Hi ji,
As I have been reading the discussions here, and the text experts, there is one distortion I don't understand. It's making mamashri the main bad guy that brought the naash of the Kuru vansh, and giving Karan the role of a mahaan guy wronged by everyone else ji. In BRC, Karan is really great, and projected as a man of his circumstances - being in debt to Duryodhan being his main reason to be on his side. In RS' Shri Krishna, Karan is taken up a few more notches to project his supreme character. Shaukni, on the other hand, is presented as this vile human being who never left Hastinapur and did everything to ruin peace.
However, in the original, Karan is not a supreme human nor is he solely a man of his circumstances. He was a student of Drona, he was able to get a lot for being a Sutputra - the basis on where much of the sympathy is played in serials. Out of shows I have only watched BRC and RS' Shri Krishna in its' entirety. I also watched Dharmakshetra on Netflix as well, which was fun. However, rest I have watched here and there. Even with that, Shaukni and Karna are more or less characterized similarly.
My question is that why was there such a huge shift to their characterizations in pop culture? Why is Shaukni presented as the biggest villain, when in reality he was a normal mamashri looking out for his sister's fam jam ji? Whereas Karan, who was much more darker, is given the veil of a pure soul?
One of my favorite scenes in BRC is the Dyut Sahba. As an adult woman watching it, I do not give any single person, except Vikarna (maybe Vidur? I have a soft spot, perhaps because of BRC?), any right to form any opinion - every single person deserved hell for that moment. To bring it to this topic, when Karan says the line, "apmaan kya aur maan kya", there is no redemption. Only person who could give him any was Draupadi, and he did not apologize to her. So sorry, not sorry ji. For me, this was the final straw in any sympathy I may have had for him from the show.
So why do you think they made these deviations?
Very tangent question - has left me awake at night for years 😂 - why were the Pandavs not considered Kauravs?? Why are Dhritrashtra putras only called this, but Pandu putras not?? If Pandavs are derived from Pandu, why not Dhritravs for Dhritrashtra??
Thank you!!!!!!
comment:
p_commentcount