/lit/ - Literature

depends on what you find worth reading

>>4162428
/Thread.

NO Indian lit is awful. All the characters are perfect heroes or villains. It's the stories you wrote in 1st grade with shitty unpronounceable names. Read Homer

>>4162487
0/10

>>4162499
refute faggot

>>4162503
1/10

>>4162503
all Greek "epics" are pointless retarded concept-wanking that only made sense in its original historic context, and the moral is always "u gon git fukd, m8". Nothing is ever resolved without a god pulling something outta their ass (with Odysseus being a tiny exception, and even he got fukd). Also, it's full of gay faggots.

>>4162487
Even Homer is kindof shitty at character.

IMO, Virgil's Aeneid is the first book in the history of literature with any sense for character depth, human fallibility, complexity and even a little subtlety.

>>4162531
Aeneas is the most beta fagit to ever walk the Earth and a shallow copy of based Ulysses. Prove me wrong.

Yes, they're worth reading. Indian culture is the most influencial in the entire world. You can see its influence from Japan to Europe.

>>4162538
The Aeneid implemented and represents a whole new world-view or moral codex or whatever you call it. Yes, it could be seen as a pastiche of Iliad and Odyssey as a whole, but character-wise, Aeneas is nothing like Odysseus. He is much more a wise-leader type, one who isn't a selfish asshole (like all other greek heroes), he can see beyond himself.

>>4162531
Homer is shitty at character because the Mycenaean Greeks believed the driving force behind everything was the action of the gods. Their emotions all come from outside influences, rather than internal conflicts.

So when Hector fucks up and stays outside the walls, it's not because he was hot-headed, it's because 'Athena shrouded him in a fog of confusion and anger'. Etc.

Virgil wrote his epic hundreds of years later, when humans had formulated better concepts of emotion.

Also Virgil is a shitter and you know it.

>>4162543
best excuse for not having a fucking spine I've heard in years. Thanks /lit/

>>4162541
Yet still - he wrote it. He was able to translate what you call "concept of emotion" into fiction, writing a character that readers end up caring about.

>>4162548
What exactly about him is cowardly? Nothing. He doesn't do one cowardly thing in the story, always sticking 100% to his codex, which just happens to be different form the homeric world.

>>4162487
Er... what?

Dude, there's a whole section of the Mahabharata that has the hero questioning why he even fights, whether fighting is murder, etc. It's pretty good.

And OP, you might want to watch them in performance. It really opens your eyes to the nuances of the text.

>>4162554
"Let's start a war that will destroy a whole country just because I'm too much of a beta so SAY GOODBYE to my waifu"

Aeneas is so tangled up in his "honour" that he can't even consider anything but it. He's like a caricature of a samurai.

Besides, he has no free will anyway, everything he does is dictated by the fatum, which makes everything he accomplishes pointless, bceause he didn't actually change anything. It would've happened anyway.

>>4162570
that shoulda been "to", not "so". Always undermining my own points...

I read this in the original Sanskrit (I have a thing for dead languages)

>>4162487
>what is Kansa
>what is Yudhisthira
>what is Ravana
>what is Bhishma
Few characters are truly evil.

>>4162576
>Ravana

based as fuck

Everyone shut the fuck up. Both the Greek and the Indian Classics are worth reading.

>>4162614
/thread

From my research, I found two categories of translation:

#1: Bibek Debroy
#2: Everyone else, with seemingly nothing to recommend or distinguish them

I'm tempted to take Debroy just because he seems smart and it's more modern. But someone with more knowledge chiming in would be helpful.

In any event OP I would do a fair amount of background research if you're going to read the Mahabharata. It's very long (obviously), and understanding its quirks of composition/origin would probably go a long way to clearing up confusion encountered later. Even Homer benefits from this, and you can actually read Homer as a straightforward narrative.

>>4162617
Based Hitler.

>>4162619
Indianfag here.
For the Ramayana, you have three major Indian versions: the origianal Valmiki in Sanskrit, the Kamban translation to Tamil (12th century) and the Tulsidas translation to Awadhi Hindi (16th century). Translators usually take the original, but some translate Tulsidas' Ramcharitramanas instead, so watch out.
I found the Ramcharitramanas to be rather dull in its interpretations of the characters, emphasizing morality and devotion ('bhakti'). Kamban's Ramavataram tended to sensationalize (for lack of a better word) the plot a fair bit.
I'd suggest reading an annotated translation of the original, all in all.

captcha: nRaures Rajput
>my surname is Rajput

>>4162656
>Rajput
based Rajputana

>>4162656
I formed Hindustan in EU3/MM with Rajputana

You guys are alright

Yes. They're both huge though, several times larger than the Odyssey or Illiad. A fully printed Mahabharata would run in the thousands of pages. Most single tome editions are abridged in some form or another but still tend to dwarf the Odyssey anyways.

Try the Baghavad Gita first, which is the most famous section of the Mahabharata. Easwaran's translation is good.

>>4162668
I think the Mahabharata is at least 3-4 times the size of the Ramayana. Does Easwaran's translation have the original text alongside? Because the Gita is good poetry in Sanskrit. I have a large section of it memorized from readings when I was younger.

>>4162667
I found it easier with Bihar but thanks.

>>4162672
No, the Easwaran translation is just the English text in verse.

I believe the Mahabharata is something like eight times longer than the Iliad and the Odyssey put together. It would be like if the entire epic cycle had survived.

How about translations for the Ramayana?