[racchabanda] Literary meeting with Velcheru Naryana Rao in Chicago
jayadevmettupalli
Invites You to Attend
Telugu Literary Meeting With
Prof. Velcheru Narayana Rao
Date: Sunday, June 11th 2006 Time: 3.30 p.m
Place: Gupta Dining Hall (Lower Level)
Hindu Temple of Greater Chicago
(630-972-0300)
10915 Lemont Road, Lemont, IL 60439
Please use this opportunity to express your self by presenting
Your Telugu Literary Works
For more details Please email to Chicago_sa...@yahoo.com
Or call at 630-375-0131 (Jayadev) or 630-307-8485 (Prakash)
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/4XQrlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To Post a message, send it to: racch...@yahoogroups.com
Courtesy: http://www.kanneganti.com/
V. Chowdary Jampala
Regards -- V Chowdary Jampala
On 5/23/06, jayadevmettupalli <jayadevm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> CHICAGO SAHITHI MITRULU
> Invites You to Attend
> Telugu Literary Meeting With
>
> Prof. Velcheru Narayana Rao
>
> Date: Sunday, June 11th 2006 Time: 3.30 p.m
> Place: Gupta Dining Hall (Lower Level)
> Hindu Temple of Greater Chicago
> (630-972-0300)
> 10915 Lemont Road, Lemont, IL 60439
> Please use this opportunity to express your self by presenting
> Your Telugu Literary Works
> For more details Please email to Chicago_sa...@yahoo.com
> Or call at 630-375-0131 (Jayadev) or 630-307-8485 (Prakash)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
viplavreddy
Find your favorite rb-ite in these pictures
http://www.eenadu.net/story.asp?qry1=27&reccount=29
if you still have time, you might want to answer a query for me:
what is ఆధునికత as referred to by Prof. velcheru?
context: తెలుగు సాహిత్యాన్ని ఆధునికత వైపు మళ్ళించిన ఘనత
పింగళి సూరనది -- attributed to Prof. VNR. If a few poems can
change the course of literature, why can't a little sprinkle of
literature change the course of society? is it as non sequitur as
it sounds?
If you find it as a hard thing to do (as I did), try writing a story
based on this news, this task is rated 'easy':
http://www.eenadu.net/story.asp?qry1=9&reccount=29
have a great weekend,
-viplav-
--- In racch...@yahoogroups.com, "V. Chowdary Jampala"
<cjampala@...> wrote:
>
> Reminder to those that are going to be in the Chicago area on
Sunday
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q0DZdC/hOaOAA/E2hLAA/620olB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Hanuma Kodavalla
> couple of Friday assignments:
> if you still have time, you might want to answer a query for me:
> what is ఆధునికత as referred to by Prof. velcheru?
> context: తెలుగు సాహిత్యాన్ని ఆధునికత వైపు మళ్ళించిన ఘనత
> పింగళి సూరనది -- attributed to Prof. VNR.
I am not qualified to answer this, but I still venture hoping others will
enter the discussion. I have not even read the original కళాపూర్ణోదయము
but as part of this assignment I read segments of: సమగ్ర ఆంధ్ర
సాహిత్యము by Arudra, an excellent rendering of the story by KVS Ramarao
gAru ( http://www.eemaata.com/books/kaLaa/kaLaapuurnoadayam.pdf ), and "The
Sound of the Kiss," by Velcheru and Shulman (V&S for short).
కళాపూర్ణోదయము is the first Telugu work where the story is not borrowed
from the epics or the Puranas. It is Pingali's original with an intricate
plot and a complex narrative where every character has a story to tell. This
is supposedly the first Telugu novel! V&S claim this work is a harbinger of
modernity in South India because of its playful exploration of the limits of
linguistic expressivity and literary genres, development of characters and
elaborate plot with constant twists. I read KVS's depiction with great
anticipation and now I can't wait to read the original.
V&S state this is the first South Asian novel, in the "modern" sense. Before
justifying the term, they quote a Pingali's poem (from ప్రభావతీ
ప్రద్యుమ్నము) on this new aesthetic:
"శబ్దసంస్కారమెచ్చట జారనీక, పదమైత్రియర్థ సంపదల బొదల
తలపెల్లనక్లిష్టతను ప్రదీపముగా పునరక్తి దోషంబు పొంతబోక
యాకాంక్షితస్ఫూర్తియా చరించుచును శాఖాచంక్రమణ క్రియ గడవ జనక
ప్రకృతార్థభావంబు పాదుకోనదుకుచు నుపపత్తియెందు నత్యూర్జితముగ
నొకట పూర్వోత్తర విరోధ మొదవకుండ తత్తదవయవవాక్యతాత్థర్య భేద
ములు మహావాక్యత త్పర్యమునకు నొనర పలుకనేర్చుట బహుతపః
ఫలముగాదె!"
V&S's translation:
"You prevent even the slightest slippage
from the definitive nature of the word.
You let the richness of meaning arise
from the way you combine words.
What you intend comes through unmarred
and luminous. You avoid any repetition.
You follow through as the anticipation inherent
In the sentence requires. You don't jump
from branch to branch. You connect things
In such a way that the primary focus is fully grounded.
Whatever logic is in play comes out in all
Its force, without conflict between what you say first
And what you say later. All the individual parts
And subplots, each with its own meanings,
Fit well with the larger statement.
That's what speaking really means.
Yo're lucky when it works."
V&S write this is the vision of a novelist and the primary feature of novel
is "to allow for the concretization of split pieces of self and reality."
They describe the traits of novel as taught by the Russian literary critic
Mikhail Bakhtin, but I did not understand if the epics lacked those
qualities. The above poem seems to describe the "structure" of a novel well
(కళాపూర్ణోదయము amazingly exceeds all those criteria) but one can argue
the same holds for other genres also.
I wish V&S clearly explained the difference between the epic and the novel
(it seems Bakhtin has a theory of epic consciousness of "oneness" versus the
novel consciousness of multiplicity and diversity) to show why this work
indeed is "modern."
Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/R0DZdC/gOaOAA/E2hLAA/620olB/TM
viplavreddy
wrote:
>
> > viplavreddy [viplavreddy@...] Fri 6/16/2006 10:13 AM
> > what is ఆధునికత as referred to by Prof. velcheru?
> > context: తెలుగు సాహిత్యాన్ని ఆధునికత వైపు మళ్ళించిన
ఘనత
> > పింగళి సూరనది -- attributed to Prof. VNR.
>
> I am not qualified to answer this, but I still venture hoping
others will
> enter the discussion. I have not even read the original
కళాపూర్ణోదయము
> but as part of this assignment I read segments of: సమగ్ర ఆంధ్ర
> సాహిత్యము by Arudra, an excellent rendering of the story by KVS
Ramarao
> gAru ( http://www.eemaata.com/books/kaLaa/kaLaapuurnoadayam.pdf ),
and "The
> Sound of the Kiss," by Velcheru and Shulman (V&S for short).
>
sound like good places to start to learn about kaLaapuurNOdayamu and
the authorship but I wonder if one should be familiar with any of
these to enter any discussion related to aadhunikata in saahityaM,
samaajaM, viplavaM?
> కళాపూర్ణోదయము is the first Telugu work where the story is not
borrowed
> from the epics or the Puranas. It is Pingali's original with an
There were more stories in Telugu before that -- that are popular,
original and not borrowed from epics or puranas. How about nuutana
kavi suuranna's story about a choice between, beauty or wealth
instead of pingali suuranna? Or paalkuriki somanatha -- about the
untouchable god? Or how about manmadha's argument with rati from
Nannechoda -- how unlike are these when compared with what Veluri
seeks from writing stories about people getting together to view
naked ladies in heavens or how mountains cried and rivers dried on
earth --- are they not modern?
Do we need to know about any of these to know 'modern' does not
begin with one person or one story? On the other hand, 'modern'
might be about a frame of mind or an art of making an opinion. The
explanation for the comment can be as simple as: it is possible that
Prof Velcheru wanted his audience to seek out the story from piMgaLi
suurana while providing a contextual and provocative start...with no
disrespect intended, the comment, if correctly attributed, serves
like a final frame of a well crafted advertisement, that sticks.
It is possible to show that each story or epic that stands out as
modern. Just like: చెరువు నిండా ఎంత చెత్త ఉన్నా ఒకటీ రెండు
తామరపూలు కనిపిస్తే అది తామరలున్న తటాకమవుతుంది. (of
course, assuming a rightly placed heart). Modern origin can be
attributed to every such lotus. 'Classical' and 'Modern' are not
antonymous.
> V&S state this is the first South Asian novel, in the "modern"
sense. Before
> justifying the term, they quote a Pingali's poem (from ప్రభావతీ
ఓన్ అ మొరె చొంప్లెకష్ లెవెల్, అస్ ఖృ హింత్స్, ఇత్ ఇస్ పొస్సిబ్లె థె ప్రొఫెస్సొర్
ఇస్ తల్కింగ్ అబౌత్ థె తెకష్త్, లంగూగె, ప్లొత్ అంద్ ప్రెసెంతతిఒన్ తొ మీన్
మొదెర్న్ -- తొ క్నౌ థిస్, ఒనె ముస్త్ రీద్ థె ఒరిగినల్, ఈ అగ్రీ. భుత్
క్నౌఇంగ్, ఎవెన్ ఇఫ్ ఇత్ ఇస్ అ ఫచ్త్, థత్ ఇత్ ఒఫ్ఫెర్స్ అ మొదెర్న్ బెగిన్నింగ్
సెర్వెస్ వ్హత్ పుర్పొసె అత్ థత్ లెవెల్, ఈ దొ నొత్ క్నౌ. ఈత్ ఇస్ లికె
అర్గుఇంగ్ అబౌత్ ఫిర్స్త్ షొర్త్-స్తొర్య్ ఇన్ తెలుగు.
> ఈ విష్ వ్శ్ చ్లీర్ల్య్ ఎకష్ప్లైనెద్ థె దిఫ్ఫెరెంచె బెత్వీన్ థె ఎపిచ్ అంద్
థె నొవెల్
> (ఇత్ సీంస్ భఖ్తిన్ హస్ అ థెఒర్య్ ఒఫ్ ఎపిచ్ చొన్స్చిఔస్నెస్స్ ఒఫ్ "ఒనెనెస్స్"
వెర్సుస్ థె
> నొవెల్ చొన్స్చిఔస్నెస్స్ ఒఫ్ ముల్తిప్లిచిత్య్ అంద్ దివెర్సిత్య్) తొ షౌ వ్హ్య్
థిస్ వొర్క్
> ఇందీద్ ఇస్ "మొదెర్న్."
హౌ వౌల్ద్ వె క్నౌ ఇఫ్ అ వొర్క్ ఇస్ మొదెర్న్, ఎవెన్ విథ్ అ చ్లీర్-చుత్
ఎకష్ప్లనతిఒన్ ఒఫ్ 'ఎపిఛ్ అంద్ 'నొవెళ్ తెర్మినొలొగ్య్?
> ఖొదవల్ల హనుమంథ ఋఅఒ
రెగర్ద్స్, విప్లవ్
------------------------ అహూ! ఘ్రౌప్స్ శ్పొన్సొర్ ---------------------->
శీ వ్హట్స్ ఇన్సిదె థె నెవ్ అహూ! ఘ్రౌప్స్ ఎమైల్.
హ్త్త్ప్://ఉస్.చ్లిచ్క్.యహూ.చొం/2పృఫా/బోఅఓఆఆ/య్ళ్శాఆ/620ఒల్భ్/ట్ం
--------------------------------------------------------------------->
టొ ఫొస్త్ అ మెస్సగె, సెంద్ ఇత్ తొ: రచ్చబందయహూగ్రౌప్స్.చొం
Courtesy: http://www.kanneganti.com/
Sreenivas Paruchuri
quite clearly in their afterwords to "The Sound of the Kiss" and "The
Demon's Daughter". The distinctive features of this modernity - to list
them quickly are:
1 recognition of an individual as distinct from the group or community
with which he/she was earlier associated.
2 a new subjectivity, and interiority, a psychologized person.
3 the suggestion that the human psyche is not fully understood. Some
narratives even describe a split personality.
4 recognition of individual privacy.
5 the valuing of life in this world, and its material possessions and
pleasures, as opposed to the values of the other world.
6 a new awareness of the body, its pleasures and pains and a new
definition of desire as physical, and individualistic.
7 a recognition of love, ప్రేమ, as an individual’s feeling for another
individual rather than the description of ka-ma, desire, as an abstraction.
Enough to make a case for modernity in Telugu literature in sixteenth
century, right?
I would also suggest you read their after essay in "Poem at the Right
Moment", and the monograph "Symbols of Substance: Court and State in the
Nayaka Period Tamilandu" (by VNR, DS and Sanjay Subahmanyam), to
appreciate the case they are making.
viplavreddy wrote:
> original and not borrowed from epics or puranas. How about nuutana
> kavi suuranna's story about a choice between, beauty or wealth
But what is నూతన కవి సూరన's time period? And what did VNR & DS
say about him in their "Classical poetry anthology"!
> instead of pingali suuranna? Or paalkuriki somanatha -- about the
> untouchable god? Or how about manmadha's argument with rati from
> Nannechoda -- how unlike are these when compared with what Veluri
It would be interesting if you could find these above features in the
works of సోమనాథ and నన్నెచోడ.
Regards,
Sreenivas
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/620olB/TM
Hanuma Kodavalla
> viplavreddy Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:36 am
> I wonder if one should be familiar with any of
> these to enter any discussion related to aadhunikata
> in saahityaM, samaajaM, viplavaM?
Speaking strictly for myself, since your question about ఆధునికత was in
the context of a specific work, it was necessary to know what the work was
about before getting into a literary discussion. Prior to this assignment, I
did not know, or I forgot, the story in కళాపూర్ణోదయం.
> There were more stories in Telugu before that -- that are popular,
> original and not borrowed from epics or puranas.
Here is Arudra's statement: "సూరపరాజు గారి కాలందాకా తెలుగుకవులందరూ
తమ కావ్యాల ఇతివృత్తాలను పురాణాలలోంచో, ఇతిహాసాలలోంచో తీసుకున్న వాళ్ళేగాని
స్వయంగా ఒక కథను కల్పించి సజీవ పాత్రలను సృష్టించి స్వతంత్ర రచన
చేయలేదు.... ఈ ఇరవయ్యో శతాబ్దంలో సహితం తెలుగు నవలలు నిజమైన
నవలల్లాగా లేవు. అటువంటిది 1550 ప్రాంతాలలో సూరపరాజుగారు కళాపూర్ణోదయాన్ని
నవలలాగా వ్రాశారు."
> How about nuutana kavi suuranna's story about a choice between,
> beauty or wealth instead of pingali suuranna? Or paalkuriki somanatha
> -- about the untouchable god? Or how about manmadha's argument with
> rati from Nannechoda -- ... are they not modern?
My knowledge of our classics is abysmal, so please cite the works so that we
can verify. I know nothing about nuutana kavi suuranna. Even though
Palkuriki Somanatha did not take his stories from the Puranaas, they are not
original but based on existing stories.
Rathi-Manmadha's argument was not there in Kalidasa's కుమార సంభవం,
but I don't think that will make Nannechoda's కుమార సంభవం an original
story. Let us look at the characters: Sivudu, Parvati, Rati, Manmadha - they
are all well-known. In కళాపూర్ణోదయం also there are Brahma, Sarasvathi,
Narada, Rambha and so on. But the key difference is they are secondary; the
main characters - Kalabhashini, Manikandhara, Sugatri, Salina, ... - are all
new.
(My above comments are based on a few hours of superficial readings and I
appreciate if others well-versed in the classics can confirm or refute.)
> 'modern' might be about a frame of mind or an art of making an opinion.
> The explanation for the comment can be as simple as:
> ... well crafted advertisement, that sticks.
Sounds simplistic and speculative. V&S explained in their book why
కళాపూర్ణోదయం is modern in the literary sense. They are not the first to
state that but some of their arguments are new or improved; for example,
usage of Bakhtin's theories about the language and the novel and refutations
of C.R. Reddy's criticism of the last two chapters in the original. One must
counter argue V&S on literary grounds; saying it's no more than an
advertisement is insulting, even if unintended.
(It's interesting to note that in 16th century itself, Pingali's work was
considered to be path-breaking by some classical poets who scorned at such
"story-innovation." V&S refer to the following poem attributed to
Bhattumurthi - a.k.a. Ramarajabhushanudu:
కేవలకల్పనాకథలు కృత్రిమరత్నము లాద్యసత్కథల్
వావిరి పుట్టురత్నము లవారిత సత్కవికల్పనావిభూ
షావహపూర్వ వృత్తములు సానలదీరిన జాతిరత్నముల్
గావున నిట్టి మిశ్రకథగా నొనరింపుము నేర్పు పెంపునన్.
-- వసుచరిత్ర
V&S's translation:
Stories totally invented are like artifical diamonds.
The old stories are precious stones
straight from mine.
But ancient stories reworked by good poets
with their irreresistable imagination
are precious gems perfectly cut.
Make a poem like "that"
for me.)
> How would we know if a work is modern, even with a clear-cut
> explanation of 'epic' and 'novel' terminology?
Many scholars claim that కళాపూర్ణోదయం is the first Telugu novel. The
novel is a new genre - born in the early modern times. (V&S compare with
Cervantes's Don Quixote, considered to be the first modern European novel,
also written in the 16th century). When they say modern, that's what they
are referring to - innovation of a new genre that did not exist in Telugu
before.
So I wanted to know what defines such a genre. V&S said Suranna's poem spoke
the vision of the novelist. For me they all seem like good traits of other
genres too. There must be some key differentiating features of the novel.
They do refer to Bakhtin (who wrote the essay "Epic and Novel") but some of
those explanations were not clear to me - because of my lack of knowledge
about the classics and the literary theories.
Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/620olB/TM
viplavreddy
wrote:
> Demon's Daughter". The distinctive features of this modernity - to
list
> them quickly are:
>
> Enough to make a case for modernity in Telugu literature in
sixteenth
> century, right?
I think so.
But there is never a limit to such a list, is there?
Didn't Ezra Pound say "make it new"? Changing subjects to exciting
narrative are just a few ways to make those new -- once a few set of
features are defined and relayed, doesn't that set render the
modernity into ancient?? 'Modern' to me does not fit in. It might
be different for different people.
Or is the implication that universal set of values (of person based
freedoms and dreams) and 'modernity' context one and the same?
> I would also suggest you read their after essay in "Poem at the
Right
> Moment", and the monograph "Symbols of Substance: Court and State
in the
> Nayaka Period Tamilandu" (by VNR, DS and Sanjay Subahmanyam), to
> appreciate the case they are making.
Thank you for the references. I am a sceptic but I don't recall
ever saying no to any reference/reading. I hope it is understood
that I ask similar questions, if one were to make a case from
Mahabharata that it is the first ever indigenous epic that advocated
socialism/సామ్యవాదం by picking the story of Arjuna sharing his
winnings with his brothers.
BTW, Classical Telugu Poetry moves fast once I engage it in a
discussion with myself; I must be very selfish for wanting to see a
discussion on ఆధునికత in epics.
>
> But what is నూతన కవి సూరన's time period? And what did VNR
& DS
> say about him in their "Classical poetry anthology"!
>
Acc. to Classical Telugu Poetry, nootana kavi soorana is noted as
Fifteenth - sixteenth century (with a question mark) & Pingali
soorana to be "Second half of the sixteenth century" (with a
question mark).
They (VNR & DS) say about nuutana-kavi: "In terms of style, suurana
hardly stands out; what is "new in his work is the intelligent
presentation of an unusual theme, the open conflict between wealth
and beauty -- and also surprisingly practical resolution he proposes
to this conflict."
{I personally witnessed this resolution in modern times with a
wedding proposal in discussion, when I was a child -- tells you how
realistic the portrayal from nuutana-kavi is, even today}.
Characteristics of Modernism -- as defined by a university system in
the west: "realistic, subjective, psychological, ambiguous,
difficult, challenging, contradictory, brilliant!"
The realistic portrayal by nuutanakavi makes his case to be much
more modern than pingali suurana's mystic and fleeting stories
within stories. {I won't necessarily bet a single shilling on this
logic, but it is provided for an argument sake & to show that
anything 'new' can be argued as modern.}.
> > instead of pingali suuranna? Or paalkuriki somanatha -- about the
> > untouchable god? Or how about manmadha's argument with rati from
> > Nannechoda -- how unlike are these when compared with what Veluri
>
> It would be interesting if you could find these above features in
the
> works of సోమనాథ and నన్నెచోడ.
with some effort may be they can be found. we will see. :).
KHR wrote:
>counter argue V&S on literary grounds; saying it's no more than an
>advertisement is insulting, even if unintended.
Why do we still see politics and advertisements, both as derogatory
and insulting?? to associate intellectuals and littérateurs with
those, while knowing fully well that we live with same thing
surrounded upto each of our eyeballs, willingly.
There is nothing insulting or wrong about a book advertising its
intent on its back cover -- or a person with a view promoting it.
Beyond that, I hope there is nothing in wrong in asking, either with
or without a motive!? Modern times I hope have given that much
leniency to each of us, individuals!
regards, viplav
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/620olB/TM
Hanuma Kodavalla
> Why do we still see politics and advertisements, both as derogatory
> and insulting??
I have nothing against politics or advertising but depending on the context
even charity could be demeaning. Viplav gAru seems to know this as he
himself had to qualify his own sentence: "... with no disrespect intended,
.. a well crafted advertisement, that sticks."
> Beyond that, I hope there is nothing in wrong in asking, either with
> or without a motive!? Modern times I hope have given that much
> leniency to each of us, individuals!
Nothing wrong in asking - even in ancient times. But Viplav gAru didn't ask
anything - he simply made a speculative statement. Nothing wrong with that
either if he were unaware of what's in the book. But I already said that V&S
had justified the term in their book and gave some of their reasons!
Given that Viplav gAri's original question was about what VNR meant by
modernity in literature and V&S in fact explain prominently why Pingali's
work is modern with scholarly arguments, I don't understand how advertising
enters the discussion. But then, as Lyla gAru indicated, I must have not
grown with the times.
Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/620olB/TM
viplavreddy
> had justified the term in their book and gave some of their
> reasons!
Lets see what is unambiguous first.
"When they say modern, that's what they are referring to -
innovation of a new genre that did not exist in Telugu before."
This is a clear statement that can be tested. It is the same
as: 'Cervantes's Don Quixote, considered to be the first modern
European novel' -- I have no quarrel with it because these are
statements that can be tested/verified or argued and I will make no
mistake of conjuring up imaginations with unverified/unread stuff to
put those statements to a test; in other words, one must read &
substantiate, before one refutes or accepts those statements further.
but look at this statement further where my query began:
తెలుగు సాహిత్యాన్ని ఆధునికత వైపు మళ్ళించిన ఘనత
పింగళి సూరనది
That statement is different from:
kaLaapuurnOdayaM is modern or
it is a new genre or
it is the first modern novel in Telugu.
{all perfectly clear statements in my view.}
People don't see it that way?
if you don't, would you not say saahityaM is larger than a novel or
a genre? or would you say aadhunikata/modernity has existed before
that novel? or not? were there no short stories, piTTa kathalu or
folk-songs before that event?
If it took a hundred years to establish Nannaya as aadikavi and to
know that it will take another hundred years to get another fact
established (in the minds of the people) that there was Telugu
poetry before aadikavi. I have a reason to be a skeptic.
> Given that Viplav gAri's original question was about what VNR
meant by
> modernity in literature and V&S in fact explain prominently why
Pingali's
> work is modern with scholarly arguments, I don't understand how
advertising
> enters the discussion.
do you know, now?
> But then, as Lyla gAru indicated, I must have not
> grown with the times.
It reminded me of a Shesha rao from Ravinutala: he used to say, one
must 'dress up' to please others, it is important to know how one
looks to outsiders (choose colors appealing for others, make a
choice of garment based on how it makes others feel and so forth)
because, he said, it is 'they' who know (or will come to know) more
about you -- than your self.
The counter argument apparantly went like, it is you who knows more
about yourself than anyone else. Choosing a dress or garment must
be expressive of yourself and you do not have to worry about others
if it pleases you.
I don't know which side is right. I can't help with this either, if
Lyla would know about if you have grown with the times or if you are
the best to know it yourself.
I am never of much help to anyone. Sorry.
regards, viplav
> Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/620olB/TM
Hanuma Kodavalla
> VNR & DS have explained the features of the modernity
> quite clearly in their afterwords to "The Sound of the Kiss"
> and ...
I for one did not find the features of modernity "quite clearly" explained
in the above after word, titled, "Invitation to a Second Reading." I read
the first section of it many times hoping to find a crisp explanation. And
the only clear thing there was Suranna's poem!
Sentences like below are hard to digest:
"We take as a primary feature of this analytic, cross-cultural form a
propensity to allow for the concretization of split pieces of self and
reality within a total statement. Consciousness models itself to itself,
isolating segments of self for inspection and reflection, framing them in a
manner that incorporates internal distance."
Was that lucid prose? I was already feeling this invitation was not meant
for the celebrated Common Reader; which was reinforced by the introduction
of Bakhtin:
"The novel, as Bakhtin, has taught us, is by nature polyphonic. Voices arise
within it and speak with one another."
Voices speak with one another alright. But what's modern about it? And why
did Bakhtin make such a big deal? Looks like I need to major in literature
to figure that out.
It's OK if I have to read Freud, Bakhtin and Bana to get a deeper
understanding, but I shouldn't have to struggle this much to get the basic
idea.
Madhav Machavaram
wrote:
>
> Was that lucid prose? I was already feeling this invitation was not
meant
> for the celebrated Common Reader; which was reinforced by the
introduction
> of Bakhtin:
Srii KHR must be joking and/or I must be missing something! For an
erudite who could chew away Stanley Fish and his ilk and who could not
only understand but use "Deconstruction" in a sentence, this must
indeed be an easy prose, I would think.
Regards
Madhav
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/620olB/TM
lylayer
--- In racch...@yahoogroups.com, "Hanuma Kodavalla" <hanumak@...>
wrote:
> Sentences like below are hard to digest:
>
> "We take as a primary feature of this analytic, cross-cultural
form a
> propensity to allow for the concretization of split pieces of self
and
> reality within a total statement. Consciousness models itself to
itself,
> isolating segments of self for inspection and reflection, framing
them in a
> manner that incorporates internal distance."
Having trouble ? Switch to కొ.కు. Read any story of his. That
should rest the brain, like sleep does. Then if you revert to "the
sound of kiss" the title no doubt is sufficiently provocative, not
to mention the illustration on the cover depicting " A man with
four faces and eight lips -kissing a pretty curvaceous ఆకర్ణాంత
లోచని. The neurons will get a good jump start, and all passages
in the book will then unravel by themselves. I hope. I hope.
Having mentioned title of a book ,let me get this small matter off
my chest. It is about the title of your essay on ko.ku.
when I saw the title కొడవటిగంటి.. ఆలోచనలను హత్య చేశాడా?
లేక...... and then what followed later on, I was shocked and
appalled :-)
By habit, if there is a word హత్య (MURDER ) in the title, i
look for detective fiction to follow. Look at all book titles of
mystery writers -christie, P.D. James etc . 'Murder on the river
nile. A royal murder, A mind for murder, Murder room, Murder at
vicarage, Murder so foul' and others.
But, darn, there isn't any mystery. Instead there is an essay in
defence of ko.ku's literary talents and the usefulness of his
writings to the modern society. How could you let the word
హత్య appear on the title of a literary essay. KHR! Do you plead
guilty or not guilty , of a such a crime thusfar never commited :-)
> It's OK if I have to read Freud, Bakhtin and Bana to get a deeper
> understanding, but I shouldn't have to struggle this much to get
the basic
> idea.
>
> Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao
I know. I sympathise. Hard candy? or కంకర రాళ్ళు - I wonder!
Try the following passage, and tell me if you still want to be led
down such garden paths.
"Of the two antitheitic terms in the Greek philosophy one only was
real and self subsisting; that is to say, Ideal Thought as opposed
to that which it has to penetrate and mold.The other, corresponding
to our nature, was in itself phenomenal, unreal, without any
permanent footing, having no predicates that held true for two
moments together; in short, redeemed by negation only by indwelling
realities appearing through."
Don't think for a minute I am reading "Types of Ethical theory" now.
No, I am 'comfy reading' P.G. Wodehouse's - "Jeeves in the
Morning" where in Bertie (like me) wants to curl up with a
book "blood on the banisters." But Florence, his brainy girl
friend is rearranging his reading. Bertie is in big trouble. He
can not marry this girl who wants to read serious Spinozas, and like
philosphers. Not to worry. Jeeves the greatest, will get Bertie
out of this impending doom.
Enjoy this small diversion, in the discussion of kaLApoorNodayaM.
( If Surana can do all kinds of tricks in his story writing, why
can't I in my rb posts?)
Unless you are still smarting under the fake self inflicted wounds
from my calm comments on ko.ku 's pathetically banal telugu short
story writing.
I should, i could, I might respond to the post 16008, బుత్ ఇన్
థత్ ప్రొచెస్స్ వ్హ్య్ ఫుర్థెర్ స్లౌ దౌన్ మ్య్ ఔన్ స్లుగ్గిష్ అత్తెంప్త్స్ అత్
వ్రితింగ్ అంద్ రీదింగ్? ఈత్ విల్ల్ బె అ గ్రీతెర్ మిస్తకె థన్ రీదింగ్
కొ.కు., ఒర్ వ్రితింగ్ ఒన్ కొ.కు. :-)
ఈ రీల్ల్య్ హొపె ఔర్ ఫ్రిఎంద్ kAtyAyani ఇస్ నొత్ వస్తింగ్ హెర్ తిమె
ఒన్ సుచ్ అ ప్రొజెచ్త్ అస్ రీసీర్చింగ్ ko.ku. హొపె షె దోస్ సొమె ఒఫ్
హెర్ ఒరిగినల్ వ్రితింగ్ ఇన్స్తీద్ అంద్ షౌస్ హెర్ ఔన్ మెత్త్లె.
రెగర్ద్స్
ల్య్ల.
ఫ్.శ్: ఔ అరె నొత్ రెలీసెద్ ఫ్రొం థె దిన్నెర్ ఒబ్లిగతిఒన్, ఒన్ ఫల్సె
ప్రెతెకష్త్స్, డీర్ ఖృ గరు! :-)
Hanuma Kodavalla
> For an erudite who could chew away Stanley Fish and ... understand
> ... "Deconstruction" ... this must indeed be an easy prose ...
I confess to dropping a lot of names but never claim chewing them. Given the
free-form discussions and the lack of personal familiarity, it's easy to
form a wrong impression of a member. I'm erudite?! I understand
deconstruction?! That would be Veluri gAru or Ramarao; we three are in three
different leagues.
But I do wonder which one is harder to fathom - the depths of deconstruction
or those of "చితి-చింత"? I understand neither, but know someone who seems
to have figured the latter - better than any other Telugu person I know:
"అదాటున లేచి, పుస్తకాల దొంతర్లలోంచి చితి-చింత తీసి ఒక్కొక్క లైనే
మళ్ళీ ఈ సాయంకాలం చదూతుంటే, పట్టిలాక్కొస్తున్న సినిమా పాట
ఆఖరి చరణాన్ని మాత్రమ్ వదిలేసి ఎటో వెళ్ళిపోయిన రికామీ గాలీ
కొత్త అర్ధాన్నిస్తుంది. హేవ్ యూ ఎవర్ ఫెల్ట్ యువర్ పెయిన్ ఇన్ థర్డ్
పర్సన్? ఊహూ.. అదికాదు నేనడగదల్చుకున్నది. నువ్వు బాధపడుతూ
ఉంటావు గుండెలు పిండేసే బాధ మెదడు చిట్లిపోయే బాధ పడుతూనే బాధ
పడుతున్న నిన్ను నువ్వే నిర్విచారంగా గమనించావా? అప్పుడు నువ్వెవరు
బాధ పడుతున్న నువ్వు నువ్వా, గమనిస్తున్న నువ్వు నువ్వా?
.అధివాస్తవిక విచారమ్ అవ్యక్తమ్ అగమ్య గోచరమ్.. వస్తువూ లేక
స్వీయాత్మా లేకనే నేననటం పోనిస్తూ పెద్ద బాధా లేదని, వాక్యుయెస్ బల్లి
ప్రలాపంలో రక్తం స్రవిస్తున్నానని మోహనప్రసాదంటున్నది అందుకేనా?"
So Madhav gAru, how about sharing with the fellow members the key to Vegunta
Mohanaprasad's చింత and his వినిర్మాణపు జాడ?
Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao
Hanuma Kodavalla
> Having trouble ? Switch to కొ.కు. Read any story of his.
> That should rest the brain, like sleep does.
Readers have different types of brains as we already proved with that
Buccibabu's story.
> How could you let the word హత్య appear on the title of a
> literary essay. KHR!
What to do Lyla gAru? Even though you didn't charge any writer with "thought
murder" (you being a kind soul only wanted them to be jailed - of course for
humor and law and order), someone else did and it seems there was even a
story on that! Even in modern times, literature, I learnt after joining RB,
is a murderous affair!
> "Of the two antitheitic terms in the Greek philosophy ...
> having no predicates that held true for two moments together ..."
> Don't think for a minute I am reading "Types of Ethical theory" now.
> No, I am 'comfy reading' P.G. Wodehouse's
> He can not marry this girl who wants to read serious Spinozas, ...
The original title was "Ethics Geometrically Demonstrated" which has all
sorts of axioms and proofs including, apparently, one showing there is no
God! As Spinoza was about to send it for publication, the theologians got
the wind of the matter and lodged a complaint with the Keepers of the Law.
Spinoza decided to wait till better times which never came for him as the
book was published only after his death.
Rather than simply excommunicating Spinoza in his youth for his doubts on
religion, he should have been put to sleep right then. Then we wouldn't have
been stuck with this monstrous "Ethics". A lesson for the Keepers of the Law
and the upholders of the literary values!
Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/620olB/TM