Ponniyin selvan - prabanchan
  • Dear All,

    Ok here's my tuppence worth. PS is a work of historical fiction. No one can
    refute that and if Mr. Prapancham has said something like that, it is either
    out of ignorance (which I don't think is the case) or out of arrogance
    (which might be the case). However, despite that, we have to realize that he
    is entitled to his views just the same as all of us. If we all love PS and
    Kalki's works, it doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with us or
    disparages his works is bad or wrong. That is just his opinion, just as the
    fact that we think PS is good is just our opinion. Also, one doesn't need to
    be a cricket player to critique cricket or bash Ganguly now, does one? Or be
    a politician to comment on politics. :-) Similarly, IMHO, one does not need
    to be a great writer to critique novels.

    My 0.02 $ worth!
  • Dr.Arunkrishnan,

    Prabanchan has every right to criticize PS.Without literary
    criticism no field will grow.I found fault with the logic of
    prabanchan.He says

    "A historic novel should not focus on lives of kings and princes.It
    should focus on life of commoners.Historic novels which dont do so
    arent qualified to be called as historic novels.So far only my novel
    has focussed on commoners.Thus this is the first historic novel in

    I found fault with his criticisms on the following grounds.

    1.Greatest historical epics like macbeth,julius
    ceaser,illiad,odyssey were written about the lives of kings and
    queens.Are they historical novels or not?

    2.Writing about commoners is one method of writing historic
    novels."Pillars of earth" is one such great novel.But how can we say
    other forms of novels cannot qualify as hitoric novels?

    It is these faults which I pointed out.
  • Dear Sampath,

    First, please call me Arun :). I don't have any disagreement with what you
    said. As I said, if he said it out of arrogance, that is still his opinion.
    And just like we have ours, he has his. And we are also well within our
    rights to criticize his opinions :)

    Like someone said: Opinions are like Ass*****. Everybody has one! :-p
    (*Tongue firmly in cheek*)
  • Kalki's PS is not complete fiction. He mixed fictious
    character along with historical facts made PS.

    Prabanchan has the right to put his views but he
    shouldn't have saying "not considered PS is not
    historic novel" when PS is completely based on
    historic facts. He would have told about "Parthipan
    Kanavu". I think Prabanchan confused between "Ponniyin
    Selvan" and "Parthipan Kanavu".

    Anyway if you tell about eveybody have the right to
    disagree means its bad that someone who professional
    writer disagreed on Tirukkural may not be correct.

    Like Prabanchan somebody disagree with Tirukkural, it
    doesn't make any sense. He may tell that even if whole
    world accept Tirukkural he wouldn't definitely be an

    So Prabanchan must be arrogant that disagreeing the
    mass opinion.
  • "All individuals have their own freedom of thought and the freeness to
    It is his own way to view the novel but i'm definetely not for his side
    since i dont find even a single reason as of why he says so. I'm a very very
    ardent fan of Kalki and especially ponniyin selvan i have read around 25
    Let us not go into his way of again criticizing him.
    We'll enjoy our own joys and let him not interfere in our debates.
  • Dears,

    i think we are becoming too obsessed with Prabanchan and deviating from the purpose.....

    It is like Ravana being too obsessed with Rama , whereby he lost all his virtues and ultimately perished.......(pls do not start a thread as to whether is right to compare Rama with Prabanchan and us with Ravana)...

    by concentrating too much on prabanchan, we are losing our focus.....

    today, even a great Person like "Mahatma Gandhi" is not above Criticism.. so accept it as a way of life...

    With Regards

    B. Dhiwakar

    Note: Think at last i have posted something which may look serious...
  • Hi Arun,

    I agree with you that people should be able to express
    their opinions. In my view, his opinion was basically
    regarding what is a historic novel. What Prabhanjan
    did was to redefine in his own way a commonly
    understood term , "historic novel". The justification
    he provides (common man ...) is not convincing. He
    did not criticise PS, but the way people use the term
    "historic novel". In his world, all such novels are
    called by some other name. I guess he does have a
    contorted view of the world.

  • I just had a rapid glimpse of the discussion. Have couple of thoughts
    on it,

    1) History is an ever growing field, with advances in
    anthropology/archaelogy and epigraphic evidences shed more light over
    it, we find lot of things we thought was history being proved wrong.

    So if we are to judge PS by historical factuality, we have to take
    into consideration the availability of sources at the time kalki
    wrote it.

    2) Another blame on historical fiction is that they focus too much on
    kings and less on cabbages. Love and war are the primary ingrediants.

    Again PS is a groundbreaking work in that aspect too. In fact PS has
    some many enjoyable down to earth daily routine info/imaginations like
    Vandiyadevan's repast at Sendan Amuthan's place " Thengai paalum,
    idiyappamum vayir mutta undaan..". Though I do enjoy other authors
    are Candilyan, this is one of the hall marks of Kalki.

    Points and Counter points apart.

    PS has a hallowed place not just because it is a good literature, but
    because it inspired thousands to know thier history and inspired
    historical explorations and other literary works and what not.

    So irrespective of factuality or belonging to any genre. PS is a

    However Prabanchan's perspective may not be the same, being a creator
    in his own right, it is innate in him to challenge the existing order.

  • Dear Mr.Dhiwakar,
    A small correction....sir.....Ravana was not obsessed with Rama, but with Sita.....like Periya Pazhuvettayar being obsessed with Nandhini.....!!!!
  • ok ok accepted... but "Rama and Sita ' are one..... vishnu keeps Mahalakshmi in his "vakshasthalam"......
  • Dear Mr.Dhiwakar,
    I would beg to differ there too....but then this ain't the place to do that..
    So I will not...but one question....?
    Why no comment on "like Periya Pazhuvettayar being obsessed with Nandhini.....!!!!"
    Has not Nandhini taken Periya Pazhuvettayar for a ride.....like Milady did with so many in Three Musketeers?
  • podhum ppa.. indha prabanchan sarchai......

    ok accepted.. Nandhini took PP for a ride..... naan edhaavadhu comment adippen... adhu vinaiyaa poi mudiyum... podhum indha vaazhkai...

    but i have read an abridged version of Three musketeers that too in my 9th std i suppose.... ellaam marandhuduchchu.... so milady and other things no idea.....

    but one thing is for sure .. i Know about Mylady's garden in chennai, behind mooremarket... which was a prominent place ... you can see lot of mylady's garden in B/W tamil movies......

    Attn Sridhar: Think Mylady's Garden can be added in the Historical places of Chennai which you listed sometime back
  • Dear Sriaman
    I beg to differ I wouldnt compare Ravanna and Periya Pazhuvettaayar...
    Periyavar married nandhini didnt steal her....and waited for her approval of married bliss
  • sridharji,

    even Ravana waited for Sita mata's approval..
  • ada ada ada.
    intha pombaLai vivakarathai konjam odappula pOttuttu uruppadiyaa aethavathu
    vishayam sollungaLEn ;-)))
  • vijay,

    sarithirame "PONNASAYINAALE " vandhadhu dhaan.... therinjukkoa...
  • vijay,

    sarithirame "ponnasayinaale, PENNASAYINAALE, mannasayinaale " vandhadhu dhaan.... therinjukkoa...

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Top Posters