Re: kavirAkshasulu
Sitaramayya Ari (ari@Oakland.edu)
Mon, 22 Jul 1996 16:33:33 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Bachoti Rao wrote:
>
> Syamala Rao wrote:
>
> >The so called modernists have always extended their intolerance
> >towards readers & writers who may have any semblance of sympathy
> >towards anything that was traditional. And they push the same
> >blame on them squarely.
>
> 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.
>From my point of view, it makes no difference whether the poetry is
written in traditional fashion or not. When the so-called scholars point
to non-traditional poetry and call it mediocre just because it does not
have the chando-chadastam, that is where the problem starts.
In spite of the arguments we have on Telusa from time to time, no body
from my side has any problems enjoying a classic poem. It is just that
times have changed and we enjoy today's poetry as much as we do the old
stuff. When an admirer of old poetry puts quotation marks and says
"Volga's poetry" or "Sri Sri's poem" that is where the intolerance is.
No matter how many protest, the traditional poetry's time is gone. It can
and should be preserved. But writing a poem today with the archaic
language just to suit the meters is a practice for nostalgia's sake. It
smells like formaldehyde. It has neither relevance nor future.
Regards,
Sitaramayya Ari.