> 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".
>
Either is a possibility. Without it, you may be able to do
neither :)
> > > 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.
I am not sure that I followed you correctly.
My point was: One can't really stop a poet from expressing the way he
wants to, and nobody can force a reader to appreciate a work. Therefore,
the phrase 'allowed to' doesn't apply. 'Looking down' is a matter of
individual choice and may coalesce to a collective choice.
'Need' can be at an individual level or a collective level. It
appears to me that even if a need for chandO poetry exists at an individual
and a small group level, such need does not appear to exist at a larger
group level.
> > 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 !
>
In terms of content, such poetry is available in abundance these
days. Many contemporary poets tackle similar topics in a very effective
way, and their choice of topics is much wider than before. Some such
poems were even posted up in this forum earlier, and those that were
posted were only a miniscule sample of what is out there. When you say
it is hard to find such poetry these days, you are either not talking
about content or you weren't recognizing what is out there; that's why I
assumed you were referring to structure.
> But sir, you would fall in the first category (of
> patronisers of non-chandO ) anyway (;-) !
Let me put it this way. It is not that I am a patronizer of
non-chandO poetry. The presence or absence of chandassu is not of
importance for me. Some poems touch me by the power of their ideas, some
by their evocativeness, and some by their sound. When a poem combines
these strenghts, my appreciation and enjoyment of it increases. I do not
think pOtana's poems are great because he wrote in chandObaddha style,
but I think they are great for their evocativeness, use of assonance and
alliteration in liberal quantities, and his ability to paint a pretty
picture with simple words. The fact that he used a metric structure is
only secondary. (Frankly, I think pOtana's 'rhythms' are better
appreciated if they are transcribed outside the traditional four-line
vRUtta mode. Try transcribing 'intitai...' or 'naalani vaaDu...' or 'kaarE
raajul...' in shorter lines).
I do have a marked preference for use of everyday language.
I do not agree with statements that imply that chandassu (by it,
I mean a recurrring meter) is essential for good poetry or that a good
work has to have certain elements deemed important by danDi a few
centuries ago. Those guidelines are archaic, I believe.
Regards. --- V. Chowdary Jampala