>>8025282
I read it for a world lit course. Not sure who the translator was since it was in an anthology, but I liked it quite a bit. I've heard the Mahabharata is even better, but I haven't read it. Look around for what is the best translation and then go for it OP.

Is it OK to just watch the 2008 TV adaptation instead?

>>8025282
Yeah but don't read the Hari Krishna translation, they clandestinely added their own Hari Krishna agenda to their version.

>>8025459
surprise surprise

>>8025459
>clandestinely
are you retarded? the translation is perfectly fine. and its commentary is written from a point of view.

>>8025493
It's not fine though. There are liberties taken everywhere with the translation. For instance, the Hari Krishna version is the only translation I know of which describes Ayodhya as a city without atheists, a line which is not in the original sanskrit version or in any previous translation.

It's not even a translation really, it's too short to be a proper translation, the writer (Subramanium I believe her last name is) more or less reinterpreted the Ramayan in an attempt to make it easier and more readable but there are a lot of strange which were taken like my previous example.

The ISKONs are all very strange, you shouldn't trust their writings, they have a very Christianized perspective of Hinduism.

>>8025282
If the Ramayana is like the Hobbit, the Mahabharata is LOTR.

Although, the Mahabharata goes into ASOIAF territory is is objectively better.