> There is notion that lot of sanskrit is used in chandOpadyam -and that
> makes it difficult to read. But the fact of the matter is - There is one
> book Andhra naama sangraham - I donot know if I have the correct name. It
> is like amarakosham - accha telugu synanims - If one reads poems in that I
> can bet those who complain about the sanskrit usage will now complain
> about the accha tenugu usage since 90% of the telugu words will be out of
> touch. If any one has the book they can post some poems from that to show
> the taste of pure telugu poems.
I agree with Saddananda gaaru that for the average Telugu guy/gal,
the so called acca-Telugu poems would be as difficult to read and
understand.
To me, the problem is that often the language used in
contemporary Telugu chandObaddha poetry is not contemporary (regardless
of whether it is Sanskrit or accatelugu). Even when the words themselves
are contemporary, they get converted into archaic forms. Such
usage transforms these poems into those reminiscent of a bygone era. The
language of another time does not fit easily into the contemporary scene.
It makes the poems look artificial, and is a definite turn-off for me.
That is one of the reasons, most of the North American Telugu chandO
poetry does not appeal to me; the artificiality of the language makes
them seem artless to me.
> I think frankly every poetry lover is a chodOlover - even the socalled
> non-chandO peotry also follows its own metrical rules - otherwise you may
> call it a prose. See Pillalamarri's comments.
I think this is a tautological argument.
Several months ago, at the height of the chandO debate
(installment -1), I posted several pieces of poetry that I liked and
asked anyone to explain the metrical structures of those poems. I am
still waiting. I do not think that all good poems have a metric (defined
as a repetitive sequence) pattern. Some of them employ devices other than
a metric pattern.
> I think branding one as chandOlover and the other non-chandO lover is
> actually superficial- The writings will follow certain metrical rules,
> either self imposed or standard, to be a poetry.
I agree that there are rules that may be self-imposed or standard.
But, I don't think that those rules are necessarily metrical in nature.
> Actually I am not familier with any Lakshanas that define that good poetry
> must have standard metrical forms!
My own knowledge of lakshaNaas amounts to nothing. But, there
were definite statements on this forum as to the superiority of chandassu
in making poetry enjoyable. There were at least two posts explaining why
SreeSree should not be called a mahaakavi according to lakshaNa SaaStra.
Regards. --- V. Chowdary Jampala