అమెరికా 'ఆట'పై దుమారం

I am appalled at the blatantly patented lies attributed to me in the report submitted by Sri Pagadala Nagendar on the March 11, 2002 get-together of the Telugu literati with Sri Murali Chanduri in Hyderabad.

I have neither suggested that Muslim writers of Andhra Pradesh as "terrorists" nor equated them with Osama bin Laden, a quote attributed to Sri Skybaba and Sri Yakub by Sri Nagender in his report. I request Sri Skybaba and Sri Yakub to read my article again.

Any way, after reading Murali Chanduri's recent response, it looks like that Sri Nagender is given to delusional hyperboles, an affliction common to sensational reporters of the 'checkout counter' trashy tabloids in these United States!

In addition, in my response published in Andhrabhoomi (February 25, 2002), unfortunately one more editorial lapse did occur. I have clearly but parenthetically identified Sri Yakub and Srimati Kalpana Rentala as poets of significance in the Virasam publication under discussion. To my misfortune, that particular statement was omitted out apparently for no good reason!

Finally, in regard to style:-- I can humbly submit the following Latin quote: de gustibus non est disputandum --- there is no dispute about tastes.

I was shocked to see Mr. Murali's insensitive, banal, and tattling explanation in defense of the controversial novel rEgaDi vittulu which employs realism as a narrative device to reflect on life. Even more shocking is his belief that any piece of realism based art is an exact representation of life and history of certain people of certain times.

I think Mr. Murali should go beyond the narrative devices and into the domain of literary criticism in order to understand the views that are contesting his valuation of this novel. He must learn that Realism as a technique claims to represent the truth but in order to do so it necessarily selects and arranges human experience, hence distorts the real (emperical) human experience.

It inflects the so called truth or history with certain criteria of selection and arrangements. Now, Mr. Murali claims that this particular work does not use any criteria of selection and arrangement of human experience. This only means either he really doesn't know how realism in art operates, or he is making a deliberately false statement.

Mr. Murali also seems to ignore the cultural functions of literature. Especially the one that helps privileging and maintaining the position of the elite. Can Mr. Murali see how this novel creates a sense of exclusion and privilege for the ruling class?

Can he understand that this particular piece of literature works hard to make the agenda of the privileged class the agenda of the whole culture, while painting the problems of the whole culture as problems of just a cross section of people?

It is OK, if he can't. A lot of everyday people everywhere (his own phrase) can't. It is certainly not an achievement, but it is OK. But that doesn't mean someone more knowledgeable can't, or shouldn't.