My feelings about this discussion are similar: people seem very polarized,
and seem to vehemently denounce the other school as not being the
"right" form of poetry (or atleast a deterrant to reading pleasure).
Since when did telugu literature not have room for such varying forms?
One characterisitc of poetry is that it is a distilled and abbreviated
expression of thought (like concentrated OJ). The people skilled in the
art are free to form their own rules and directives, just like the rules
of grammar that authors employing prose are expected to stick to. For
a person like me, with equal adeptness (or more likely the lack of it)
in both prose and poetry, I find the rules of grammar in prose just
about as restrictive as the rules of poetry. I am sure most of us do -
especially when we talk. A lot of times, I break the rules of grammar
when I am talking (like not completing my sentences), but still manage
to be very effective while putting in almost no effort to conform to
those rules, which, BTW, do not at all seem to have any rationale.
For a person who thinks in poetry (just like we guys do in prose), it
seems to me that sticking to the rules of chadassu, rhyme and rhythm
come naturally. Since we are so much used to the notion of writing
gramatically correct prose, we don't seem to consider that a constraint;
if we were to be equally proficient in poetry, neither should the
rules of poetry be.
This is not to say that breaking grammatical rules (say when giving a
speech) results in ineffective and less impressive conveying of the
message. In fact, even the best of speakers do it all the time. What
is to be borne in mind is that simply breaking a prose sentence into
two lines doesn't make it a poem, even if the "concentrated OJ" criterion
is met. A piece of very good literature doesn't necessarily have to be
a piece of very good poetry; the former is essentially a superset of
the latter. Whether or not the rules of poetry are the "right" ones
is certainly debatable; but I somehow cannot get myself to call a piece
a poem if it simply breaks rules of prosaic grammar. I enjoy and am
influenced by a lot of them nevertheless - as good pieces of literature.
It is just like when I "sing" a sentence out to my wife or someone - it
is hardly a song, even though I am streching the words and modulating
my voice.
So the question is, why would I want the label "poet" at all if I want
to write in freewheeling style, and I know that I am able to impress my
thoughts on people? I don't care what I am called! Literature has room
for more than just the two ends of the spectrum - prose and poetry.
vacana kavitvam (or gadya padyam, as I like to call it) is one of them.
I was surprised to see that no one mentioned rAvi SAStri's short story
"vennela" in this connection (in my opinion one of the best short stories
*ever* written). It is not poetry, but it is lilting prose. I like to
call this "padya gadyam".
There is room for more forms of expression than just the traditional ones;
may be we should spend our energies in that direction than trying to
force our favorite author into the rungs of "poets" or "prosists ;-)".
Rules are there for a purpose, if only to satisfy those to want to adhere
to them. I would not want to be a bull in the china shop simply because
the shop doesn't display *my* china....
--sreenivas-- dsr@vnet.ibm.com
ps: The apologies mentioned in my previous posting (Part 1) go with this
one as well....
(Part 3: SrI SrI and his legacy)