ABSTRACT
Velcheru Narayana Rao (1932) is a well-known name in the literary circles of Telugu and English whose critical analysis reaches both the classical and modern Telugu literatures while his translations into English are mostly of the classical texts in Telugu. He holds the view that no principle can decide which is literature and which is not. It is the writers who have to do that, as writers. Velcheru Narayana Rao examined the form of poetic revolutions in Telugu and discussed the contemporaneity in ideological revolution at length. His familiarity with multiple literatures and his expertise to introduce one literature to the readers of other literatures reflect a very important point in literary history. It reminds one of the beginnings of the modern Telugu literature when the comparative perspectives and adaptations of Sanskrit and English literatures were extensively happening in Telugu. Velcheru acknowledges the presence and influence of the identity movements in literature such as women’s writing and Dalit writing. However, for him, all these streams merge into the larger narrative of literature. This essay is the concluding chapter of his much-discussed book Telugulo Kavita Viplavala Swarupam. The first part of this book examines the poetic revolutions in traditional literature, that is Puranic and Prabandha literatures. The second part examines the literary revolutions in the modern(ist) poetry in Telugu, that is bhava, abhyudaya, digambara and viplava revolutions. He describes Gurajada’s contribution as the incomplete revolution and Tirupati Venkata Kavulu’s contribution as the revolution that never began. Also, Velcheru discusses the oral and written traditions in literatures and the role that the oral/extempore literatures have played in the classical literatures as well as the literatures of the people’s movements. Velcheru argues and proves how literature and literary theories have changed according to the changes in society. He examined the form of poetic revolutions in Telugu and discussed the contemporaneity in ideological reclusion at length.
