Re. Who is a poet?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Uday Bhaskar: "RE: to poets of all flavors"
• Previous message: Ramana R. Juvvadi: "RE: Who's a Poet?"

 
Certain terms defy definition. 
 
Poem,poetry and poet are among such terms.  
 
Attempts to define these terms with mathematical rigor is doomed from the 
start.  
 
Applying qualifiers like good and bad adds to more confusion.  
 
What is the idea? 
 
On one hand, we all resent any attemts that try curtail the freedom of 
expression on one pretext or other, and on the other we are threatening 
to classify poetry and poets of both past and present according to the 
definitions we wish we could have as rules, thus compelling things and 
people of times gone and present ( and future too ) to obey or else 
we treat them as rotten eggs. I do not think it is fair. 
 
If one thinks ( feel may be a better term ) that (s)he is a poet,  
(s)he would probably produce what (s)he describes as poetry. If 
the produce is gains acceptance by the society over a period of time, 
(s)he might have his name established as a poet. some times, a work 
may gain recognition after a very long time.  A work's glory may fade 
in course of time. It all depends on several factors not in the author's 
control. 
 
I understand we have our own right of expression which facilitates us  
to freely classify thnigs and people according to our taste(s). 
 
But I wish  all to recognisze that a 'poet' has no responsibility to 
fit in our make-fit definitions and has no reason to create poetry to 
satisy again-the-make-fit definitions as to what should constitute a  
poem. Poets also have their right to write in their own ways. 
 
Yes, we can reject what we do not like. But we need not resort to 
calling names. we need not resort to various back door entries to 
bring such matters to discussion with the intent of obtaining us 
an opertunity to call them with bad names implicitely or explicitely. 
'tatyajyatE tannatu dUshaNAya'. 
 
   
We are not acheiving any thing by going over and over agian on  
these topics.  To many persons dismay, we have a rerun or two 
of a debate on chandass. We also discussed once or twice about 
how do we classify a poet or so.  I do not see any point in 
making such debates. 
 
A poet is a poet is a poet 
A poem is a poem is a poem 
Not because we classified them. 
But because they happen to be. 
 
 
  
-Syamala Rao 
------------

• Next message: Uday Bhaskar: "RE: to poets of all flavors"
• Previous message: Ramana R. Juvvadi: "RE: Who's a Poet?"