Re: amaraavati kadhalu
Nyayapathi Srinivasa Rao (vasu@india.hp.com)
Fri, 14 Nov 97 10:42:58 IST
jagadish is curious:
> Hmm.. plotless plots! Erm.. do you mean to say that they're surreal? If
> not, why not?
>
> How to distinguish genuine art form from a cheap trick? This bothers me
> a lot. And each one of us seems to have a different criteria and taste
> regarding literary excellence. I believe there are several out there in
> the same boat. So, please help us by providing atleast *one specific
> example as to why you've felt the way you did regarding
> 'amaraavati kadhalu'. I was too young or ignorant to feel anything
> special about these stories when I'd read them a long time ago. I hope
> you're case is different.
>
> -Jagdish ( Could be the thread of the year! ) Bisa
I did not intend to convey that they are surrealistic.
I meant that there is nothing in the stories which weaves
an acceptable interesting web of human situations/relationships.
Though i cannot exactly recall any of the titles,
(Friends, this is a hanicap. I quote mostly from my not too reliable
memory as i don't have access to books. Neither do i have a home
PC so that i may, by sheer accident/luck, pull up a book in case
some reference is made to it)
i don't think it's necessary to cite one.
Almost all the stories are second-rate.
if you want me to say more, this is it:
His style which is the better part of his writings is no match
to that of all-time greats like koku, raavi Saastri.
Neither his powers of observation match those of kaaraa.
if you still insist, i may compare him to novelists like
goepeecand, buccibaabu et al. His works only pale into non-entities.
His plots are conspicuous by their absence!
So what do you read them for?
In his stories are people who come out into the sun after midday meal
and idly indulge in #piccaapaaTee#. That's all.
--
Regards & Thanks
Vasu.