Should good poetry or literature really last long?
Can't good literature be short lived?
Is long-lived literature necessarily good literature?
I will tell you about where I stand on these questions. I am in favor of
writers who are socially committed. They don't have to be on my side of
the issue. But issues which are of a great concern today may not be
tomorrow. A writer who writes a passionate short story about dowry deaths
may sound ridiculously irrelevant in a time when people don't understand
what a dowry is (hopefully that day will come!). So, is that a bad short
story? No. Certainly not. Does it have lasting qualities? Probably not.
So what?
Those of you who read Kaa Raa's Yajnam know that it may be hard for city
folks to appreciate the story as the village-raised ones do. In a few
generations, if the country becomes prosperous, the concerns raised in
that story may even sound meaningless. However, for this generation and
the last one, the story is a powerful one. It holds a mirror to the lives
of many folks of today raised in the villages. Will Kaa Raa be remembered
200 years from now? Who knows! But, I don't really care whether he
lasts 200 years. He is appreciated as a great writer now.
On the other hand, how about Nannaya or Vyasa? Are they remembered
because of their poetry,say the literary value of their writings? If their
writings were not religious, if their subject matter was not related to
Hinduism, would they be remembered for their writings? If Hinduism was
not resurrected in the Telugu country, would Nannaya and company be more
popular than Palkuriki, for example?.
Srinatha mahakavi was a great guy. In kreedabhiramam, practically every
third poem has a description of boobs. There is no story line. It is not
even an original work. But the lakshanikas think of it as a wonderful
work of literature. Lasting literature for sure! Why?
I get the feeling that everything written many centuries ago is treated
with a blind reverence, particularly if it is written with a lot of
Sanskrit. That they lasted so long does in no way mean that they are
great literature. At the least I hope that we can discuss their value as
openly and as irreverantly as we discuss Sri Sri or Chalam.
If we are going to do that, how about allowing me to compare Sri Sri with
Nannaya! Sri Sri is a cheap guy because he wrote songs for movies. He was
paid to write them! How can such a guy be even called a poet? What kind
of social commitment does he have? Wait a minute. Nannaya was paid to
write , sorry, translate, Mahabharatham. Wasn't he? He did not even do a
good job at that. Wrote 90% of it in Sanskrit again. May be the king paid
him only 10% of what was promised!
May be, Sri Sri will live as long as Nannaya did! I don't know if
that is necessarily good.
regards,
Sitaramayya Ari.