Since most of the writiers I pointed are not telugus
(I was required to do this to indicate my disagreement), I did not dwell
much on the details, for this is a telugu net. If needed, we can take this
off-mailing list (off-line). I sincerely believe in what I said.
>rama@emailbox.att.com writes:
> ... <stuff deleted>
> > Madhava Kumar Turumella writes:
> > 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.
> <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.
> --rama
Good writing is very difficult for any one in any language; whether it is done
in Telugu or English; or whether done by a telugu or a european/american.
I have found the quality deppressing among the so-called great writers, esp.
in the books/articles they are supposed to be well-known for. I am talking
about non-fiction only (it is more than 12 years since I read fiction with
perhaps two exceptions, one by Steinbeck -- grapes of wrath, and other by koku).
Let me give you examples: Jefferson in his "The declaration of Independence",
Bertrand Russel on John Locke in his "History of Western Philosophy", James
Madison in his Federalist papers (esp. Fedearalist 10, jointly with Hamilton).
These people (i.e., their writings) smack of exactly the same malady you were
complaining above: hyperbole, poor structure, self-contraditions, etc.
Onto contemporary times: "Freedom at Midnight" is another lousy example (nay,
excellent example of lousy writing) esp. if you read "India Wins Freedom" by
Azad, "Columbia World History", recent (add)editions of Britanica, "Christopher
Columbus, a seaman", by (I forgot the author -- a Harvard Professor), "Fifty
greatest people in 20th century", published by NY times, just to give
you a few examples. I spend at least an hour every fortnight (on the average)
lamenting on the lack of quality of book reviewes in NYTimes. That's why I
could not contain surprise when Veluri said that this net is "rising to the
levels of NYTImes book reviews".
These works suffer from concious ommissions and/or commisions,
hyperbole(s), prejudice, intent to pursuade the reader to believe in what
is not true or complete. They suffer from inconsistency (sometimes) and
incompleteness (often). And, this incompleteness is not stemmed of ignorance
but more from concious intention to ignore or insult, denigrate or downplay.
In as much as I agree with your quality metrics, I must disagree with you in
that not meeting those metrics is not restricted to Telugus only. It is
quite rampant in other languages (specifically English -- I know not enough
of any other language to read serious stuff). Telugu bad writing may suffer
from scholarship (lack of), or good style and structure, but I did not find
much of prejudice.
About good telugu diction: I found Budaraju's translations of Gidugu's
"on modern telugu" very good; with excellent thread, although the credit goes
perhaps more to gidugu. The same can be said about Gurajada's "Dissent note";
interestingly, both of these are on what is good telugu and what is not. Rama,
you may find Gidugu's particularly interesgint. I can post excerpts of
these if you so desire. Another *original* telugu piece that attracted my
attention to no end was a book on evolution (biological, not social) by
Palana's grandfather. I called palana names for not taking care of it and
publishing it (I offered to do the physical labor needed to bring it into
light, with palana's additions to make it more contemporary). Rama, you
may actually like this work.
Onto sri sri and Turumella:
I think rama summarized it excellently: I do not see the
proper reasoning for the claims Mr. Turumella makes. If Mr.T. wants to say that
sri sri was not a sangha-samskarta, perhaps he would be right (or, at least,
I would agree -- to soem extent). To say sri sri was not inspired by communism
or did not understand or is not a good poet are battles you can not win;
I won't even consider starting/fighting those false battles.
Onto Rama's criticism (and Veluri's vattasu):
> > karuNaSree he is really a great poet.
>
> Yes, he is a great poet. So is, vaadrEvu china veera bhadruDu.
I think this is not called for, unless "vaadrevu china veera bhadrudu" is
an excellent poet/writer that I don't know; if so, I apologize for my
ignorance, and ignore the rest of the paragraph. In your fervor to defend the
great poet sri sri, you are stepping on some one else's toes by putting him
in the equivalence class of some (definitely not so-well known) writer/poet.
We don't need to look down upon or put down Jandhyala for praising Sri Sri.
I think there is no reason why we telugus can not have/enjoy poets/writers
in large number: we have a lot of them who are good in their own right.
They include vemana, potana, ..., Jandhyala, sri sri, etc. With chandassu,
or without chandassu. Each has his own contribution/speciality.
KV.