Why we hate the 'mahaan' ? - Page 8

Originally posted by: mansimat

Hi Parri, I don't take offence to posts if people are having a frank discussion & without abuses/prejudices. So no umbrage taken, I don't understand why you want me to take umbrage. You say, I quote "do take umbrage to this." What do you mean?

I am urging everyone to read the actual article & understand its larger context. Answering with small, specific examples of Anandi's behavior, takes away it's meaning. Such studies on human subjects, needs a level of maturity and some amount of dispassion. One needs to distance oneself a little bit. The study asserts that a large of chunk of human minds behave this way. Its a study in the realm of psychology, I of course respect differing interpretations. But if scientific psychology studies are tested to differing opinions, then it would mean all studies be negated. All studies done as yet would become obsolete. It probably then takes no special skill to become a psychologist, everyone is one.

I am trifle irritated with terms like 'jealousy' etc coming in. Because that's, pardon me, wrong interpretation and nothing else. I believed their connotations of jealousy to be immature. Because the article states something very different, which some members failed to grasp. I didn't club the members immature, I don't make such sweeping statements about a whole group.

Yes, the study may not be the 'be and all' for explaining the criticism to 'mahanta' that I agree to. It may not explain the criticism in its entirety. It gives reasonable explanation for most parts, but I can't say completely.

Thanks

Mansi

Originally posted by: mansimat

You have highlighted some parts of my the text I have written & connected it with the word immaturity. You interpret the way you want to, but deny me the freedom to tell what I wanted to express. I don't intend to say what you have written but you are enthusiastic about putting the words in my mouth.

I stand by my words that I didn't club the members immature, I don't make such sweeping statements about a whole group.

I don't disagree with Rihana, so I didn't reply to her post. I mentioned that I don't believe that the article entirely explains the psychology of Anandi criticizers. And her post was very coherent & sound in logic. My post was in a different plane with the main focus on the article.

Originally posted by: rehana11

Ofcourse all of us can agree or disagree with either but that does not betray a lack of understanding or ability ot come up to the level of the 'argument' or the 'article' to invite irritation and condenscation.. The discussion has been about not the merits of the article but to what extent does its analysis hold for reactions to anandi's character in BV - an entirely different ball game all together . And people have aright to different interpretations.

Originally posted by: parri814

Yes, I highlighted parts of your posts to illustrate how I derived my interpretation of your post. I did not misrepresent your statement the way you did when you quoted part of a sentence in my quote bearing the word umbrage. I knew it was an honest mistake and left it then but am bringing it to your notice to point out the similarity between highlighting or quoting something for ease of understanding where the respondent is coming from.

Lol. There you go again, implying that others posts were not coherent and logical. And there you go insinuating that your view is acceptable based on the article but ours is unacceptable because it is based on the show. Before you go accusing me next on 'assuming', let me hasten to add that that is my perception and understanding of what you wrote. I am not insisting on putting words in your mouth nor am I trying to deny you freedom of speech. All I wanted to convey to you is that we all have different viewpoints and you are welcome to differ from others but saying its immature to comment without reading an article is making assumptions about a group of people. People may have read the article but chose to comment based on just how it relates to the show. Your tone seems to be very condescending to us mere mortals (my perception again). Anyway live and let live!😊

Originally posted by: rehana11

Dear Mansimat,

Speaking purely for myself, I think your reaction above is very immature.

I responded to Antara's interpretation of the article she quoted. In no way did I determine that Antara 'invented' this theory, but I do recognize that she promotes this theory after her own understanding of the article. There is no rule or order stating that the said article is the 'be all and end all' in explaining the attacks on 'mahaanta'. As many as there are who read the article, there will be that many interpretations. If an interpretation or differing viewpoint is not in alignment with your way of thinking, it does not make it necessarily wrong. Again, every interpretation is reliant on individual frames of references.

Please don't club all respondents as immature. I really appreciate your posts but do take umbrage to this.

I think the first problem is that the article itself is not making any claims about Anandi's character and Bv. So there are two kind of criticisms which are possible:

1) Of what the article suggests as a behavorial study - even that can be disputed by laymen on the basis of their own individual observations - it does not become an 'xpert opinion' ofcourse nor did anyone claim that, but psychology itself is based on individual feedbacks and obervations which guide even the study of 'experts' because it deals with various interpretations of human ehaviour and action. HOWEVER i do not think most critiques here were targetted at the article

2) The second round of criticisms can be aimed at TMs own application of this article in understanding the criticism of a fictional character in a specific serial. And this is where most criticisms lay . And that is why TM had to respond to them and defend her own interpretation and application of the article. So your very sweeping and patronising dismissal of all such criticisms becomes deeply problematic.

All differences here with the TMs interpretation have been because this application did not strike a chord with many people in the manner in which they relate to Anandi's character. Small incidents were brought in to substantiate those arguments from both sides because if we are doing any overall character analysis- all of them count , even more so in professional psychological studies based on the principles of inductive- deductive hypotheses. Besides one has to rememer Anadi's character is fictional and is constantly being reshaped and refigured by CVs in their efforts to cater to different audiences, their responses and their opinions . So a pshycological study based on real life humans is not this easily applicable to a fictional character who's construction over time represents different pushes and pulls coming from different quarters and individuals - those of the creative team and audience opinions. Accordingly different people approve of and reject or react to different aspects of her character and their reactions cannot be so easily 'straitjacketed' in one theory.

Besides in case of a fictional character, people have both empathy and distance so they do not easily think of anandi as the other of themselves. Everyone likes to see qualities which they consider 'ideal' in the heroine on one hand and wants to be able to relate with her on the other. So conflict arises on both grounds -

1)in a serial with a social message, people do not want the heroine to conform to what they consider against their 'ideals' even if it is 'ideal' in the sense as sanctioned by traditional mores. And here all little incidents which make up that character become important. If anandi is being projected as the 'ideal woman' to be aspired to , then all who find her falling short of their ideals have a right to protest legitimately that they not identify with this 'model of ideal womanhood' being put forward - and here it is for reasons diametrically opposite to what the article suggests. When people say the 'adrak chai , daliya, unswerving patience in face of abuse' makes them upset , it is because they find this ideal sometimes too close to the traditional ideal of the suffering but unendingly patient , virtous , accomplished and subservient woman portrayed as the ideal 'indian woman' in a deeply patriarchal society. And far from feeling inadequate internally for not being able to measure up to those standards , it makes them deeply angry because they have no desire to, infact they are against such standards of ideal womanhood. And they have a right to be so and hold their opinion here - because it matters what a serial based on a social tradition upholds as the ideal woman. Ofcourse there are many other aspcts to ANandi's character which have been put forward as deeply admirable - her professional achievements, her goodness, her desire to help everyone etc - but they exist with other kinds of contradictions which make it difficult for people to accept it wholesale...

2) This leads to a second set of criticisms - they are about 'mahaanta' but they critique it on different grounds. They feel Anandi's character is shown with such seamless flawlessness in an almost fairytale setting that it is too far removed from any reality of a 'rural village set up' ...and hence makes it possible for people to have a distance from it by simply thiking of it as a fairytale and hence easily distancing themselves from engaging with the social message in it too ...here mahaanta is not attacked but conveniently idolised and forgotten ...so the demand is to create a story which deals more realistically with the lives of real people - ordinary men and women , not necessarily all as good as anandi but who nonetheless are victims of such traditions , are able to fight them and can convey a message which hits far closer home.

Ofcourse all of us can agree or disagree with either but that does not betray a lack of understanding or ability ot come up to the level of the 'argument' or the 'article' to invite irritation and condenscation.. The discussion has been about not the merits of the article but to what extent does its analysis hold for reactions to anandi's character in BV - an entirely different ball game all together . And people have aright to different interpretations.