Review: “The Palace of Illusions” by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni


First published in today’s The New Sunday Express.

Because I work with the reimagined archetypes of Draupadi and a (female) Karna in my own writing, I cracked open Divakaruni’s retelling of the Mahabharata expecting, even hoping, to feel some envy. The Palace of Illusions presents the epic via the voice of Draupadi/Panchaali. It’s an ambitious project, and not without predecessors, choosing as its medium one of world mythology’s most idiosyncratic women.

To rework an epic is like writing a ghazal: there is infinite variety within the constraints of its key identifiers. But Divakaruni’s Mahabharata bears little difference to what we popularly understand to be the epic. That Panchaali is the narrator offers only a slight, undistinguished shift in perspective.

Plot-wise, the story is largely faithful to the original. The author succeeds in conveying depth and nuance in almost every character, portraying for example both Kunti’s resentfulness and righteousness, or Drona’s cruelty and greatness, in different lights. But when it comes to rendering her protagonist, the results are unadmirable.

Curiously absent are elements that truly challenge the misogyny of the original epic. Where is Panchaali’s famous lust, which in some retellings (but not this one) caused her husband in a previous birth to have cursed her with five husbands to quench it? Despite unexplored hints at her temper and capacity for vengeance, she is depicted mostly as obedient, pleading codes of honour as a ruse to mask cowardice. Even the single attempt at subversion, the centering of Panchaali’s secret love for Karna as the great regret of her life, is trite.

This Panchaali is obsessed by her roles, self-conscious – never is there a moment when she is not a princess, a queen, a wife, an exile, a woman wronged. Weighted down by these, she markedly lacks individuality – an enormous pity because what good is it to retell a familiar story without injecting it with a special spirit? Ultimately, the reader never manages to be fooled into believing that it is Panchaali speaking, as the best first-person narratives can do. Nowhere remains the intense, resilient, dangerous Draupadi we know of, who undoubtedly inspired the author herself.

Panchaali, in the final reckoning, is a weak, malleable character. She is unlikable, consumed by her ego, lacking the essential humanity that makes us love our heroes; the only thread that keeps the reader concerned for her is the memory of other, more fully-fleshed Draupadis.

Divakaruni seems to have juxtaposed one of the near-identical female protagonists of her previous books onto an epic setting. But positioning an indistinct character in a grand plotline cannot make the transposed character inhabit that skin comfortably by default. One wishes that Divakaruni had been bolder, dared to manipulate the epic in a manner that could have made this Draupadi truly hers.

Perhaps what draws the reader back to Divakaruni’s books regardless of their clichés has always been her impeccable stylistic craft, particularly her extraordinary gift for metaphor. But her writing in The Palace of Illusions is functional, stripped of lyricism. The closings chapters have their gripping moments, riding on the emotional crescendo of the original, but it is too late by then for the novel itself.

The Palace of Illusions succeeds as an introduction to the Mahabharata. But both its feminist and artistic aspirations seem shallow. Divakaruni’s reinterpretation of the Mahabharata falters above all because of an absence of imagination. The pathos of the original tale and its powerful heroine as raw canvas, combined with her gift for imbuing beauty in even the most repetitive storylines, should have made this book the author’s masterpiece.

7 responses »

  1. I generally really enjoy Chitra’s work but this book was a disappointment. Knowing little about the story myself, it quickly becomes apparent that great detail and insight were neglected. Things just keep seem to be missing. There are hints of Panchalli’s deep personality but nothing else; there truly is no reason to love her. She seems blind and ignorant beyond possibility. There is very little suggestion that this is because of her vengeance or anything else. It made me angry at her. After reading this I’ve since started reading the Mahabharata and studied Hinduism and Vedic cultures and this is clearly such a beautiful passionate story. I was truly disappointed in this variation by Chitra.

  2. I had been looking forward to reading this book ever since I heard of it .It started off well enough and then Draupadi who surely is one of the most complex and individualistic women characters in Indian mythology turned into a lovesick pining woman with very few distinct characteristics to make her anything more than a run of the mill character. The passion for Karna seemed forced and dragged on without meaning. All in all a story offering no new perspective but just a bland retelling..I am disappointed

  3. Every book has it’s distinctive character, The Palace of Illusions was lacking on the protagonist portrayal..true! The story telling pretty much made up for it.
    I’ve enjoyed the read thoroughly.

  4. i loved this people have given good reasons but this book made me read The Mhabharath!it was beautiful and the best part was i did not know whether i loved panchaali or hated her.she was so human!it was beautiful!truly a book worth reading.I never had any expectations and the book was worth the reading.i guess the mistake is to open a book,ready to judge and full of false expectations.

  5. Exactly my thoughts, except expressed much more eloquently! I must admit, I I picked up the book hoping to not only learn about the Mahabharat, but for once, read the story through the eyes of a feminist person. I was disappointed. Draupadi’s character, which started off so well, ended up incomplete and meaningless, and I could not understand what Divakaruni was aiming for.
    Also, everyone around me seems to be RAVING about the book. I dont get why…is it just because they enjoy mother-in-law – daughter-in-law rivalry and secret romances, or am i missing somethig crucial?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s