I haven’t read any of Amish Tripathi’s books so far. I picked up this book because of the popularity of his previous Shiva trilogy. Scion of Ikshvaku (SOI) is the first in the Ramachandra series. The story of Ramayana is well known and so it is refreshing to see the author’s attempt to retell a classic in a realistic way. The generation today is inquisitive and does not accept anything without logical reasoning. Imagining the Ramayana as a true story minus the fantasy is challenging. But if it is possible to justify Ram as a common man who rose above the ordinary and became a shining example of virtues, I believe it will convince every one of us that we are capable of being so much more.
There are quite a few places of creative genius in this book. Ram and Sita are the protagonists and they are given their due. The usually demure Sita is transformed into an independent woman with liberal thinking. Ram’s picture of an ideal life partner to be the one who completes him and gains his respect is the true definition of a soul mate. The subtle romance between Ram and Sita is delightful. The supporting characters such as Lakshman, Manthara, Kumbhakarna, Vishwamitra have also been described well. They are presented with motives and defining natures and temperaments. Especially Lakshman who is given a total makeover. His conversation with Urmila when he leaves for vanvas is the most touching scene in the entire book. The camaraderie between the brothers is enjoyable. Characters with animalistic traits such as Hanuman, Jatayu are turned into X-men. Not really, but I liked the explanation :) The guiding principles which is the whole purpose of the Ramayana are at times explained really well such as the birth based v/s karma based caste system and the masculine and feminine ways of life.
Having said all that, it is rather unfortunate that the flaws in the book heavily over weigh the positives. The most glaring mistake is the author’s choice of words. I don’t mind simple language. But the use of words like police, wow, and operation theatre in an ancient context is jarring. Often, a sub plot is taken up half-heartedly and ended abruptly. Case in point Bharat’s affair with the forest chief’s daughter. Details like what made Sumitra pair her sons with the other two kids, who invited Ravan to Sita’s swayamvar are glossed over. The ending seems to be rushed. Fourteen years is too long to be written off in few pages. Also, I would have liked to hear more about Ravan as a person. Since this book is about Ram, I understand there is not much scope to elaborate on Ravan. However, it would have been a bonus.
There have been several interpretations of the Ramayana and I haven’t read any of them :) My point is that each version may be different in accordance with the author’s perception. However, there is a limit to the creative liberty a writer can take. Claiming Shukracharya to be from Egypt is a bit far-fetched. Also, I have never heard of Manthara’s daughter in any version of the epic. I actually looked it up on the net and found no mention of it. The gang rape of Manthara’s daughter Roshni (another example of a name which is misplaced in time) is entirely based on the nirbhaya incident. It seems unnecessary. If the intention was to provide Manthara a motive to hate Ram, it could have been done differently. This is not a retelling of an epic with an attempt to understand what might have actually happened sans the fantasy. This is the author’s fantasy of an epic which I think should be mentioned at least somewhere in the book’s intro or appendix. Any person who hasn’t heard of the Ramayana before might end up with a disconcerted understanding of a great tale. I do not mean to rip apart SOI. I am just disappointed that the author could not do complete justice to a concept with so much potential. While there may be several flaws in the book, it will certainly tingle the curious minds of today’s youth and nudge them to look up our great epics, thereby reviving our culture.
There are quite a few places of creative genius in this book. Ram and Sita are the protagonists and they are given their due. The usually demure Sita is transformed into an independent woman with liberal thinking. Ram’s picture of an ideal life partner to be the one who completes him and gains his respect is the true definition of a soul mate. The subtle romance between Ram and Sita is delightful. The supporting characters such as Lakshman, Manthara, Kumbhakarna, Vishwamitra have also been described well. They are presented with motives and defining natures and temperaments. Especially Lakshman who is given a total makeover. His conversation with Urmila when he leaves for vanvas is the most touching scene in the entire book. The camaraderie between the brothers is enjoyable. Characters with animalistic traits such as Hanuman, Jatayu are turned into X-men. Not really, but I liked the explanation :) The guiding principles which is the whole purpose of the Ramayana are at times explained really well such as the birth based v/s karma based caste system and the masculine and feminine ways of life.
Having said all that, it is rather unfortunate that the flaws in the book heavily over weigh the positives. The most glaring mistake is the author’s choice of words. I don’t mind simple language. But the use of words like police, wow, and operation theatre in an ancient context is jarring. Often, a sub plot is taken up half-heartedly and ended abruptly. Case in point Bharat’s affair with the forest chief’s daughter. Details like what made Sumitra pair her sons with the other two kids, who invited Ravan to Sita’s swayamvar are glossed over. The ending seems to be rushed. Fourteen years is too long to be written off in few pages. Also, I would have liked to hear more about Ravan as a person. Since this book is about Ram, I understand there is not much scope to elaborate on Ravan. However, it would have been a bonus.
There have been several interpretations of the Ramayana and I haven’t read any of them :) My point is that each version may be different in accordance with the author’s perception. However, there is a limit to the creative liberty a writer can take. Claiming Shukracharya to be from Egypt is a bit far-fetched. Also, I have never heard of Manthara’s daughter in any version of the epic. I actually looked it up on the net and found no mention of it. The gang rape of Manthara’s daughter Roshni (another example of a name which is misplaced in time) is entirely based on the nirbhaya incident. It seems unnecessary. If the intention was to provide Manthara a motive to hate Ram, it could have been done differently. This is not a retelling of an epic with an attempt to understand what might have actually happened sans the fantasy. This is the author’s fantasy of an epic which I think should be mentioned at least somewhere in the book’s intro or appendix. Any person who hasn’t heard of the Ramayana before might end up with a disconcerted understanding of a great tale. I do not mean to rip apart SOI. I am just disappointed that the author could not do complete justice to a concept with so much potential. While there may be several flaws in the book, it will certainly tingle the curious minds of today’s youth and nudge them to look up our great epics, thereby reviving our culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment