Re: amaraavati kadhalu

Jagdish Bisa (jbisa@bbnplanet.com)
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:41:49 -0500


Sri Nyayapathi Srinivasa Rao gAru on 'amaraavati kadhalu':

> I did not intend to convey that they are surrealistic.

It's because of them definitions,  of 'surrealistic principles' to be
precise, that you had been giving us lately made me curious in that
direction. It strikes to me that you don't stick to your definitions.
Right?

> I meant that there is nothing in the stories which weaves
> an acceptable interesting web of human situations/relationships.

That's a weak and poor criteria for judging fiction in general.  The
only requirement ( from a readers point of view, of course) for fiction
is that it should make sense. Whether the content is interesting or
acceptable is highly subjective.  That's why most critics follow an
unbiased, universal benchmarks of creative writing, such as imagery,
characterization and craftsmanship.

   imagery -  reflects the author's ability and 'need'  to
observe/feel/imagine/fantasize.
   characterization - reflects author's 'sincerity' towards the basic
ingradients of his/her creation.
   craftsmanship - reflects author's  'ability' in employing elegant
methods,  as opposed to cheap tricks, in manipulating/shocking the
reader.  This is where most of the stuff bombs out.

Is it that difficult to find any scene, even from memory, and analyse
using the above criteria and say that the work is
 mediocre?

-Jagdish ( Have you read ko.ku or ma.ra.ra lately? )  Bisa