Expand to right
Expand to left

#A review of Telugu Women Writers 1950 – 1975 by Malathi Nidadavolu

#Telugu Women Writers 1950 – 1975
A Unique Phenomenon in the History of Telugu Fiction

(First Ed. 2008) ISBN: 978-1438264189

By Malathi Nidadavolu

malathi_small
Telugu Women Writers 1950 – 1975
A Unique Phenomenon in
the History of Telugu Fiction

This small book of 150 pages gives a succinct critical narration about a generation of women writers of fiction in Telugu language. They have taken charge and changed the cultural landscape of Andhra Pradesh by their unique contribution to the Telugu literature, but were woefully ignored by the literati. I am sure that parts of this statement at the outset might educe some ridicule even today from some quarters where condescending attitudes thrive and are mistaken for scholarship. Even these people, if they care to read Malathi’s monograph, will not only agree with my assertion, but will go back and read the twenty-five years of fiction she has painstakingly analyzed in this monograph.

The book starts with a crisp foreword. Malathi writes: “ In the past several centuries, women writers were quiet and anchored in religion. Present day writers are highly vocal, and are anchored to ideologies. Historically positioned between these two groups, approximately, one hundred women have created distinctive fiction for a period of two and a half decades. This book is an attempt, however small, to examine their contributions contextually, and demonstrate that they, quiescent on the surface, had raised potent questions, expressed unconventional views powerfully in their fiction.”

In six short chapters Malathi tries to do justice to her chosen agenda. She sets herself to address three issues. Telugu women’s education and scholarship, their status at home and in the society, and their talent as writers during the period 1950-1975. One may ask, why this particular period? Simple. She answers that question elsewhere in the book. First: As a writer Malathi belonged to that generation and is very familiar with the social conditions of that time. She published several short stories during that period. Second: There was a lack of all-encompassing critical work on the fiction by women during this period. And lastly, she was afraid that this whole corpus might disappear if somebody did not bring it to the fore.

As one who belonged to the same generation, I tend to agree with two of her three reasons. One is that she made a name for herself as a short story writer during that period (I have read quite a bit of her fiction from those days), second is that there isn’t much of critical appreciation or analysis of the women’s fiction that was published during that period. I would disagree with her fears that the fiction of that period might disappear and be forgotten in the course of time.

In the first chapter Malathi traces the evolution of women writer from the eleventh to the nineteenth century. She narrates a couple of anecdotes on Molla who has written the tale of Rama in a very simple meter using the simplest possible diction. The treatment meted out to Molla by the traditional classicists because of her caste was well exemplified. At the same time her repartee and wit were cleverly documented. In addition, Malathi clearly identifies how scholars have time and again misinterpreted Molla’s humility as ignorance. She also has recognized the importance of scholars like Utukuri Lakshmikantamma. Malathi boldly, but reasonably raises some relevant questions on the doubts raised by the university-bred research scholars like Nayani Krishnakumari and Malayavaasini, as to the authenticity of a popular “story” in existence regarding a discussion between Mohanamgi and Krishnadevaraya. Mohanamgi was emperor Krishnadevaraya’s daughter. Utukuri Lakshmikantamma (1917-1997), a reputed scholar, in her book Andhra Kavayitrulu, narrated a story that Krishnadevaraya encouraged Mohanamgi to write an epic. Malathi, after reading this story, assumed that female scholarship existed in royal families and the male family members supported women’s writing. The authenticity of this story was questioned by the university scholars. Then, Malathi politely asks: Who made up the story? Under what circumstances? Why then, in the story there was a mention of ‘ridicule of female writing?’

In this chapter Malathi gives a bird’s eye view of the women’s education, the apparent growth of middle class that developed a set of new values changing the scenario dramatically. The evolution of women’s writing from oral tradition to bhakti and to the generation of the 50’s was clearly narrated.

In the next chapter, Malathi tells about the women writers’ education. Some of the popular writers haven’t even finished high school but were able to write excellent fiction. Case in point was Lata (Tenneti Hemalatha Devi). Some of the prolific writers like Sulochana Rani, Malthi Chandur, Koduri Kausalya Devi, etc., have high school education. They have read later on extensively, educated themselves on their own as well as if not better than the college graduates. One of the unique writers in this group is Ranganayakamma who excelled in her craft more than any one else. For some others, in addition to their higher education, their family status, i.e., social status helped them to nurture their craft to become writers of some repute. To name a few, Chaganti Tulasi (daughter of Chaganti Somayajulu, popularly known as Chaso, the famous short story writer), Turaga Janaki Rani ( a relation of Gudipati Venkata Chalam, popularly known as Chalam), and a few others. Literary heritage and the family encouragement have contributed to become writers, but these alone did not make them good writers. Thery have diligently worked at their craft. Malathi narrates very powerfully the reluctance of the Telugu Sahitya Academy to accept, acknowledge and reward these writers for almost three decades. She was genuinely upset at the behavior of the Academy. Here I am tempted to say: So what? When did the Academy try to do the right thing at the right time? Personally, I would ignore it but for reasons of historicity, I agree with her.

In the third chapter (entitled Themes) Malathi critically analyzes the themes dealt with by these women writers. ‘The multifaceted terrain of contemporary life’ was well narrated in the stories of writers such as Lata, Ranganayakamma, Malathi Chandur, Dwivedula Visalakshi, Vasireddi Sita Devi, Madireddi Sulochana, D. Kameswari, and a few others. Chaganti Tulasi, Kalyana Sundari Jagannath, P. Sarala Devi, R. Vasundhara Devi and Malathi, though wrote fewer short stories than others, yet ‘have a firm grasp on the middle class problems at home, issues they faced in society due to the higher education they received, and the fast changing moral and ethical issues’. In this chapter Malathi analyzes a number of short stories in reference to their themes. A few of these are worth mentioning. For example P. Sarala Devi’s eduru cusina muhurtam, Kalyana Sundari Jagannath’s maadamta mabbu, aartanaadam by Ranganaayakamma, and P. Sridevi’s classic story expressing the shallowness of the middle class life styles and values in vaaLLu paaDina bhoopaaLa raagaM. Bhanumati Ramakrishna has excelled in creating light but cogent delicate humor with the mother-in-law as the main character. Sulochana Rani has been very successful with romantic themes. About a dozen of the stories analyzed in the book are available on www.thulika.com in English translation. Malathi attempts to analyze stories from the fifties and sixties by the women writers that touched topics such as social evils and human conditions, the problems in the home front, identity awareness, and vocalize protests, personal problems facing an educated woman, social evil such as caste, hunger self-awareness of the working class and so on. After reading Malathi’s expose`, on hindsight, one would certainly lament how such a huge canvas was ignored by the contemporary scholars and critics. And, one would be tempted to conclude it was deliberate exclusion.

In the next chapter she discusses at length the craft of making the fiction. The language, the middle class issues the women writers addressed in their fiction have captured the imagination of the readership extremely well. And, in spite of the neglect of the Academy, the readers were looking forward to reading more in the same genre. During this period, the women writers were paid twice as much as their male counterparts. A few male writers used female names to have their stories accepted for publication. Malathi writes that some of the women writers were paid advances even without submitting outlines. Such was the fever in those days. Here I would say one thing Malthi does not know. Almost all college students used to read the fiction by the women writers, and of course, never publicly acknowledged or discussed the fiction. Such was the demand for these writers in those days!

In the following chapter the author discusses humor. One writer stands out, as has been previously mentioned, Bhanumati Ramakrishna. Some writers played on the language, idiom, etc. ‘The humor and sarcasm are built-in tools in our culture, possibly therapeutic. And it is hard to convey these connotations trans-culturally,’ says Malathi. And, one has to agree.

The concluding chapter summarizes and raises a few questions, too. Malathi asserts that ‘the women writers of the period developed a new form that did not lend itself to critical evaluation based on western criteria.’ This might be debatable. The statement that the ‘critics have consciously ignored for reasons only they can explain’ is probably closer to the truth.

The female characters were depicted as shrewd and pragmatic, some in charge of their own destiny, clearly visible as a marked change in the perceptions of the women writers. ‘The women writers of this era were unassuming in real life, cherished traditional values, while registering their dissent,’ says Malathi. I would say that it is true with most of the women writers. There were a few on the fringe. She concludes with her clear understanding of ‘feminism,’ and why she does not care for labeling as such. She says, that ‘ feminism in Andhra Pradesh came to be writing exclusively women’s heart rending status in our society and blaming it entirely on the male population. This kind of lopsided perception hurts creativity.’

The monograph, a labor of love that took several years for Malathi to write, has a very affectionate and heart warming introductory write-up by Sarayu Rao, daughter of Malathi Nidadavolu. It is a delight to read this nice piece from a daughter to the mother. Sarayu is an upcoming television actress and has earned laudable credits as an accomplished actress on stage as well in Shakespearean plays. There is a second foreword by Kalpana Rentala, a well-known Telugu writer. Kalpana raises again the good old question that why the literary critics always fail to put Bhandaru Acchamamba’s story streevidya on par with diddubatu by Gurajada Apparao. A valid question indeed!

Malathi Nidadavolu has worked for over twenty-five years on this monograph. She has interviewed a number of writers, read their works extensively. The rigor with which she pursued the task shows in the book. And it is regrettable that such important work has to be self-published.

Finally, there are a few typographical errors, and in the second edition (hopefully the book will see a second printing!) I would prefer the footnotes be more comprehensive and be moved to the back of the book to an expanded index. I have no hesitation to recommend strongly to our readership to buy the book, read it and enjoy.

Copies can be ordered from : Amazon.com

    
   
Print Friendly

(20# abhiprAyAlu) mI abhiprAyaM teliyachEyaMDi #»

  1. Vaidehi Sasidhar # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 2, 2008 3:56 pm

    A comprehensive and interesting review. The book indeed shows her dedication, hard work and in depth analysis. It sure is “heart warming” introduction by Sarayu Rao as you rightly put it.

  2. #koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu abhiprAyaM:

    #November 11, 2008 9:19 pm

    Congratulations to Malathi# gAru #on completing the project she started a quarter century ago! I wish she wrote this in Telugu as it would have gained a much wider well-deserved discussion. Veluri# gAru #gave a good synopsis of the work but what the book needs is a more critical review.

    Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao

  3. baabjeelu # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 12, 2008 6:05 am

    #koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu gArU, namastE. mIru rAsinaTTu I pustakAnni telugulO rAsinaTTuMTE marI bAguMDEdi. vElUri gAru ichchina #synopsis# bAguMdanaDaM mAtraM bAgOlEdu.

    #She concludes it with clear understanding of feminism# ani vElUri vAru voppukunna #paragraph # ni elA voppukOvAlI? “#blaming it on entirely on male population” lopsided# elA ayiMdI? magavALLa valla kAkapOtE iMkevarivalla ADavALLu alA vunnAru? paSu pakshyAdulU, cheTlU chEmalU ashTadikpAlakulU mariyU paMchabhUtamulU madhyalO jorabaDalEdE?
    lUshan cheppiMdi aksharalakshalu kadA? ADapilla pADayipOyiMdani saMghaM bAdhapaDi pOvaDaM magavADivallEkadA? pADaipOyiMdi, pADaipOyiMdi. mana paruvu gaMgalO kalisipOyiMdi ani gaggOlu peTTEdi A ADapillani puTTiMchina vADU, A pilla TODabuTTina magavALLU kAdA? kAdA?

    AyanevarO, “lakshmanna” gAri “rE” vyAsaM ki rAsina abhiprAyaMlO ikkaDaMtA pAta taraM anIsEru. nijavE@M kAbOlu. kAnI iMta pAta taraM anukOlEdu. pustakAnni samIksha cheyyaDaM aMTE abbO abbO ani pogaDakkarlEdu. voppukOni vishayAllO ? peTTali samIkshakuDO, #synopsis # rAsEvALLO.

    hanumaMtarAvugArU, mIru cheppinaTTu I pustakaM #needs more critical review.# ayinA 2008 lO Debbhayyaidu muMdu navalAmaNulu rAsina vATi guriMchi rAsina pustakaM pAchi bUri. parlEdu, bAnEvuMdi anaDaM “saraspatiki” apachAraM. alA anaDaM valana niDadavOlu mAlati gArini avamAniMchinaTTu kAdu. manalOni #lopsidedness# iMkA alAgEvuMdani voppukODaM.
    hanumaMtarAvugArU, mIroppukuMTArEmO gAnI, nEnoppukOnu.

  4. #Malathi Nidadavolu # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 12, 2008 3:33 pm

    I am grateful to Veluri garu for reading the book and the review.

    Vaidehi, thanks for your kind comments.

    Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao garu, thanks for your kind abhinandanalu. I explained my reasons for writing this book in English.

    Baabjeelu, Since you say you mean no offense to me personally, none is taken. Thanks for your expressing views. However, I would like to add that a sameeksha is intended only to introduce the book to the public.Maybe, meaningful discussion and critical reviews are possible after you read my book. (Maybe this is my way of getting a couple of books sold :))

    For the record, my book is not about feminism.

    Thanks.
    Malathi Nidadavolu

  5. lyla yerneni # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 13, 2008 2:44 pm

    “For the record, my book is not about feminism.”-Malathi Nidadavolu
    Thank God!

    Very interested in reading what you had to say about these women writers. I read some of them, and I love their story telling. They are very lively.

    Veluri increased my interest in the book.

    Amazon# lO chUSAnu. ippuDu lEvu pustakAlu. tvaralO vastAyi ani uMdi. mAlatI! mI pustakaM kOsaM eduru chUstAnu.
    lailA.

  6. koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu abhiprAyaM:

    #November 13, 2008 11:04 pm

    #mAlati gAriki,

    #I did not find the exact reasons why you wrote in English – I might have missed. In your foreword, you did mention Women Writing in India and Knit India through Literature as two major works that set Telugu women’s writing in the larger context; I assumed you wanted to supplement them with a more critical analysis and hence you wrote in English.

    #mIku pustaka samIksha aMTE pustaka parichayaM. nAku samIksha aMTE guNadOsha vichAraNa chEsEdi, kEvalaM parichayaM chEsEdi kAdu. nighaMTuvu prakAraM samIksha aMTE tIvramaina chUpu, jAgrattagA pariSIliMchEdi.

    koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu

  7. #baabjeelu # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 14, 2008 6:16 am

    #niDadavOlu mAlatigAriki,

    nEnu mI pustakaM guriMchi rAyalEdu. chadavalEdu kAbaTTi. “sinApsis” lO “uTaMkiMchina” A “pErAgrAph” guriMchE rAsEnu. mIrE vEdika mIdakochchEru kAbaTTi, sUTigA mimmalnE aDagochchu, mI pustakaMlOni “pErAgrAph” la guriMchi. strI vAdaM guriMchi kAdu mI pustakaM, mI dR(sR)shTilO. batikiMchEru. kAnI, “#The woman writers of this era were unassuming in their real life. Cherished traditional values. While registering their dissent.” says Malathi.# dIni guriMchEvaMTAru?
    mAlatigArU – #Would you please explain why somebody has to be usassuming in their real life? Is it a virtue? Is it good? While maintaining unassuing in real life, cherishing traditional values. At the same time registering their dissent???? Have they cherished or maintained? My experience was their escape route is “cherishing” traditional values. I am writing about women of that era, not writers you listed..

    #mAlatigArU – mI pustakaMlO mI ishTavo@MchchinaTTu rAsukOvachchu. “rIDabiliTI” vuMTE (vElUri vAri bhAshalO “asAdhAraNa” pAThakulu, mAlATi sAdhAraNa pAThakulu) konukkunO, koTTukochchO chadivEstAM.

    #If the book is not about feminism, # I “pErAgrAph” leMduku? idaMtA rAsina taravAta, oka dharma saMdEhaM. mIru rAsiMdi A kAlapu rachayitrula guriMchi, vAri rachanala guriMchi. madhyalO I “strIvAdaM” eMdukochchiMdI?

  8. #malathi nidadavolu # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 14, 2008 8:41 am

    #hanumaMtarAvu gArU – mIru pustakaM chadivEru kanaka, mIku kanipiMchina dOshAlu ikkaDa cheppaMDi. nA muMdumATalO, IpustakaM telugu chadavaDaM rAnivAri kOsaM rAstunnAnanI, aMchEtE mUDO ChApTarulO kathalu saMgrahaMgA ichchEnanI kUDA rAsEnu. idi nA parsanal jarnI lATidanI, nA daggara samAdhAnAlakaMTE saMdEhAlE ekkuva anI kUDA muMdumATalO manavi chEsukunnAnu. nAku telisinaMtavarakU, iMglIshulO vunna telugu sAhityacharitralO IbhAgaM ekkaDA kavar kAlEdanE anukuMTunnAnu. mIlATi mEdhAvulu savivaraMgA charchiMchi marO pustakaM rAstE saMtOshistAnE kAnI bAdha paDanu.

    bAbjIlu gArU – nEnu strIvAda charcha madhyalO tElEdaMDI. chivarna kaMklUshan ChApTarulO nA vaiyaktikamaina abhiprAyAlu velibuchchAnu. nannu pheminisT annanArikI, yAMTI pheminisT annavArikI samAdhAnaMgA.

    #I don’t think I can explain why anybody should be or must be unassuming. All I said was that it worked for them. Once again, if you are interested, read my book and only then you will know my opinions.
    Thanks

  9. malathi nidadavolu # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 14, 2008 8:43 am

    #lailA,
    vElUri gAru tana samIkshalO achchutappulunnAyi anaDaM chEta, tAtkAlikaMgA ammakAlu Api, tappulu diddutunnAnu. marO reMDu rOjullO maLlI emejAn.kAm lO dorukutuMdi.
    chadivi mI abhiprAyAlu rAyagalarani ASistAnu.
    #You or anyone else would like to contact me in this ragard, my ID is thulikan@yahoo.com.

  10. Vaidehi Sasidhar # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 14, 2008 8:56 am

    “The women writers of this era were quiet and unassuming in real life,cherished traditional values,while registering their dissent in their fiction”- N.Malathi

    The above paragraph quoted from the book seems more observational than judgmental to me. In my opinion, it appears more of a statement based on her observations rather than her view on how they should be.

  11. #koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu abhiprAyaM:

    #November 15, 2008 1:03 pm

    #mAlati gAriki,

    nEnu mEdhAvinI kAdu, paMDituNNI kAdu. aMduku kAvalasina arhatalu nAku telusu – dIMTlO #false modesty# EmI lEdu. nEnu rAsEvi kAsta chaduvukunna pAThakulu charchiMchagala vishayAlE kadA.

    pustakaM telugu rAnivAri kOsaM rAstunnAnani mIru muMdumATalO cheppAru, nijamE. kAni dAni muMdara mIrI pustakaM rAyaDAnikichchina kAraNAlu chadivitE idi kAsta AScharyaM kaligistuMdi.

    mukhyaMgA, mIru tIsukunna rachayitrula mIda samagramaina sAhityavimarSa rAlEdannAru – telugulOnE rAlEdani nEnarthaM chEsukunnAnu; ika iMglIshu guriMchi cheppEdEmuMdi? akaDemik vALLu pAta sAhityaM mIdA, patrikala vALLu prastuta sAhityaM mIdA kEMdrIkariMchaDAna, I madhya charitra nevarU paTTiMchukOlEdani vichAriMchAru. mIrI kAryaM talapeTTakapOtE asalI sAhityamE kanumarugaipOyE pramAdamuMdannAru. mIru modaleTTina panini telugu paMDitulu muMduku tIsukupOvAlani abhilashiMchAru. I kAraNAlannI ichchi veMTanE idi telugu rAnivALLa kOsaM rAstunnAnaDaM viruddhaMgA (#incongruent)# anipistuMdi.

    kalpana gAri muMdu mATalO kUDA mI kRshini mana sAhitI charitralO O mailurAyigA, ippaTivarakU vachchina mUsa charitranu ChEdiMchEdigA pogiDAru. idi muMdara chEravalasiMdi telugu vALLakEnani nA abhiprAyaM. parulaki telapaDAna nashTamEmI lEdu kAni mI pratipAdanalani charchiMchi, vimarSiMchavalasina avasaraM ekkuva evariki? telugu chadivE vALLaki. mari vALLalO eMtamaMdiki mI pustakaM chErutuMdi?

    aMdubATulO unna iMglIshu vachchina telugu vALLayinA charchistArani ASiddAM.

    mArkeT lO unna pusakaMlOni tappulu diddaDaM kOsaM tAtkAlikaMgA ammakAlni ApaDaM, mI aMkita bhAvAniki marO tArkANaM. vIlayitE, samayaM miMchipOkapOtE, pustakAniki iMglIshu pustakAlalO chAlA sAmAnyaMgA uMDE pada paTTika (#index)# ni chErchamani manavi.

    koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu

  12. #malathi nidadavolu # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 16, 2008 5:12 am

    #hanumaMtarAvu gAru,
    ayitE mIru dOshAlu annadi kEvalaM mIDiyam vishayaMlO ani arthaM ayiMdi. nA pustakaM pradhAna bhAgaMlO kUDA mIku dOshAlugA tOchinavi cheppaMDi.
    mIru anna #incongruity# nAku tOchalEdu. teluguvALlakE “pratipAdanalani charchiMchi, vimarSiMchavalasina avasaraM ekkuva“ anna mATa koMtavarakU nijaM kAvachchu. nA abhiprAyAlu marOsAri cheptAnu.
    1. telugu pariSOdhakulU, vimarSakulU, nApustakaM sthAyi pustakAlu chadivEvALlU iMglIshu pustakAlu kUDA chaduvutunnAru. mana telugu pariSOdhakulu, vimarSakulu prachuriMchina pustakAlalO upayukta graMthAla jAbitA chUstE idi sphashTaM.
    2. tUlika 8 ELlagA naDuputunnAnu. tUlika pAThakullO sagaM maMdi teluguvALlE. — iMglIshubaLLalO chaduvukunna teluguvALlU, iMglIshu pustakAlu chadavaDaM alavATu ayipOyina teluguvALlUnu. aMchEta nijaMgA chadavAlanukuMTE bhAsha aDDu vastuMdanukOnu.
    3. nApustakaM iMDiyAlO prachuriMchaDAniki nAnA vidhAlA prayatniMchAnu. dESavyAptaMgA, itara bhAshalalO strIla rachanalu pariSIliMchEvAriki kUDA upayOgaMgA vuMTuMdani nA abhimataM. kAni adi jaragalEdu.
    4. pOtE kalpana nApustakAnni “mailurAyigA pogiDAru“ annAru. iMtakumuMdu I vishayaMmIda iMta vivaraMgA charchiMchina pustakAlu EmainA dRshTiki vachchivuMTE cheppaMDi. mari.
    5. iMka aMdubATu mATa aMTArA. nAkunna parapatI, nEnunna paristhitullO telugulO rAsinA evarU konaru. AvishayaMlO nEnu chEyagaliginadi EmI lEdu.
    6. mIru cheppina iMDeks, vElUri salahA vivaraNalu chivariki mAristE bAguMTuMdi lATivi nAku #createspace.com# oppaMdaM prakAraM sAdhyaM kAdu. aksharadOshAlu diddaDaM mAtramE sAdhyaM.

    pustakaM tirigi mArkeT lO vuMdi. kAvalasinavAru nAku rAyaMDi. lEdA emejAn.kAm lO chUDaMDi.
    mI AdaraNaki dhanyavAdAlu.
    mAlati.

  13. koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu abhiprAyaM:

    #November 16, 2008 12:58 pm

    #mAlati gAriki,

    kalpana gAru “mailurAyigA pogiDAru” ani rAyaDaMlO nEnu vyaMgyAnni sUchistE adi nA tappE. mailurAyi avunO kAdO telugu sAhitya charitra lOtupAtulu telisina vALLu nirdhAriMchAli, nEnu kAdu. nA dRshTilO mI pustakaM kotta veluguni prasariMchEdI, koMta vivAdAspadamainadI, telugu sAhityAbhimAnulu chadavvalasinadI. tagina prAchuryaM vastuMdanI, vistRtaMgA charchistAranI ASistAnu.

    pustaka prachuraNalO sAdhaka bAdhakAlu nAku teliyavu. sAhitI charitraki girAkI lEkapOvachchu kAni avasaraM uMdi. ilAMTi pustakAlani telugulO prachuriMchaDAniki sahAyaM kAvalasina vALLu tAnA prachuraNa vALLani saMpradiMchaMDi; rachchabaMDa lOnO, ImATa lOnO, mI veb saiTulOnO O mATa veyyaMDi. O cheyyichchE vALLuMDakapOru. parapati uMTEnE prachuriMchukunE dusthitiki telugu sAhityaM digajArakUDadu.

    mI pustakaM mIda “chiru samIksha” lAMTidi rAyAlanE uddESaM uMdi. vIlu chUsukoni rAyAli.

    koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu

  14. #malathi nidadavolu # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 16, 2008 3:56 pm

    #hanumaMtarAvu gArU,
    mI abhimAnAniki kRtaj~natalu. amerikAlOnU, iMDiyAlOnU pramukha sAhityAbhimAnulaM aMTU haDAvuDi chEstunnavArinaMdarinI aDukkODaM ayiMdaMDI.. nEnu aDakkuMDA, pustakaM konukkuni marI samIksha rAsinavAru vElUri vArokkarE.. I tAnAlU, ATAlU guriMchi nEnu mATADakapOvaDamE maMchidi… mIkunna nammakAlu nAku lEvu.

    saradAgA vuMTE IliMku chUDaMDi. nAtelugutUlika lO achchaMgA nEnE achchEsukunna chinni nApottamu ani pErutO.
    #Anyway, thanks.

    #mAlati

  15. #S.Umadevi # abhiprAyaM:

    #November 29, 2008 7:39 am

    [#I pOsT eDiT chEyabaDiMdi - saM.#]
    Malathi garu Namaskaram – I am Sammeta Umadevi. I saw Thulika now only. There is a need emerged about the translation. Of course there are so many translations from English to other languages but not from Telugu to English. Your trail must be appreciated. You are trying to correct the printing mistakes or other mistakes. It shows your dedication to the work. We all know that only because of the English translation Geethanjali got Noble prize. We can proudly say there are many equivalent works in Telugu. People of this generation must bring out them and elevate them. Any how we must congratulate for your hard work. Once again I wish all the best.

  16. Malathi Nidadavolu # abhiprAyaM:

    #December 9, 2008 4:26 am

    Umadevi garu, thanks for your kind comments. Please visit my tethulika.wordpress.com. I am looking forward to more discussion from you.

  17. #SrInivAs abhiprAyaM:

    #December 20, 2008 11:59 am

    #vElUri gArikI, vArikaMTE muMdu niDadavOlu gArikI abhinaMdanalu. rachanalOni vastuvu AnATi rachayitrula Saili guriMchi ayinappuDu, telugulOnE rAstE mariMta hattukunEdEmO! mIru pErkonna rachayitrula rachanalu chadivi vuMDaDaMchEta, koMta sahajamaina kutUhalaMtO vyAsamaMtA Ekabigina chadivEnu. padilaMgA vunna j~nApakAlu, I vyAsaM telugulO vuMDivuMTE, mariMta ukkiri bikkiri cheyyavA anipiMchiMdi. E vuddESaMtO mUla rachanani AMglaMlO chEsErOgAnI, upaSIrshikalatO (sab TaiTilsu) “mAyA bajAru” chUDamannaTTuMdi.

    DhArAvAhikalU, navalalU telugu sAhityaMlO hechchavaDaMlO rachayitrula pAtra viSishTamaiMdi. rachayitrulaki eMta AdaraNa vuMDEdaMTE, koMtamaMdi rachayitalukUDA rachayitrulugA kalaM pErutO rAsEvAru. nAku j~nApakamunna pErlu : bInAdEvi, lallAdEvi, eM.DI saujanya, vIrapalle vINAvANi, tOTakUra ASAlata mo. vAru.

    tirugubATu dhOraNi kAkuMDA, pAThakulani pAtrala dvArA prabhAvitaM chEsina rachayitri mAlatI chaMdUr. ennO rachanalani chEsina jonnalagaDa lalitAdEvi, kAvalipATi vijayalakshmi, vilakshaNaMgA tama pEru rAsukunE ArekapUDi (kODUri) kausalyA dEvi, turagA (mOcharla) jayaSyAmala lani mUla rachanalO prastAviMchi vuMTAranukuMTAnu.

    peddalevarainA pUnukuni I mUla rachanani tenigiMcharA ani nA ASa.

  18. koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu abhiprAyaM:

    #December 22, 2008 5:21 pm

    “#lUshan cheppiMdi aksharalakshalu kadA?”

    pheminijaM prastAvanalO bAbjIlu gAranna pai mATalu nannu konnALLu veMTADAyi – evarI lUshan, EmA katha? ani. #Lution, Lotion, Lushan,# lAMTi pErlatO prayatniMchAnu gAni phalitaM lEdu..

    nAlugayidu rOjulugA amitamaina chali mUlAna iMTlO baMdInai, pustakAlu tiragEstuMTE, guDipATi kiTikI (sAhitImUrtula tEjOrEkhalu) kanipiMchiMdi. dAMTlOni oka vyAsaM, “chainA aMtarAtma lUshan”! hammayya anukunnAnu.

    “sAhityakArulaku chainA pEru cheppagAnE lUshan sphuraNakostAru. lUshan rachanalani chAlAvaraku telugulO chaduvukunnAM. manaku rashyan sAhityaM tarvAta vistRtaMgA telugulOki anuvAdamaiMdi chainA sAhityaM.”

    anna prAraMbhaM chadivi, kanIsaM pErayinA teliyanaMduku siggEsiMdanukOMDi. I lUshan chainAlO bAgA pErunnavADaTa. ibsen nATakaM, #A Dollhouse #vachchina tarvAta saMchalanamaina vyAsaM, “#What will Happen after Nora Leaves Home?”# rASADaTa.

    ikkaDa Ayana rachanalu aMta sulabhaMgA dorikETaTlu lEvu. vijayavADalO jaragabOyE pustakAla paMDagalO dorukutAyEmO chUDAli. bAbjIlu gAriki kRtaj~natalato,

    koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu

  19. koDavaLLa hanumaMtarAvu abhiprAyaM:

    #December 22, 2008 6:59 pm

    #cheppaDaM marichAnu. lUshan aMTE #Lu Xun.

  20. Sowmya # abhiprAyaM:

    #July 17, 2010 6:07 am

    #adEmiTi aMdarU I pustakaM telugulO rAsi uMDAlsinadi ani rAstunnAru…nEniMkA I pustakaM gAnI, mAlati gAri tUlika saiTulO AMglAnuvAdAlu kAnI – telugu vAri kaMTE kUDA, nAn^-telugUs ni, telugu chadavaDaM rAni teluguvArini uddESiMchi rAsinavanukuMTunnAnE!!

mI abhiprAyaM teliyachEyaMDi

#  

  

#ImATa pAThakulaku sUchanalu chadivAnu. vATiki kaTTubaDi uMTAnani hAmI istunnAnu.