[versale]

I've never heard of Maria (though can't say I'm an expert in poetry). That's why I decided to do some research and found this.

Hm, I had to read the lines three times, slowly, to reconstruct the image the author tried to convey. And this was the first layer. Apparently there is another one inside, but I presume this second layer resembles a Rorschach test: everybody is welcome to see what ever she/he wants to see. That's quite an achievement for those who care about pumping up readers' self-esteem. Especially if the readers see poetry as gymnastics for brain.

[Koshkin]

A fitting Feynman quote:

A poet once said, 'The whole universe is in a glass of wine.' We will probably never know in what sense he meant it, for poets do not write to be understood.

[jfengel]

It's true. Poets don't write to be understood. They write to be felt.

A single sentence like that is rarely good poetry, and it doesn't make me feel all that much. But it wouldn't be any more interesting rewritten as "All of the laws of physics are expressed in a glass of wine just as much as in the rest of the universe", if that's what was "meant". It's just vapid.

But if it stuck in Feynman's mind, and yours, it means the poet was on to something. That's the important part. The poet said a thing and it connected, just as Feynman's nude drawings connected with him. They don't need to "mean" anything more than exactly what they are.

[dmitriid]

> And this was the first layer. Apparently there is another one inside

This is ascribing meaning to something that most likely doesn't have the ascribed meaning.

[nzmsv]

That's the whole point though: it's a puzzle for the brain. If it were explicitly spelled out the fun would be lost.

Personally I think of art as programming using symbols that have been previously uploaded into the audience. Incidentally, this is why sometimes it is easy for art to cross language and culture boundaries, and sometimes very hard: it just depends on whether the symbols are something universal for all humanity or specific to a particular culture.

In Russia in particular there is a common view that poetry should: - rhyme - have a flowing rhythm - be very literal/descriptive

and there is certainly a lot of good poetry like that. But sometimes artists break rules for fun. Stepanova to Pushkin is what Aphex Twin is to Mozart. Just have some fun with it and don't worry if it fits into preconceived notions of what is good poetry.

In the spirit of fun: have you noticed that there are two sets of sentence breaks in the poem, one on the line breaks and one at the punctuation? This actually changes word association and the imagery. Think this was an accident?

[dmitriid]

Having dissected probably hundreds of literary works in school, including "notice how the sentence breaks", I have very high tolerance against questions like "do you think it's a coincidence"? 25 years ago I could write a four-page essay on this poem alone without breaking a sweat (4 pages was a requirement to pass graduation exams).

So yes, this style actually could be a coincidence: anything from subconsciously or consciously emulating a style to just stumbling into this form to being a bad poet to having too much fun with punctuation to...

Also, in this particular case there are literally only two sentences that don't break at punctuation point, and I do think this is not entirely intentional. Call this a feeling :)

> In Russia in particular there is a common view that poetry should: - rhyme - have a flowing rhythm - be very literal/descriptive

This is definitely true. Free verse is a relatively rare beast. Here's an example from Alexander Blok [1]. And look, it also has break at both punctuation and in the middle of a sentence hmmmm ;)

[1] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Свободный_стих#Примеры