{|Siya ke Ram - Episode Distortion & Frustration Thread 1|} - Page 18

Originally posted by: mnx12

Vrish, there was a time when the book version was followed upto certain extent. We all have grown up watching those shows. So it's difficult to adjust to a different perspective. The risk taken by PH is quite big. After watching Mahadev ke Ram, what will be shown here is clearly their interpretation of various events. They've retained Ram's bg from their past show, that was one of the best thing of Mahadev ke Ram's track.
This thread will be a hit, as Ramayan is read, heard by most of us, so people know what they are talking about.
At the same time there are viewers like me, who are open to a good perspective. Not that any different perspective can change the charm, beauty of the book version. But we like Ramayan so much that we are ready to give chance to any good attempt with an open mind just to understand some good hidden lessons.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I have seen some Ramayan clips - mainly southern w/ subtitles - that have had Sita as Ravan's daughter, and some w/ Ravan @ Sita's swayamvara. That was before the 90s, when the trend of making up your own mythos started.

While Ravan @ Sita's swayamvara might be a part of some literature, it does defy logic in one big way. At Sita's swayamvara, all of her suitors got to see her - it's not like she was hidden someplace only to be revealed to the winner of the contest. In any swayamvara, the bride was the prize, and one got to see her first before participating.

So had Ravan been at that Swayamvara, he would have seen Sita and known how she looks. Her beauty wouldn't have been a surprise to him when Shurpanakha came to him w/ that suggestion. The epic - no matter whose version - clearly has it that when Ravan along w/ Mareech saw Sita, he was enchanted and decided to put his abduction plan into action. Sita's beauty totally possessed him and he did everything that he did.

But had he been at the swayamvara, he'd have seen Sita as well, and then the same reaction would have happened. He would have tried to capture her even if he failed to lift the bow. There is no logical reason why he should have exercised restraint out there: he could easily have defeated all the kings there, and he did not know about Rama's power, so there was no deterrent there, the way there was when he heard of Khar and Dushan getting killed, along w/ the entire rakshasha clan in Panchavati.

I understand different stories and different versions, and usually have no issues digesting them, although stories that look anachronistic don't play well w/ me. But even worse than anachronistic is when they defy logic. The stories about Ravan being @ Sita's swayamvara are clearly illogical, as they fail to address the above issue. That's my main problem w/ it.

Originally posted by: crazygul

I am unhappy pained with showing events n things which didnt existed. I think they Kay fail to show positive things but unfortunate incidents like banishment of mata ji dis n dat will be shown in full flow. They will show feminist approach on it.

Originally posted by: Arijit007

so what? there is an extreame need to show the feminist side of the epic.

Originally posted by: crazygul

i can't digest if they show lord ram in negative light as villan . mata ji pain was unbearable was hurted beyond repair n it should be showed in depth. d track should show both sides.