RE: Vishwambhara
Ramarao, Ram (Ram_Ramarao@tri.sbc.com)
Fri, 30 May 1997 09:59:30 -0500
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about "What is good
poetry" as this excerpt provides an example to analyze applying
whichever defintion of poetry we may believe in. As the discussion has
clearly demonstrated, there is no universally accepted single compact
definition of "good poetry". It is a function of both time and space.
Ultimately, slightly misquoting BavaBUthi, only time will decide what is
good and what is not. I do not believe that most of the yesterday's
classic works, of vAlmIki, kALidAsA, BavaButhi, pOthana, SrInAtha, or
peDDana will all qualify as "good poetry" under today's prevalent
definition of good poetry (assuming such a thing exists) but here they
are, proving that in spite of what may be the definition of the day,
certain traditional works will remain with people (or, equivalently,
there will be people who believe in yesterday's definition of good
poetry).
With this intro, here's my take on what is good poetry (this is only my
definition): It has ALL of the following qualities in that order of
importance - a) reflects genuineness on the part of the poet
("nijAyithI"); b) expressed in a way to touch reader's heart ("manassunu
sprsinchE vyakthIkaraNa"), c) new subject / new narration of old subject
/ new insights into old subject, and d) not colorless ("alankAra
yuktham"). I intentionally do not include "reflection of present day
society" as a quality it should have.
Of the four, c and d are relatively easy to determine and less
subjective than a and b. Among a and b, I believe that a is easier to
ascertain than b which is highly subjective.
Thus, even if one agrees with me on these four qualities as "necessary
and sufficient", there still is considerable subjectiveness for two
people to arrive at two different assessments. That's fine. It's the
nature of these things.
Applying this definition to the quoted parts from VishwamBara, I beleive
that it has qualities c and d but not a and b and thus does not qualify
as good poetry in my view. This particular description of evolution on
earth and the place of humans in it does not touch my heart nor I see
any genuineness in his questions about who we are, why we are here, and
so on. I am certain there are many who disagree. In fact, I have seen a
number of essays and Ph.D. dissertations that have highly praised this
same work. I respect that - their definitions are different from mine.
K.V.S. Ramarao (ramarao@tri.sbc.com)