I have had the good fortune of getting to read numerous versions of the indian epic all through my life, starting from simplest versions written to sleep of to as a child, to versions with incredibly ornate languages and rich metaphors. But none of them had been as revealing on the aspect of how complex the ancient indian politics was as MT's retelling of the classic tale reveals it. From the earliest revisions to Bharatha the focus had always been on adding more , building on the epic with dense story arcs, anecdotes, moral tales, philosophical and ethical discussions , all of them a bit too much that the human element of the story was often suppressed.With the huge number of characters and subplots, reading mahabharatha has always felt more like feasting your eyes on an ornately drawn up map than reading a book. Which is probably why MT's short version with a narrower( but more intimate) perspective works. Randamoozham is not just a mere retelling or re-imagination of classic Mahabharatha but an attempt to get back to the human tale that has been buried far too deep within the complex maze of metaphors that has been corrupting it till date. It is in essence a critique of the classic as much as it is an attempt at retelling. Every time I read a well written version of the Mahabharata, I respect the original epic even more. How many works can lay claim to so many renditions centuries after the original version? As for this version, what does it say of an author when he can mesmerise the reader with a story that one has been hearing since childhood? As the title suggests, Bhima is the protagonist and the story is told from his perspective. MT does not try to take on the much larger canvas of the Mahabharata, and instead focuses on keeping the narrative around Bhima. That is what makes this unique. The story is told in flashback mode - from the final journey. Between the eldest Yudhishtira, whose kingship is a focus and the warrior Arjuna, whose valour is a key element of the epic, is Bhima, who annihilated each of the Kauravas, but who is still largely a footnote in the epic. Through the book, many a character refers to him as the 'blockhead', and do not even begin to understand his sensitive side, Arjuna being a key exception. Indeed, it would seem that only Arjuna, Draupadi, Dhritarashtra and Dhrishtadyumna respect the fierce warrior that Bhima is. Bhima also sacrifices a lot of his relationships for his brothers and is not able to be the husband and father he might have wanted to be. In this context, there is a superbly nuanced sub-narrative of casteism that runs in parallel. It is also interesting how he plays down many of his exploits as the exaggeration of bards, and actually many of the events in the Mahabharata are underplayed or completely non-existent (Krishna's intervention while Draupadi was being humiliated by the Kauravas) in this version. On the flip side, the tension between the brothers (Yudhishtira-Bhima and Yudhishtira-Arjuna) is a key component here. Yudhishtira is largely shown as someone who uses Dharma as a shield for his ineptitude. Kunti's political astuteness compensates a lot for it.There are many such alternate explanations and perspectives, like the Saugandhika flower episode, that add to this version's uniqueness. The last few pages which offer quite a few revelations, and the epilogue, are worth a mention too. I have not read the original Malayalam book (I plan to) so I cannot comment on the translation, but the language is simple yet eloquent and that played a large role in making this book a thoroughly enjoyable read.
Do You like book രണ്ടാമൂഴം | Randamoozham (1984)?
I have had the good fortune of getting to read numerous versions of the indian epic all through my life, starting from simplest versions written to sleep of to as a child, to versions with incredibly ornate languages and rich metaphors. But none of them had been as revealing on the aspect of how complex the ancient indian politics was as MT's retelling of the classic tale reveals it. From the earliest revisions to Bharatha the focus had always been on adding more , building on the epic with dense story arcs, anecdotes, moral tales, philosophical and ethical discussions , all of them a bit too much that the human element of the story was often suppressed.With the huge number of characters and subplots, reading mahabharatha has always felt more like feasting your eyes on an ornately drawn up map than reading a book. Which is probably why MT's short version with a narrower( but more intimate) perspective works. Randamoozham is not just a mere retelling or re-imagination of classic Mahabharatha but an attempt to get back to the human tale that has been buried far too deep within the complex maze of metaphors that has been corrupting it till date. It is in essence a critique of the classic as much as it is an attempt at retelling.
—Samantha
I honestly had no idea what I was diving into, but I liked it.The story follows the life of Bhima, all the way from childhood to much later in his life.One day he, his siblings and his mother are being taken to their kingdom, so they can rule.Singers tell stories with their songs, about their spectacular future.Bhima doesn't necessarily have a perfect life, as he is one day thrown into the river, bound. But he actually makes it, and after this, he gradually learns to become a strong fighter.And a strong fighter he is to become - we hear lots about his killings later in the book.His family is taken to a hut in the forest, and they hear that they are to be killed. They manage to escape, and live in the forest for some years. There Bhima meets his first wife.After this, his family lives a pretty good life, but then something horrible happens, and they have to live another 12 years in exile.All there is left to tell about now is the great war at the end. I must say this is where I got a little bored, cause I'm not too fond of reading about wars.But all in all, this is a pretty good book, and it's nice to read something from another culture, but still so easy to understand!
—may
could have given more psychological reasoning for the lone warrior.
—Robyn
