History is written by the winners. It’s quite possible that the then documented history is through the eyes of the winning side.
Reading Mahabharata, one would naturally assume that Duryodhana was an evil prince who oppressed his subjects and was extremely conniving in nature.
Ajaya challenges this world view and paints a more neutral picture of the villain. Suyodhana (that was his given name) is shown to be an extremely rational and compassionate human being. That he did not choose to follow the laws of the land (dharma) is what caused his downfall.
Everyone knows that the Bhagvad Geeta is part of this great epic. However, what is so epic about this epic, is that both the sides of the battle are equally right and equally wrong.
If scriptures and the rules of religion (dharma) are to be followed, then perhaps the Pandavas were correct. However, if you look past those rules (the same rules which were broken and abused by both the armies in the great war that followed), then you will not see good and bad, you will see both sides as being good and both as being evil.
Keep in mind that this is one of the largest works in the Indian mythology with artifacts of this story all over the country. Right from the North to the very South do we see different aspects of the epic.
The new perspective puts a lot of things which were taken for granted as the divine workings of god into the realm of scientific rationale. For example, the astras that Arjuna and Karna use in the war have been nicely explained.
Good guys might finish last
The story is re-told from an unbiased view and your heart does go out to Suyodhana, who happened to be in the wrong company at the right times.