What are you reading?

cynic

Meself 21-4-2018 09:15 PM
I loved that series. Dharamkshetra was probably the first series that had put in so much of resear ...

The amount research is quite evident. I have been rewatching the show since they started airing it again. The one that left me disappointed last time was Krishna's. The justification of allowing the war to be fought when he could put a stop to it did not sit well.

As for the recent versions of Ramayan and Mahabharat, they have been a joke. I am all for creative liberty, but not for mythologies and historicals.

Meself

cynic 22-4-2018 11:55 AM
The amount research is quite evident. I have been rewatching the show since they started airing it ...

I am all in for POV novels and renditions but again there is a caveat. You can't screw the whole story to suit or justify your needs. The recent myth-fic writers have been doing the very thing. Anand Neelkantan and his rendition of both Mahabharat and Ramayana killed the essence of the epics and reduced it to a mere tale of jealousy and lust. Kavita Kane and her works taking Urmila, Uruvi and Shoorpnakha as protagonist is again killing the spirit of these wonderful epics. Her only likeable work is Menaka's Choice.




When it comes to historical fiction or myth-fictions I understand a certain degree of creative liberty is allowed. But to take A and twist it into a B is not acceptable.

pallaviachrekar

jhsurti 21-4-2018 05:16 PM
You should also try out Salil Desai's "Lost Libido and other Gulp Fiction". A collection of his sh ...

Thank you, also missing is his debut book, Bady at the Back seat.

cynic

Meself 22-4-2018 05:31 PM
I am all in for POV novels and renditions but again there is a caveat. You can't screw the whole s ...

Some people are just plain evil. To justify their actions by painting the others black seems to be the easy way out. Would not be surprised if an author justifies Ted Bundy's actions.

jhsurti

I have a bit different take on this. That is because, perhaps, I have been brought up to believe whatever I wanted to. I am a bit sceptical about God. So, One, I have no preconceived notion of what actually WAS. or HAD BEEN. True, we have been listening the epics in the same form over the years and so it is ingrained in our brains that this is the truth and anything else cannot be justified. I am not against anything.  Two, history has been written by victors. The losers perished so there is no one to tell their side of the story! Three, any event can have different versions. e.g. watch Akira Kurosawa's ROSHOMON. There is only one event that happened but there are different versions of the same event as seen by different witnesses and characters. And the interpretations are widely differing.
So, I do not in the least feel offended if a different view, from the commonly accepted one, is written by some one. I find it actually very interesting to see something that I had perhaps not thought of before. It, for me, is simply another story. Nothing more.
This is simply my opinion. This is not a debate and I am not trying to convince anyone. It's simply how I look at it. I appreciate everyone's own point of view.

cynic

Jhsurti, feel free to share your opinion

Was reading an article by Devdutt recently where he questioned the same. Pandavs broke rules and he is hailed as heroes. Duryodhan followed the rules and he is the villain.  A bit of gray is okay, but a complete black does not work for me.

A 360 is off putting. And also something like Palace of Illusions. It felt like I was reading a fan fiction by someone who 'shipped' Draupadi and Karna.

Meself

jhsurti 23-4-2018 11:46 AM
I have a bit different take on this. That is because, perhaps, I have been brought up to believe wha ...

It's not about skeptism or non-believing. It simply is a matter of not screwing with the original fabric of the story. Yes, history is written from the point of view of the victor, I agree to that. But it also means that there must be something advantageous and brilliant on the side of the victor. Duryodhan wasn't a tyrant, even the canon calls him a rather acceptable crown prince .Yes he wasn't all that bad, but to justify his actions that had him attempting to murder his cousins and molest Drauapadi brings him to stand of being questioned. To try and justify it is not done. I agree that Neelkantan wanted to put out his side of the story, but there was no need for him to pit him against the Pandavas and show them as some sort of leeches and Duryodhan as a saint. He could have painted him the way he was and wrote about him. Mahabharat as it is, is a giant book of grey with no character being without flaw. When such a thing was already established I don't see the need to paint Duryodhan white in order to make him a hero. His actions cannot be justified. Neelkantan could have weaved it and shown he was like that in his nature but no he went ahead and painted others black so that he could shine. That is what put me off. And then the near justification of Draupadi's molestation was what left me seething. There have been other renditions of Mahabharat that has Karna or Duryodhan in the centre stage and the writers have managed to churn out a brilliant story without going overboard. Neelkantan doesn't cut it.

Meself

cynic 23-4-2018 02:58 PM
Jhsurti, feel free to share your opinion

Was reading an article by Devdutt recently where he que ...

With Devdutt Patanayak, well he is a man who does infallible research but I do not condone to his explanation or viewpoints. They seem to be very skewed. And why just him, even Uttkarsh Naithani is same.




The Kauravas were the ones who began breaking rules which was followed by the Pandavas. Yes the latter are hailed as heroes but did they get any reward of being the heroes in the end? No they didn't. They suffered, hell and damnation only after which they were invited to heaven; while Kauravas even after being the villains and morally corrupted beings were given the place in heaven.

cynic

Meself 24-4-2018 10:29 AM
With Devdutt Patanayak, well he is a man who does infallible research but I do not condone to his  ...

I view it quite the other way around. Kauravs were justified in their demand since their father was the older son, and the sitting king.

Meself

cynic 24-4-2018 11:57 AM
I view it quite the other way around. Kauravs were justified in their demand since their father wa ...

Actually no. The Kaurava and their demand wasn't justified. The crowned king of Kuru was Pandu. He went into exile along with his queens and Dhritrashtra was given the throne to safegaurd until he returned. Dhritrashtra was simply the regent and not the king as he was never formally crowned or had his 'Rajyabhishek'. In the meanwhile, Pandu had Yudhishthir. Now Yudhishthir was the son of the crowned king; so according to the ancient theory of kingship; it was him who had the right on the Kuru throne.



Dhritrashtra was simply a regent so his sons could only be princes or high ranking officials. Pandu on the other hand was the king, so it were his sons who'd be the heir and spare.