Thread - My view on modern/humanized/realistic versions of ancient/historical/epic/puranic works.

1. Such accounts are always limiting. A metaphoric account is always far more superior.
2. Essentially, it is a reduction into a particular space, time and context.

1/n

That in itself is not bad.

1. Authors do so to serve some purpose within a time, space, context
2. Within this, a creative writer assumes significant freedom
3. True starting from the times of Kalidasa (Abhijnana Shakuntala)
4. In general, this much is Bharateeya tradition
2/n

Lets delve a little more on the purpose of such creative freedom. Purposes that I am not opposed to are

1. To reflect a reality of current times
2. To serve the purpose of a specific cause of today
3. To explore some possibilities of even ancient times

3/n

I am familiar with Kannada Literature. Starting from the very great Devudu Narasimha Shastri, who are all very reverent of the tradition - you can easily list
- Changes
- Potential Distortions
- Deviations
- So, on....

4/n

A common thing with all such deviating accounts were
- Limited to Specific Character portrayals
- Without harm to the larger tradition
- With good intentions
- No harm to fundamentals/larger Civilizational
- Without Creating new problems

5/n

Now, within this ambit, creative freedoms
- Often succeeded
- many times failed
- Sometimes unintentionally distorted

But all of them
- were right in their TONE (dhvani) & METAPHOR
- Made people more INTERESTED in the original
- were HONEST that they are fictional accounts

6/n

Lets take Parva of Shri. SL Bhairappa - an account of Mahabharata & much celebrated
- Highly reductionist & limiting account
- Serves certain creative purposes of the author
- Many characters & incidents are absolute distortions from a pure angle
- Makes a compelling reading

7/n

Now, to put his credentials
- Few know Bharateeya Traditions & Philosophy like him
- He is highly respectful of the tradition
- He is hated by the leftists. For decades they have denied him his due
- Society loves him
- Yet he wrote what he wrote

8/n

Coming back to Parva
- Traditionalists do not like the novel. Listen to Dr. Shatavadhani Ganesh criticising the novel.
- Kannada literary criticism has written 10 times more about the novel than the novel itself
- Personally, I have many problems with the novel

9/n

But SLB's status as an upholder of the tradition remains unharmed. Because
- Larger purpose is understood
- Enough disagreement documented

And
1. Through good criticism, Society has placed Parva neither high nor low.
2. Vyaasa Maharshi continues to be right at the top

10/n

Now, what are the creative freedoms that I abhor
- Unethically claiming to represent the original, obfuscating
- Serving a Conflicting purpose
- Distorting the Civilizational truth
- False demeaning something/body today for politics
- Reverse/Inverse portrayals of Realities

11/n

Creative Freedoms I detest. Wrong Conclusions, False Portrayals.
- Girish Karnad's glorification of Tipu Sultan
- Bhishm Sahani's reinterpretation of Madhavi Story (MB)
- Leverage of Karna to portray Caste conflict
- Leverage of Dasyu in Rigveda for Aryan-Dravidian conflict

12/n

Coming back to Author Amish
- Clearly in the tradition of SL Bhairappa
- Assumes creative freedom to certain purposes
- Some are great, some failed.
- Always reverent of the tradition
- Always encouraged reading originals
- Highlights crucial aspects of the tradition

13/n

What is the right thing to do
- Engage with the work
- Highlight aspects that one does not agree with
- Criticise
- But in the tradition of literature
- Both context of the Overall Work and the Civilization
- and direct it to build interest towards the original

14/n

What is not desirable
- Not understanding the Overall purpose/context
- Questioning Intentions
- Demeaning, denouncing
- Bringing down the quality of discussion

End of the Thread
n/n