> Yes. The criticism of anything that was traditional has always been
> harsh, unjustified and at times in very bad taste. It is always intolerance
> and even hatred. It is so easy to see stones being thrown at traditional
> poetry just because it is traditional and praises being showered on
> mediocre poetry just because it is modern. We must be able to see beauty
> in both wherever it exists.It is unfortunate that there is
> so much antipathy for our cultural heritage. What I see in several so called
> criticisms is not objective assessments, honest predictions or academic
> evaluations but outright denial, intolerance, hatred and a wish to kill.
> Sometimes I wonder if people really mean what they write.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The criticism of anything........at times in a very bad taste (BR)
Times: A right word to be looked at.
Those times have changed.
The realm of readers is new.
New readers emerged out.
A clear and lucid medium w(i)s required.
Sometimes, harsh criticism was necessary.
Traditionalists controlled the literary arena for a long time.
Society had changed.
Social dynamics forced the writers to choose a new way of
expression.
A "tradition" of yesterday is useless today.
We know that.
Water molecule in a traditional sense was so big 40 years ago.
Now! Look at it.
What was the tradition prior to that tradition?
How did these traditionalist break away from the then existing
tradition?
If one does n't criticize/evaluate/and break away from tradition,
how does one expect growth?
Intolerance: "Traditional way of doing things" is not at all suitable
in a changing (changed) times with new set of people.
People are intolerant. That is a social dynamic.
One has to agree that intolerance will creep in to bring a change.
A peroson breaking away from tradition may say "Yes! I like the
traditional way too!" That is a lip sympathy. He/she knows at the
bottom of the heart that the traditional approach is pale and
oxidized. The essence may work out still but the mechanics and
techniques are not suitable to do a job.
Just like everything else, LITERATURE IS OF THE SOCIETY, FOR THE
SOCIETY, AND BY THE SOCIETY irrespective of whether it is prose
or poetry or drama or story.
When traditionalist try to keep power and try to do things in their
unsuitable age-old mechanics/techniques, Newcomers, will definitely
be intolerant. That is an INTELLECTUAL REFLEX. The newcomers can
see clearly the place for literature in the social
strata where as the traditionalists still wear colored glasses.
Praises Showered on Modern because Modern:
What is traditional now once upon a time was modern.
That traditional form might have killed the then called
"traditional."
This is hitorical.
What is Modern is praised not because it is Modern but because it
is put before in a Novel way that can be enjoyed easily as the
people (society) has changed, people's tastes have changed, and
times that people live in have changed. The new mechanics have been
masked by the word "Modern".
Why do we forget the concept "time".
What is modern now will be traditional in future.
The same struggle will go on.
e.g. In English poetry now, there are poems with 4 words,
each line with 1 word. Everything is left to the reader.
The reader has to live that experience in that time frame
around the dynamic to understand/enjoy that poem.
Definitely that poet has violated all the rules of
traditionalism.
A couple of decades ago it was WORDSWORTH.
Now the taste is - WORDS WORTH. That's the way to go.
Mediocre Poetry:
Poetry is poetry. Just like Science is Science.
There is no good computer science and bad computer science.
There is no good engineering and bad engineering.
Even bad, if one says, will teach a lesson not to repeat the
mistakes.
Good and bad poetry are personal tastes. JUDGEMENT CALL!
What is bad poetry to me is good to Ms. X and vice-versa.
Statistical inference plays a major role in claiming what is
"Liked (acceptdly liking) Poetry" as opposed to what is
"Disliked Poetry".
Best > Good > Average > Mediocre > Poor > Worst - If this were
the scale to rate poetry, we fall in an engmatic non-parametric
anal..
Two things are talked here and above - Traditional and Mediocre.
In traditional poetry also there is mediocre poetry. The
poets(esses) faught like mad dogs in those days.
People liked Muddupalani. People hated Muddupalani.
That type of behavior is seen always what type of poetry may it be.
Must See Beauty in Both Traditional and Modern:
Well! One shold look at the beauty in both.
That is true.
A thing that is beautiful is a well-preseved one and not in use.
A thing at work and always in use looks ugly.
Both take a lot of effort to maintain.
Sometimes, the energy subsidy to maintain an unused one may be very
high (because of only one way of operating it).
The one in use may work smoothly and if it breaks down, it is easy
to get parts (new ideas simply by its non-traditional background).
While it is giving problems, a new invention is in progress and
soon will replace the old one. Again another advantage with an
ongoing modern approach. Several fresh minds work on that as
the concept is easy to work with and easy to understand and has
a practical application. Modern poetry fits as round pegs in round
holes.
I can not travel on two boats at the same time.
I see beauty in the Traditional Poetry.
I see ease to use and sound practical application (social use) in
the Modern Poetry with reference to Current Modern Times and
Changing Human Socioeconomic and Literary Dynamics.
After a couple of decades what is modern will also appear
beautiful.
Antipathy against our Cultural Heritage:
When the raindrops fall, the ocean roars in the beginning.
As rain continues falling, the ocean calms down.
After all everything is water.
What is Cultural Heritage now also might have created antipathy
long long ago among the then traditionalists.
Newcomers come with drastic changes. Traditionalists oppose those.
It looks like antipathy/apathy. In my opinion it is allelopathy.
Allelopathy is a phenomenon exhibited by the mother tree. The
mother tree, in nature, secretes chemicals that are toxic to its
own seeds to germinate around it, sometimes.
Watson-Crick, the DNA double helix storey makes, should be very
happy to see the molecular cloning of DNA pieces.
Under several cicumstances in the current context, several
Traditional approaches will not work and new methods have to be
invented.
If I twist it the other way - Aren't the traditionalist a bit
insecure fearing that they lose their validity/existence?
Inability to appreciate beauty:
A rose, bloomed 3 days ago, withers today.
The concept "rose" is pretty to imagine.
A fresh rose is always beautiful to look at.
Again : What is beautiful to Gunnu is not at all the same to me.
How can one force the other to appreciate one's beauty.
Not everyone can enjoy all sorts of beauty in the nature.
A rose is pretty. A daffodil is beautiful. X likes a rose.
Y likes a daffodil.
That is as simple as that.
With new varieties of Roses (hybrids), the wild varieties
traditionally regarded as the most beautiful in those times
have no place in the Kingdom of Roses. Double Delight, Fresh
Breath, Dolly, JFK, and a lot more to name. One person can not see
the beauty in all these roses. Even if he sees, he can only enjoy
one and only one until a new one comes. Then, his/her tastes
change. New varieties keep coming. Wild varieties are not
cultivated widely. They may be preseved in seed banks. They had
beauty once upon a time. They may be visited by unknown and those
who want to study them for academic and other curiosities. We can
not force everyone to raise those in their front and back yards.
Wish To Kill:
I can put forth the same arguments here. Too much redundance.
Literature operates on the Nature's Law just like everything else.
Societies evolve. People's tastes evolve as the conditions and
needs change. In this century people look for different things just
as we use this medium. Telugu Poetry is not immune to this law.
One can not ask everyone to go to India by Ship. Those who have to
go will go. It doesn't mean that people who travel by air are
killing ships.
If many people choose one way, the other way is less used,
abandoned, and may disappear. The other way may be rugged and too
long and the journey may be tedious. Eventually that way may be
forgotten. People at the beginning had no intention to kill that
route.
On the otherhand, if some powers prohibit building a new route or
stop using an easy and convenient path, people who chose the latter
will definitely try to kill the old and rugged path - it is
eventual. Those who are interested in the old path for some
personal reasons should maintain it. They can not tax others.
Wish People Really Mean What They Write:
I can say anything as such about others.
I dare not!
Everyone has a taste of his/her own.
When I write, I read, analyze, cotemplate and contemplate and
finally try to make sense in what I put on this medium.
I am trained to do so. I am a professional writer. I spend more
than a 8 h a day to write so that people in my area can atleast
read and understand.
When it comes to Telusa, I do the same thing. If I spend 2 hours on
Telusa, I will work for the same time on my professional issues.
Wrting on Telusa for me is a pleasure - which means I love this more
than my profession and in return I can do my job with less pain.
I am sure there are several people like me here on this medium I can
list.
People definitely mean what they write. Sometimes, they may not
express it clearly so that the message is communicated effectively.
If ask the same question in a different manner:
Most of the times readers read this to kill their time.
Then:
I wonder if almost always a reader can not get the essence out
clearly from a posting written by "An" author.
regards
-pAlana
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed above are not those of the CAS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------