The story that I chose for part D was rather short. While it was short it was enough to whet my appetite and left me wanting more. Any good story or myth should always leave the reader wanting more. Like I have said in past notes, I really appreciate how descriptive these stories are and even though it is only two paragraphs I felt I learned more in those two paragraphs than I have in reading a chapter of a science fiction book. When it talked about the “clouds raining blood” or “snow-white clouds,” I had no problem visualizing what was being read. I have always been a person who craves details so that way I can imagine the story in my head. I am more of a visualizer and the more descriptions and details that I read the clearer the picture becomes in my head like some other people.
I feel like I am going to have do some research about why there are monkeys in these stories that I am reading. What is the reason for the monkeys? I intend to find out. Also, one thing that I did not like is the story did not go into detail when describing the battle that rage. It was kind of anti-climactic when Rama’s head was brought to Sita. I was hoping we would get to find out how he died and if it was a glories death or silent. One thing I have noticed that is different between Indian lore and Greek lore is describing battles and fights. The Greeks were very descriptive and sometimes went a little to overboard, but it brought the battle to life, whereas Indian lore doesn’t really describe the battles. Overall, the story was a good quick read I just hope the ones I read after are more descriptive.
Rama and Sita. (1957)
NA. Source: Wikipedia
Bibliography. Gibbs, Laura. Rama Attacks. Rama Attacks
No comments:
Post a Comment