Hi all, I am pretty new here :) and have read all your mails and discussions, being a silent spectator. Interesting thread, *single* most important event or turning point.. Oh, wish I could start my email that way! But, I am not new and I have not been reading mails and discussions (for quite some time now) due to various reasons. Hmmm.. *single* most important event or turning point. Krupa had this doubt about the definition of turning point. Krupa, I think turning point is something that comes all of a sudden, like an unexpected blow in the gut. Like the hero of a teleserial until wednesday becoming a villain on thursday. AK's murder, IMO was in no way a turning point. It was an important event, though. The story, for over 2 volumes, discusses the plan brooding to assasinate AK. The reader obviously *expects* his death. If he was not assassinated, it would have been different. So, I dont think it qualifies for a turning point. Touche, Pavithra (different reason, though). Same with the Sittrarasar Sadhialosanai, it was the base on which the superstructure (the novel) was constructed. Again, important event, not a turning point. VD escaping and Pazhuvettaraiyar listening to the sadhithittam are good ones. the human characters of PS. Sridhar hinted this on his list. The story begins on "Aadi perukku" which comes just before the monsoon season begins in Tamil Nadu. The whole story occurs during this season and the author has deftly utilized the geographical conditions in the novel, giving some good twists, thus making them characters in the novel. Cyclone in Bay of Bengal, Flood in Nagapattinam were all used wisely to lead the course of the novel. If they were not there, the course would have been different. RRC would have come earlier to Thanjavur, for instance. Another example: Pazhuvettaraiyar overhearing the sadhi alosanai was a turning point. But there was another one just before it. Had there been no flood, he would have crossed the river and would have gone to Thanjavur, not knowing anything, right? Oops. Looks like somebody got keyboard-happy :) That's all folks! Good thread, keep going! Thilak
Ondraa irandaa thiruppangal... Ellaam sollave oru mail podhumaa?
The first turning point in PS is the murder of Veerapandiyan which caused the death to AK. Otherwise AK wouldn't have been killed and we wouldn't have got NANDHINI. :) Nandhini illaamal PS eppadi irundhirukkum?
I was thinking on the same lines too. Turning points in the flash backs. One was what you said, What if AK has not killed Veerapandiyan.. Another one was, what if there was no ship form India to take Sundara Chola back to ascend the throne? He would have spent the rest of his life happily with Mandakini in the island! :)
thats exactly my point a single event in one persons life chnages the whole history of a nation and all of thilaks examples just proove what i wanted the group todiscuss from their veiwpoints...
I agree with Thilak and Sridhar - AK's murder was a turning point in the history of S. India at that time, but not in the novel ponniyin selvan.
Sathi aalosanai..kinda yes, kinda no - as AK already knew there was some political rumbling/conspiracy against him and that's the reason he sent VD - VD stumbling upon it helped the story along.
Pazhuvetarayar coming to know of the sadhithittam is a good, strong one IMO.
Diwakar, not to pick on you but I have to disagree about the "long, winding story" and Kalki struggling to finish it - I felt, and I am sure most of the diehard ps fans would agree with me, that when I finished the 5th volume, I actually wanted more - felt cheated that kalki left the fate of Nandhini, and the murderers, kinda hanging. And kalki himself wrote in his afterword that that was a complaint he received from thousands of readers when the story was published as a thodarkadhai in a magazine - that he should've written more.
Good to see an actual ps discussion after a loooooooong time. ;)
> One was what you said, What if AK has not killed Veerapandiyan.. > Another one was, what if there was no ship form India to take Sundara Chola back to ascend the throne? He would have spent the rest of his life happily with Mandakini in the island! :)
:-)) Now *that* is too far back (and much too involved). But I seriously doubt if Sundara would have spent all his life on an island. He was a prince, after all. If the ship hadn't arrived, he'd have gone back. Somehow. The call of the kingdom, and all that.:-)
The more I think of it, the more am I beginning to feel that Kalki has spun out the whole novel with a fatalistic bent. I suppose that's true of all historical novels - you know what really happened, so you have to write your story based on facts. And it all sounds predestined.
Even today, countries do exist, where individuals are banished (to far off islands with least habitation as punishment) for treason and so many other reasons with the hope that the individual may not survive the ordeal. But they do return in course of time, after serving a tenure and join the mainstream. Times improve, but basic instincts like for survival or succession do not change very much. Regards to all. Sundaram.