Re: Who's a poet (fwd)
V. Chowdary Jampala (cjampala@quark.dayton.net)
Fri, 30 May 1997 14:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 30 May 1997, Hari Krishna Tadepalli wrote:
> A week ago, some of the authors had gone to lengths to extoll the
> #yakshgAnAlu#. Should one, by the same train of arguments, say that all
> #yakshagAnAlu# should be dumped because:
>
>
> 1. It is an archaic art form
> 2. No contemporary themes or recent
> writings appeared in that style
> 3. There sure were some bad/boring yakshgAnAlu
> 4. They have a misplaced emphasis on certain
> form of recitation; The modern radio
> #rUpakAlu# do it much better.
>
>
> Should we say, hey #yakshagAnam# is "formaldehyde" or "a peat bog",
> now that the modern cinema has bulldozed them all.
I think the above represents one of the paths this chandas debate
has taken a few times. This path begins with the premise that some or all
of non-pro chandassu posters advocated the dumping of all Telugu classics
because that style of writing is archaic and has some bad writing in
there and that nothing good could ever be written in that style. I do not
recall anybody ever saying that. In fact, these strawmen have been raised
almost in the first week of this debate 15 months ago and keep appearing
again and again.
What has been said repeatedly by the non-pro chandassu group is
this: 1) The classical rules and lakshaNas of poetry are neither
sufficient nor necessary to write good poetry. 2) If the language used in
poetry is not accessible to the reader, that poetry is irrelevant to the
reader. 3) The current times and problems seem to be better expressed in
the non-chandO poetry. 4) At this point of time, the continued viability
of chandO poetry appears to be questionable.
Coming to the yakshagaanas, I have not seen any of them and am
therefore unable to comment. But, the classical art forms that are
surviving and enjoying a rennaisance are the ones that have adapted to the
modern times. The revival of Kuchipudi had to do with some breaks from
tradition. Many a thing that we appreciate Vempati chinna satyam are the
very same things for which he gets vilified by classicists. Even with all
this, these art forms are still patronized only by a small number of
hobbyists and connoisseurs. Those art forms that couldn't adapt to the
modern times or that couldn't attact even this small number of hobbyists
and enthusiasts are in the process of disappearing.
> One would ask as to what fraction of the "modern"
> writings are subjected to the same depth of dissection for both their form
> and contents.
I would venture to say that there is a lot of that going on as
well. Unfortunately, not on this forum in which the only continuing
threads are about 'classical' things. Everything else seems to die off
after one or two posts.
Yes, there is a lot being said right now about the triteness of
imagery in leftist poetry.
> Perhaps much of the confusion prevails for not acknowldging the diversity
> of human experience & its expression in literature. That something is of
> limited use and ciculation does not render it absolutely worthless. Even
> personal letter can contain a wealth of poetic expression subject to the
> context. But the trouble comes only when some of them are required to
> be admired for their 'universal' appeal
Or when requiring some strict criteria that need to be conformed
to qualify for admiration.
Regards. --- V. Chowdary Jampala