That was quite an interesting analysis! I never noticed the parallels between the two literary works before.
I must first confess that I have not really read kambaramayanam (except for the odd passage that we studied in high school). I have only attempted reading Rajaji's version (also called chakravarthy thirumagan..?) thrice.. [attempted because i somehow got stuck at the 46th chapter every time, titled kamba chithiram, ironically.. :)] So I guess I don't really have an opinion on it yet.
In any case, I am not sure if Kalki really wanted to "hero-worship" Arulmozhi. Though his initial build-up to the character does seem like he intended to portray Arulmozhi as a larger-than-life personality, he does not dwell very long in it. He soon shows the more down-to-earth, human nature of the character. He does not hesitate to depict him as just another man with his own share of follies and insecurities.
I suppose there have been several discussion threads on the same vein in this forum regarding kalki's characterisations. I do believe Kalki excels in portraying the good as well as the not-so-good facets of his characters. I feel that is what makes them all the more human and believable. Each character is fleshed out well with several shades of goodness and badness (if there is such a word :P). The only other author whom i know does that is Jane Austen. She produces the same kind of multi-layered, nuanced characters whom you grow to love, as much for their quirkiness as for their greatness. :)
So, I do not think they are really comparable on the "hero-worship" front. What say? :)
A bit about myself.. I am Ranjitha and I have been a lurker on this group for almost year now. I guess I joined sometime in Jan in the aftermath of my first reading of ponniyin selvan.. :) It really feels amazing to be part of such a knowledgeable crowd.
Nice analysis by Ms.ranjitha.Every novelist wants an aura behind his dream hero.At times the novelist wakes upto reality and brings his hero down to earth,but faces vehement opposition from him audience.
If i can cite parallels,sir arthur conann doyle elevated sherlock holmes to great heights and suddenly killed him in one novel,unable to tolerate the dominance of sherlock holmes.But he faced severe opposition from his readers and had to bring him back again.
Rajinikanth too created a trap for himself.He wanted to come out of the image he created for himself.But fans totally rejected such attempts by making movies like engayo ketta kural a failure.So he retorted back to his own style.
Even novelists like Rajeshkumar and suba created larger than life heroes like vivek and narendran and now are unable to alter their characters.I remember one crime novel where rajeshkumar wrote a villain as lifting a fainted rubala(viveks wife).In next issue letters came from angry fans questioning "How can anybody touch our dream heroine?is that tamil culture?" and rajeshkumar wrote an one his novels.
Kalki too must have fallen into the trap.He lifted arulmozhi very high initially but i dont see him dropping arulmozhi down anywhere.Arulmozhi is not shown with ordinary human weaknesses.He never loses a sword fight,he shows the right emotions at the right time,his aura is maintained till the end.He doesnt want to sit in throne till the fag end and even that decision is taken only since he wanted to free vanthiyathevan.
I dont remember arulmozhi doing any "mistakes" in PS.Maybe in last parts he shows a more down to earth arulmozhi,but still srulmozhi is elevated above other mortals.
I feel that you are falling into a trap and not kalki. You seem to suggest that Arulmozhi should necessarily have been brought down in th eyes of the readers at some point in the novel. But why should that be? Arulmozhi is not a fictitious character but Rajaraja himself, arguably among the greatest rulers from India. He should certainly have been a super human to have achieved what he did. Kalki cannot invent or subvert history to satisfy your expectation. With all these constraints Kalki has done a marvelous job of etching early RR's character with a lot normal human frailities.
I would say your analysis here is a bit colored because of your rather faulty expectations regarding characterisation.