In regards to his
shortening of the Indian epic, Narayan stated: "I have omitted none of the episodes relevant to the destinies of the chief characters. I have kept myself to the mainstream and held my version within readable limits." On the subject of translation, Narayan noteD how an English version of the epic necessitates a process selection and condensation of the poetics into
prose, as the "rhythm and depth" and the "hypnotic quality" of
Sanskrit would inevitably be lost in translation. Though Narayan is knowledgeable of the scholarly research into the
textual history of the Mahabharata (the evolution from a charioteer ballad into
Jaya, and then
Bharata, and finally the
Mahabharata over the course of hundreds of years), Narayan chose to accept the traditional accounts of the narrative's origins, stating in his version's introduction: "The conclusions of cold, factual research seem like 'catching the rainbow with one's finger's', to quote a line from the epic itself." American
Indologist and author
Wendy Doniger notes that although Narayan translated the epic from the Sanskrit version of the text, he still maintained the
Tamil-style spelling of many of the character names (Kunthi instead of Kunti, Satyavathi instead of Satyavati, etc.). That being said, many of the epic's crucial points, such as the ambiguous nature of
Krishna's divinity, follow the conventions of the Sanskrit text. Doniger states that Narayan "selects the precise details to keep the mortal/immortal tension in Krishna alive throughout the book." ==See also==