Because we have languages to do that job.
>Correct me if I understood this wrong: are you saying that the better the
>poem, the less clearly its literal meaning is discernable?
The above is the converse of what I said: a good poem can be only partially
clear, it doesn't necessarily have to be very clear.
>Here again, I don't see this being true in my experiences of enjoying
>poetry. The statement seems to suggest that poems with social messages
>are charmless! May be charm is in the perception of the reader.
This also is the converse of what I said. If a poem is intended to clearly
deliver a social message as its primary purpose, and if the poet lacks the
personal experience/observation/involvement with that message, it will
ineviatably be charmless.
>It may be mentioned that the so-called classical poetry was also intended
>to be an instrument of social change. Mahabharatham was written expressly
>with the purpose of spreading Vedic religion and to combat the influence
>of Buddhism and Saivism. I don't think Nannaya was unconscious of it. He
>was asked to do it.
I do not know enough about the circumstances that prompted Nannaya to
undertake Maha Bhartam.
>regards,
>Sitaramayya Ari.
Kanaka Prasad