A friend who is reading PS (in English translation, sadly!) asked me why Pazhuvettaraiyar seemingly orders the guard to stab Kandanmaran while he is leaving the Suranga paadhai in vol. 1. The reasons, if I remember, are not explained later in the novel. I guessed that it was probably because he knew too many secrets, i.e., the suranga paadhai, madurantaka devar being brought that way, or seeing Nandini in the secret passage. I was wondering if there is a past discussion on this in the archive....I am not too convinced by my guesses. After all, Pazhuvettaraiyar needed Kadamboor Sambuvaraiyar's help at that point, and it would have been inconvenient to have his son killed. Pl. let me know if this discussion is already in the archive.
Thanks...I did think it had something to do with Kandanmaran returning by the suranga paadhai after sending Madurantakar and meeting Pazhuvettaraiyar and Nandini unexpectedly. I seem to have forgotten about his mistaking Nandini for Pazhuvettaraiyar's daughter. Is it revealed later that he mistook her for the daughter? It still is a pretty devious twist to the plot that he is stabbed!
Thanks! The unanswered mystery is part of Kalki's magic. Makes us all debate about it - unlike an Agatha Christie novel where all the answers are in the last page... The way vol. 1 is written, it is not obvious at all that Nandini saw Vandiyathevan hiding.
My humble take on Nandhini's complex relationship with Veerapandiyan is just that she really did not know who he was. He could have been father/brother/lover anyone, it is left to our imagination and quite understandable how we can be confused as readers.
Nandhini's character though is just an abandoned woman who wants to use her beauty and brains to seek revenge on the world for the love and care she did not get as a child. Like many women in that situation she is often vulnerable to those who treat her with kindness and as a human instead of a beauty object - Periya Pazhuvetariar, Karikalan and Veerapandiyan were the only 3 people in her life who gave her respect so she responded like wise that is all.
> > Nandhini's character though is just an abandoned woman > who wants to use her beauty and brains to seek revenge > on the world for the love and care she did not get as > a child.
Hi,
If that is what it was - she could have met up with karikalan when both were old enough and restarted the relationship. i think in the interim period when she is driven away from the chola land - she comes to know of her true identity.( another clue comes from the fact that she uses her resemblance to her mother to play her ghost). maybe she even said veerapandian was her lover to instigate aditya to kill him - thereby hitting two birds with one stone - making her the sole heir and also providing fresh impetus to her fighters due to the gruesome killing of their wounded leader.
in all this, i am still apprehensive of the role of anirudar - he is not the kind to throw someone into prison without an enquiry - and knowing karitirumaran - he was ready to sing to anyone. so why was he locked up for so many years.....
also anirudar had seen oomai rani alive and dead sure he would have seen the resemblance in nandhini. yet he kept quiet
similarly - knowing that nandhini is given away to a poor household, he enlists their son to be his spy......
> to the gruesome killing of their wounded leader.
Talking of beheading, unfair, gruesome, ( aditya displaying the head of veerapandya on a pole outside tanjore for weeks to rot etc)....this seems to be very much prevalent...check this for heights of abuse..
(He) attacked and destroyed the irresistible, great and powerful army which he (viz. Vikkalan) had again dispatched into Vengai- nadu ; cut off the head of the corpse[23] of the Mahadandanayaka Chamundaraja ; and severed the nose from the face of his (viz., Chamundaraja's) only daughter, called [Na]galai, (who was) the queen of Irugayan (and) who resembled a peacock in beauty.
Nandini was rescued by Periya Pazhuvettaraiyar, when she was about to be burnt on the funeral pyre of Veerapandiyan. Only wives (not brothers or other close relatives), if they want, are subjected to this horrible practice. She managed to convince Ravidasan and his group that she could achieve more by being alive. Does this not lead to the conclusion that Nandini was considered as Veerapandian's wife by others, and she did not try to dispel this idea.
Nandini was about to be thrown in the pyre by Ravidasan for not protecting Veerapandiyan from Aditya. Ravidasan says this to Nandini in the first book. I don't this we could infer that she is Veerapandiyan's wife from this.
> Thanks for the reference and clarification. Nandini is still an enigma. > Sampath
Hi
sure she was for kalki himself
> > Nandini was about to be thrown in the pyre by Ravidasan for not > protecting Veerapandiyan
a scene like this comes in three musketeers and around the world in 80 days. kalki seems to have been inspired by them and in a spur of a moment added that scene.
to those who have read PS several times, nandini was certainly kalki's 'sarukkal'.
that was more the pitfall of writing every week and comitting yourself and not able to go back and correct the charecters. kalki had quite a few in PS. murugaiyan brother of punkuzhali was another sarukkal. introduced as a physically challenged man who cant speak he later talks by the ton. anybody else would have been pulled up for these errors but then kalki was at the pinnacle of his storytelling. i am not sure if people who read it as a serial even noted them.
i am sure all these played a huge role for kalki abruptly stopping his PS . he must have thought he couldnt go further without contradicting himself. new members should read a thread called " errors of kalki" where these were tabulated.
venketesh
> > from Aditya. Ravidasan says this to Nandini in the first book. I don't > this > > we could infer that > > she is Veerapandiyan's wife from this. > > > > regards, > > siva. > > >
I will be a bit charitable. Nandini was such an unpredictable person (real or fiction) that Kalki did not know how to handle her. You too, have made her appear and play her part, though softened by time and events. Sampath
> one thing however.veerapaandiyan in the delirium of his death throes > could have mistaken nadini for oomai rani because of this resemblance. > > but kalki could never explain nandini's side of this story. > venketesh >
And RV, I have said it before and saying it again, not telling her side of story is the masterstroke of Kalki. Had that been told there is no mystery and we would not be talking about that. Comparing this to Milady of Three Musketeers, her story comes to light from one of the musketeer(i could not remember his name) . There is no mystery there, and we do not have any interest in talking about her.
Rahul, Very well put!! I feel similar. Also just historically another example Arthur Conan doyle, the author of Sherlock Holmes himself got so fed up writing of the same guy that he killed his hero in one episode. The angry fans went to court demanding the hero be resurrected!! Obviously the court ruled in favor of the author saying he can do what he likes with his character.
But Conan doyle was so moved by his fans love for his character that he resurrected him and wrote few more episodes. We are unfortunate Amarar Kalki did not live to see his Nandhini being discussed so many years after he created her or he would have given her more detail and a sequel.
Why so many years. I was told that these things were discussed in those days also. But among friends and cousins (It was a joint family system in those days and cousins group itself was a big gang and they discussed PS till the next issue of Kalki was published) Probably fans of those days didn't go to court / protested against kalki to write more about nandhini
I agree Kalki might have mistaken in juggling Nandini's character across the PS, but I still hold it as his masterstroke. May be not intentional. Tell me which is most two discussed point in PS,
My take would be 1. Who killed Aditya? 2. Who is Nandini's father?
Had Kalki had wanted he could have given the answer at the post script. But he never gave an hint for either of the above questions. I think he was aware of the questions that might arise in the readers mind and wanted to keep it a lingering thought in all the readers and he has achieved it.
Holmes fans refer to the period from 1891 to 1894 the time between Holmes' disappearance and presumed death in "The Adventure of the Final Problem"
one woman poked doyle with an umbrella because he had killed off his charecter
some papers ran obituaries for the fictional charecter. after starting again Conan Doyle continued to write Holmes stories for a quarter-century longer.
but each story in itself was an episode with not much connection to another unlike ponniyin selvan where the story was stopped rather abruptly
the reasons i could attribute other than reasons already discussed were 1) a premonition of his own death. the time between the stopping of PS and kalkis death were a few months
2) wanting to concentrate on amaradhara movie for which he had made notes and written a partial screen play. kalki's life long ambition was to succeed in movies( and perhaps beat ss vasan on his home turf)