K: Do you agree with the now pervalent perception that leftist movement in
politics and literature (in A. P.) failed? How is feminism different from
these movements?
V: If the leftist movements do not reform themselves, they are doomed to
fail. There was a considerable damage to these movements because of their
failure to accommodate newer forces, to pose new questions and to look at
the problems from new, different vantage points. Feminism is different from
other movements in that it encourages introspection and self-criticism,
allows posing new questions in understanding our problems and discourages
forming a model for liberation before its realization. Because of their
willingness to recognize and accept diversity, feminist movements are
likely to thrive in a more democratic way.
K: Main stream readers and writers percieve yor publications as radical.
Why? Is there resistance to your work? From what kind of people?
V: To those who consider pop and pulp fiction as main stream literature, our
works seem radical. Even among them, the traditionalists offer more
resistance, than sensationalists (who do not pay much attention). In the
beginning, feminst literature was attacked by, of all people, those who were
considered progressive. Feminst writers could withstand that attack and
survive. Criticism will always be there. One particular criticism that I
face often is that I am destroying the family structure. However, as I
explain what sort of a family structure that I am attacking and what
democratic structure I am seeking in its place, this criticism wanes.
K: You state that literature is a tool you employ in your mission to achieve
political and social empowerment of women. Is the resulting literature of a
lesser quality than that without such explicit social mission? In other
words, can it still be 'good literature'?
V: There is no rule that says that the literature committed to the cause of
empowering women or the down trodden must be of a lesser quality. There is
a misunderstanding or myth that it is so. There are many reasons for this.
We have pre-conditioned notions about 'quality'. Often, works that are
rhetorical, abstract or embellished in style are considered superior to
those that are simple, straight without any ornament. Kodavtiganti Kutumba
Rao (Koku)'s style didn't receive the same level of recognition that
Chalam's or RAvisAstry's style received. However, the way Koku fashioned
telugu language for writing prose was unprecedented. There is a danger of
dismissing simple writings as simplistic. Social mission will only add
depth to literature. A large part of literature coming out of a
socio-literary movement
can in deed be of a lesser quality. But that is no reason to think that the
entire literature with a social mission is dull. Our yardsticks for
assessing quality should change with changing times. Unfortunately, this is
not happening in telugu literature.