Dr. praBAkar put in front of us the question which quite often had been
repeatedly asked for generations in the literary circles.
> How to deal with a 'language' and create 'literature'? Should people
> go for stringent analysis of language, or should such an attempt be
> considered destructive?
Analysis is a double edged sword. It could help build the structure or
could sink the whole idea itself. As far as the creativity is considered
analysis builds and helps the creativity as long as it is 'critic-al'
and 'constructive'. But analysis which goes the way of 'argument for the
sake of argument' is almost always destructive.
> Even then, does every (apparently) destructive method, lead to something
> bad always?
Analysis is like a medicine and should be prescribed in the proper dosage.
Too little an analysis of the structures is not as bad as a little over-dose
which sans the creativity. Per the discussions we have had earlier in this
forum, the popular belief was the analysis of structures in the develoment
of literature was a later issue, mostly after the creation has taken place.
For example, one starts to write an utpalam or a mattEBam by choosing
the words and some times with 'tecci peTTukonna BAvam' may not fare well
as much as the one which came improptu. Now, the question is how many
of these improptu kavitalu/padyAlu follow the CandO structures.
> A tailor cuts the cloth, before reassembling the pieces into a
> wearable dress.
I like your 'tailor' example for this. Lemme go back to that and make
these points - The things which matter here are
1. The tailor/creator
2. The cloth/vastuvu
3. People/critics
For a cloth to be turned into a good looking and wearable dress, the cloth/
garment should be of good quality first and the tailor must be skilled at
the art. And the people who watch the garment and pass on the comments are
the critics. Here, the cloth itself represents the 'vastuvu'. It is better
if the tailor knows apriori of what he is stitching namely, a shirt, a skrit
..... (Ref: Poet starting with a mattEBam/SArdUlam etc..) if not it turns out
to be a piece of modern fashion. But the issue is the tailor must be a good
critic by himself first. When the issue of a good critic comes, he must have
good knowldge of the quality of the cloth and stitching and also the pains
undertaken in the process of making it. If not, his/her comments are just a
set of loose strings of no value. If one has to be a good critic, he must
have the first hand knowledge of the creativity and should have tasted the
creative juices of good quality.
ika 'peddalu' gOla peTTaDam vishayAniki vastE..
> see|| kattera muTTakE, ghanulagu darjeelu
> baTTa kuTTa galare bhaavya muganu
> nariki mukkalu cEsi, nayamuga vanDakE
> kooragaayalu yanni khaadya maUne
> ceelci koruka kunna ceraku gaDala ruci
> sooTigaa teliyuTa saadhya paDune
> tanuvandu gaayamu taginanta vaidyuDu
> Sastra cikitsa vELa cEya bODe
> tE|| himsa yannadi sarvamu dhvamsamunake?!
> upari j~naanamu tODanE yuluka nEla
> sookshma merugani vaaniki mOksha mEdi
> bhaasha viraci cooDake bhaashya kaaru Dagune?
Very well said !!
and on the same lines,
aa|| BEshajamunu cUpi BAshanu kApADu
vAralepuDu vrAya lEdu sariga
parula tappu baTTi bAvukonnadiyEmi
palikinAru lessa paluku vissa..
aa|| paluku virigenanucu palu mAru garjimci
cinnavADavanucu cIdarinci
svAnta ranga mandu SAntamannadi lEka
sRjana caccu varaku cUsi cUsi..
aa|| pEka betta mUci pencukonedarEla
gunDe noppi vIru guNisi kinisi
bujjagimpu lEka prOtsAhamadi lEka
BAsha kEmi orugu, sOsha gAni..
IMHO, the age old misinterpretation of Candassu to 'CAndasam' / 'CAdastam'
is because of many factors including the 'rudeness/aham' of some of the
so called 'CandO panDits' and also the 'asahanam' that was shown towards
the budding youngsters. In the art of literature, every step needs to be
ascertained and every creative element needs to be appreciated. It is
not right on one's part to rule out others' works on the basis of
classification and structure.
Candam lO lEdani andam gA lEdanI, artham kAnanta mAtrAna, adButamainadanI
vargIkarincaDam anoucityam, SOcanIyam. andukE sAmAnyuniki BAsha dUramavutU
vaccindi. Let all of us look forward for that great moment when every telugu
kid aspires to write something original, something creative in his own mother
tongue, whether it is CandO, or non-CandO and let's cutlivate the habit of
appreciating those efforts, for the sake of development and preservng our
own sAhiti and language for generations to come.
> Every kavi is a 'bhaashya kaara'. By breaking and analyzing the
> words; creating and propagating the feelings through literature;
> the kavi plays all the roles of 'Trinity'. Indeed, he does more than
> that. Amidst of maintaining the various 'rasaas' while succumbing to
> emotions, he assumes (indeed should) the role of an impartial judge
> to deliver the unequivocal message. Such is the ability of a great
> and a good poet in delivering a 'kaavya'.
I concur. Creativity has two sons - one who inherits the creativity to
turn himself into another creator and the other who inherits the creativity
for his constructive criticism, i.e. he becomes a critic. Though both of
them specialize in these fields separately, after all they belong to the
same family and the understanding of both of these arts is present in
their genes.
> see|| aksharamula boonci, ardhambu puTTincu
> bhaashaava lOkanaa brahma yataDu
> ucita pada prayOga, vaikharee vidya cE
> rasa bhaava sandhaana ramya moorti
> padamula viracucu, paapambu dalupaka
> bhaasha yantamu cUcu bhargu DataDu
> triguNaatma kata jUpi, nirguNaatma kuDaUcu
> yadvaitamunu jeppu yamara jeevi
>
> tE|| sRsTi, stiti, layaatmaka Sakti cEta
> bhaasha nirmimci, pOshinci, viraci joosi
> sAhitee ramya kreeDaa viSEsha merigi
> kaavya monarincu vaare satkavulu yanaga
>
Well done, kavi sRjanAtmakatani, 'kavitA dAsyamgA' varNincagA vinnAmu
kAnI, kavitA lAsyam gA ippuDE cUstunnAm...
> Prabhakar Vissavajjhala
In conclusion, I say that the 'BAshya kArulu/critics' should also be
having good understanding and knowledge of 'sRjanAtmakata/creativity' and
the 'kavulu/creators' must be good critics in themselves first.
A sangamam lOncE mahA kAvyAlu puTTEdI, manci sAhitI sumAlu virisEdI...
regards...
- Ram (Ramabhadra Dokka from sdokka@st6000.sct.edu)