>From my point of view, it makes no difference whether the poetry is
>written in traditional fashion or not. When the so-called scholars point
>to non-traditional poetry and call it mediocre just because it does not
>have the chando-chadastam, that is where the problem starts.
This is the classical argument to which several non-chando poets resort
to when their poetry is commented upon for lack of quality. There are
mediocre poets in chando as well as non-chando styles. Were there any
instances in telusa when a posted poem was branded as mediocre only
because it does not have chandassu? In fact, several modern chando
writers enjoy writing in non-chando style too. The non-chando writers
resorting to this defense even before anybody criticizes them is very
common. By the way, the word chando-chaadastam is objectionable.
As Pillalamarri garu was mentioning in his post, "if we write poetry
the same we way we talk among ourselves in daily life, why "poetry"
separately? Aren't our words enough?" Then, all poetry is chaadastam.
And we don't have to rack our brains about that chaadastam called poetry.
>In spite of the arguments we have on Telusa from time to time, no body
>from my side has any problems enjoying a classic poem.
>It is just that times have changed and we enjoy today's poetry as much
>as we do the old stuff.
This is sort of difficult to understand, people writing vehemently against
classical poems and simultaneously claiming that they enjoy it.
>When an admirer of old poetry puts quotation marks and says
>"Volga's poetry" or "Sri Sri's poem" that is where the intolerance is.
Then the intolerance is being directed at the wrong place, the art form rather
than the people. So this is just a verbal battle and finally doesn't mean
any thing!
>No matter how many protest, the traditional poetry's time is gone.
>It can and should be preserved.
But if one enjoys it, how is it that its time is gone? What is this
preservation?
Just to keep the books but no one should write?
>But writing a poem today with the archaic language just to suit the
>meters is a practice for nostalgia's sake.
If one enjoys a classic poem, why no one should write a poem like that today?
No one is writing poetry just to suit the meter. What is being referred to
is poetry without quality. That is not enjoyable in any form, chando or
non-chando.
>It smells like formaldehyde. It has neither relevance nor future.
Morgue has become formaldehyde! Why this so called change? Is it intended
to be an improvement? Anyway, this sounds like a wish rather than an
honest prediction.
Sincerely,
Sridhara Rao