Book 4 for the O.W.L.S Magical Readathon. This one was for my Ancient Runes exam.

I really, really wanted to like this book more than I did. The author tackled a difficult challenge: to fit a lifetime into a single book, and to cover a large volume into it as well. Read it, because it’s a valuable interpretation of the Mahabharata, especially for westerners, but don’t read it if you want great characterization.

For me, it fell flat. I didn’t feel that present in the story. It was beautifully described, but I didn’t feel There. It was just too passive for me. My favorite part was in the beginning where Panchaali and Dhri were kids/teens, because that was the only bit that seemed fully-fleshed. There were a couple of heartwarming anecdotes here and there where you could see Panchaali’s and the Pandavas’ intimate relationships, but not enough to really anchor them for me, even in her devotion to duty. I didn’t feel her pain very acutely. I wanted to feel more when her sons died, when Dhri died, but it was just blah. (Not a spoiler— Viyasa prophesies this very early on in the book).

Krishna was the best character in the book by far. I wanted to get to know Bheem better, and Arjun, but I didn’t.

Palace of Illusions is a book written about the great Indian epic of Mahabharatam from the perspective of Draupadi. This book was on my TBR for the longest time and I was so happy to find it in my university library when I was just looking past shelves with no aim of finding a particular book.

The book accounts through the several parvas of the Mahabharata through Draupadi's eyes. This makes us question and provides alternate perspectives to events we've read and heard about from the epic since our childhoods.

I also think it is important to mention that the style of writing was key in contributing to the overall experience of reading the book. The sentences flow well, the vocabulary is exquisite, and the descriptions are so eloquent I could see the places and scenes being described unfurl in my imagination. The pacing of the book too, is perfect. I couldn't put it down.

There were two things that I didn't particularly like about the book.

First, was that I personally felt that the attempts to humanize such a grandly spoken about historical/mythological character such as Draupadi just fell flat for me. The reason for this is because the afforementioned attempts seemed very obvious to me. There were instances in the book when Paanchali would say or do things or think to herself and it felt almost forced for me when I read it.

The second thing that I didn't like was the ending. After the walk to the end of life, Draupadi ends up meeting Krishna and in the end her soul reaches out to that of Karna and they coalesce into the sky. I do love the love story between Draupadi and Karna, the anticipation, the grieving over missed chances and their circumstances. However, hearing how Draupadi was born from a fire, I yearned to see her death carry such effect.

Though I say this, this also has me questioning myself. Why is it so wrong for her to finally accept the love and acceptance she has been yearning for her entire life? Draupadi was a woman who was born from fire with her destiny already carved, endured the worst forms of humiliation in front of men (several times too), was ostracized for being the harbringer of destruction. Why am I not allowing myself to accept a soft and serene ending for a woman like her? Why am I telling myself that she is resilient only if she is alone? Then again, the reason why I was unable to accept such an ending was because of a question this prompted in me---why is love the only way she can find the calm she so much deserved? I was happy to see her conversation with Krishna towards the end and assumed her soul would now take on a journey of its own. The way it reached out to Karna was what upset me. Did she really need him to find that final sense of peace? If she did, what is wrong in it and why should I be upset over it?

Maybe re-reading this book in a few years will give me a strengthened perspective.

I have to mention how I admired the way this final scene was written though. It was uniquely worded and the descriptions of the souls were so beautiful and the entire experience of reading through it was impeccable.

So overall, it was a great read though I did have small qualms with perspectives but that could just be me.

My view on this book is somewhat unique being that I have never read the Mahabharatha. I can't compare Draupadi's view point with the original, I don't know all the little changes Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni decided to make. What I can say is that this book has reminded me of how much I love Hindu literature! I remember reading (a very abridged) version of the Ramayana in a high school mythology class. Out of the entire class it was my favorite story and for the same reasons I loved reading The Palace of Illusions. I love the rounded characters, the way the stories force your perspective to change and view things from a different angle. I love all the philosophy woven throughout these great epics. I love that the gods interact and even live amongst humans (which was something that stood out in a mythology class that was mostly framed around Greek mythology.) But most of all I love the magic elements and the contrast it creates with the otherwise realistic plot. It creates such a magical atmosphere. So while I can't say much about the historical accuracy of this retelling, I can tell you that I very much enjoyed reading it. It has reignited my love of Hindu literature and I can't wait to explore the genre more!

I thought the story was interesting but I didn't love the writing style of the book. It was okay.

Reread in 2022 for homeschool. The story is great and is important to know, but the narrator (Draupadi/Panchaali) was so subdued in her tone that it was hard to be enthusiastic about some of the events that were happening throughout the book. Still a worthwhile read for the story itself and it's significance as it is part of the Indian epic The Mahabharata, and especially since it is from Panchaali's perspective.

Five years ago an awe-struck teenager read The Palace of Illusions and was absolutely swept off her feet. After the lapse of five years she, now an adult in her early twenties, once again picks her one time favourite book up only to realize it isn’t her favourite book any longer. That once awe-struck teenager and present disappointed woman is me. I picked this book again as it happened to be a mandatory reading of a course in my post-graduate program.
However, it would be wrong to say that I am utterly disappointed by the book and it had lost all its charm which once so mesmerised me. As I was reading it I couldn’t stop admiring the enchanting writing style of Chitra Divakaruni. It is still one of my favourite imaginative re-tellings of the ancient Indian epic, Mahabharata mostly because it gives voice to the female protagonist, Draupadi and gives her the liberty to tell the story of the Great War as she saw it. Female voices in ancient epics are either absent or very feeble, if present. Hence, it is obvious that a teenager beginning to perceive and comprehend the nuances of the social order is mesmerised to find a female voice telling her own story in a male-dominated world. I would say that had I read the book the first time now as an adult woman I would have still loved it. But my main issue, though it is very subjective and has nothing to do with the book is that I have read so many novels re-telling the story of Mahabharata and scholarly articles on Mahabharata that there is nothing new for me to know about the story as such. I know it is very presumptuous of me to say so but having read the story of Mahabharata so many times and from so many angles it has become thread-bare to me. There’s nothing new that I can take from the story except perhaps aesthetic pleasure and a new philosophy. As the story of Mahabharata has been worn out by my reading it over and over again, it also wears away the charm of Palace of Illusions which once so mesmerised me. There was nothing to look forward to and also because of that course since last few weeks I have been only reading novels on Mahabharata, so this novel, though brilliant in its own right became boring for me.
In my first reading of the book as a teenager, I agreed with everything that the author had to say. But now as an adult equipped with theoretical and analytical aids I found myself disagreeing with Divakaruni a lot of times. First, in her attempt to make Draupadi shine above the rest she ended up trivialising and perhaps demeaning most other women. Let me elaborate here, Draupadi according to Divakaruni is better than other women because she doesn’t indulge herself in other ‘womanly’ activities such as dressing up, gossiping, make up, etc. Hence, the women who like such activities are labelled by Divakaruni as feckless, Queen Sudeshna is a case in point. Hence, women only when they indulge themselves in ‘manly’ activities such as intellectual, legal discourses or reading, etc. can they be considered as worthy. In her attempt to portray Draupadi as a rebel who breaks free from the shatters of convention imposed on her, Divakaruni dismisses other ‘womanly’ activities which I feel are important in their own right.
Second, Divakaruni’s attempt to add magic and thus spice up the narrative through characters such as the sorceress. I think that character was an unnecessary addition and was added merely to make the narrative more interesting to the western tradition. Since, in western eyes India is a land of sorcery and snake charmers, the existence of such a character would further buffet their pre-conceived notion of India.
Third, Divakaruni’s portrayal of Karna. I don’t think Karna is really the unfortunate hero wronged and battered by a cruel destiny. In the original Vyasa Mahabharata he plays an important role in instigating and supporting Duryodhana in all his wrong, shameful deeds. However, since this is an imaginative re-telling I guess Divakaruni has taken liberty in her portrayal of characters.
Nevertheless, the novel has many strong points which in my view make it one of the best imaginative re-telling of Mahabharata. It has a mesmerising lyrical writing style just like the enchanting tunes of Krishna’s flute, coherent story-line, non-linear narration which renders a dream like quality to it, strong, well-rounded protagonists and finally my favourite the enchanting character of Krishna whose mere presence soothed not only the characters in the novel but also the readers.
I would recommend this novel to anyone who wants to hear Mahabharata from a different voice and perspective or to anyone who is looking for a beautiful novel, I am sure this novel will mesmerize you just as it did to my five years younger self.
I end my review of this lyrical novel with one of my favourite lines from it:
“Time is the great eraser, both of sorrow and of joy.”
My rating – 4 stars

I liked this book. I tweeted/Facebooked that this was my commute reading and the response was great. All the women who had read it loved it. And all the men either hated it, or were critical, or said that it was self-indulgent. I will give it to the one who said self-indulgent. But then why shouldn't authors be, right? Where would fiction be, where would imagination be if authors aren't self-indulgent?

All this said and done, there was a huge debate on why this book wasn't worth it. Some people felt that it robbed the whole essence of Mahabharata, some others were disgusted that a 'great' woman like Draupadi was shown as a scheming, lustful woman who lusted after Karna.

Well, if these are the issues, then hey! I like the book for precisely these reasons. I'm no Mahabharata expert, but from the little I've read and watched (Every 90s Indian kid has watched the Mahabharata), the story is very much about the men who fought a war narrated from a male perspective. This book focusses on Draupadi, the Pandava queen who got married to all the 5 brothers. How easy it was to accept that a young girl didn't mind marrying 5 men, let alone not having chosen any of them. Because that's how it was done. This book talks of a fresh perspective. What went through young Draupadi's head. She wasn't perfect. Like none of us women are. We aren't saints. We have feelings, some of them very wrong, but the truth is they exist. And women's feelings (I'm using the word feelings very loosely here)aren't acknowledged, let alone expressed or been allowed to express, even by the women themselves. So, it is good to see that perspective here. Yes, it focuses a lot on Draupadi's pride, her thoughts/desire for Karna - something which isn't acceptable in mainstream society, then and now. Is that why a lot of the men in my circle hated this book? Because it didn't show Draupadi as this perfect wife who gave up everything to follow her husbands? Did it ruin the ideal image?

Apart from saying it was wrong because the Kauravas did it, why doesn't anyone talk about her being a pawn. Even the book speaks of her as the character that is the cause of a war. She is as much a pawn in the game. As much as she wouldn't believe that herself.

Do read. I'm not a huge fan of philosophy, so a lot of it went over my head, and I plan to read it again + read other Mahabharata inspired books. But if this perspective of Draupadi being a thinking woman and someone who didn't think as is expected of her hurts, well, get over it.