Re. kaviraakshasulu
STADIGAD.US.ORACLE.COM (STADIGAD@us.oracle.com)
22 Jul 96 16:20:29 -0700
Sitaramayya Ari wrote:
>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.
Before start, I must clarify that I need not be in agreement with the
views he has expressed in that post that preceed these line I selected
for review.
Traditional poetry is not enjoying prime respect for variety of reasons.
But "gone" seems to me as a strong word. If I may be excused of saying so,
used to imply it as dead. Now then he says we should preserve it. Preserve
it as if it were a room full of old books,chairs and tables from 16th century?
If some of us should propagate so much of hatered towards the old lit.
how do we expect it to be preserverd? just in locked shelves? If we must
hate it to day and say we are preserving it, we are not going to produce
generations which will have any respect to it, and will read it. I beg
my friends to note that no poet writes poems just to suit metres, or for
for nostalgia's sake. What do we mean? To say it is for nostalgia is in
bad taste. If it smells like formaldihyde or hydrogen sulphide or worse,
how do we think that we are honestly going to preserve it or ask others
to do so? If we want it burried, that is not preserving it by any streach of
imagination. By saying that it has no relevance nor future, we are actually
asking it to vanish forever, or wishing it to be preserved mummified.
Syamala Rao Tadigadapa.
----------------------