On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 cjampala@dayton.net wrote:
> Did I miss something? That was a question I asked this morning.
> I haven't seen any names of the poets or works other than a reference
> to a magazine and a rejoicing at two North American Telugus publishing
> chandObaddha poetry.
Jampala garu:
Pardon me if I missed your question.
I did say it was only a partial answer. Any more answerers ??
>
> I wouldn't say that they should be emulated. But, if a contemporary
> poet wants to emulate them either in content or form or both, all power to
> him/her. I sure hope that work finds the readership and the honor it
> deserves.
>
> (About that formaldehyde analogy: a couple of posts including
> yours seem to treat it as an agent of destruction. Applying it to a
> living thing may not be such a hot idea, but it sure preserves a dead
> thing against decomposition and makes it available for study for a long
> time to come. My studies in anatomy wouldn't have gone very far without
> that good old formaldehyde).
I am sure you know more about Formaldehyde than me, but I think
the impression was that you dip things in formaldehyde and "put them away"
not "put them up for exhibition".
>
> > My point is : there can be relevant, understandable, good, poetry
> > in the chandO style TODAY. (do we disagree on this ?) and if a poet
> > can do it he should be allowed to and not looked down upon because
> > of his poetic structure.
>
> A poet that can and wants to will write the poetry that he can
> and wants to. How somebody wants to respond to that poetry is upto them.
>
If we were talking merely about personal tastes we wouldn't
have had this discussion, would we ? We are talking about the need or the
lack of it, of the existence of chandO poetry.
> > But yes, it appears hard to find such poetry from modern poets.
>
> If you think a little bit more about why it is hard to find such
> poetry (I assume you meant the structure here and not the content) from
> modern (I assume you meant contemporary) poets, you will probably be
> able to enumerate the reasons.
>
Structure + content !
If it was just the structure it is not worth talking about.
Not in the current context at least. I am talking about poetry
in the mould of Jandhyala papayya sastry and Jashuva.
yes modern in the sense of contemporary !
I had written a paragraph discussing about the reasons but left it
out as being too childish. Just saying I did think about it.
> > Jampala garu, you mentioned about the patronage each style of
> > poetry and poetry itself, enjoys among the telugu people today.
> > It appears sad but true. Who do you think reads any of the works
> > of the modern poets ? I would say those of the educated that are
> > aware of the movements these poetry/poets are associated with,
> > and those of the illiterate that enjoy gaddar-type songs.
>
> I assume you were referring to my comments about the silent
> majority. It is not clear to me if you are suggesting only feminist
> sympathizers read feminist poetry and daLit sympathizers read daLit
> poetry. I am not sure if it is a valid observation.
You read me right. And as is usual with reading views that go
against one's grain of thought, there is the slight exaggeration. I
wouldn't say "Only" but I would say predominantly. I am talking
from personal experience as a person who was in the country not so
long ago. You say there are kavitA sampuTilu that are being
published. But is anybody buying them ? (didn't we hear of
Ms.Volga's anthology itself not being sold as expected ?) And
when we have idealogy based poetry (as opposed to poetry on
run-of-the-mill topics) isn't it logical to deduce that the
precious few who buy these are more likely to be sympathisers
than otherwise.
( I would be more than happy to be wrong and if it turns out the
sales of these anthologies are indeed high. )
>
> Call me illiterate if you want to, but I have been enjoying gaddar's
> songs for several years. And, I have also read several scholarly essays
> about gaddar's poetry that pay tribute to his poetic ability.
>
Me too ! (;-)
No! I have not! But I don't doubt!
But sir, you would fall in the first category (of
patronisers of non-chandO ) anyway (;-) !
> Regards. --- Chowdary
>
===================================================================
| SANKA RAMAKRISHNA |
| e-mail : sanka@erc.msstate.edu |
| home page : http://www.erc.msstate.edu/~sanka/ |
| phone : 601-325-2526 (Work.) |
===================================================================