [it’s] publication” (The Bronze Horseman) despite pressure from Tsar Nicholas I. Critics accept that the stubbornness of both men, real and imaginary, are what create a personality parallel. Parallels about throughout “The Bronze Horseman,” and critics often tend to emphasize the parallels between Pushkin and his protagonist.
The title of “The Bronze Horseman” evokes an image of a heroic character, but both Yevgeny and Pushkin were merely dreaming of heroicness while being stuck in reality. First, the setting of the poem in Russia and the common characters of the Neva as Tsar Nicholas I and Yevgeny as Pushkin allow for a blatant comparison between the poem and its author. This was most likely intentionally created by Pushkin because the situation was a familiar one, and that initial similarity facilitates future comparisons. In addition, the personification of the Neva while flooding through the phrase, “…Satiated with destruction, wearied / By her insolent violence, the Neva drew back” (Pushkin) creates a parallel between the Neva and the Russian aristocracy through which Pushkin is able to draw parallels between himself and his protagonist, for it shows a common oppressor both unheroic men that molds a stark reality. Also, Pushkin’s tone and Yevgeny’s attitude of acceptance and fate is evident through phrases like, “Fate awaits him with unknown tidings” (Pushkin). When such a similar tone and attitude is expressed, both Yevgeny and Pushkin become intertwined to the point where distinguishing the sentiments of one from those of the other is nearly impossible. Finally, the main shift in the poem from when the narrator describes St. Peter as a God to when it details the events of the flood demonstrate the intense highs and lows of Pushkin’s life and the lives of all writers, for Pushkin experienced some success despite the opposition from rulers in Russia. These facets of “The Bronze Horseman” all contribute to a common theme of the non-favored against the world, which is exactly how Pushkin viewed himself and his protagonist.
As Pushkin wrote about a character that mimics himself, he influenced the world of his fictitious character as well as the world of those who read “The Bronze Horseman” through human ingenuity. First, Pushkin transferred his viewpoints and made them the viewpoints of Yevgeny, which, in turn, made the attitude of the poem similar to Pushkin’s tone. This almost one-sidedness allows for intense introspection on the part of Pushkin as well as those who read his poetry in order to glean insight into his own thoughts. In addition, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman” was created by his own whim with his own personal viewpoints because Yevgeny is similar to Pushkin. This created problems for Pushkin in the form of adverse conditions when dealing with the censoring Tsar. Unfortunately, the more a poets put themselves into their work, the more they open themselves up to criticism. Pushkin was not deterred by this fact. Rather, he embraced it by constantly producing controversial works. Finally, the human ingenuity of “The Bronze Horseman” is exhibited in the fact that readers of the poem are more likely to side with Pushkin after subconsciously receiving his ideas when reading “The Bronze Horseman.” Unbeknownst to the reader of any piece of literature, authors manipulate their opinions to come to a certain conclusion. Indeed, human ingenuity is what made the conclusions of “The Bronze Horseman” possible.
Pushkin’s evident identification with his fictitious creations shapes a situation in which the protagonist of his works most closely represents himself. This, indeed, created a variety of criticism about “The Bronze Horseman.” Most notably, critics have argued about the power of poets to shape history, the power of nature and autocrats to shape humanity, and the power of the human spirit in the face of adversity. However, little of this was intended by Pushkin himself. In fact, Pushkin did not intend to create a character like himself. Rather, Pushkin formed a chillingly poignant story about situations and ideas that were familiar to him. Familiarity is the only thing from which truly authentic pieces of poetry like “The Bronze Horseman” can come. Thus, even a genre as abstract as poetry becomes the mirror image of the poet himself.
Works Cited
Barta, Peter. “The Bronze Horseman: Overview.” ReferenceGuide to World Literature. Ed. Lesley Henderson. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Gale Literature Resource Center. Web. 3 May 2013.
“The Bronze Horseman.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 25-40.
Nepomnyashchy, Catherine I. “Criticisms: Catherine Theimer Nepomnyashchy.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 43- 45. Print.
Pushkin, Alexander. “The Bronze Horseman.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 27-31. Print.
Robinson, Claire. “Criticisms: Claire Robinson.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 40-43. Print.
Senechal, Diana. “Alexander Pushkin.” Encyclopedia of Russian History. Ed. James R. Millar. New York: MacMillan Reference USA, 2004. Biography in Context. Web 3 May 2013.
Vickery, Walter N. “The Bronze Horseman.” Alexander Pushkin. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992. 116-22. Print.
Pushkin’s milieu lends perhaps the most substantial evidence to his comparison with Yevgeny. Pushkin, “came of formerly but illustrious but now impoverished stock” (Vickery 121), which was only worsened by the fact that, “Pushkin's childhood was unhappy” (Senechal). Indeed, Pushkin’s environment was less than favorable. Yevgeny, too, is in a humble societal position having avoided, “The paths of the famous” (Pushkin). This status creates problems for both Pushkin and Yevengy in their pursuit of goals. Pushkin’s goal of literary freedom was severely limited by Tsar Nicholas I, who was his censor and, in many cases, oppressor (The Bronze Horseman). Pushkin’s lack of literary freedom is expressed in The Bronze Horseman through Yevgeny’s own situation, which, “constitutes at least as much a writer's problem… as it does a purely political issue” (Nepomnyashchy). On the other hand, Yevgeny, “…has the most modest of plans: to marry his beloved Parasha and raise a small family” (Barta), but, like Pushkin, cannot do so. Instead of marrying, Yevgeny must live as, “a madman” (Pushkin) because of the impacts of the flood. Similarities between Pushkin and Yevgeny are also apparent in examining their reactions to that which harms them. Pushkin was constantly belittled by Russian rulers, but, “Pushkin believed in Russia— although with gritted teeth” (Vickery 121). Contrary to other savants of the time like Mickiewicz, Pushkin tolerated the autocrats and remained in Russia throughout his life. Similarly, Yevgeny never leaves St. Petersburg, the city where Parasha is killed. Instead, Yevgeny merely avoids the statue of St. Peter and, “Would go on by some roundabout way” (Pushkin). The stubborn resilience of both Pushkin and Yevgeny through their adoration of a place they are justified
in hating is the spiritual similarity between the two. In terms of milieu, Pushkin did, indeed, create a situation in which to place Yevgeny that mirrors his own life and milieu.
Criticism abounds about “The Bronze Horseman,” and the most telling touch on the parallels between Pushkin and his writings and Yevgeny and his thoughts. First, the adverse relations between Yevgeny and the Tsar represent, to Pushkin, the conflict between writers and rulers. When Yevgeny addresses the Tsar, critics suggest that is shows how, “The creative imagination may yield to political reality on the historical plane—Peter's city will remain standing long after [Yevgeny’s] fleeting moment of poetic inspiration has passed. Yet, at the same time, the artistic act… has the power to transform… the historical world” (Nepomnyashchy). In other words, Pushkin is trying to say that historical artifacts remain, but the ideas of poets shape how the future views the world, both past and present. In addition, many critics point out that Pushkin’s hopes for the future of Russia are expressed in his fate for Yevgeny. Pushkin feels that, “Nature's elements have been temporarily suppressed, but not conquered... Nature and civilization, like… the common people and their rulers, are destined to coexist…” (Robinson). Yevgeny’s conflict with nature and Pushkin’s conflict with Russian rulers, according to Pushkin, are destined to happen in Russia. Finally, critics create parallels between Yevgeny and Pushkin when they realize the idea that Pushkin, like Yevgeny, was not one to succumb to the forces of the outside world. Yevgeny refused to assimilate again into Russian society after the flood, and Pushkin refused to “make the cuts [to ‘The Bronze Horseman’] and withheld [it’s] publication” (The Bronze Horseman) despite pressure from Tsar Nicholas I. Critics accept that the stubbornness of both men, real and imaginary, are what create a personality parallel. Parallels about throughout “The Bronze Horseman,” and critics often tend to emphasize the parallels between Pushkin and his protagonist.
The title of “The Bronze Horseman” evokes an image of a heroic character, but both Yevgeny and Pushkin were merely dreaming of heroicness while being stuck in reality. First, the setting of the poem in Russia and the common characters of the Neva as Tsar Nicholas I and Yevgeny as Pushkin allow for a blatant comparison between the poem and its author. This was most likely intentionally created by Pushkin because the situation was a familiar one, and that initial similarity facilitates future comparisons. In addition, the personification of the Neva while flooding through the phrase, “…Satiated with destruction, wearied / By her insolent violence, the Neva drew back” (Pushkin) creates a parallel between the Neva and the Russian aristocracy through which Pushkin is able to draw parallels between himself and his protagonist, for it shows a common oppressor both unheroic men that molds a stark reality. Also, Pushkin’s tone and Yevgeny’s attitude of acceptance and fate is evident through phrases like, “Fate awaits him with unknown tidings” (Pushkin). When such a similar tone and attitude is expressed, both Yevgeny and Pushkin become intertwined to the point where distinguishing the sentiments of one from those of the other is nearly impossible. Finally, the main shift in the poem from when the narrator describes St. Peter as a God to when it details the events of the flood demonstrate the intense highs and lows of Pushkin’s life and the lives of all writers, for Pushkin experienced some success despite the opposition from rulers in Russia. These facets of “The Bronze Horseman” all contribute to a common theme of the non-favored against the world, which is exactly how Pushkin viewed himself and his protagonist.
As Pushkin wrote about a character that mimics himself, he influenced the world of his fictitious character as well as the world of those who read “The Bronze Horseman” through human ingenuity. First, Pushkin transferred his viewpoints and made them the viewpoints of Yevgeny, which, in turn, made the attitude of the poem similar to Pushkin’s tone. This almost one-sidedness allows for intense introspection on the part of Pushkin as well as those who read his poetry in order to glean insight into his own thoughts. In addition, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman” was created by his own whim with his own personal viewpoints because Yevgeny is similar to Pushkin. This created problems for Pushkin in the form of adverse conditions when dealing with the censoring Tsar. Unfortunately, the more a poets put themselves into their work, the more they open themselves up to criticism. Pushkin was not deterred by this fact. Rather, he embraced it by constantly producing controversial works. Finally, the human ingenuity of “The Bronze Horseman” is exhibited in the fact that readers of the poem are more likely to side with Pushkin after subconsciously receiving his ideas when reading “The Bronze Horseman.” Unbeknownst to the reader of any piece of literature, authors manipulate their opinions to come to a certain conclusion. Indeed, human ingenuity is what made the conclusions of “The Bronze Horseman” possible.
Pushkin’s evident identification with his fictitious creations shapes a situation in which the protagonist of his works most closely represents himself. This, indeed, created a variety of criticism about “The Bronze Horseman.” Most notably, critics have argued about the power of poets to shape history, the power of nature and autocrats to shape humanity, and the power of the human spirit in the face of adversity. However, little of this was intended by Pushkin himself. In fact, Pushkin did not intend to create a character like himself. Rather, Pushkin formed a chillingly poignant story about situations and ideas that were familiar to him. Familiarity is the only thing from which truly authentic pieces of poetry like “The Bronze Horseman” can come. Thus, even a genre as abstract as poetry becomes the mirror image of the poet himself.
Works Cited
Barta, Peter. “The Bronze Horseman: Overview.” ReferenceGuide to World Literature. Ed. Lesley Henderson. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Gale Literature Resource Center. Web. 3 May 2013.
“The Bronze Horseman.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 25-40.
Nepomnyashchy, Catherine I. “Criticisms: Catherine Theimer Nepomnyashchy.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 43- 45. Print.
Pushkin, Alexander. “The Bronze Horseman.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 27-31. Print.
Robinson, Claire. “Criticisms: Claire Robinson.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 40-43. Print.
Senechal, Diana. “Alexander Pushkin.” Encyclopedia of Russian History. Ed. James R. Millar. New York: MacMillan Reference USA, 2004. Biography in Context. Web 3 May 2013.
Vickery, Walter N. “The Bronze Horseman.” Alexander Pushkin. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992. 116-22. Print.
Mini reflection: This is my second draft, and many ameliorations of the first draft are apparent. First, I added sources to the works cited and the essay. This ensured credibility when readers read my essay. In addition, this essay improved diction in certain areas such as the first sentence when I substituted "propensity" for "predilection." In this draft, I also added a few more details and historical background in the introductory paragraph. After that, I refined my syntax to make my essay flow in a better manner. Finally, I took out distracting elements from this draft such as my hero references as it was not necessary for this essay's purpose. To be sure, this essay is much closer to what a final draft ought to look like than the first draft.
Final Draft
Poets have a propensity to mirror their own lives while writing verse. These tendencies exist due to the comfort that comes from writing about that with which one is most familiar, for little is more familiar than one’s own life. In “The Bronze Horseman,” the protagonist, Yevgeny, is placed in an undesirable situation when the Neva floods St. Petersburg, and, though Pushkin was not in the city during the November flood of 1824 (Vickery 116), he has faced adversity in various forms comparable to that which Yevgeny faces as a result of the natural disaster and ensuing turmoil. Due to these parallels, it is evident that Pushkin identified with Yevgeny, and, through that identification, Yevgeny is a literary representation of Pushkin himself.
Pushkin’s milieu lends perhaps the most substantial evidence to his comparison with Yevgeny. Pushkin, “came of formerly but illustrious but now impoverished stock” (Vickery 121), which was only worsened by the fact that, “Pushkin's childhood was unhappy” (Senechal). Indeed, Pushkin’s environment was less than favorable. Yevgeny, too, is in a humble societal position due to his
avoidance of, “the paths of the famous” (Pushkin). This status creates problems for both Pushkin and Yevengy in the pursuit of their goals. The recalcitrant Pushkin’s goal of literary freedom was severely limited by Tsar Nicholas I, who was his censor and, in many cases, oppressor (The Bronze Horseman). Pushkin’s lack of literary freedom is expressed in “The Bronze Horseman” by Yevgeny’s own
situation, which, “constitutes at least as much a writer's problem… as it does a purely political issue” (Nepomnyashchy). On the other hand, Yevgeny, “…has the most modest of plans: to marry his beloved Parasha and raise a small family” (Barta), but, like Pushkin, cannot accomplish this goal. Instead of marrying, Yevgeny must live as, “a madman” (Pushkin) due to the impacts of the flood.
Parallels between Pushkin and Yevgeny are also apparent in examining their reactions to that which harms them. Pushkin was constantly belittled by Russian rulers, but, “[He] believed in Russia— although with gritted teeth” (Vickery 121). Contrary to the intelligentsia of the time like Mickiewicz, Pushkin tolerated the autocrats and remained in Russia throughout his life. Similarly,
Yevgeny never leaves St. Petersburg, the city where Parasha is killed. Instead, Yevgeny merely avoids the statue of St. Peter and, “would go on by some roundabout way” (Pushkin). The stubborn resilience of both Pushkin and Yevgeny and their adulation of environments they are justified in hating shows the two’s analogous personalities. To be sure, Pushkin loaned his own milieu to “The
Bronze Horseman’s” situations and protagonist.
Criticism abounds concerning “The Bronze Horseman,” and the most telling of these touch on the parallels between Pushkin and his writings and Yevgeny and his thoughts. First, the adversarial relations between Yevgeny and the Tsar represent, to Pushkin, the conflict between writers and rulers. When Yevgeny addresses the Tsar directly, critics suggest the confrontation shows how, “The
creative imagination may yield to political reality on the historical plane—Peter's city will remain standing long after [Yevgeny’s] fleeting moment of poetic inspiration has passed. Yet, at the same time, the artistic act… has the power to transform… the historical world” (Nepomnyashchy). In other words, Pushkin espouses the idea that historical artifacts remain, but the ideas of poets shape how the future views the world, both past and present. In addition, many critics allude to the idea that Pushkin’s hopes for the future of Russia are expressed in his fate for Yevgeny. “The Bronze Horseman” shows that, “Nature's elements have been temporarily suppressed, but not conquered... Nature and civilization, like… the common people and their rulers, are destined to coexist…” (Robinson). Yevgeny’s conflict with nature and Pushkin’s conflict with Russian rulers, according to Pushkin, are destined to occur in Russia. Finally, critics discover parallels between Yevgeny and Pushkin when they realize the idea that Pushkin, like
Yevgeny, was not one to succumb to the forces of the outside world. Yevgeny refuses to assimilate again into Russian society after the flood, and Pushkin refused to “make the cuts [to ‘The Bronze Horseman’] and withheld [it’s] publication” (The Bronze Horseman)
despite pressure from Tsar Nicholas I. Critics accept that the stubbornness of both men, real and imaginary, are what create a personality parallel. Parallels throughout “The Bronze Horseman” are multitudinous and ripe for critique, and, despite the many interpretations from which to choose, critics often tend to emphasize the similarities between Pushkin and his protagonist.
Critical interpretation of “The Bronze Horseman” can also come through direct examination of the poem itself. The title evokes an image of a heroic character, but both the writer and the protagonist of were merely human. First, the setting of the poem in Russia and the common characters of the Neva as Tsar Nicholas I and Yevgeny as Pushkin allow for a blatant comparison between the
poem and its author. This was most likely intentionally created by Pushkin because the state of affairs was a familiar one, and that initial similarity facilitates future comparisons. In addition, the personification of the Neva while flooding through the phrase, “…Satiated with destruction, wearied / By her insolent violence, the Neva drew back” (Pushkin) creates a parallel between the Neva and the Russian aristocracy through which Pushkin is able to draw parallels between himself and his protagonist as it shows a common oppressor both men. Also, Pushkin’s tone and Yevgeny’s attitude of acceptance of fate is evident through phrases such as, “Fate awaits him with unknown tidings” (Pushkin). When such a similar tone and attitude is expressed, both Yevgeny and Pushkin become
intertwined to the point where distinguishing the sentiments of one from those of the other is nearly impossible. Finally, the main shift in the poem from when the narrator describes St. Peter as a God to when it details the events of the flood demonstrate the intense highs and lows of Pushkin’s life and the lives of all writers, for Pushkin experienced some success despite the opposition from
rulers in Russia. These facets of “The Bronze Horseman” all contribute to a common theme of the disfavored against the world, which is exactly how Pushkin viewed the situation in which he and his protagonist found themselves.
As Pushkin wrote about a character that mimics himself, he influenced the world of his fictitious character as well as the world of those who read “The Bronze Horseman” through human ingenuity. First, Pushkin transferred his viewpoints and made them the viewpoints of Yevgeny, which, in turn, made the attitude of the poem similar to Pushkin’s tone. This one-sidedness allows for intense introspection on the part of Pushkin as well as those who read his poetry in order to laboriously and slowly gather insight into his own thoughts. In addition, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman” was created with his personal viewpoints because of the ties to himself throughout the poem. This created problems for Pushkin in the form of inimical conditions when dealing with the censoring Tsar. Unfortunately, the more a poets put themselves into their work, the more they open themselves up to criticism. Pushkin was not deterred by this fact. Rather, he embraced it by constantly producing controversial works, just as his successors in Russian literature, Dostoevsky and Gogol, did in later years. Finally, the human ingenuity of “The Bronze Horseman” is exhibited in the fact that readers of the poem are more likely to side with Pushkin after receiving his ideas when reading “The Bronze Horseman.” Unbeknownst to the
reader of any piece of literature, authors manipulate readers’ opinions in order to come to a certain conclusion. Indeed, human ingenuity is what makes and conclusions concerning “The Bronze Horseman” possible.
Pushkin’s evident identification with his fictitious creations in “The Bronze Horseman” shapes a situation in which the protagonist of his chef d’oeuvre most closely mirrors the author. This generated an assortment of criticism about “The Bronze Horseman.” Most notably, critics argue over the power of poets to shape history, the power of nature and autocrats to shape humanity, and the power of the human spirit in the face of adversity. However, little of this was deliberately fashioned by Pushkin himself. In fact, Pushkin did not intend to create a character like himself at all. Rather, Pushkin formed a poignant story about situations and ideas that were familiar to him. Familiarity is the only thing from which truly authentic pieces of poetry can come, and the apotheosis of Russian poetry, “The Bronze Horseman,” is no exception. Thus, even a genre as abstract as poetry becomes realistic through the situations and characters poets make that are shaped by truth.
Works Cited
Barta, Peter. “The Bronze Horseman: Overview.” Reference Guide to World Literature. Ed. Lesley Henderson. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Gale Literature Resource Center. Web. 3 May 2013.
“The Bronze Horseman.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 25-40.
Nepomnyashchy, Catherine I. “Criticisms: Catherine Theimer Nepomnyashchy.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 43- 45. Print.
Pushkin, Alexander. “The Bronze Horseman.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 27-31. Print.
Robinson, Claire. “Criticisms: Claire Robinson.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 40-43. Print.
Senechal, Diana. “Alexander Pushkin.” Encyclopedia of Russian History. Ed. James R. Millar. New York: MacMillan Reference USA, 2004. Biography in Context. Web 3 May 2013.
Vickery, Walter N. “The Bronze Horseman.” Alexander Pushkin. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992. 116-22. Print.
Mini reflection: There were very few changes in this draft that made it different from the second draft. There were only a few additions to enhance diction particularly. Also, I inserted references to other works of literature in order to elevate my writing. Mrs. Boyd said that references would make my writing sound more sophisticated. Also, I took some more time to make sure that the essay was coherent in terms of flowing from one idea to the next. That made me add some transitions here and there. With those few modifications, I created my final essay.
Pushkin’s milieu lends perhaps the most substantial evidence to his comparison with Yevgeny. Pushkin, “came of formerly but illustrious but now impoverished stock” (Vickery 121), which was only worsened by the fact that, “Pushkin's childhood was unhappy” (Senechal). Indeed, Pushkin’s environment was less than favorable. Yevgeny, too, is in a humble societal position due to his
avoidance of, “the paths of the famous” (Pushkin). This status creates problems for both Pushkin and Yevengy in the pursuit of their goals. The recalcitrant Pushkin’s goal of literary freedom was severely limited by Tsar Nicholas I, who was his censor and, in many cases, oppressor (The Bronze Horseman). Pushkin’s lack of literary freedom is expressed in “The Bronze Horseman” by Yevgeny’s own
situation, which, “constitutes at least as much a writer's problem… as it does a purely political issue” (Nepomnyashchy). On the other hand, Yevgeny, “…has the most modest of plans: to marry his beloved Parasha and raise a small family” (Barta), but, like Pushkin, cannot accomplish this goal. Instead of marrying, Yevgeny must live as, “a madman” (Pushkin) due to the impacts of the flood.
Parallels between Pushkin and Yevgeny are also apparent in examining their reactions to that which harms them. Pushkin was constantly belittled by Russian rulers, but, “[He] believed in Russia— although with gritted teeth” (Vickery 121). Contrary to the intelligentsia of the time like Mickiewicz, Pushkin tolerated the autocrats and remained in Russia throughout his life. Similarly,
Yevgeny never leaves St. Petersburg, the city where Parasha is killed. Instead, Yevgeny merely avoids the statue of St. Peter and, “would go on by some roundabout way” (Pushkin). The stubborn resilience of both Pushkin and Yevgeny and their adulation of environments they are justified in hating shows the two’s analogous personalities. To be sure, Pushkin loaned his own milieu to “The
Bronze Horseman’s” situations and protagonist.
Criticism abounds concerning “The Bronze Horseman,” and the most telling of these touch on the parallels between Pushkin and his writings and Yevgeny and his thoughts. First, the adversarial relations between Yevgeny and the Tsar represent, to Pushkin, the conflict between writers and rulers. When Yevgeny addresses the Tsar directly, critics suggest the confrontation shows how, “The
creative imagination may yield to political reality on the historical plane—Peter's city will remain standing long after [Yevgeny’s] fleeting moment of poetic inspiration has passed. Yet, at the same time, the artistic act… has the power to transform… the historical world” (Nepomnyashchy). In other words, Pushkin espouses the idea that historical artifacts remain, but the ideas of poets shape how the future views the world, both past and present. In addition, many critics allude to the idea that Pushkin’s hopes for the future of Russia are expressed in his fate for Yevgeny. “The Bronze Horseman” shows that, “Nature's elements have been temporarily suppressed, but not conquered... Nature and civilization, like… the common people and their rulers, are destined to coexist…” (Robinson). Yevgeny’s conflict with nature and Pushkin’s conflict with Russian rulers, according to Pushkin, are destined to occur in Russia. Finally, critics discover parallels between Yevgeny and Pushkin when they realize the idea that Pushkin, like
Yevgeny, was not one to succumb to the forces of the outside world. Yevgeny refuses to assimilate again into Russian society after the flood, and Pushkin refused to “make the cuts [to ‘The Bronze Horseman’] and withheld [it’s] publication” (The Bronze Horseman)
despite pressure from Tsar Nicholas I. Critics accept that the stubbornness of both men, real and imaginary, are what create a personality parallel. Parallels throughout “The Bronze Horseman” are multitudinous and ripe for critique, and, despite the many interpretations from which to choose, critics often tend to emphasize the similarities between Pushkin and his protagonist.
Critical interpretation of “The Bronze Horseman” can also come through direct examination of the poem itself. The title evokes an image of a heroic character, but both the writer and the protagonist of were merely human. First, the setting of the poem in Russia and the common characters of the Neva as Tsar Nicholas I and Yevgeny as Pushkin allow for a blatant comparison between the
poem and its author. This was most likely intentionally created by Pushkin because the state of affairs was a familiar one, and that initial similarity facilitates future comparisons. In addition, the personification of the Neva while flooding through the phrase, “…Satiated with destruction, wearied / By her insolent violence, the Neva drew back” (Pushkin) creates a parallel between the Neva and the Russian aristocracy through which Pushkin is able to draw parallels between himself and his protagonist as it shows a common oppressor both men. Also, Pushkin’s tone and Yevgeny’s attitude of acceptance of fate is evident through phrases such as, “Fate awaits him with unknown tidings” (Pushkin). When such a similar tone and attitude is expressed, both Yevgeny and Pushkin become
intertwined to the point where distinguishing the sentiments of one from those of the other is nearly impossible. Finally, the main shift in the poem from when the narrator describes St. Peter as a God to when it details the events of the flood demonstrate the intense highs and lows of Pushkin’s life and the lives of all writers, for Pushkin experienced some success despite the opposition from
rulers in Russia. These facets of “The Bronze Horseman” all contribute to a common theme of the disfavored against the world, which is exactly how Pushkin viewed the situation in which he and his protagonist found themselves.
As Pushkin wrote about a character that mimics himself, he influenced the world of his fictitious character as well as the world of those who read “The Bronze Horseman” through human ingenuity. First, Pushkin transferred his viewpoints and made them the viewpoints of Yevgeny, which, in turn, made the attitude of the poem similar to Pushkin’s tone. This one-sidedness allows for intense introspection on the part of Pushkin as well as those who read his poetry in order to laboriously and slowly gather insight into his own thoughts. In addition, Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman” was created with his personal viewpoints because of the ties to himself throughout the poem. This created problems for Pushkin in the form of inimical conditions when dealing with the censoring Tsar. Unfortunately, the more a poets put themselves into their work, the more they open themselves up to criticism. Pushkin was not deterred by this fact. Rather, he embraced it by constantly producing controversial works, just as his successors in Russian literature, Dostoevsky and Gogol, did in later years. Finally, the human ingenuity of “The Bronze Horseman” is exhibited in the fact that readers of the poem are more likely to side with Pushkin after receiving his ideas when reading “The Bronze Horseman.” Unbeknownst to the
reader of any piece of literature, authors manipulate readers’ opinions in order to come to a certain conclusion. Indeed, human ingenuity is what makes and conclusions concerning “The Bronze Horseman” possible.
Pushkin’s evident identification with his fictitious creations in “The Bronze Horseman” shapes a situation in which the protagonist of his chef d’oeuvre most closely mirrors the author. This generated an assortment of criticism about “The Bronze Horseman.” Most notably, critics argue over the power of poets to shape history, the power of nature and autocrats to shape humanity, and the power of the human spirit in the face of adversity. However, little of this was deliberately fashioned by Pushkin himself. In fact, Pushkin did not intend to create a character like himself at all. Rather, Pushkin formed a poignant story about situations and ideas that were familiar to him. Familiarity is the only thing from which truly authentic pieces of poetry can come, and the apotheosis of Russian poetry, “The Bronze Horseman,” is no exception. Thus, even a genre as abstract as poetry becomes realistic through the situations and characters poets make that are shaped by truth.
Works Cited
Barta, Peter. “The Bronze Horseman: Overview.” Reference Guide to World Literature. Ed. Lesley Henderson. Detroit: Gale, 2013. Gale Literature Resource Center. Web. 3 May 2013.
“The Bronze Horseman.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 25-40.
Nepomnyashchy, Catherine I. “Criticisms: Catherine Theimer Nepomnyashchy.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 43- 45. Print.
Pushkin, Alexander. “The Bronze Horseman.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 27-31. Print.
Robinson, Claire. “Criticisms: Claire Robinson.” Poetry for Students. Ed. David Galens. Vol. 28. Detroit: Gale, 1995. 40-43. Print.
Senechal, Diana. “Alexander Pushkin.” Encyclopedia of Russian History. Ed. James R. Millar. New York: MacMillan Reference USA, 2004. Biography in Context. Web 3 May 2013.
Vickery, Walter N. “The Bronze Horseman.” Alexander Pushkin. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992. 116-22. Print.
Mini reflection: There were very few changes in this draft that made it different from the second draft. There were only a few additions to enhance diction particularly. Also, I inserted references to other works of literature in order to elevate my writing. Mrs. Boyd said that references would make my writing sound more sophisticated. Also, I took some more time to make sure that the essay was coherent in terms of flowing from one idea to the next. That made me add some transitions here and there. With those few modifications, I created my final essay.
reflection
Process: The process for writing this essay is typical for writing any research paper in school. The process is detailed by the pieces
above as well as the mini-reflections that follow each piece, but I will give a general overview here. First, I researched my poem, “The Bronze Horseman,” on databases and in books provided by the library. Then, I did minor brainstorming within the confines of Mrs. Boyd’s detailed outline of what the essay should look like. I wrote a series of drafts from that outline, and, from draft to draft, the writing qualities were improved upon until I created my final. To be sure, the process of writing essays is quite simple.
Product: I like many things about this essay. First, I think the content is the strongest part. I really love Russian Formalism, and, because Pushkin is perhaps the premier Russian Formalist poet, I really loved this project. That love is shown through my complex ideas expressed throughout the essay. Also, in terms of writing style, I think that this essay is particularly suburb when it comes to diction. I did not use the word “glean” (even though I used its direct definition), and, instead, I used words like “recalcitrant” and “apotheosis.” These facets of my essay help elevate it to a more advanced state.
Growth: This writing pushed my abilities in certain areas. First, I am grateful to Mrs. Boyd for allowing me to exceed the page limit, thus allowing me to write what I want to write in the manner in which I wish to write it. This freedom, when coupled with a marvelously difficult poem, permitted me to indulge in my obsession with complex, Russian writing. I learned a lot more about Pushkin and the influences of one Russian writer on others. I also reaffirmed my knowledge about the censorship in Russia. In terms of the writing alone, I learned to work within the confines of a teacher-given outline for the essay that hindered, in a way, coherent organization. I also pondered the process of writing simple about complexities, which is fun. I really think this was one of the better essays for me because it taught me more than the others.
Improvement: There are many areas for improvement in this final writing piece from ninth grade. First, I need to remember that foreign words and phrases are italicized, particularly chef d’oeuvre. Also, I need to remember how to use quotations. I do not know what I was thinking when I submitted this essay, and I cannot believe that Mrs. Boyd did not say anything about my improper use of quotations as it was the point, to some extent, of this entire assignment. I know that complete phrases deserve commas and a capital letter, but incomplete phrases do not. I do not know why I treated them like complete phrases, and it is quite embarrassing. Finally, I think that my essay ought not to have gone against Mrs. Boyd’s wish of eliminating talk of an author’s intentions, which I talked of in my conclusion. To be sure, despite another year of English, I am still far from being a decent writer.
above as well as the mini-reflections that follow each piece, but I will give a general overview here. First, I researched my poem, “The Bronze Horseman,” on databases and in books provided by the library. Then, I did minor brainstorming within the confines of Mrs. Boyd’s detailed outline of what the essay should look like. I wrote a series of drafts from that outline, and, from draft to draft, the writing qualities were improved upon until I created my final. To be sure, the process of writing essays is quite simple.
Product: I like many things about this essay. First, I think the content is the strongest part. I really love Russian Formalism, and, because Pushkin is perhaps the premier Russian Formalist poet, I really loved this project. That love is shown through my complex ideas expressed throughout the essay. Also, in terms of writing style, I think that this essay is particularly suburb when it comes to diction. I did not use the word “glean” (even though I used its direct definition), and, instead, I used words like “recalcitrant” and “apotheosis.” These facets of my essay help elevate it to a more advanced state.
Growth: This writing pushed my abilities in certain areas. First, I am grateful to Mrs. Boyd for allowing me to exceed the page limit, thus allowing me to write what I want to write in the manner in which I wish to write it. This freedom, when coupled with a marvelously difficult poem, permitted me to indulge in my obsession with complex, Russian writing. I learned a lot more about Pushkin and the influences of one Russian writer on others. I also reaffirmed my knowledge about the censorship in Russia. In terms of the writing alone, I learned to work within the confines of a teacher-given outline for the essay that hindered, in a way, coherent organization. I also pondered the process of writing simple about complexities, which is fun. I really think this was one of the better essays for me because it taught me more than the others.
Improvement: There are many areas for improvement in this final writing piece from ninth grade. First, I need to remember that foreign words and phrases are italicized, particularly chef d’oeuvre. Also, I need to remember how to use quotations. I do not know what I was thinking when I submitted this essay, and I cannot believe that Mrs. Boyd did not say anything about my improper use of quotations as it was the point, to some extent, of this entire assignment. I know that complete phrases deserve commas and a capital letter, but incomplete phrases do not. I do not know why I treated them like complete phrases, and it is quite embarrassing. Finally, I think that my essay ought not to have gone against Mrs. Boyd’s wish of eliminating talk of an author’s intentions, which I talked of in my conclusion. To be sure, despite another year of English, I am still far from being a decent writer.