The Nina Paley Show! Sunday, November 7, 2004

Hello Nina

Seems to me that guy is a prisoner of prejudice... Not all westerners are honorless materialistic heathens! ;)

Keep up the illuminating good work!

Regards from Montreal

Nina, I hope you're amused and unconcerned by this lunatic's babbling.

Yikes! What a freak: did you receive any critical e-mails that were any more coherent than this, Nina?

Indeed, I've received all kinds of comments about "Sita." I just decided to post them here, so judge for yourself. Many of them are very flattering and touching, and one or two offer crticism gently and intelligently.

I'm braced for a lot more criticism down the line; it comes with the territory. It still huwts my dewicate widdle feewings, of course. That's why I'm so grateful for the positive feedback I get!

Nina, most Indians living in India point out at freaks like that. Sita is tres cool.

Sigh,
Well, hat's off to you for showing the bad input as well as the good, but this is EXACTLY why "religious" cartoons are usually dry, didactic, and totally devoid of entertainment value. Yes, the hard-liners are entitled to their opinions, but I would think that appealing and accessible pieces like yours would do more to spark interest in the Ramayana than to encourage disrespect. Perhaps he is reacting to the commodification of Hindu imagery that has recently become extreme (ie: deities' images printed on thong underwear)? Anyway, thanks for investing so much of your time in this gem. I hope it makes you lots of bread and butter.
~Sue Bielenberg

The world is a funnier place with lunatic right-wing Hindu's babbling goobledegook. Heck, I wonder if any of them has ever read any of the texts in the religion. Wonder what Praveen Togadia would say!
Loved the cartoons!

Hi Nina,

I respect your freedom to make such a statement and think it's a good piece of work artistically.

I am, however, offended by the piece. No one piece of work should be taken literally. But if you must know (and I think you should - since you've chosen one of the holiest books in the dharma to base your story on) the Ramayana is meant to mirror the process of spiritual enlightenment in an individual (sadhaka). It is the macro reflection of a micro event.

As such, in the sadhaka - Lord Rama is the supreme soul/goal. Lord Hanuman is prana. Goddess Sita is Kundalini Shakti. Lord Lakshmana is the sadhakas individual concentration. Sita is expelled at the end and put through a fire test much like your own kundalini shakti will be put through a test when you get close to your destination (Rama/Krsna/Jesus - whoever).


I would suggest you delve into the subject matter before you choose to make such an explosive statement in general. Again, most Hindus (I hate the word but for your western sensibilities it will have to suffice) will not mind you doing this (me included) but a little background knowledge (you exhibiting such knowledge I mean) would go a long way for your cause (which I still don't quite understand - but whatever, I respect your view - however offensive it is).

crocy - thanks for your well-worded criticism. I have certainly delved into this subject matter though. I am familiar with the interpretation you offer as THE one and only correct one. It is merely one interpretatation among many, but one I'm fond of. How does my cartoon/musical rendering insult or degrade the idea of the story as stages to personal enlightenment? Why does reverance and appreciation of the Ramayana have to be expressed only in boring, emotionless and overly formal styles?

Hi Nina,

Again - I'm not one of those crazies asking you to stop with your interpretation - I respect your point of view. However, I guess my point was that I didn't quite see your reverence and appreciation shining through - that's just a personal opinion though. If, as you claim, your spirit is such - then I have no objections. But the fact of the matter remains that many people who are unfamiliar with the text and its esoteric meanings will, upon viewing your interpretation, use this piece as further ammunition to accuse the Dharma of being misogynistic and backwards etc.

I guess my problem lies not in your artistic freedom in expressing your thoughts or your interpretation (which I personally disagree with but again - respect) but in the fact that if you choose such a sacred text to interpret - you have an obligation to present the teachings in a manner that does not belittle the "feel" of the original. This doesn't mean that you can't criticize it - after all nothing should be so dogmatic as to choke free thought - but even the criticism should come from a place of respect (not that you are criticizing the Ramayana)... Hope that makes sense.

Again - the piece is fantastic artistically. Anyhow - I hope you don't take these comments as being from a fanatic etc. - just a concerned practioner of the Sanatana Dharma. I don't expect you to change your work - just wanted to make sure another point was heard.

Thanks much!
crocy

Thank you, crocy. You don't sound like a fanatic at all.

I do have reverence for the Ramayana, I think it's brilliant and complex and deep beyond comprehension and defies simple explanation. If I'm criticising anything, it's not the Ramayana itself but one common (and unpleasant) interpretation of it I encountered a lot in India - that women really are second-class citizens. I don't think the Ramayana itself says this at all, and I hope to emphasize that in my film.

As for the "feel" of the original - what is the original Ramayana? I'm working with the Valmiki Ramayana as my source text, but there are countless versions of that (I consider Sattar's translation the most authoritative). Like the scholarly anthology "Many Ramayanas" points out, there are, in fact, many Ramayanas. If you think mine is weird, how about the ones in which Ravana is the hero? Or Sita is Ravana's sister? Most versions contain funny stories in the mix too, so humor isn't verboten. As you know, it's told with puppets, with actors, with songs...it's only natural it would be told with animation too (there's at least one animated version already, albeit an allegedly humorless one). But the original Ramayana was a collection of folk tales passed from one storyteller to another. It was probably not religious at all, but there's no way to know. Written versions contain evidence of many disparate stories from far-flung regions coming together in one epic. Which of those stories is the original, and how can we possibly know its "feel"?

I certainly don't intend the ridicule the tale or the genius behind it. Quite the opposite! They say talent is god's gift to you, and using it is your gift back to god. For whatever reason, god gave me a quirky sense of humor. It would be dishonorable and dishonest for me to suppress that. I know my art will offend and confuse some people; enduring criticism (or worse) is part of being a real artist. It's honest suffering, and if the Ramayana teaches us anything, it is that we must suffer to be fully ourselves.

Thanks again for your well-considered words.

I don't know how most people treat the Ramayana, or the Mahabharata, or even Sheldon's Best Laid Plans. Its immaterial because they are BOOKS written by a human hand... I do agree that religion makes the whole approach different. About your comments on Sita, I havent had the time to go through the whole thing but I will surely check it out.

Angie (Western sounding name, but not caucasian although born and living in the west, s.asian parents, but confused for south american and at other times mediterranean).....

NINA,I love your work! I am emerging into Indian art myself, and I never considered (until now) that people may be offended if I show a glimmer of "ignorance". AAAh well - those who are bright enough will hopefully see that my reverence for India is greater than my ignorance. psstt... direct any further criticisms to the gay male magazine with the goddess on the thong - give them something else to gripe about!

Anyways, keep it up! I think your characters are beauteefully drawn - so sweet and unique.

Nina, I absolutely despise your work. You've done something that the rest of us "Hindus" havent been able to do, which is relate to the most misunderstood character of the Ramayana on a personal level, as you have, and then put in the time and love retelling it. And that too purely out of passion for the story. I'm furious that there are no financial gains...and this is, as you've put it a million times, a labour of love. How dispicable!!

We Hindus believe that Rama and Sita are the perfect man and woman, a sort of Hindu Adam and Eve. Their flaws are but part of their divinity. The Ramayana is a sacred text and that notion and its ideas cannot be trifled with. How dare you! How dare you question Rama, he is lord and master of Sita. She is nothing more than a woman! The sole reason for her existence is to be Rama's footstool as he fixes his long black locks and moisturizes his beautiful blue skin.
What would all his fiends say if he had a supposed whore for a wife?! Even his monkey friends would laugh! And we cant have that! C'mon...he's Rama for pete's sake.

By showing that the reason for the Ramanyana's existence is nothing more than a woman, her perfect husband who rightfully doesnt trust his wife, because she was probably unfaithful...and that too with a horny demon, and would rather take care of his own image and needs than her feelings, you are upsetting the divinity of the story. Without Sita, Rama and Ravana wouldn't have had a reason to fight. She is a means to the Ramayana.

You have blatantly pointed out that her subservience, puzzling dedication, and unconditional love* towards her vain husband who also happens to be abuse personified is the sole reason for her existance.

But, oh wait.the Ramayana already does all that...and then some!! how shocking!!(in case the text does a bad job of it...i was being sarcastic)

I love the fact that you are, intentionally or otherwise, pointing out that misogyny in the Ramayana.
The average Hindu take on Sita in the Ramayana:
"No way! she has feelings?! But its a baby making footstool! What lies!! We'd sooner believe in a magical simian army rather than something as preposterous as a woman..with feelings, no less!"

This leads to why Hindu women feel they must marry to realize the reason for their esixtence. But thats a whole nother can o worms. Hindu women have a lot of bad role models in Hindu texts. Well there was one woman who felt empowered after her husband was unjustly killed....but she burned a city down....so i guess that makes her a loon....no one talks about her. Its the very same thing the bible did to make Christian women feel guilty. Gotta love religion.

The issue here, based on the two flame mails, is that that you are trifling with the Hindu man's right over his Hindu woman. You can take the "hindu" out of that sentence and it would still make about the same sense.

This woman,goddess, epitome of womanhood, what have you, who has been the role model for hindu women for 3 millenia is being exposed for what she is. Its sure to inflame the chauvanists.

The Annette Hanshaw songs are just mind-blowingly perfect for Sita's. Her voice, its silent suffering and unspoken strength give life to Sita and what I felt she has always lacked. Reach. Sita's story never touched me on such a personal level until I saw the Sitayana. I'm sure if the real Sita had sounded like Annette Hanshaw, we wouldn't have had such a tragic Ramayana.

I feel sorry for the mutts who dont understand what an interpretation/adaptation is. Especially the ones who put in the time to write a badly structured flame mail as proof of their utter ignorance in the matter.

Nina, I feel you will have done justice to yourself, the Ramayana, and Sita if, and only if, you complete this project, and in doing so show that the Ramayana happened because of Rama's insecurities rather than because of Sita's supposed infidelity. I'm happy that this story has given you inner peace. It's sad that those to tote it have yet to experience at the personal level or depth that you did.

Maybe this way the Hindu sheeple will start to see the kernel of the story rather than believing in it literally, those bloody fundamentalists. The Ramayana militants sure are a piece of work!

Hindus and the Ramayana... its like pre-schoolers and Little Red Riding Hood.

Im a Srilankan hindu (thats right, Ravana's people....no wait...Ravana himself, as I've been led to believe by some Indian Hindus) and I just love the Ramayana. Your Sitayana has inspired me to take up my Ravanayana seriously.

Some ideas i'm toying with are:
- He was just lonely, and had lots of free time.
- He gave her what all women want: attention and to be fought over in an epic war.
- The devotion of magical flying monkeys.
- He was just a really big loooove machine.....with ten heads!! (That made me blush)


without going off on any more tangents, more so than I already have....YOU ROCK...and not just average rocking....YOU ROCK HARDCORE NINA PALEY! I'D MARRY YOU!!

Now THAT made my day.

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Rajeev Prasad sounds just like my Indian EX-husband!

I was given the spiritual name "Janaki" (also Sita) in India and have been struggling to come to terms with it ever since. I thought why, why, why would this apply to me? How did they see Sita in me? I feel I've sort-of grown into it, as ironic as that may sound.

I love what I've seen so far of your Sitayana. You're on the right track. My dance professor used to say, "you must be in the fire if you want to burn."

So, like Sita....Burn Girl!!!

That's when you say, "sir, no one is stopping you from picking up a notebook, macromedia flash and making your own movie to set the record straight."

I'm very disappointed to see this comic "interpretation" of the Ramayana being presented here. Nina says that she reveres the Ramayana and never intended to offend anyone with her "interpretation." Perhaps this is true, but she must have known this would offend Hindus in any case and decided to post it anyway. That is frankly rude.

For those of us who were raised in the tradition, Sri-Sri Sita-Ram are not mythological figures. They are the very Lord Himself and His Divine Consort. The subject matter of the Ramayana is serious, because it deals with the very nature of bhakti, the ideals of dharma, and the complicated interplay of moral expectations when confronted by irreligious villains.

To see traditional narratives of the Ramayana as "dry," "boring," or "emotionless" (thus justifying this comic "interpretation") suggests a frank lack of appreciation for the original. When such people as Nina cannot appreciate the original Ramayana (however much they claim otherwise), it seems only sensible that they refrain from trying to put their own, comedic spin on it. If they did appreciate it, they would immediately understand why it should not be tampered with. One does not tamper with sacred art and literature left to us from antiquity.

It's painfully obvious that Nina does not understand many of the sublime themes of devotion embedded within the Ramayana. I very much doubt if she has actually read the unabridged Ramayana.

But what can really be said? If one objects to this sort of rubbish, one will quickly be branded a "hardliner," "right-wing nationalist," "Hindu fundamentalist," and who knows how many other labels which are designed to discourage legitimate expressions of disapproval. Nina made sure to post the angriest criticism of her work she could find, thus generating sympathy for her position while simultaneously making it harder to disagree with her. And other so-called "Hindus" have chimed in with support for this avant-garde approach to "interpretation" in which the story is basically rewritten to suit the audience. Funny thing, that. I always thought that in order to "intepret" something, you had to know the language in which it was written. But that standard of scholarly honesty may not be hip enough for today's crowd. Sure, there are "Hindus" who like Nina's work. But given that they obviously do not live their lives according to scripture, and do not seriously study the Ramayana, how can their opinions be seriously considered as "Hindu" or even "objective?"

The Ramayana is a beautiful and sophisticated work, and it does not deserve the treatment it has gotten here. Nor do its followers deserve to see their Divine Lord and His Consort be depicted in such a cheap and degrading fashion. But we aren't allowed to object for fear that we will labeled as fundamentlists or worse. After all, Nina has plenty of so-called "Hindus" on her side, even though they are not really Rama-bhaktas by conviction.

So it seems, as always, the Hindu community has to just shut up and bear mute witness to their sacred symbolism being dragged into the gutter of the internet and put on display for cheap thrills. And how dare us if we feel saddened by it.

Nina,

I just luuuuuurve the first person view of the interpretation of Ramayana, you have labored on. Great music and really great animations to go with it. I really luurve the character sketches. The characters are just plain cute & adorable, if ever there was a better word for that.

As for the people disturbed/offended by it; its a necessary evil; you are of course providing your own interpretation to the values very close to someone's heart; something thats part of their identity. In this case, your interpretation to them amounts to desecration.

Everyone draws a line somewhere, for them its this. For you it might be something else...

But all in all, really entertaining piece of art!

In apparent justification of this "Colonialism Revisited" project, people here keep speaking of how everyone has a right to his or her "interpretation." But an interpretation is only needed if the meaning of something is not clear.

The meaning of the Ramayana, however, is crystal clear - at least to anyone who has bothered to read the original.

What Nina et. al. are referring to as their "interpretations" are in fact not interpretations at all. They are a total rewrite of the text. She has extracted persons, places, and themes from another author's work and strung them together for a specific audience. One could have at least respected her views if they were expressed through an original creation, but such is not the case here.

Let us be honest at least, and stop passing off her work as "interpretation." It's not interpretation - it's a cheap rewrite.

Let us illustrate the principle with an hypothetical example. Suppose that I published an article on the internet about the life-story of Nina Paley. In this article, I speak repeatedly of the times in which Nina physically and emotionally abused her children and her parents. When someone questions the validity of my satire, I will cite this as my "interpretation" (even though I totally made it up).

Would Nina be as appreciative of my "interpretation" as she wants me to be of hers? Would she grant my unflattering portrayal of her life the same level of liberal tolerance she demands towards her work?

I would argue that an ancient epic revered by millions of people should be granted the same level of respect as any human being. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a principle the Nina club might do well to remember.

This comes from Reba in Trivandrum, who emailed me:

Hey Nina,

read the posts on the blogger site - I'm frustrated that I can't post a reply without finding a name that is allowed for a user account. Sending you a copy of what I wrote in my outrage (smile)- I feel better for having written it. And wanted to see if you could put it up anywhere where it would be applicable or pertinent.

just wanted to say:
doesn't it occur to anyone that Sita's life should definitely be explored from a woman's perspective?
And about the levels of understanding any spiritual text - this is for crocy - first and foremost every spiritual text (however sacred or otherwise it could be) is about life. And the core of spirituality is not an ascribed sanctity to anything else, but rather a genuine exploration about what it means to an individul and how an individual can relate/understand/learn from life. So why does one person's exploration/interpretation have to pass anyone's judgement? Especially when the theme is spiritual and so intensely connected with the man/woman dynamic - which in my opinion is the core of life itself? Seems strange that someone would say that a real exploration of 'what is this topic and how do I see it and want to show it' should be after 'studying' the pre-prescribed significance that the topic is actiually supposed to have...
What?!? 95% of Hindus don't even think about the symbols that Rama, Sita and Hanuman and Lakshman stand for!!!
So what's the big deal? Isn't it enough that this is a woman's exploration of a theme that is very valid even today...?
And - the dharma - as it's being portrayed in today's world, especially India - does practically seem misogynistic and backwards in the ways that it dictates how society should be. I do realise that the essentials of Hinduism are actually very different. But 'further ammunition.?
Ok the electricity has gone out at my home I will continue my vituperous tirade tomoorow - I have to shut down now.

Much love,
Reba

Hi, Nina..i have to say that artistically your Sitayana gives amazing pleasure-something i never associate with either Ramayana or Sita. My only question is why did you pick Sita? I always preferred Savitri-who outwitted the lord of death with her skill. I am sure you want to keep working on your own but if you should need any reinforcement, comments or help please let me know at radhikayr@gmail.com

As a fellow cartoonist I want to show a little solidarty during your time of persecution. I have to say that as a "Westener" and a Hindu that I find Sita to be strangely attractive, I'd sure like to lavish her with all kinds of that "materialism". She'd look hot in some gold braclets and fancy saris with a few diamonds and other precious jewels thrown in for good measure. But alas, I'm sure a Goddess has all these things already. I find all of this talk of materialism rather spiritual. Excuse me while I OM.

# posted by Krishna :

Krishna has very well said his point. I did find Nina works acceptable but looking at his comments I am convinced that I am wrong to claim that I understand the Ramayana. I am a hindu and I follow the karma theory, but since I dont look at the ramayana as very serious stuff it is very much inappropriate for me to take side with Nina.

I was very much with the danish news paper which published the cartoons of prophet mohammed. It is very much in the freedom of speech, but I do see some merit in the argument of people who follow islam. They didnot have a picture or a statue of him for a reason. Some one trying to dipict the prophet will definitely offend them. One should respect that. I know this is one of the things which drove the followers of islam who came to india to damage temples and the idols in it. I hate such a philosophy but I would still respect their decision not to have a picture of prophet mohammed.

In the same lines here we are dealing with people who are ram bhakts who are a part of "hindu" group. Hinduism is soo diverse, i think one needs to respect this paticular group too and not do things which might offend them. I am a hindu but I am not offended by the animation but there is a group in hindus who are offended just because they are a part of a big group of hindus one cant neglect their opinion and feelings.

I am very much with krishna on this and I think Nina should have thought of these things before the animation was made. I have no idea as to what now. Thats for Nina to figure out !

Hi!

Saw some of the commentary on here, and I felt like I should say something. Something. Ah heh, that joke's even lamer in person.

But, yeah. I guess what interests me here is the definition of respect. With the folks who are offended by this work of Ms.(I think its Ms, apologies if I'm wrong) Paley's seem, more than anything, to be craving respect. If not for themselves, for the validity of their beliefs. And that's not a bad thing, I think. The world would be a better place if we all had a little more respect for eachother's right to exist.

But, that's the rub, I think. This is purely from observation, so I apologize if I accadentily use an offensive term. I had no idea, for example, that some people felt "Hindu" itself was a little offensive, if nessicary. Are there better terms we all can be useing?

But, back on track, yeah. The rub. With the exception of the out of control inital post, the people who disliked the work have been polite, and relitivly eloquent in their criticisms. But I also see accusations of Ms. Paley not being able to understand the Ramayana, being unable to understand the complexities of the Ramayana, and even having not read it in its entierity. And to me, that dosen't sound very respectful at all, considering what she's shared with her audience about her personal reasons for makeing this piece.

In other words, yes, the opinions and feelings of the ultraorthadox need to be respected as valid, so long as they remain peaceful opinions. But so do the opinions and feelings of those who see holy texts and books in a different light. And I don't see that in some of these criticisms, I see name calling and misintepritation of the information the author has presented.

If you have an argument to make, make it on its own merits, instead of the percieved foibles and folleys of others. Though on the other hand, in the words of a great man, that's just, like, my opinion man.

Have a nice day!
Sean

It was quite lame of Rajeev to play the race card where there was no need to. Consider for a moment that Ram & Sita are indeed deities. Doesn't it seem ironic that a god of kindness and generosity should treat his wife like a 'object".

Furthermore there have been many other productions of Ramayan in India which were solely made for sake of humour. This one doesn't mock anything, rather takes a well informed look at the underlying mentalities within the epic.

Nina, don't give this Rajeev guy another thought. Keep up your good work.

hi nina,

i like your work very much, it was so funny and great. one thing abt ramayana , its a story. we love morals, in reality we do try to follow them, that dosent meant that we are good people. we are just ordinary guys just trying to make our livings here. we love women, you can see that from our population. everything else is just an opinion. keep the goodwork going.

raj varadharajan

I respect your right to express yourself freely (and you're aesthetic expression shows quite a lot of talent), but I must confess I find your work very hurtful and disrespectful. When someone pokes fun at the object of a person's worship, he or she pokes fun at the worshipper too; and I must say, I feel quite insulted and disrespected. For all of you who are readin this, I don't ask that you believe in what I believe in, or even hold it in any esteem. All I ask is that you don't mock another person's religion like the cartoonist did here.