Are The CVs Trying To Create Sympathy For Viraj??? - Page 19

Originally posted by: Elysia

I hope my comments aren't perceived as rude. I'm only being straightforward. Can't wrap everything into wool. Sorry in advance.

Originally posted by: criticaleyes

@ The parts in Bold

I know this is a debate between you and Anna ... but can i just add that Anna's personal equation with her sister is none of your concern. Let's not " advise " others on the way they should " behave " 🤔

Originally posted by: criticaleyes

We all agree that Jahnavi will never feel sympathy for Viraj for all the reasons you've stated above, and more. Jahnavi feeling the slightest bit of sympathy is possible only if she warmed up to Viraj in any way. This she doesn't, so there is no question of her/anyone feeling sympathy for Viraj. Now can we agree that there is nothing more to argue about this point?

You know, the reason I elaborated on it is because your argument for why there can be no sympathy for Viraj seemed based on "Jahnvi remembers none of his affection", and not so much what he's done apart from abusing her alone. But I suppose we're on the same page here?

If remember right, it was way earlier than 6 months into the show that Raghav was introduced, and immediately after Sia started on a new life.

Okay, then. Four months and 23 something days. Still doesn't seem early to me. Usually a hero is introduced in the first few episodes.

Exactly, I said "slave" in inverted commas. If you pay attention to English grammar, quotation marks surrounding a word indicate irony or sarcasm, and it is not to be taken literally!

They can also be used to emphasize a term or soften its impact. I guess that I couldn't tell that you were being sarcastic. The fault's mine.

Best friend or best subordinate?

Best friend, in my opinion.

Huh. My sister likes to hit me a lot and it seriously hurts. Should I have her arrested? She might be prone to violence.
I think you should ask your sister to reign in her habit of hitting you. (Who mentioned arrest?)

Guess we don't catch the sarcasm in each other's comments 😳

Raghav stopped short of hurling the tool at Jahnavi. A chainsaw is far too heavy and can't be thrown at someone as you would throw a tv remote/ spanner/screw driver etc. A hammer is a lot worse though. Still, I would advise you and your sister to cut out the physical violence between you, because you may INADVERTENTLY hurt the other very badly some day.

Look, I don't see any hurtful violence between Raghav/Sunder. I see two friends horsing around, Raghav smacking the back of his head like guys usually do.

The chainsaw was an obvious exaggeration on my part because I've perceived the same kind of exaggeration in yours. But hey, that's just my interpretation of your arguments.

The tea scene is a classic example of Raghav itching for a fight. Viraj merely said he'd been waiting longer for a cup of tea and it was unfair that Raghav was served first.

Sometimes words can be kind and tone of voice can be rude.

I never said that Raghav's anger is comparable to Viraj's sadistic acts. But anger is not the healthiest emotion in any case. I said "healthiest."

The way you presented your argument made it seem as if you were comparing the two: "Viraj plans his tortures, Raghav too is seething with anger." That's why I commented.

No one spoke of any marriage plans on the show, as far as I'm concerned.
Hey. Are you kidding me? Every single Raghav fan has been going gaga over a possible romance between Raghav and Sia and how Raghav is the answer to all of Sia's problems. So is marriage a natural conclusion of such an alliance or not?

Yes, we the viewers have been fooling around with the thought of RaghaVi marrying. With their romance. But no CV, nor channel head, nor any other member of crew or PH or channel has mentioned anything about any marriage plans on the show. In answer to your question: No, marriage is not always the conclusion to a one-sided romance in a case as delicate as Jahnvi's.

Good point. My concern is if they are making Viraj into a character with no hope of redemption, ever, what point is there in investing his character with complexities?

But they have already made Viraj unredeemable.

I believe that a character can be complex, but at the same time be unredeemable. Since, in my book, remorse and an inner and constant struggle with your demons comes before making amends and redeeming yourself. Viraj, from the start, has lacked a conscience.

But I suppose that, in the end, it's a matter of character interpretation and we can never really agree on this.

I agree that Raghav would make a way better husband than a perhaps most men.

But, really try marrying someone like him. I bet you, the marriage will not be a bed of roses. This is just my gut feeling.

Marriage being a bed of roses is an illusion in itself. I don't believe there's a marriage where everything is easy breezy, no bumps or hurt or struggle -- well, not in the human world, at least 😆

Yes, in the recent episodes Raghav has shown a range of emotions. (May be the CVs read my post 😊.)

LOL. Maybe they'd already sketched Raghav's character beforehand 😛

Raghav has elements of despotism in character. The way he bosses Sundar around. Sorry, I don't want to be a Sundar type pf person in any friendship.

I disagree. Despotism is an extreme term and, in my opinion, has nothing to do with R's character. But let's agree to disagree. We're going in circles here.

The way I look at it is we agree on most things. It's the details that we read differently.

That's one way to look at it 😳 But yeah.

Originally posted by: likarsh

Let's also not bring up the world's latest massacre by tyrants, shall we? I don't understand why in the world that was brought up. And it's so easy to bring up the latest one that's splashed all over the media and one that internationally leaders actually "care" about, despite the care and concern being limited and despite the roadblocks to that limited care and concern.

Originally posted by: likarsh

Anna herself brought in her sister and her equation. The reply you've quoted (however exaggerated) was replying to what Anna herself put forward as an example to counter an argument.

And since I'm saying this, let me bring up something
Let's also not bring up the world's latest massacre by tyrants, shall we? I don't understand why in the world that was brought up. And it's so easy to bring up the latest one that's splashed all over the media and one that internationally leaders actually "care" about, despite the care and concern being limited and despite the roadblocks to that limited care and concern.[/DIV]

Originally posted by: Elysia

I thought you were "out" due to the "I'm out" comments 😆

On a serious note...

The reason I used the example/argument with the tyrant is because the discussion took a turn toward ethics/morals/right/wrong and whether we have a responsibility as viewer. So I decided to up the debate a level with questioning whether we have a responsibility as fellow human beings as well as viewers. Read again:

Aya: "if they worship him, that's their problem ."

Lil' me: Don't you feel that, even as a viewer, you have a responsibility? That as a human being you have a responsibility? That if a show is made on a social issue such as this one, this domestic violence, and the CVs are glorifying the abuser -- that you should protest.

The show airs on National TV, is viewed in abusive homes -- no, it's not just their problem. It's like saying that Asad being a tyrant is Syria's problem. Why should we care? But do you know that Asad burns children alive, massacres whole villages?

Originally posted by: sweetdollz

Right so a use of a personal anecdote gives members the right to to give lessons on the correct way to behave does it?

If you read the post clearly you will notice that these are theexact used in the post. C has simply quoted the parts that she feels wer problamatic. It's there for me to see, it's there for us all to see.

Originally posted by: likarsh

I was out concerning that matter.

I read it. I still don't understand what the need was to bring it up. Just bring up the latest news of a tyrant splashed all over the news. There is no comparison to this show on an entertainment channel, to what's happening in Syria.

By the way, guess what? The world does say it's not their problem. They're doing it with Syria (again, limited concern and roadblocks to limited concerns). It's easy to bring up the latest international tragedy that's all over the media. But the world does it all the damn time, with much less attention by the media and the international bodies.

And none of what's happening should be compared to a damn television show on a damn entertainment channel.

You want to bring up the fact that the show deals with social issues, fine. But plenty of shows deal with various social issues and mess it up badly. And this from the beginning not some documentary style show. It was more an entertainment show, no matter what marketing gimmick Life OK used with Madhuri.

I find it insulting that it's compared with what's going on in Syria.