Ive read, listened and watched many versions of both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Of the two, the latter is the superior story in every way. Most importantly for me, the characters. I hope I won’t offend anyone’s religious sensibilities when I say the main character of the Ramayana is a bit dull, one dimensional and treats his wife terribly.
The Mahabharata has its share of misogyny, but it has a couple of fantastic characters - Karna and Bheeshma. It’s worth reading for these two alone.
“The only thing worth reading about is the human heart in conflict with itself”. These two exemplify that principle, whereas I found it absent in the Ramayana.
What conflict did any of the characters in the Ramayana face? Hanuman for example, decides to do Rama’s bidding and then does it. The only major dilemma he faces is whether he should bring the cure for Lakshmana or the entire mountain containing the cure. He goes with the latter. Same with Lakshmana. Only conflict I can recall is when he is told to abandon Sita in the woods. He is torn, but decides to anyway.
Compare these two to Bheeshma and Karna, who spend their entire lives torn by conflicting loyalties.
I don’t much care for Krishna as a character. Since he’s a god, a lot of what he does makes no sense and doesn’t need to either. He is supposed to be inscrutable. Such a character isn’t that interesting IMO.
> Compare these two to Bheeshma and Karna, who spend their entire lives torn by conflicting loyalties.
Karna is a legend generated in recent times. In most editions of Mahabharata, he is willingly standing on the wrong side of justice willingly. He didn't even care for the well being of his supposedly friend Duryodhana. Here is a talk[0] and book[1] by Mahabharata researcher.
Personally, I feel the characters in Mahabharata are more shades of grey (rather than just Good or Bad) unlike Ramayana which is portrayed as a fight between Good vs Bad.
Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side.
> Even Krishna's role has a lot of valid criticism in terms of the little he does to avoid the war (being a god and all). The closest clean character seems to be Karna who is on the losing side.
My apologies but both statements doesn't stand if you read the original work of Ved Vyasa or a faithful translation of it. One single incident disproves both the statement. I am not a Mahabharata expert but this proves how false legends have spread around texts like Mahabharata and Ramayana.
Krishna went as diplomat to settle the dispute without war. As a final proposal, he offered to settle the dispute just for 5 villages. Duryodhana under influence of Karna said "I will not give land worth a needle's tip." and that was the end of all negotiations.
Edit: Please refer to my other comment for details about Karna's Character.
IMO Mahabharatha's heroes (and all its characters in general) are closer to people who you may come across on a day-to-day basis; they all have various degrees of all the human traits. The story is also intimately human so it makes it easy to relate to say someone like Arjuna than to Rama.
The Mahabharata has its share of misogyny, but it has a couple of fantastic characters - Karna and Bheeshma. It’s worth reading for these two alone.
“The only thing worth reading about is the human heart in conflict with itself”. These two exemplify that principle, whereas I found it absent in the Ramayana.