Bibek Debroy
Teoksen The Mahabharata: Volume 1 tekijä
Tietoja tekijästä
Sarjat
Tekijän teokset
The Upanishads: Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Shvetashvatara, Chandogya,… (2005) 2 kappaletta
The Bhagavata Purana (Set of 3 Volumes) 2 kappaletta
Mahabharata Vol 3 (Part 2) 2 kappaletta
The Sama Veda / 1 kappale
Uses and misuses of anti-dumping provisions in world trade : a cross-country perspective (2006) 1 kappale
Mahabharata, Vol. 2 (Part 1) 1 kappale
Mahabharata Vol 2 (Part 2) 1 kappale
Merkitty avainsanalla
Yleistieto
- Kanoninen nimi
- Debroy, Bibek
- Syntymäaika
- 1955-01-25
- Sukupuoli
- male
- Kansalaisuus
- India
- Syntymäpaikka
- India
Jäseniä
Keskustelut
Mahabharata Group Read, 75 Books Challenge for 2021 (syyskuu 2021)
Kirja-arvosteluja
You May Also Like
Tilastot
- Teokset
- 79
- Jäseniä
- 745
- Suosituimmuussija
- #34,104
- Arvio (tähdet)
- 3.9
- Kirja-arvosteluja
- 3
- ISBN:t
- 88
- Kielet
- 1
While I expect one day to learn Sanskrit to read the original manuscript used for this translation, this present effort is a great sit-in. Just a note, this is not recommended for first-time readers of the Ramayana.
To just focus on the criticism, it would be the verbosity. Some is unavoidable, and there's no finger-pointing for that. I can't count on all my fingers and toes the number of time the phrase "bull among men", "he who knows dharma"and such are peppered in, and it's a necessary burden for translators who strive to stick to the source minutely and don't summarise preferentially, though there are some succinct descriptors for some which could have been employed for the benefit of all(though in all likelihood I'd have been here complaining about the overuse of "goosebumps" rather than "the hairs on the arms rose up")
Bal and Uttara Kand (first and last) are commonly believed to be later additions to the core Ramayana, with a noticeably lower quality, and that shows for the Bal Kand at least. It's almost like novellas created later to provide the backstory to the characters which were eventually copied to the front. So the pacing is off, the jumps are jarring, and it is difficult to muddle through. It took me a month to get past that and only a couple of days for the second half, so yeah.
Another potential source of concern is in the footnotes, which while immensely helpful, can be seen as potential sources for introducing a "non-Critical Edition" bias by borrowing from future texts that may not be canon. I only suspect this because of some differences in how something is written and how it is interpreted in the footnotes, and there's no clear guide to how they are sourced.
But still it's a wonderful wonderful work.… (lisätietoja)