Re: Re : Poems and Meanings ...
prasad saripalli (prasad@grove.ufl.edu)
Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:30:25 -0400
>Dr. Veluri wrote:
>
> Of course, poetry is for communication; certainly not for
> miscommunication!
>
This was Kanneganti Rama Rao gari opinion also. I wonder if they meant it
in the sense of day-to-day communication through language. Surely, poetry
isn't meant for that sort of communication. To use Rama's word, the Gestalt
of a good poem is certainly much different and can be much more than the
literal meaning that is seldom wholly, some times partly, and some times not
at all communicated. In fact, apart from the message, it is the mystic
around a poem, that enriches it. How else would you explain the joy of
reading Auden, Dylan Thomas or Houseman! Take out the veil of opacity, and
what you have is a drab pulp of poetry that is 'sent across' very well, its
'noble social message' and what have you, but looses its charm nevertheless.
In Telugu, Ajantha, Tripura and Mohan Prasad are accused of writing
'aspashta kavitwam'. Oneway how their work is defended is to say that life
itself is complex, even absurd, and to honestly communicate the drama that
goes on in our heads is to acknowledge the complexity and coin a language
to- I must use the word- communicate it. (That is why we often find that
poetry is alanguage in itself.) These poets typically tend to be
introverted. Tripura's expression for it was that 'there must be an element
of confession in true literature; rest of it may be very entertaining, but
it is something else'. In poetry, personal experience is the only authentic
experience. Personal observation is the only authentic observation, so most
of the good poetry is either statedly or in disguise an autobiography.
One school of thinkers who object to the above are socially
committed, who believe that poetry must be a direct instrument for social
change. I have an inkling that my learned friend Dr. Veluri is one among
them. That must be the reason why he sometimes is able to see poetry in a
mediocre poem that floats a noble social message. I know that he wouldn't
do this, but there are many who glorify poetry for their message alone.
One reason for their thinking must be their belief in poetry as a social
instrument. It follows naturally that they should demand 'clarity, total
communication' through all poetry. I maintain that poetry can be an
instrument for change, but the poet does not conciously intend it to be.
The moment (s)he assumes this illusion, his poetry looses its magic.
Kanaka Prasad