From: sundar@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu (M. Sundaramoorthy)
Subject: Re: Modern Literature & valai Malar
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:54:05 GMT

In article <17621@umd5.umd.edu> gopals@astro.umd.edu (N. Gopalswamy) writes:
>I am surprised at the zero response to the Min valai Malar 'a'. I saw
>a couple of comments on a.1. However, I did not see a single response 
>to a.2! I see a hesitation there. While there is abundant discussion
>on 'thirai ilakkiyam', I see the opposite for serious literature.
>
>Why is this? Is it because the theme is not kaathal? We have the
>ancient tradition of love and war as the only two primary subjects of
>poetry. It is true that these two subjects are based on our
>two biological needs, we have already traveled to higher planes
>today. In the middle ages, we replaced war with bakthi. kaathalum
>kaLamum became kaathalum kadavuLum. Now our cinema poets mostly
>stop with kaathal. 

	The concepts 'kaadhal' (love) and 'veeram' (heroism) are only cover-ups 
	of the basic biological instincts 'kaamam' (sex?) and 'vanmuRai'
	(violence), one for continuity and the other for survival.

	And Tamils, in this century, tried to project as if they were purely a
	'Tamil concept', citing the 'agam' 'puRam' classification of
	Sangam literature.

	While the cinema poets took care of 'kaadhal' part, the political
	parties constantly invoked the 'veeram' with empty slogans and
	street violence, as though only Tamils were brave people in the
	world.

	The commercial cinema, from any part of the world, does have the
	two components: 'romance' and 'violence'.
>
>I recently read in kanaiyaazhi a kaasyapan's  commentary about poetry. He says
>mu. mEthaa, varamuththu, abthul rahumaan, etc are writing something
>which may not be called poetry. I can not fully agree with him.
>IMO, mu. mEthaa kills his own poetry. When he wrote kaNNeer pookkaL
>there was this eternal sOka rasam that captured the mind. But then
>he repeats the same pattern of 'oothum pOthuthaan therindhadhu adhu
>oomaiyenRu' oppsites. Many of abthul rahumaan's poems are great, especially
>those in suttu viral. Vairamuththu is unrealistically flowry. I recently
>read his 'inthak kuLaththil kalleRinthavarkaL'. It is a mini biography.
>Some of them really take you to your past. But some of them speaks
>of professional rivalry and jealousy in the cine-world. I view these 
>poets as Jeyaraaj Oviyams compared to Picasso's. The former penetrate
>only the outer layers of our mind. Any way I deviated too far from 'a'.

	What is (good) poetry and what is not, is subjective. And it 
	depends on one's exposure to its variety, taste, beliefs etc.
	I recall few lines of a poem from the Kasiyabans' poetry collection

	'kONalaaga paarkkum kaakkaikku
	edhuvumE nEraaga theriya mudiyaadhu'

	Though he wrote these lines in different context, probably it will
	apply here also.

	Any literary product should be judged based on its form and content.
	For some people only the form becomes imporant and the classical
	example is the so-called 'marabuk kavidhai' writers. For some
	people the contents seem to be important, though the subjects 
	have been worn out a lot. Few of them are romance, politics etc.
	and most of the  popular poetry seems to fall under these two
	categories, though many of them may not have anything to offer at
	all. I bet, anyone to starting as a poet, will try a 'kaadhal kavidhai',
	and a political satire, whether or not they had any romantic
	experience or clear political stand.

	Coming to the poets you listed, they are only at next stage of
	the 'marabu kavidhai' writers.  They have only adopted the new form
	but grind again and again the same subjets. In due course, their
	form also took a 'form' which will be irritating if you continue to
	read them. 

	Even in the new form, ie. 'pudhukkavidhai' they are always hanging
	on word juggling, stereotype themes, repeating the same poetic
	elements, like metaphors (uruvagam), image (padimam) and symbol
	(kuRiyeedu). Lay a condition that these cover-ups, metaphor,
	image and symbol should not be used and see how many of these
	poets come up with good poems. Writing plain poetry, without
	these will be difficult. Lack of creativity can be easily covered
	with these elements and still make the readers to believe they
	are good poem.
	
	Abdul Rahman was highly successful for handling symbols in his
	poetry and set an example in this direction ( Sujatha, while
	writing an hilarious article on poetry in India Today, called
	this trend as 'vaaNiyambaadi vagai' and hailed Abdul Rahman for
	setting a good example of symbolism in Tamil poetry).
	He takes symbols mostly from mythology to deal with the 
	contemporary subjects. eg.

		'puRaththiNai suyamvara maNdapaththil	
		pOli naLangaLin koottam
		kaiyil maalaiyudan
		kuruttu thamaiyandhi'

	is a poem on elections. You will know this only from the title
	of the peom ('5 aaNdugaLukku oru muRai'). It is not very easy
	to imitate these kind of imagery and so they stand still distint
	from others. But still after sometime, it be boring to read. 

	And the other poets you mentioned are in my opinion 
	'sambradhaayak kavignargaL'. Sometime they would look like
	revoltionaries, sometime romanticists, sometime 'satyagrahis'
	and so on. Even their styles and handling of metaphors and images are
	easily imitable. Anything that gives chance to imitate will lose
	its significance. The example of the repeating pattern you gave in 
	Metha's poetry and Vairamuthu's patterns like 'megaththukk kooda
	dhagameduththadhu' etc. can be easily imitated in hundreds of ways.
	Some of these kind even become film titles, like 'mEgaththukku
	thaagam', 'needhikku dhaNdanai', 'thenRarl sudum' etc.
	In short, it is not very difficult to write peoms like those
	poets. 

	And another important aspect of these poets are writing
	some intelligent lines (which Sujatha in the same article said
	'budhdhisaalith thanamaan varigaL' are not poems). eg. one of
	them wrote about 'Independece': 'naLLIravil peRROm innum 
	vidiyavillai'. What if we got independencs in daytime. Would
	the things be any better?.

	Even the 'form' is also not original sometimes with these poets.
	Someone introduced Japanese 'Haiku' and an then it became a
	unwritten rule to include a dozen 'haiku's in their collections. 

	The poems of Abbas I gave in 'a'-2 are free of these cover-ups
	images, symbols and metaphors and hard to accept as poems, 
	because, something we are used to is missing. I don't
	claim they are great peoms, but are plain and simple. The subjects
	are not stereotypes. There are lots of good poets, unknown for
	a large number of people. The regular feature 'aindhu kavidhaigaL'
	is only an attempt to bring them to limelight, in a small way.
	In my opinion, he is one of the few promising newcomers, like
	Samayavel, Rajasundararajan, Magaranthan etc.

>
>**Some how I find it hard to enjoy Abbas' poems. Even after reading
>many times, I still lack the ability to grasp the poet's mind. I can
>get a reflection " kaRRathu kai maNNaLavu" in paRandhu mattum. than
>pOkkil" fits with the comments of Devathasan (or Devathachchan?). 
>However it reminds me of another poem by Gnanak kooththan(?) about
>a foot ball and the players. 'vazhi' seems like a sermon:nallathai
>chey. 
>
>
>gopal

	M. Sundaramoorthy
	sundar@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil