History is written by winners. 🤣Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.
But the level of Karna is something else altogether😆
I have issues with portrayal of Shri Krishna by few certain serials also, but thankfully I haven't come across people who actually believed in them.
In Karna's case, people even blame Vyasa for being biased 🤣
Once I argued with a genius who quoted Mritunjay to counter my points from KMG. Upon losing the ground, that genius disregarded the autnenticity of the source and asked me if I have the original manuscript. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Kinda agree with you but authentic sources are very much there if one wants them. The regional ones usually have a lot of contradictory folklores.The thing with mythology is that there are so many different versions of every story and every character has a problematic side to them if you go and analyze the story but that is the beauty of these stories too. Everyone has a bad side to them and I guess as a reader it's upto us how we interpret their storyline and what meaning we take out of it. Now glorification is something which we tend to do and it's again upto the reader which character they relate to and sympathise with most.
For example, Mahabharata has several myths and folklores associated with it like Draupadi rejecting Karna or mocking Duryodhana as a blind man's blind son. None of these incidents are mentioned in the original text. BUT, the influence of the adaptations and the level of collective ignorance is so huge that people refuse to believe it's not a part of Mahabharata. This is precisely what I find most problematic.
Haha! Why is it so surprising? 😅
Originally posted by: Wistfulness
“It’s interesting to play a demon king, less strictures in that. But we will make him humane, up the entertainment quotient, justify his abduction of Sita and the war with Ram as revenge for what was done to his sister Surpanakha by Lakshman, who cut off her nose,
^ LOL! These adaptations never fail in making a hero out of highly problematic men like Ravana and Karna.
Curious to know how demoness Shurpanakha's acts will be justified. I guess the narrative would be tweaked to paint her Treta Yuga abla naari. 😅
Moreover, will they show the humane Ravana killing his dearest sister's husband? 😓
this thyan you first they justified eve teaser like karna completely whitewashing and now they will use the same trick on another man of the same kind
The thing with mythology is that there are so many different versions of every story and every character has a problematic side to them if you go and analyze the story but that is the beauty of these stories too. Everyone has a bad side to them and I guess as a reader it's upto us how we interpret their storyline and what meaning we take out of it. Now glorification is something which we tend to do and it's again upto the reader which character they relate to and sympathise with most.
barring all the myths and local folkfores almost all the authentic translation are same when it comes to portrayal of karna now whether its his actual role in the dice hall which includes laughing lie a maniac when drau was dragged givng the idea of vh asking dushashan to drag drau into inner chambers where they will 'enjoy her' to his involvement in bheem s posioning bheem to him opening selling his wife and children to anyone on battlefield who will take him to arjuna . tv/film adaptation give half of his crime to duryodhan and he gets to play the poor he
Originally posted by: .Lonewalker.
I know. It's really scary. I have seen people in MB forum & in Quora spaces who think Karna was the actual hero of Mahabharata but Maharshi Veda Vyasa was a biased fanboy of Arjuna & hence his narration was partial. I couldn't even comprehend what that could possibly mean
I guess now a few decades later on, there will be similar arguments about Ravana & Meghnaad too 🤔
what people fail to understand here is neither arjuna and karna are vyasa s protagonist yudi is followed closely by panchali dont like yudi but that s simple truth it was ultimately yudi and panchali s jaya their win
Following is Mostly rambling about examples from pop culture on why heroes and villains both are a must.
Why is it so difficult to accept that Raavan was a villian? He was a scholar, greatest Shiva devotee, sure, but he made the women around him (including his wife, who had to deal so much) unsafe, he placed Sita with demons, and though he himself didn't make advances towards her, he used the demons to manipulate her.
I mean, isn't a story made of a hero AND villain, both vital parts of the story, both taking the story forward.
A movie with a strong, human hero and a strong villian, who is difficult to break, unless the hero know his weaknesses is such a great watch than Dabangg movies where you know Salman will beat the villians like he is a mosquito.
Infact, Villians are so much more fun to watch, understand and comprehend, hence making the movie much better watches. You can't justify them, but they portrayal and character is so powerful, you actually like them (like Khilji in Padmavati or even Udaybhaan in Ranaji)
Like Parasite, none of the two families were heroes and villians, we just rooted for the poor one coz they were the ones telling the story and we wished a better life for them, but, the writers and the director makes sure you don't like them, they never justified them.
So why is it so difficult to have a story where Ram and Sita are the JUSTIFIED right and wronged by Raavan and it's the two stories that take the movie forward.
Though Amish Tripathi's Raavan and Shiva Trilogy just takes the names of the mythology characters and are entirely different stories (fanfiction with the character names, if you might) they still loved by millions, becuase they explore the OG protagonists and antagonists with Amish's twist, each story contributing to the story, the villain's story told, but in the long run, he is hated by the people he wronged(and hence, the readers to grow to hate him), and when his story is told, the right is made to look weak, which is what it is, POV, and in every person's POV, only one person is right, themself.
Same with Harry Potter, when Harry finds out Voldemort was orphaned and never accepted as a kid, Dumbledore asks him whether he feels sorry for Voldy, and Harry says no, becuase we aren't supposed to feel sorry for him. He was wronged, sure, but that doesn't give him any right to wrong others (though I am not sure Raavan had such a backstory) and even Snape for that matter, he was grey, but as the author said, can never been forgiven for emoting his hate and guilt on clueless kids and James, he was a bully, who grew, but was never forgiven for his bullying, yet accepeted for standing in between Voldy and his family (ultimate) destruction.
Stories are beautiful if you have characters you can hate and love, and not everyone needs justification.
In South India, Raavan is highly praised, so I can see the movie getting some support there, but Twitter will trend #BoycottSaif and other such random stuff, Senas will tear a few posters. So, yeah, they are in for a huge ride, but after Padmavat, people see content as the king, so, if the movie does all three character right, it will be a hit, and if the movie flops, all the (created) hype will go down the drain.
Originally posted by: Wistfulness
History is written by winners. 🤣
Once I argued with a genius who quoted Mritunjay to counter my points from KMG. Upon losing the ground, that genius disregarded the autnenticity of the source and asked me if I have the original manuscript. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
OMG 🤣yes yes 🤣 That's always the argument🤣
For Karna fans, Mrityunjaya is the actual Mahabharata & Sawant is the Vyasa 😆 BORI, KMG... Geeta Press.... What? 😆
comment:
p_commentcount