I think it is a toss up between form (style) and content, chandassu and
Bavam, rhythm and expression, etc. Sometimes I lean more toward one
than the other; it could depend on many factors, transient ones like
mood and time or relatively permanent ones such as personality,
environment, etc.
I am intrigued by chandObaddha kavitvam more because I find it hard to
synthesize than because it sounds/reads well. (I don't mean to discount
the latter aspect altogether, just that I don't always feel it.) On a
related note, certain movie songs appeal to me more often because of the
meaning than the music. Often (but not always) they are inseparable,
and the music enhances the feeling. But then I am not saying anything
new.
That brings me to my other point: Some/Much of the modern poetry (e.g.,
that of SriSri) reads about equally well, and being in contemporary
language can be remembered well by more people. And often appeals to
those who share similar social concerns. I am sure this topic must have
been touched upon in this forum, and I apologize if I am rehashing an
old thread. I don't think much of his poetry fits any norms of
chandObaddha kavitvam, yet there is pattern to much of it that makes it
easy to remember. Is that chandassu?
I have a feeling I want to say more, but I'd rather be brief and bail
out for now.
-- Venu Dasigi Summer, 1996: vdasigi@mars.epm.ornl.gov Later: dasigi@shu.sacredheart.edu