This week, we read a different kind of the Ramayana, allowing us to see a different telling of the story. I chose to read: Ramayana by Sister Nivedita. The main thing that stands out right from the get go is that this story is told in a very objective manner. There isn't too much emphasis on the rhyming or song like style of the story like there was in the previous version of the Ramayana, and it takes away to some degree the spirit of the story as a whole; however, I do believe that I comprehend this version of the story better. For instance, the beginning sets up very well, and I believe that makes for a more comprehensible story.
This does bring up an interesting question of story of how crucial comprehension is to making a good story. The Ramayana that we read last week had a stronger feeling of spirit, the poetry and the language seemed to immerse the reader in the story. The intuitive flow is more smooth and it doesn't feel as jutted.
However, I can comprehend this version far better based on the first half of the story, because there is a sacrifice of flow for understanding. For stories, the question is whether or not we should be writing our stories with language that is homogenous that allows us to tell stories in a way that transcends words and connects with the reader on more than a literary level, or if we should allow the reader to understand everything about the story, but just the story, and not the background behind it.
As with most decisions, the tradeoff is not merely a dichotomy, bur rather, a sliding scale that each author moves throughout the story depending on the mood that they want to convey. I think the Ramayana is better told as in the Public Domain Edition, because it felt like a story that was moving as I read it, rather than something that I had to read more in order to advance the story.
This does bring up an interesting question of story of how crucial comprehension is to making a good story. The Ramayana that we read last week had a stronger feeling of spirit, the poetry and the language seemed to immerse the reader in the story. The intuitive flow is more smooth and it doesn't feel as jutted.
However, I can comprehend this version far better based on the first half of the story, because there is a sacrifice of flow for understanding. For stories, the question is whether or not we should be writing our stories with language that is homogenous that allows us to tell stories in a way that transcends words and connects with the reader on more than a literary level, or if we should allow the reader to understand everything about the story, but just the story, and not the background behind it.
As with most decisions, the tradeoff is not merely a dichotomy, bur rather, a sliding scale that each author moves throughout the story depending on the mood that they want to convey. I think the Ramayana is better told as in the Public Domain Edition, because it felt like a story that was moving as I read it, rather than something that I had to read more in order to advance the story.
The Ramayana is the main focus of the week. Source: Wikipedia
Bibliography: Ramayana by Sister Nivedita
Comments
Post a Comment