Not that I want bud in on the dialogue -
What you say is right - it becomes a big problem if both the poet did not intend
to say but said it without realizing the implication of the words, as some of
the mailers do, (I am not excluding myself in this).
But what we may be encountering as in the recent poems, two readers each with
their own opinion of what the poet is conveying in the poem besides the direct
meaning. The poet is not there on hand to justify or to defend or to convey
what he really intended to say. Here it becomes your opinion against mine or
some others and neither one is right or wrong - all are opinions. Unless, of
course you are the author of the poem.
The fact of the matter is besides the pratipada and bhava arthas there is also
vyanjaartha that can only be gathered by understanding the circumstances and the
characters through which the poet is communicating. The classical varuudhini
dialogues in Manucharitra are typical example. " intalukannulunDa teruvevvari"
Sometimes out of context, the poem and the poets intended meaning may not be
clear. A slokam describing two birds on a tree, one eating while the other
watching, is there in the Mundakopanishad. Out of context, it makes no more
sense than the poem you have given. But in the Upanishad it has profound
meaning for those who can make it out.
I am not saying every poem is like that. Naturally the knowledge of the poet
and his background and the circumstances or the characters through which the
poem is delivered need to be understood to appreciate fully the intended meaning
of the poem.
By the by these statements are true whether the poem is chadobaddam or not. In
the absence of the poet we are extracting what he/she intended to say based on
the words.
But let this dry discussion not stop the chaTuvulu from coming.
Regards,
Sadananda
> The poet intends to convey a definite meaning through his/her poem.
> Now, if the reader gets it, then the poet is successful. If the
> reader does not get the intended meaning then the poet obviously has
> failed. Of course, the premis is that the reader is an intelligent
> fellow, can read and understand poetry.
>
> If the reader reads into the poem, more than what the poet has
> intended the poem to convey, then we have a big problem. In a sense,
> that is what we have been witnessing with some interpretations of run
> of the mill verses. If the interpretations tend to be more than the
> so-called 'gestalt' of the poem, aren't we trekking on dangerous
> grounds?
>
> Let us look at the following 'poem.'
>
> tE.gee. reMDu kaakulu koorcuMDe baMDa meeda;
> oM Degiri pOye; aMta aMdoMDu migile
> reMDavadi pOye; pidapa aMdoMDu lEdu
> baMDa maatramu paapa maMduMDi pOye!