Of course, you do have this right. After all this is a place where we exchange
ideas and learn about each others views and hopefully come out as better people.
> Regards
> -Madhava-
> =-------=
>
> Yesterday I had a discussion with Sri Potukuci Sambasiva Rao
> about SriSri's poetry. For my wonder he made very denouncing
> statements regarding SriSri. I requested his permission to
By the way, who is Potukuci Sambasiva Rao? My knowledge of telugu literature
is somewhat limited to a handful of books. Is he a poetry critic or a poet
himself?
> START :
> SriSri did not understand Marxism fully. What ever he has
> written he neither understood nor followed. To say a Hypocrite.
Hmm... Neither understood, nor followed? I would like to see some evidence re:
the first charge.
Admittedly I am a novice in these matters, having been forced to write programs for
a living, but to me it seems the poem "deSa charitralu" captures the essence
of marxism and progresses on to communism as well. It eloquently talks about
the method to study the history as a class struggle. Yes, it is no das
capital, for example, it doesn't touch on the issue of surplus value, but then
try condensing some obtruse philosophical texts into a couple of pages of
telugu poetry.
> He is a man of greed and sold himself for money. Where did he
> follow the marxist theory ? He is a man of double standards.
> He joined Cinema field where he has to obey someone's idealogy.
In essence you are saying he did not follow marxism. I would be more
interested in seeing where he misunderstood marxism, or which piece of poem
misrepresented marxism. That would be grounds for a lovely discussion. If you
attack the person, not the message, that will not make for interesting
discussion.
> It is the movement that gave his "poetry" tremendous popularity.
> He used vishalandhra to popularise himself. There are many great
> poets who have not bound to the movement. For example take
> karuNaSree he is really a great poet.
Yes, he is a great poet. So is, vaadrEvu china veera bhadruDu. So? To me, this
all looks like a serious case of sour grapes. This argument constitutes a
bunch of disjointed statements, and do not confirm to the norm of regular
discussion. If there a coherent argument I would be glad to discuss.
<DIGRESSION>
Here is my favorite gripe: non-existent art of writing in telugu. Yes, there
are some writers that confirm to some intutive standards and deliver the
goods, but by and large, boy, telugus can't write for nuts!! I pick a sample
of writing from Telugu and I see it violating all the norms of good writing.
It is depressing that even good writers can't put a coherent thread together.
I was reading some reprinted quote by Arudra in a Telugu magazine here. The
quote was poorly structured, full of hyperbole, and contradicted itself
with no reason. And, I become almost suicidal whenever I read any "poetry" of
Cinaare.
<small digression>
Re: use of quotes, I use them to indicate italics. Custom dictates that
italics be used when using foreign words. In the absence
Some times, I use *'s as well. If I
use them for words in English, it is to report a direct speech or to indicate
that it is being used in an abnormal sense. For example, I used the word
'poetry' in quotes in the preceding paragraph to indicate that I do not agree
that Cinaare writes poetry. But, he calls it poetry. So use it directly,
without taking personal responsibility.
I wonder if this is the same convention that this gentleman Potukuci is using.
<end small digression>
<END DIGRESSION>
> You can send your comments either to me by E-Mail or to him
> directly by post. His address :
> Dr. Potukuci Sambasiva Rao
> Vishwasahiti, 6-3-95
> New Boiguda, Sec'bad-3
> Ph: 823177
--rama