Fate

I think the author's usage of foreshadowing helps to reinforce the inevitability of fate and show that no matter what Panchaali does to try to change things, fate will twists events in such a way as to make things happen the way they the gods intended. For example, when she is warned by Vyasa to "hold back [her] laughter" (40), it is actually her attendants that laugh and directly cause the damage to Duryodhan's pride, which Panchaali has no control over. Panchaali plays an entirely different role in the whole debacle with Duryodhan: it is her preoccupation with Karna that first keeps her from warning the rival prince, and then prevents her from apologizing (172-173). Throughout the novel, Panchaali's love for Karna and her attempts to hide that love through her mistreatment of him seem to seal both their fates. It is her longing for him that causes her to go against her better judgment and accept the invitation to the imitation palace (177) and then her fear of Kunti's judgment when they meet in their matching white garb that makes her treat him like a nobody instead of taking the one opportunity that he gives her to make amends (187). If there hadn't been this accumulation of bad experiences between them, which have resulted in the repressed feelings they both have for each other, then maybe Karna would have helped her without her having to beg for it and she wouldn't have been humiliated by him and declared war on the Kauravas. I think Divakaruni really wants us to consider the what if's of the story, to ask ourselves why things had to happen the way they did. It shows us what Panchaali and Dhri knew at the very beginning of the story: that a story can have a certain sequence of events, but the meaning of those events and the motivations of the people that shape them are multiple and varied.
In the second part of the story, it seems like Panchaali is more by duty that anything else, and that it is the duty she feels owed by her husbands that keeps her on the path to vengeance. This is dangerous, because in being consumed by the obligations that bind her and her husbands together, she begins to lose sight of herself. In the year of hiding when Panchaali becomes the servant of a queen, she thinks to herself, "It seemed that everything I'd lived until now had been a role. The princess who longed for acceptance, the guilty girl whose heart wouldn't listen, the wife who balanced her fivefold role precariously, the rebellious daughter-in-law, the queen who ruled in the most magical of palaces, the distracted mother, the beloved compoanion of Krishna, who refused to learn the lessons he offered, the woman obsessed with vengeance--none of them were the true Panchaali. If not, who was I?" (229). I don't know if this is Divakaruni's comment on something that happens to Indian women, who are often pulled into the role of caring for the men in their lives, or if this is just another way for Divakaruni to emphasize fate in Panchaali's life by undermining her free will and thus her sense of self. As I was reading, I also asked the question "Who is Panchaali?" There seems to be no constancy in her sense of self; it's always changing to suit the particular role that she is required to fill. The only time that I get the sense that she is truly herself is when she is alone in one of her gardens in the Palace of Illusions, or she is thinking about Karna because those are two things that are strongly connected to her own desires. It seems like her fate is just a huge denial of her own wants and needs, and that the one thing that she is allowed to have (the war) will destroy what little happiness she has left.

Meanings and Realities of Inequality

I apologize for being late everyone!  I thought that I posted this a few days ago but when I visited the blog this morning to see what other people have to say about the book I could not see it.  If I am somehow an idiot and this is a double post, I apologize.

There are two central themes in this book that really seem to speak to me: the realities and meanings of gender inequality and the injustice of war.  For this first post I will focus on the theme of the realities and meaning of gender inequality.  As I read, although I am paying close attention to the author’s use of symbolism and the fantastical to bring up modern issues, I am reading the story quite literally.  I am a big fan in the Joseph Campbell and really believe in his thoughts on the power of myth.  He says that they teach us lessons and give us life instructions.  I feel that if I were to try to interpret every fantastical thing that happens in The Palace of Illusions, I would miss a big part of the many true meanings.

Author Chitra Banerjee Divarkaruni illuminates the paradigm of gender inequalities through the voice of the stunningly beautiful, strong willed Panchaali princess Drapaudi.  The circumstances of her birth and royal status in many ways shield Drapaudi from the reality of the male dominated world and a woman’s place in it.  This is important because as she is shocked and learns the minutiae of this patriarchal system, over time, these ins and outs are illuminated for us.  The depth and dynamics of her many relationships, the complexity of her emotions, and the path of resistance that she, more often than not, chooses to take all show Drapaudi to be truly born of fire—a powerful force and a true feminist of an epic age.

I found Drapaudi’s education with the sorceress to be very interesting.  I was surprised by what she learned and because I read from a male perspective and I had to actually read it a few times in order to really get what she was learning.  I wondered, why is agreeing to be taught humility when her will and existence were powerful enough to be destined to change the course of history?  Fortunately, Dhai Ma raised the same question and that was my prompt to pay attention.  Dhai asked, “Whoever heard of a queen braiding someone’s hair—or even her own for that matter?” (61)  She later exclaims that the sorceress “will be the death of you! She is wearing you down to skin and bone.” (61)  Drapaudi’s internal reflection really answered my questions.  She spoke of how the sorceress taught her things to help her deal with hardships, to sleep on the floor, and to be beautiful or homely at will.  She says, “I noticed her lessons were opposites” (61).    She taught her how to fight injustice by using narrow minded perceptions to create the illusion of meekness while holding a position of power.

groovy t-shirts

Thanks Victoria for making club t-shirts. I'm very happy with mine...even though the front letters are peeling off...if I can get the remnants to shed, the back side lettering seems to be holding up well. And its very cool...you put a lot of work into it.

Blue Gods and Firebabies

Sorry to be blogging several days late! Let me say first, that I am really enjoying this book. I am trying to resist the urge to look up the actual Mahabharat, lest I spoil the story. I have also resisted the urge to read other people’s blogs before writing this one, so I’m sorry if there’s overlap in what I say and what other people have said (but not really).

To respond to this week’s question, I think Dhri and Panchaali/Draupadi’s birth from fire is absolutely literal. This story is of a time and place in which Deity and magic are totally real, and play a part in every day life. When Krishna’s magical exploits (demon killing, mountain lifting, superhuman seduction) and possible godhood are addressed (8 – 10), Panchaali, of course, brushes them off, as people love to exaggerate (19). But her tone indicates that she doesn’t really feel there is reason these things couldn’t being true. In other words, her close personal acquaintance might be a god, but this matter doesn’t bear much consideration or concern.

Then also there is Panchaali’s question to Dhai Ma (sorry I don’t have the page number or exact quote), if Dhai Ma believes human beings can be born from gods. Dhai Ma’s response is basically, “just as surely as they can be born from fire!” It strikes me that she is referring to a literal fire-birth here.

On the other hand, I’m made to wonder whether the author is attempting to normalize what would appear divine, when Panchaali and Krishna’s skin tones come up (once again, sorry no page number). They are both stated to be so dark that they are called blue. I wonder if this actually might have been the origin of blue gods and heroes in the Hindu tradition – I mean whether blue was originally a description of realistic and very dark human skin color, which Hindu artists later took to be literally and unnaturally blue.

Either way, this is a story about real people. I don’t see why some aspects of what we now would call magic and divinity could not be fully literal – so much so that the human characters in Illusions are a little jaded toward them – while some aspects might be explained away, and nothing special.

* * *

I really like Panchaali, the clever and slightly rebellious girl who tussles with destiny and tradition vs. choice. My favorite of her exchanges, and one which I feel helps the reader get to know her pretty well, is on page 40, when the sage makes reference to her pride, temper, and vengefulness. She glares and fires back, “I’m not like that!”

That’s all for now.

-Kevin

Cosmic Restriction

What strikes me...and so what Divakaruni successfully illustrates...is the relentless hold of social restriction on the characters. Regardless of their status, whether in terms of wealth, intellectual prowess, or gender each character is bound to a predetermined set of expectations and permitted behaviors. And these assigned roles are writ large to a cosmic level...as go the patterns of men and women, so go the patterns of the gods, and vice versa.

Some of the most interesting tension in the story comes from seeing how the characters play the greater or lesser power vested in their particular position. For example, Kunti the merciless and seemingly all-controlling mother of the Pandava brothers, walks a fine line in her maternal manipulations and in trying to establish her sons securely. Her personal power comes through being a mother...but that only lasts if her sons gain status. She feels the pressure. (119)

Another example, of precarious power play is the fact of Panchalii's marriage to all five brothers. On the one hand, as Dhai Ma points out Panchaali has now the "freedom men had had for centuries." (120) On the other, Panchaali has to be given the "boon" of regaining her virginity after spending her allotted period of time with each husband, to maintain her chastity as dictated by social expectations of a proper woman. Divakaruni observes that what seems to be unprecedented equity for this female character is actually another manifestation of fate assigning her the role of "communal drinking cup" or object shared among men. At the same time, this experience serves as venue for Panchaali to articulate to the reader her own desires and to gain deeper understanding into another strong female character in the story, her mother in law Kunti.

Divakaruni shows how each character behaves according to their allotted role/s (as is a prime lesson of the Mahabharata) and simultaneously turns the story inside out by illustrating the female characters' motivations, and at least one female character's internal narrative.

First Chapters!~

I can't say much about the book yet. To say I've started is almost an overstatement. I am looking forward to reading more, because I am already seeing a huge potential for a very interesting book. Mythology has no boundaries in the visual image, the strange and metaphorical events, and within the first three pages the author is already taking advantage of the imagination possible. With a little twist of sarcasm. I can tell already that I'm not going to remember any of the names, but the characters seem very interesting so I definitely have a good mental image of them going. For some reason at the introduction of King Drupad, I thought of a powerful merman, at least in the general features (besides the obvious lack of tail). Draupadi feels to me like a little bit of a clever trouble maker, and a peacemaker, but then again I haven't gotten far at all.
How funny, when I read "The smoke rose" I pictured a literal rose made out of smoke. I might be accidentally making some of the visual images even more interesting.
It seems like in a lot of old stories and mythology, the line between reality and myth is blurred. It humors me that even the characters in the book acknowledge that there is a level of myth in their lives. The difference is the realism of prophecy in their world.