Dear Shyamala Di!
My admiration for you! 👏👏 👏
To me it reached long, long as to the giraffe), but I understood why dear Shyamala not accept such Jodha. Not only I understand, would say also, in unison. 😊
Not in his own defense, but to explain their point of view. Minister Kerensky was a very short-sighted, almost to blindness. Him to the offer to purchase glasses and he said, " Why do I have see freckles on face miss Kirsty, when I, barely distinguishing her, guess this girl everything that I want to guess? Why would I want clouds on the Finnic sky when I see the stormy ocean over my head? Why do see I have lines when I have color?"
After falling under the spell of Paridhi, I saw what I wanted (?) to see.
But, I, in general, is quite a hard man, life gives experience and cynicism about the pink foam, and I prefer self-irony and irony.
I understand your point of view on this concrete Jodha and agreeing with this
Even denying sexual relations with him, she could do it, if not royalty but with the dignity not to look stupid and vulgar, and so that Jalal couldn't pin up to her. And he would be remain in loss...
But I still I still consider that she had a right to refuse him.
I wanted to write the same idea as the Donjas, I had long time been trying to adapt the emotions Jodha:
if an SS officer wanted to marry a Jewish girl (completely unrealistic, but suppose!), but definitely would have told her that this is her personal and long hell. Just for the sake of her humiliation. AND???
1. After Jalal in the first night in Agra, to go under Jalal - humiliation, after which only immediate death. To live after that - impossible. I'm not talking about physical damage, but psychological and moral. Even in a fire it would be easier. I think even the attack of a rapist, Jodha would have survived easier than the night with Jalal.
Though both of them tried to spoil for each other as much as possible.
2. I think the option that he after spending the night with her, she would just - nnn ... for Jalal and the target of ridicule for ALL in the harem, and for Jalal firstly.
I already wrote that maybe in harem women were the same talented, intelligent, noble, brave, loving even sabre fencing. But they were so meekly: "at your service" that Jalal wasn't interesting with them. And while he was chasing after this Jodha and argued with her, they had appeared general subjects for communication and discovered the similarity of their characters... And banal phrase from physics for to human relations: similar charges repel. 😛
As a joke: maybe subconsciously Jodha knows that Jalal loves her, not hates (and therefore the theme of their proximity all the time POPs up)? And Jalal subconsciously refused to admit to myself that she's not a "trophy" and not to break her self-esteem. But since knowledge this is the unconscious, then Jodha can not say to yourself, "he loves me" (we say "brake", about a man who's thinking slowly 😊), she is stubborn: "he is only horrible, he is bad".
The question that torments Russian forums: what was real, except for two conditions?
Maybe, as young Khushi has suggested on my last thread, Jodha wants Jalal to make advances to her so that she can have the pleasure of humiliating him by turning them down (provided always that she could manage it, which is far from certain!) . So when he shows no signs of obliging her, she prods him with such rants so that he is enraged enough to react as she wants him to. Boccaccio had a similar story of provoking and in the book "Italian short Novel of Renaissance "
Thought of the day: If I had been Jalal, I would have handed the snake back to Jodha along with the dupatta and told her, Agar aapko hamare zariya saanp se bachne se itna hi aitraaz hai, to lijiya, sambhaliye aap hi, dupatta bhi aur saanp bhi!👏👏 👏
Question of the day: Why on earth is there only the very slow palki for travelling women in Jodha Akbar, and not some kind of four wheeled vehicle like a coach drawn by 2 or 4 horses? Or even a 2 wheeled one? Such coaches were familiar all over Europe and England during this period, and for centuries before that. As for India, even our puranas describe horse-drawn rathas, or chariots. How come there is this regression to palkis in these period dramas? Imagine how long it would have taken for a palki to traverse the distance from Agra to Ajmer!
This is a question I was very interested. Especially strange looking harem hike in palanquins and on foot to war with Shihnaz. It was, as of the educated ruler who was interested in all the military innovations have made very stone age.
The turning of the tide
I want to again thank you for your accuracy of the images and literary style, which can not spoil even the translator program.
The fact is that Jodha is a very warmhearted and good girl, but she is opinionated, unyielding in her prejudices, and with no understanding of anything beyond her Amer, like a frog in a well. She is like a small town girl pitchforked into the capital of an empire, with none of the understanding of the complexities of imperial governance that the gentle and equally goodhearted Salima has.
Worse, Jodha seems to have no desire to learn either, exulting instead in simple minded self-righteousness. She does not and will not understand that for her imperial husband, the choices are rarely between good and bad, black and white. That they are mostly between the bad and the worse, between two shades of grey. She has been spoilt by her whole family and told constantly that she can do no wrong, and here in Agra, Hamida Banu spoils her even worse. No wonder she is the way she is.
But to cut her some slack - yes, I do that occasionally! Wink- she was imagining that it would be a nirdosh pashu like a deer, not a khoonkhaar pashu like our Mohan. The blood freezes in her veins as soon as she realises what is surging out of the undergrowth!
Quiz for the day: Guess the number of times Jodha uses the words nirdosh pashu in the hunt segment. No cheating by rewatching the episode and counting!
Not really suitable here Russian saying, but I want more exact to her behavior. "Simplicity - worse than stealing." "OTHER simplicity worse than stealing. Or option: holy simplicity worse than stealing. Difference feel?(c)" :)
And here the Latin: "O sancta simplicitas"
When a person steals, he understands what goes wrong. Therefore, in principle, able to distinguish between "good" and "bad", and as a result is capable of repentance. In their simplicity people do not understand what makes a bad act ... which means it will do so from time to time. And about any remorse and there can be no question. (c)
I'm sorry, but a lot of work and I read only the 1st page and wrote
Edited by alffim - 9 years ago
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon
Current Affairs
20