Ramayana
1957 • 468 pages

Ratings1

Average rating5

15
Daren
DarenSupporter

This was a great read. This is a re-telling of the Ramayana, by William Buck. It is not in verse, although it remains in the original seven parts, and is considered one of the better modern re-tellings.
I must admit, the first of the seven parts almost had me putting this back on the self for another time. It was confusing with the number of characters, the timeframes and general confusion. I am so glad I persisted, as from the end of that part on, it was brilliant. To be fair it was the scene setting section of the book and was trying to set out the history. I should probably go back and re-read it, because I really don't know what it was...

For me, from that point on, the characters were absorbing, the story paced well and interesting and there were stories inside the story which explained aspects of the narrative. The other aspect of this edition of the book are the pictures. They occur probably every 20-30 pages, and look like pencil sketches. No colour, limited contrast - by which I mean they are not boldly drawn, but subtly drawn, and they are excellent. To me they seem to capture the intent of the writing, and provide realistic Indian imagery of the characters - not just people, but the mythological creatures and the animals. It does have a high proportion of inevitably beautiful women who appear almost exclusively with minimal clothing, usually topless, which was probably slightly disconnected from the text.

So no plot lines in the review - they would be reduced to something too simple, or would remain over complex, and there are plenty of sources or reviews which can assist. The story is somewhat familiar to me, but having not been brought up with the story as a part of my culture, there are plenty or moral lessons to take from this story, and it is plain to see why it remains popular and important in Indian culture.

So for stars, I struggled with the opening section, but loved the rest. I was settling for 4 stars, but I liked it better than that in the end, so racks up my first five star rating of 2016.

February 5, 2016Report this review