Originally posted by: shyam09
2 points really --
First off -- We will never be able to confirm that (part in bold). It's impossible. But because it is impossible to do that, it doesn't justify throwing in random tidbits of utter BS. The problem Mukeshji probably has it with the characterizations and possibly the plot. Would he have minded if Dhriti was played by a 6-pack model but the role he played showed off Dhriti as who he really was [[from the beginning]], no.
Second point -- learning what? No one learns anything from fictionalized stuff. It's like watching Harry Potter and saying "oh Hogwarts exists!!... Dammit.. I'm a muggle!" ... Some messages they promote are good, but if I, being 20 years old, have trouble understanding it the first time watching it ... how would it make sense for kids to understand the messages?
The way modern day society works is on the level of easiness. Why read a book when there is a movie you can watch... Why go to the library and look for books when we have Google...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the problem is that we define this as mythology ... with mythology people have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want ... but the moment we change it so it becomes history, it's set in stone and no one will dare mock it. If they do, it becomes labeled has historical fiction and everyone should know the definition of fiction.
But if you distort mythology -- you get mythology. And people are left confused! Is mythology no. 1 right or mythology no. 2??
Of course we can bring up the question of which version is correct since we don't know which version holds the truth, but we should be able to easily eliminate foreign versions, fictional / modern retelling, and choose the best among the few versions that are left (if there are even a few left)...
(if you think I felt rough somewhere above, I'm truly sorry. I'm just trying to be as frank as possible so my message is clear. No offense intended)
Shyam
That's why we've had posters in this forum protest @ MB & RY being called mythology, but they miss the meaning. Mythology does not mean fiction. It means a series of stories, handed down the ages, which may or may not be true. Like we don't know whether Hector & Achilles was fiction, or whether it really happened. We don't know whether Loki actually exists/ed and killed Baldur or not. Similarly, we really don't know whether Krishna or Rama really existed or not. For us, as Hindus, they did, or at least, we assume it - either out of faith, or out of belief. People who are not Hindus could be forgiven for assuming that they didn't.
Point is - mythology has often been used by historians in recreating very ancient history. Both the Ramayan & Mahabharata have been used in reconstructing the history of the Vedic era. Now, they do normalize certain things - the time scales described in the shastras for the durations of Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga & Dwapar Yuga - are not used, or else, nobody would say that the MB happened 'just' 5000 years ago. Similarly, descriptions of events like miracles won't make their way into historical accounts. Also, historians would use only contemporaneous works to determine the actual events. For instance, in Ramayan, historians may use the works of Valmiki or Vashistha (if available) since they lived at the time, but they wouldn't use the works of even Kalidasa, much less Tulsidas or later. Similarly, in Mahabharata, historians would use Vyasa, but not later authors. In case of Valmiki, there are hardly any miracles in the story itself, which lends itself easier to incorporate. In case of Vyasa, a good number of miracles have to be discounted - no historical account of the Mahabharata will include Arjun's visit to Devalok, or Yudisthir's swargarohan yatra. And Shrimad Bhagvatam would even more sparingly be used.
The deal here is not so much w/ the other characters, as much as w/ Krishna. On one hand, he's a deity, so anything he did is above question: yet, that goes against the grain of people's sense of justice in some cases, and therefore, people treat him as a regular character like the others and analyze him. If they distort him, like they have been freely doing, not much is left: critics can point out the real Krishna, the real Yudisthir, the real Duryodhan et al and argue, but that will be tangential to those following this serial for the story.
So distorting mythology too produces fiction: while mythology (I'm referring to the original works of Vyasa, not later day interpretations by others) itself may or may not have been accurate, once it's altered, chances are that it definitely was not what happened. In case of this serial, by applying current mentality to the thinking of ancient figures, they've destroyed the historicity of those events.
Also, like you point out, if something is there on video, it's more likely to spread than, say, our fanfics or OS or other compositions. I think that's why Mukesh was unhappy @ what's being shown & portrayed.
comment:
p_commentcount