CN live episode discussion thread 1 - Page 69

Originally posted by: alanta

History texts mostly focus on the intellectual side of one's life and seldom focus on their personal lives. The term 'historical facts' itself requires explanation when it tends to focus on one's personal life especially when they are just biographies and not auto biographies. The personal life of historic heros can also be manipulated in a way to accomodate the interests of specific region and culture.

It doesn't mean that if a freedom fighter or any historical person had dedicated their life to the nation, then they could not have a personal life and relations of their own. Only that if they had any then they sacrificed their personal life and likes for the nation and that never found place in the pages of history. So if CGM's personal life is not clear or if history texts don't hint about CGM's love that doesn't mean it never existed.

Then who was she? Is she Durdhara? Helena? Or Nandini? Well only the real CGM can give a reliable answer to this question. No history books can suggest who loved whom or who hated whom the most in their personal life. Only assumptions can be made at the most and assumptions can go wrong too.

EK had clearly stated that Chandra Nandini is an historical fiction, where they are trying to portray an untold story of Chandra Nandini and untold obviously means 'never told before'. In the show they are justifying this when CGM denied the scholar from writing his biography about his personal life. There he said he wanted to be known as a ruler only and he prefered his personal life to be under wraps. They had enough history as backing the concept. I appreciate EK and her team for trying to explore the unexplored, but they failed in maintaing the track and/or finding the right track to move the story forward right after Nand's death.

Thanks to Shahjahan that he built Taj Mahal in rememberance of Mumtaz or else that would be another subject for dispute that whom he loved the most (If any) and the topic would definitely arise if Taj Mahal was not there.

Sorry if I sounded offensive, I just wanted to say no human is plain, everyone is layered character, and everyone has an unexplored side of their own.

Originally posted by: alanta

History texts mostly focus on the intellectual side of one's life and seldom focus on their personal lives. The term 'historical facts' itself requires explanation when it tends to focus on one's personal life especially when they are just biographies and not auto biographies. The personal life of historic heros can also be manipulated in a way to accomodate the interests of specific region and culture.

It doesn't mean that if a freedom fighter or any historical person had dedicated their life to the nation, then they could not have a personal life and relations of their own. Only that if they had any then they sacrificed their personal life and likes for the nation and that never found place in the pages of history. So if CGM's personal life is not clear or if history texts don't hint about CGM's love that doesn't mean it never existed.

Then who was she? Is she Durdhara? Helena? Or Nandini? Well only the real CGM can give a reliable answer to this question. No history books can suggest who loved whom or who hated whom the most in their personal life. Only assumptions can be made at the most and assumptions can go wrong too.

EK had clearly stated that Chandra Nandini is an historical fiction, where they are trying to portray an untold story of Chandra Nandini and untold obviously means 'never told before'. In the show they are justifying this when CGM denied the scholar from writing his biography about his personal life. There he said he wanted to be known as a ruler only and he prefered his personal life to be under wraps. They had enough history as backing the concept. I appreciate EK and her team for trying to explore the unexplored, but they failed in maintaing the track and/or finding the right track to move the story forward right after Nand's death.

Thanks to Shahjahan that he built Taj Mahal in rememberance of Mumtaz or else that would be another subject for dispute that whom he loved the most (If any) and the topic would definitely arise if Taj Mahal was not there.

Sorry if I sounded offensive, I just wanted to say no human is plain, everyone is layered character, and everyone has an unexplored side of their own.

Originally posted by: alanta

History texts mostly focus on the intellectual side of one's life and seldom focus on their personal lives. The term 'historical facts' itself requires explanation when it tends to focus on one's personal life especially when they are just biographies and not auto biographies. The personal life of historic heros can also be manipulated in a way to accomodate the interests of specific region and culture.

It doesn't mean that if a freedom fighter or any historical person had dedicated their life to the nation, then they could not have a personal life and relations of their own. Only that if they had any then they sacrificed their personal life and likes for the nation and that never found place in the pages of history. So if CGM's personal life is not clear or if history texts don't hint about CGM's love that doesn't mean it never existed.

Then who was she? Is she Durdhara? Helena? Or Nandini? Well only the real CGM can give a reliable answer to this question. No history books can suggest who loved whom or who hated whom the most in their personal life. Only assumptions can be made at the most and assumptions can go wrong too.

EK had clearly stated that Chandra Nandini is an historical fiction, where they are trying to portray an untold story of Chandra Nandini and untold obviously means 'never told before'. In the show they are justifying this when CGM denied the scholar from writing his biography about his personal life. There he said he wanted to be known as a ruler only and he prefered his personal life to be under wraps. They had enough history as backing the concept. I appreciate EK and her team for trying to explore the unexplored, but they failed in maintaing the track and/or finding the right track to move the story forward right after Nand's death.

Thanks to Shahjahan that he built Taj Mahal in rememberance of Mumtaz or else that would be another subject for dispute that whom he loved the most (If any) and the topic would definitely arise if Taj Mahal was not there.

Sorry if I sounded offensive, I just wanted to say no human is plain, everyone is layered character, and everyone has an unexplored side of their own.

Originally posted by: rach_ana

Ones who like the show they will be biased .Its natural .One who don't like the show they will talk negative and try to prove all wrong again its natural . One who don't like the actress, actor they will be happy when makers get new leads .All are selfish and biased in their own way.

Originally posted by: rach_ana

It 's your choice to say and feel .Like I said above all are biased and selfish for their own reasons .You might have liked Rajat previous show girl but for me there chemistry was big bore . Actress there more than heroine looked like teacher or mother with over expression as if she was some 70's films mother .It was bore.Even you might disagree with me and that is fine because just like how you have views about present heroine I have my views about past heroine.Here whatever I have seen I have enjoyed and as per my knowledge many watch show for leads also they call them Chandini right ? Whatever I have seen I felt this is Rajat best pair after Mugdha and I think many will agree with this.

Anyways am not at all active in this forum nor am interested to spoil the fun of already active members here by coming last minute to forum and spoiling their fun just because I don't like few things nor I want to prove himself right to satisfy my liking or disliking towards certain actress.

chao chao...

Originally posted by: alanta

@myviewprem Thank you for the really informative post.

Originally posted by: Roxelana