I was about to post some thoughts (mostly questions) on prose versus
poetry, when I decided to go through telusA archives for any related
threads in the recent past. I certainly found a few threads. Some
notable articles pointed out the significance of meter, rhyme and rhythm
(the distinctions among these terms are clearer to me now, thanks to
the archives); others raved about how poetry can exist without these
adornments; still others mildly condemned people for not taking a
stand one way or the other. Must people always take a stand? Most
issues are rather gray, and I think appreciating that things are not
always as distinct as black (no color/frequency) and white (all
colors/frequencies) is very important, too.
It has been pointed out that meter (chandassu) is what distinguishes
poetry from prose. Most people seem to agree this is perhaps a
necessary condition, but not sufficient, and examples of poetry that
is not chandObaddham and non-poetry that is chandObaddham have been
pointed out.
It has also been pointed out that poetry is easy to remember. It
seems to me that this is the most significant quality that comes much
closer to defining poetry. But that is still not satisfactory enough,
for one can come up with examples in support of and against this
attempted definition. For instance:
c.
aTa jani kaamce bhoomi suruDambara cumbi Sirassarajjharee
paTala muhurmuhurluTha dabhamga taramga mrdamga niSvana
sphuTa naTanaanukoola pariphulla kalaapa kalaapi jaalamun
kaTaka caratkarEnu karakampita saalamu Seeta Sailamun
I am not sure I understand every word here, but I never forgot this
poem after the first several times I read it to remember it. Most
people don't question whether this is poetry or prose. It is easy to
remember because it is generously adorned with meter, rhythm, rhyme
and alliteration (Sabdaalankaram) to boot. *I* would not have
remembered it for its content even if I understood the poem very well.
On the other hand, take much of SreeSree's poetry. I think it is
remembered often because of the content (for those who empathize) and
simple words whose meaning hardly ever eludes the reader. Sure
enough, some of the better remembered pieces might have one or more of
the qualities of meter, rhythm and rhyme. I realize that for some
people "SreeSree's poetry" is an oxymoron, but many people consider it
poetry even if it doesn't fit traditional notions of chandassu,
because of its other qualities. Examples:
aggipullaa sabbubiLLaa ...
patitulaara bhrashTulaara ...
kadalEdi kadalincEdi ...
polaalanannee halaaladunnee ...
Now, how about pithy statements like:
"vyaktiki bahuvacanam Sakti" (Is this from a larger context?)
"government of the people, for the people, by the people"
etc.? They are easy to remember, but are generally not considered
poetry, even if they were to contain captivating figures of speech.
Such gems often hide within non-metrical, non-rhythmic text, and are
often best regarded as quotations.
So what makes for poetry? A fairly complete thought expressed in an
easy to remember way. It may be easy to remember because of
syntactic/phonetic devices such as meter, rhythm and rhyme. Or it may
be easy to remember because of semantic and pragmatic devices such as
the very idea itself or figures of speech. Or it may be rendered
memorable through a combination.
I think often the division between those who support or oppose
traditional / modern poetry arises because of the content. Most, if
not all, traditional chandObaddha kavitvam does not deal with
contemporary themes (most if not all classics are in praise of God or
relevant to the times they were written), making its metrical beauty
hard to appreciate or even frowned upon. Most modern poetry is easy
to relate to not only because of its relevance to contemporary
society, but because of its simplicity as well, and often (if not
always) ignores or delegates meter to a second place. It is perhaps
important to note exceptions to these are stereotypes.
--- Venu