RE: Who's a Poet?
V. Chowdary Jampala (cjampala@quark.dayton.net)
Fri, 30 May 1997 17:38:45 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 30 May 1997, Bachoti Rao wrote:
> .... The question should not be
> asked because the popularity of a work cannot be the
> only yardstick of its quality. If that yardstick is used, that can
> disqualify a lot of good stuff in this world. If something is not
> liked by everybody today, there may be several reasons for
> it. But should we use that argument to attack and discredit
> a literary form?
Another strawman. Nobody has said that popularity is a yardstick
of quality. The issue at the time was (and is) the state of the health
of the art of chandO-poetry. If a passionate fan of the art has difficulty
naming a handful of major exponents and major works of the genre over a
quarter of a century, certainly the health of that art form is in
poor shape. An artform needs both performers and patrons to survive. At
this point, both seem to be in a critically short supply for chandO
poetry.
The question (still unanswered) of who are the great exponents of
it today and what are the representative works of this genre is still
important for anybody who wants to know about the state of the art of any
art. Knowledge of past masters gives you only a sense of history. it is
the current day practitioners that determine if it has a future.
> If it is not viable today, it maybe tomorrow. It may not be. Should we
> be very happy about it or sorry about it?
Depends on one's point of view about the need for that art form to
be viable, and one's nostalgic longings.
If a chandO based poetry - either modern or classical - comes
across that I enjoy, that is good. However, it is extremely rare that I
come across a chandObased poem of recent vintage that I enjoy. Most of the
time, the theme is uninteresting, and the language archaic and artificial.
My own perspective is that chandO based poetry served a
need in the past, but time is passing it by. Other art-forms have quite
adequately substituted for the loss of this particular art form. Most of
what I see of the current day practice of this artform is anachronistic in
its current day selection of themes and expression. If it has any chance
of a rejuvenation, it would only happen if it can incorporate the current
day themes and express it in a contemporary fashion. My own view is that
it is difficult for this form to be able to communicate with the same
force as the forms that replaced it. Hence, I think it would be left with
a small number of hobbyists and enthusiasts. Several such forms
(including modern non-chandO based poetry) are in existence today, but
they are not in the mainstream.
> There are people today who
> are writing it, reading it and enjoying it. Why should anybody have
> a problem with it?
All power to the people that write it, read it or enjoy it.
I have no problems with them. When I have a problem, it is with people
who tell me that a) following old rules is the only way to write good
poetry, b) that if I don't agree with a, I am denigrating our great
heritage, c) that something is great just because it follows traditional
rules, or d) that I cannot question or critically discuss the greatness of
a chando-based work, its author or its proponents.
Regards. -- V. Chowdary Jampala