Re: Vishwambhara
Subbarao Varigonda (varigond@cems.umn.edu)
Sat, 31 May 1997 19:28:40 +1900 (CDT)
Reply to Sri NSR:
> of aesthetic origin makes it clear that si.na.re certainly
> influenced him.
I deny the claim. It takes more for a poet to influence someone.
I have no high opinion for si.naa.re. I haven't read his other writings.
I came across bitter cricism against (not even as a bad-poet but as a
non-poet in your own words) him and I am trying to see if we are fair in
classifying him so.
Is there any element in him that is worthy of calling him a poet?
sinaare is not my relative or friend. I am not even trying to show him
as a great poet.
> It shouldn't surprise anybody that a soul hungering and
> thirsting for evocative poetry is quick to appreciate si.na.re's
> gibberish as aesthectically fulfilling.
To understand a poem, one should try to empathize with the poet. Then,
depending on the experience, one can judge it's value. If the tone of the
poem is so, I read it with that emotion. Mere words don't make poetry.
Similarly some bad words do not spoil the entire picture. I wonder on
the other hand if you were negatively influenced by sinaare!
If you interpret empathy as hunger,thirst, submission or influence, you are
only showing your resistance to objectively analyse something.
I'm not saying sinaare had an excellent choice of vocabulary or
articulate expressions everywhere. I agree he failed to use good
use of words. But the poem itself isn't unintelligible. If the reader
can give it some thought, there is a definite idea.
A poem is not just the way words(or even thoughts) are used and presented.
It also means something beyond language. The substantial content of the
lines is beyond the words and language.
It's absolutely right to criticize such poems for the defective vocabulary.
But one should also be honest to acknowledge any merits of it. Because of
the defects even if it cannot be a great work, whatever good it has can be
taken.
If a poem can make me think further and appreciate the motivation behind
it but the words themselves are not articulate enough for that, do I
dismiss the poem as trash? If the poem, with some bit of reader's
imagination can make sense, is it fair to say it's worthless?
> All the above can be said about any poem that speaks generalisms
> about man.
I was just saying what the book was about in general terms. Obviously,
one has to read that to see what is special and what is different and what is
missing.
> Since SreeSree's Three Cheers to Man 'maanavuDaa maanavuDaa'
> it's become just fashionable for second cuckoos to re-order the
> same old words to effect a deja-vu dullness.
Sure, someone else must have written similar stuff before SrISrI. But that
doesn't make him a second cuckoo.
In fact, except for the sincerety and honesty on the part of the writer
(as Sri Ramarao would like to have first in a good poem)
'maanavuDaa maanavuDaa' lacks the usual SrISrI's vADi. It's like words
spoken from heart in colloquial way and I wonder how anybody can "copy"
such a thing!
Quote from 'maanavuDaa maanavuDaa':
AlOcanalu pOyEvADA!
anunityam anvEshincE vADA!
ceTTU, ceruvU
gaTTU, puTTA
AkasamlO samudramLO
anvEshincEvADA!
aSaantuDA! parAjayam eruganivADA!
Urthva dRshTI! mahAmahuDA!
mahA prayANikuDA!
mAnavuDA!mAnavuDA!
KATlADukonEvADA! OrvalEnivADA!samkucita svabhAvuDA!
ayyO mAnavuDA!
ohO! mAnavuDA!
End Quote.
> The lines betray si.na.re's insensitivity to words,
> his inability to sustain any feeling in his readers and
> his contempt for a common reader's love for poetry.
If you are only against his choice of words for common readers,
your point is quite valid. But after showing concern for common
reader, can't continue to analyse what it offers to a more mature
reader? It's fairer to say I like such and such qualities in a poem
and this lacks some and (possibly) has some other.
The same mahaakavi elsewhere says
adRshTavantulu mIru.
velugunu prEmistAru.
irulanu dvEshistAru.
...
mancini gurinci,
maryAda, mappitam gurinci
mI kannula cUpulu saraLarEkhalO!
...
abhAgyulam mEmu
sarihaddulu dorakani
sandhyalalO mA sancAram.
...
irula lOni miNugurulE cUstAm.
nUru dOshAlalOni oka suguNam.
nUru punyAlalOni oka ghOram.
So, let's us not ignore oka suguNam or oka ghOram.
> si.na.re has mastered the 'art' of choosing ONLY those
> combinations of words and phrases which hurt your ears
> and insult your longing for #okka manci maaTa#
As I said, I didn't read sinaare's other works. If a writer uses such a
surrealistic language in every writing, that definitely brings monotony.
If you are implying that sinaare cannot use softer and immediately touching
words at all, that's a serious limitation.
Unaffected by his other writings, I feel vishwambhara is written with a
good subject and plan (the theme). It requires me to ignore some occasional
cacophonies (cAnTivANni, dikkula Dokkalu etc) and to put some effort. But
that's no big trouble.
> I request you to read ajantaa, bairaagi and others.
I hope someone familiar with these poets will present some of their
writings on telusa and do some analysis. (On my part, I am doing the same.
Whichever is in my reach). I remember one poem of bairaagi from
intermediate text. "nAkkoncem nammakamivvu". That wasn't very impressive.
It goes like
annI unnAyi gAni,
... mAtram lEdu
nAkkoncem nammakamivvu
nAkkoncem nammakamivvu
...
koyya tupAkI doranoutAnu
...
I heard "nUtilO gontukalu" is one of his good works. Are you referring to
that or any other work?
Reply to Sri Sreenivas Paruchuri:
--------------------------------
yes. immanuel kant himself.
But the reference mentioned was not Kant's original "Critique Of Judgment"
but an article by Prof.Rob van Gerwen, Netherlands, which interprets that.
I am perplexed as to why and of what you feel challenged.
Reply to Sri Rama Rao
---------------------
I feel that's a fairer analysis. Without showing a bias towards or an influence
by the writer, we should acknowledge whatever is inherently good/bad (according
to our own standards) in the work.
regards,
subbarao "sinaarE fan ni gaanunE" varigonda
--
***********************************************************************
Varigonda Subbarao Present Address
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----------------
varigond@cems.umn.edu 1209, 8thSt SE Box#144, 46 Amundson Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55414 University of Minnesota
USA Minneapolis, MN 55455
ph:(612) 617-9377 ph: (612) 625-3367
URL: http://www.cems.umn.edu/~varigond
***********************************************************************