before starting this review, i want to note that the mahabharata is an epic that is very dear to me, and i am therefore overly critical and biased in my feelings towards this book. this is a story that i grew up with and developed a lot of attachment to (and despite no longer identifying myself as a hindu, i have a lot of love for krishna in particular). as someone who grew up with these stories, i tend to view the versions that i grew up learning/reading as the "real" version (and fortunately or unfortunately i did read the entirety of the mahabharata in sanskrit thanks to my mother), and that definitely impacted my feelings towards this book, and definitely lowered my enjoyment while reading.

one thing that this book did very well was to detail the numerous ways in which the toxicity of patriarchy can fail and harm women. the permanency of abuse against women under patriarchy is tangible, whether that be from ganga's immediate fear of sexual assault upon reincarnating as a human, or amba's humiliation at the hands of bhishma/her lover/her father, or draupadi's disrobing, and so on and so forth. it is unending and inescapable, and i appreciated the way in which patel narrated these scenes

related to that, i appreciated the focus on bhishma's (and other men's) inaction, and the sheer amount of harm and devastation that brought. while this concept of inaction/neutrality being just as harmful as taking the wrong side isn't new to anyone, i don't often see people critiquing bhishma's choice to remain "neutral", and the implications of that when dealing with conflict. in exploring bhishma's rigid adherence to his oath and his internal conflict of following divinity or following his own oaths, patel explores a very interesting moral dilemma. in the mahabharata, we do not see much self-reflection or internal conflict from bhishma. while we do see it from bhishma in this book, i was a little disappointed that most of it was consolidated in the last 20-30% of the book, and i thought that if bhishma had evaluated things more deeply more early on (and he had the opportunity to do so, particularly in his encounters with krishna), it would have had a greater impact.

ganga's fleeting moments of impact were also very powerful and wonderfully done. while some of these moments were different from the version of the myths that i grew up with, i am a huge, huge fan of the butterfly effect, and i thought patel did a fantastic job of weaving ganga's presence into the epic. never did i feel that ganga's return to the plot was forced or artificial, even when it deviated from the way i am familiar with the epic. i was not, however, always satisfied with the way in which ganga became involved in the politics of hastinapur. considering her very early disdain for humanity and their inclination towards violence, i had hoped for more of her perspective on the politics and morality of family, war, and human society as a whole. while ganga witnesses these things and occasionally asks questions, it often did not feel like enough.

to return to my biggest issue with this book, i did not always appreciate the ways in which the myths were altered. i understand the purpose for most of these alterations, and the commentary they may provide. however, personally, i think that there are plenty of instances of sexism, misogyny, violence, exploitation, moral dilemmas, etc. within the mahabharata as is that could have also been used as is to have the same impact. the story did not need to be changed, but were changed to intensify things. yes, men are awful. yes, men have harmed women and continue to harm women, even divine goddesses such as ganga. but the men need not be made into irredeemable villains in order to press this point. not only does it destroy the nuance and moral complexity of the male characters, imo, it also destroys the complexities of the way women suffer with things like domestic abuse/violence, and the reason they struggle to break out of such patterns.

to preface this review, i wanted to dnf this book so many times over, but stuck it through as it was a required reading for my trauma class as a part of my degree.

i do see the benefits of having a book like this widely accessible and generally easy to read and understand. it is incredibly important to understand complex things like trauma and the healing process, and the way people with trauma can enter into a "freeze" or "stuck" period that poses as a barrier to healing and growth. as someone working within a neuroscience field at the moment, the palatable explanations regarding neurological reactions to trauma/traumatic events was incredibly interesting to read and learn about. often times, i feel that people have a hard time understanding, empathizing with, and affirming people who struggle with trauma and complex trauma because they cannot "see" it. to detail actual biological responses can help break down such beliefs, and that is an incredibly valuable and powerful thing.

while reading this book, i also discussed with peers in class and read up more on the author and the material in this book, and found a lot of unfortunately unsavory things. a large critique of this author is that he tends to cherry pick data, misrepresent findings of studies he references, and heavily leans on outdated research/theories that no longer apply to our current understanding and knowledge of trauma and trauma recovery. while the latter is inevitable in a rapidly developing field like psychology, combined with the allegedly intentional misrepresentation of data, i can't help but wonder about the validity and reliability of this book and the material within it. not all of the information in this book is misrepresented, but enough of it is that it makes me raise an eyebrow, particularly given how popular/well known and recommended this book is.

i was disturbed with the accounts of trauma that were detailed in this book. there is a degree of detachment that i expect from professionals writing about extremely traumatic events and the individuals who suffered through them. however, i felt that van der kolk lacked the ability to empathize and humanize the individuals he was writing about. he knowingly or unknowingly buys into a lot of stereotypical, at times sexist patterns of thinking, and presents these as facts. there is a lack of diversity in the populations that van der kolk discusses (mostly white folk, but he does discuss the impact of sexual trauma on both men and women), and therefore it does not feel truly representative of the full range of traumas, trauma responses, and healing processes that a professional working in the human services field can expect to encounter and work with.

i would say that this could be a beginner friendly book to understanding the neurobiology of trauma and the way it can impact other processes (cognitive symptoms, somatic symptoms, etc.). but i would also urge people who are interested in reading this book to actually read the sources that van der kolk cites and also read other sources outside of this book to gain a better and more accurate understanding of trauma and everything related.