Posted:
Dear Janhvi,
I am afraid I do not agree with this, though it is a nice bit of reasoning. It is rather like a college debate, when you argue against the proposition!
The fact is that I was shocked when Archana came out with her speech at Punni's saakarpuda. It was awful, and she was a total fool if she thought that by doing so, she would gain Sachin's gratitude and affection. In any case, Sachin too would be far away in Canada, so what use would his gratitude and/or affecion be to Archana, still stuck here in India? It was obviously as much better decision to risk a throw of the dice, go to Canada with Manav, who was hardly likely to ask her if he did not love her still and want her with him, and try and win over her daughters.Plus delighting Purvi, who is dearer to her than any of the rest. It is a no-brainer, but then Archana's brains were probably in the deep freeze at that time!
What I hated the most in that whole exercise was this done-to-death chaal of a woman making herself look like a bad, scheming gold digger,so that the man is suitably disgusted and goes off. It used to be the staple of Hindi films till the 1980s.The other day I read a couple of posts speculating that Purvi might , as part of the grand sacrifice, try something similar to put Arjun off completely and, presumably, drive him to Ovi. I devoutly hope not. On top of the restaurant scene, which has already given me to think about what the CVs are doing to Purvi, this would just about put the sock on it!
Lastly, though it does not affect the parallel I drew between your lines and what Goethe had said about Shakuntala, I am afraid I have goofed up a bit once again. I realised it as soon as I had sent off the post. It "I name thee, O Sakuntala, And all at once is said."
The whole goes like this, and it was written by Goethe In 1789 after Sir William Jones published a translation of the Sakuntalam:
"Wouldst thou the young year's blossoms and the fruits of its decline
And all by which the soul is charmed, enraptured, feasted, fed,
Wouldst thou the earth and heaven itself in one sole name combine?
I name thee, O Sakuntala! and all at once is said
Shyamala
I am afraid I do not agree with this, though it is a nice bit of reasoning. It is rather like a college debate, when you argue against the proposition!
The fact is that I was shocked when Archana came out with her speech at Punni's saakarpuda. It was awful, and she was a total fool if she thought that by doing so, she would gain Sachin's gratitude and affection. In any case, Sachin too would be far away in Canada, so what use would his gratitude and/or affecion be to Archana, still stuck here in India? It was obviously as much better decision to risk a throw of the dice, go to Canada with Manav, who was hardly likely to ask her if he did not love her still and want her with him, and try and win over her daughters.Plus delighting Purvi, who is dearer to her than any of the rest. It is a no-brainer, but then Archana's brains were probably in the deep freeze at that time!
What I hated the most in that whole exercise was this done-to-death chaal of a woman making herself look like a bad, scheming gold digger,so that the man is suitably disgusted and goes off. It used to be the staple of Hindi films till the 1980s.The other day I read a couple of posts speculating that Purvi might , as part of the grand sacrifice, try something similar to put Arjun off completely and, presumably, drive him to Ovi. I devoutly hope not. On top of the restaurant scene, which has already given me to think about what the CVs are doing to Purvi, this would just about put the sock on it!
Lastly, though it does not affect the parallel I drew between your lines and what Goethe had said about Shakuntala, I am afraid I have goofed up a bit once again. I realised it as soon as I had sent off the post. It "I name thee, O Sakuntala, And all at once is said."
The whole goes like this, and it was written by Goethe In 1789 after Sir William Jones published a translation of the Sakuntalam:
"Wouldst thou the young year's blossoms and the fruits of its decline
And all by which the soul is charmed, enraptured, feasted, fed,
Wouldst thou the earth and heaven itself in one sole name combine?
I name thee, O Sakuntala! and all at once is said
Shyamala
Originally posted by: soapwatcher1
Shyamala, I too had to return like that same proverbial penny, looking again for nuances and motives where perhaps none exist.
Archana in making her decision not to return to Manav and appease Sachin instead was unconsciously, maybe, exhibiting her uncertainity about Manav's love? Maybe she knew she was not forsaking Manav's love or her daughters' love in agreeing to Sachin's demands. The man had left her for 18 years, no word in all those long years, she had already been told the girls do not like her and want nothing to do with her, so the hope of gaining their love was nil, far fetched as they at that point lived in Canada, out of bounds to Archana. Her only ray of hope, is the sullen Sachin (he did show some signs of human emotion in the school scene), here I go snatching at straws, whom she reads the best. Moms can read what goes on in the minds of their children, more so than decipher a husband who has been gone for 18 years and it is perhaps for this reason that she reaches out to him, foolhardily, to at least reclaim her son's love, thinking she has nothing to lose or gain where the others are concerned anyway? In hindsight, going back to Manav without resolving all the outstanding issues would not have been the right thing to do.Archana is emotional and does not think logically and this is pure conjecture but maybe her subconscious took pity on her and did the math and hence her decision to abide by Sachin's infamous demands.
Cricket
Health and Fitness
