3 Answers | Add Yours
I certainly think that Ramanujan has accomplished in writing something different. Part of the reason that this has happened is because the scope and focus of the poem is not merely the river. Rather, the poem raises questions as to what the public reveres and the artists that deliver this to them. Ramanujan has raised the question as to whether or not there should be an obligation to seek something more out of art, artists, and the public that appreciates both. In condemning the old and new poets as simply recycling the same fare, Ramanujan has asked whether we have an obligation to widen our focus to elevate our demands as a public and our abilities as artists. In bringing out the narrative of the pregnant woman who suffered an unspeakable death as well as how the river itself has endured the same narrative for so long, Ramanujan has accomplished something different in both the narrative of the river and our own narrative of what we should be demanding out of our artists and ourselves. In this, I think that there is a message in which the reader must think, and through this, something new emerges.
he conveys that both old and new poets write on the same thing the greatness of the place
" A River" as a poem stands against the traditional hymns in praise of the river Vaikai. The poems composed by the traditional poets sing praise of the river, its contributions, its swelling and beauty. The poet is, on the contrary, concerned with the twins that the childing mother was supposed to bear forth. The poet regrets, poets have steered clear of the pathetic sights. The river stimulates poetic imaginations once a year, and the poets of the beaten tracks, indifferent to human sufferings, stand up and doing in eulogising the phenomenal features of the agitated river.
We’ve answered 317,387 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question