After reading the mail chain about the infant Arumozhi, I have a very basic doubt. Can we believe the historical novels. Accepted the authors add some fictious characters to add spice to the story. I started reading historical novels, as they are a good medium to know about our past. Now when these novels begin to contradict the truth, I am now thinking whether to believe to the novels or not.
Can't the authors put a disclaimer at the starting that, "All information in this book are not 100% true" or something like that.
I have come across a few American Authors, who put such disclaimers in the beginning of the book itself. So we are made to believe certain things.
Even authors like 'Akilan','Vikraman','Kalki' etc do mention in the introduction that some characters in their novels are fiticious and the facts with evidences on which their novels are based. But they don't categorise as which characters are fiticious and which are not. Based on the evidences they got, they wrote the story but now we come of know of some evidences they failed to get or didn't try for. If we don't get any evidence then we could have believed the novels. But now since we are getting some evidences in the form of inscriptions etc we are neither able to believe the novels nor the evidences fully.
Its a very valid doubt But if you read any of the historic novels by big authors like Kalki Sandilyan Akilan etc They always say the basis of their charectors and stories...
If you carefully notice most of them will have a commoner or less known person as the main hero and a big historic charector as the base charector
the examples are countless
Vandiyadevan and arulmozhi Varman in Ponniyin selvan Paranjothi and Narasimha Pallavan in sivakamiyin Sabatham Parthiban and Mahendra Pallavan in Parthiban Kanavu
Ilanjezhiyan and Karikalan in YavanaRani Ilayapallavan and Kulothungan in KadalPura
Ilango and Rajendra in Vengaiyin Mainthan
the examples are countless
Most main historic novels are based on true historic charectors and times
Sandilyan quotes Urithirangkananar in his opening gambit and prooves that the yavanars and arabs were coming in hoards to poompuhar The exploits of young karikalan against the chera and pandiyan kings is well written
Kadalpura is based on the reason for Kulothungas invasion of Kalingam and Kalingathuparani which again is written and recorded in history but was there a koolvanigan or manjalazhahi well those obviosly are fictious
Likewise Sivagamiyin sabatham is based on Mammallan conquest over Pulikesi Kalki just made a great romantic story out of it
PS well we have talked about loads
Vengaiyin Mainthan records Rajendra's conquest over Mahibalan
so historic novels are not baseless but they are not gospel truths
I agree with Sri here - that's why you have a fictional/lesser known character as the main hero, you can take liberties with them that you can't otherwise, with actual historical characters!
On the other hand, most history-fiction writers don't claim that their work is the first and last gospel of truth - as far as history goes. It's the judicious mix of fact and fiction that makes it so much more interesting. Bare history is not that appealing:-))
>>>>>>Likewise Sivagamiyin sabatham is based on Mammallan conquest over Pulikesi Kalki just made a great romantic story out of it>>>>>
Amazing how much my own theories of Pallava history have undergone changes.:-) I'm now likely to consider Rajasimhan in a much better light:-)
Re: the Thiruvalangadu plates, about Vanavanmadevi and her mystery child: This gets more and more mysterious. What can Prof. RN mean, by talking about a 'kuzhavi'???!!! I, um, stick to my theory - that this is a uruvagam of the people of Chola Nadu itself. What say, G?
> Amazing how much my own theories of Pallava history have undergone > changes.:-) I'm now likely to consider Rajasimhan in a much better > light:-)
Not only that - you will be stunned if you visit badami / aihole / patthadakkal (karnataka) - a treasure trove of chalukyan art. You have to completely change your opinion about mangalesan and pulikesin as well !
It is said that pulikesin took artists from tamilnadu. Similarly, when vikramaditya (pulikesi clan) ransacked kanchi (revenge on pallavas) - he visited kailasanatha temple, was awestuck and made many many grants to the temple and did'nt disturb a single stone.