To cut a long story short.....

I know this story is different from the known versions of Mahabharat.

Karna's story is not the story of the oppressed man.

Originally posted by: pyaaribehna

I know this story is different from the known versions of Mahabharat.

But this is a bit going too far. Karna joining his five brothers .

Karna driving the chariot and taking Dury and Dush for a "rough ride"

Karna the angry young man of the new version of the Mahabharat.

Karna suffered according to the stories. But he was not angry or bitter or rude towards Dury and his brothers nor the pandavas.

It was only when Bhishma questioned him while taking part in the competition against Arjuna then he answered back

They show Karna as fighting for the underdog. Talking rudely to Kshatriyas. etc.

But the way they show is is so crude.

Karna's story is his own journey through life.

Not the struggle of the oppressed against the ruling class.

Like how it happens in this century.

I wish the story makers don't depart from the story so drastically.

The story writers are not Sant Tulsidas here to make changes as they wished to a known story like he did to Valmiki Ramayan.

When they made changes to each version of the epics in olden days the people who wrote were learned saints who did it for a reason.

Here they make their own stories on class oppression and create hard feelings amongst people with no solid proof about what happened ages ago.

We cannot imagine such things. Becasue we do not know.

We do not even know about what happened three hundred years ago. We only rely on records by historians.

The incident about Karna's taoji's hand cut off after asking him to touch the weapons was gross and cruel and in bad taste.

And Karna who could see Devtas and ask for boons why did not he bring back taoji's hand?

Originally posted by: pyaaribehna

I know this story is different from the known versions of Mahabharat.

But this is a bit going too far. Karna joining his five brothers .

Karna driving the chariot and taking Dury and Dush for a "rough ride"

Karna the angry young man of the new version of the Mahabharat.

Karna suffered according to the stories. But he was not angry or bitter or rude towards Dury and his brothers nor the pandavas.

It was only when Bhishma questioned him while taking part in the competition against Arjuna then he answered back

They show Karna as fighting for the underdog. Talking rudely to Kshatriyas. etc.

But the way they show it is so crude.

Karna's story is his own journey through life.

Not the struggle of the oppressed against the ruling class.

Like how it happens in this century.

I wish the story makers don't depart from the story so drastically.

The story writers are not Sant Tulsidas here to make changes as they wished to a known story like he did to Valmiki Ramayan.

When they made changes to each version of the epics in olden days the people who wrote were learned saints who did it for a reason.

Here they make their own stories on class oppression and create hard feelings amongst people with no solid proof about what happened ages ago.

We cannot imagine such things. Becasue we do not know.

We do not even know about what happened three hundred years ago. We only rely on records by historians.

The incident about Karna's taoji's hand cut off after asking him to touch the weapons was gross and cruel and in bad taste.

And Karna who could see Devtas and ask for boons why did not he bring back taoji's hand?

Too many changes being done. But Karna's story was about a talented young man fighting against the caste system to reach the top. Sadly 1 of the few persons who gave him the respect he deserved was Duryodhana and this forced Karna to take the side of evil. If Karna had got his sue respect earlier, he might not have had to side with Duryodhana

Karna is more of a modern day hero and represents the "underdogs" of today who win against all odds

Karna's orginal sadness was the rejection by his mother nothing else. That sums up his life. If he had been accepted by his mother he would not be so sad. No matter which part of the community he belonged to.

That's the very point - this serial has completely watered down Karna's reason for resenting Kunti later (if he does). Kunti's original sin of floating him away was arguably forgiveable if she later acknowledged him openly and gave him his rightful place in the family. She did nothing for him, but at the 11th hour, approached him asking him to join her sons.

But in this serial, Kunti, after marriage, met Karna once (although she didn't know or guess who he was), and personally fed him (overruling Madri), and gave him a parting gift when he left. Karna, for his part, saved Kunti at least once. That is enough reason for Karna to endear himself to the Pandavas and never join Dury's side.

From that point onwards, I was rooting for Karna to be a Pandava, rather than a Kaurava warrior. Yeah, it's distorted, but at least, there is a logical flow to it. Unlike what this serial has been doing.

I agreed with most of your points...except one that karna used unethical way to achieve success.!!!!!!he off course stood for some unethical behaviour of duryadhan...but he never took any unethical way to achieve his own success.

Legend of karna is a cult becoz his struggle is the simbol of the struggle of the common man in our society...prioritism and favouritism is always a dark side of human psychology as well as human society...we had struggle for last 5k years but still in our society a son of a doctor always preferred to become a doctor than a son who of carpenter(this is for example...this happened with each and every profession)and this mindset of our society is forced us not to create a truely democratic society...mahabharat is a story of human characteristic where sage ved vayas depicted different side of human qualities and loopholes and different black n white portion of our society...so how such a big issue could be left out???those ppl who think that karna is just a small supporting character of Mb and there is no need to discuss on his story they are actually wrong...there is no relation between the length and the importance of a character in an epic...karna's story depicts the hard core truth that a common man who need to do how much more struggle to achieve the same position which a royal born could get ...

Karna was a common man who became a famous king of his era and one of the greatest and digbijayi worrier in a autocratic society which was ruled by two higher castes...plus he had another good quality that he an legendary philanthropist... Despite of belong to a common family he got the that title ...which shows that charity is an attitude it has no relation with anyone's socio -economic condition and his achivement was no less than any of the lead Mb characters...may be that is the reason now a days he is one of the highly discussed character of Mb...