Tiffany's Reviews > Life of Pi

Life of Pi by Yann Martel

by
674970
's review
Mar 16, 08

bookshelves: 2008, literature
Recommended to Tiffany by: media hype
Recommended for: atheists who want confirmation for their beliefs
Read in March, 2008

** spoiler alert ** I discovered early in The Life of Pi why the main character was named after a infinite number - the book is an interminable bore. This book is sort of a Rorschach test for religious belief, so here's my take. If you haven't read Pi yet and want to, the rest of my review will spoil it for you, so be warned. The story is told in 3 parts. The opening is a reflection back on Pi's childhood at the zoo in Pondicherry. During this segment, he tells us that his story will lead us to have faith in God, and that the next part of the story "has a happy ending."
In the next section of the book, Pi is on a boat that sinks. His family dies and he floats on a lifeboat with several animals including a very dangerous tiger. At first, the tiger is hidden from Pi's view, but as he becomes more desperate to survive and more willing to stretch the boundaries of his civilized nature, the tiger emerges and the two survive together. The tiger is symbolic of Pi's animal nature, which allows him to resort to whatever he must do to survive such a harrowing experience. He resorts to cannibalism, eating feces, and several other disgusting things in his efforts to survive, and advises the reader not to judge him harshly.
In the meantime, he is performing religious rituals that he makes up and says that God helped him survive. My reading of this was fairly dark and I'm assuming this was tongue in cheek. He talks in one breath about atrocities and in the next about God saving him. It struck me as the opposite of Martel's stated intent to make someone believe in God; rather, he was making fun of people who do. Pi finds an island of algae where he floats for several days. It appears to be beautiful and a respite from his troubles - in actuality, it's an ugly, horrible place where innocent, peaceful creatures are gobbled up by the tiger, and Pi is happy for them to be sacrificed. Pi's feet are burned by the ground. Fruit has teeth. Nothing is at it seems. In my opinion, the island is a representation of the promise of organized religion. It looks beautiful and promises respite from grief and sorrow, hunger and despair. But in actuality, beliefs divide us; people are killed for religion. Many times we float "alone" but for the presence of God, or we face illness, pain, death, despair. We are left to ask ourselves why God has abandoned us if our faith is not strong. What should be good turns hideous.
In the final section, Pi leaves the island and is rescued. The men who come to interview him are told the story of Pi's journey to safety, and they don't believe him. Pi at first tells them that they should take his story on faith, much like we take our religion beliefs and Biblical teachings on faith.
When the men are not satisfied about Pi's account, he changes his story so that it's easier for the interviewers to understand - saying that each animal actually represented a person. Which is true is left open to the readers interpretation. Pi tells of the atrocities he committed, and the atrocities committed by the other survivors. He explains how he murdered one of his crewmates to survive. Then, after the other man's death, "Solitude began. I turned to God. I survived." It's over the top ironic - he only turns to God AFTER he murders someone! If he hadn't committed a murder, he would have been killed by the other man. God comes into play after there is nothing to fear.
Pi asks the interviewers which story they prefer - the cleaned up version with the animals, or the version with the people committing murders and atrocities against each other. They prefer the animal version. Pi says, "And so it goes with God." We prefer the nicer version, the cleaned up version. Not the version where God leaves us to struggle and we suffer, but the version where love triumphs and God stands beside us. The "happy ending" is one that is manufactured - Martel's truth seems to be that we people of faith are dupes; if only we would look at the darkness, we would see the humanity in it. He fails to understand that that is exactly the point of faith.

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Life of Pi.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-21 of 21) (21 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jane (new) - rated it 1 star

Jane I can't thank you enough, Tiffany! I got incredibly bored with the CD version and returned it to the library, only to have my S/O wonder what had happened to Pi and the tiger! Thanks for letting me know -- and sharing that I'm not the only one who detested this book.


Jerometed You might actually think this book is really good if you look at it as a sort of tear-jerker, except with tears its religion.


message 3: by Cobardon (last edited Apr 11, 2009 02:09pm) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Cobardon You've completely got the moral of the book wrong, by your own ridiculous lack of logic.

Try reading with an open mind sometime.

As an atheist it made me question the hard time I often give people of faith, and remind me how beautiful true faith can be and that it really can help people to accomplish things that seem impossible.
It also reminded me how important faith can be at helping humans survive the unsurvivable, at helping us keep going when all rational prospects are crushed.

Thanks then, for reminding me that the religious can be blinkered, small minded and petty.


Marty amen Cobardon


trivialchemy amen Cobardon.

I've never seen such an absurd, reductionist reading of a book. Not every novel is didactic, folks. Not every symbol is a moral parable.



Paul Doesn't this novel state explicitly that it is didactic? "he tells us that his story will lead us to have faith in God" - that's what he does as I recall.


trivialchemy Pi says that, not Martel. If you believe Pi, you can believe Humbert Humbert as well.

Anyway, I think the reviewer's point here is that the novel's moral "lesson" is an atheist one. If Pi's declaration were aligned with Martel's intentions, that would actually be contradicting the bizarro-world interpretation in this review.


message 8: by Bibliomantic (last edited May 22, 2009 12:27pm) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Bibliomantic The words are in the intro and are supposedly spoken to "Martel" by someone who may or may not be Pi. In the body of the novel itself religion takes a back seat to other matters, not least of which is survival. There are a couple of semi-mystical meditative passages on faith and the various icons, but nothing truly cerebral. Probably the longest strand on religious matters is the comic sequence of the competition between advocates of the three faiths Pi is exposed to as a child. It makes the religious man look somewhat ridiculous (and so I see the reviewer's point above) and therefore made Pi's momentary lapse into melancholic approval of faith right after landing on the lifeboat feel a bit out of place but not necessarily all that surprising. The concluding contrast between the story that takes up most of the narrative and the more likely animal-free version amounts to a final showdown between religion as collection of moral (or such) stories versus brutal reality, and in that sense again it makes religion out to be a useful but ultimately absurd construct. What exactly is the problem here? (I know, no need to go there, we haven't got a decade)
Suffice it to say that the novel could hardly have fallen more short of the goal of 'making you believe in god'. In the first place, I seriously doubt that was its intent anyway, and it would have been a difficult thing to accomplish even if that's what Martel had wanted to do.


Paul Yeah, that 'making you believe in god' was a hyge tease.


message 10: by Kathryn (new)

Kathryn Isaiah wrote: "amen Cobardon.

I've never seen such an absurd, reductionist reading of a book. Not every novel is didactic, folks. Not every symbol is a moral parable.
"


The great thing about literature is that there is no one right way to read it.


Meghan Exactly what I got from it too! In my book club everyone chose to interpret the animal story as the true story, and just ignored the "and so it is with God" part. Nice to know I'm not alone in my analysis!


Lawrence Ferro just for the record, meerkats only exists in SA.....
Pi's lifeboat were in the pacific all of seven months,
so there..........


message 13: by Ruth (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ruth You know, I didn't take that from this book at all. If anything, I think Martel is advocating a belief in God as an essential part of human survival. He is saying that faith is a choice, and that choosing to believe the "better story" is akin to choosing to believe in a divine purpose rather than relying on dry, factual, uninspiring details to explain human existence.

There is a pretty obvious quote in the book that states that atheists are also taking a leap of faith, but simply choosing to believe in something else other than God. The atheist version of the story would be the raw, factual retelling. The faith-based version is inspiring, hopeful, and saves Pi's life. So which one was truer?


message 14: by Paul (new) - rated it 3 stars

Paul I never did get "choosing to believe" in something. You can't choose if you don't actually believe. So for instance I could not choose to believe the earth is flat. I could not choose to believe that Hitler was right. Etc. You could say "no one knows if God exists, therefore I choose to believe he does" but that's hardly the definition of religious faith. It's a passive opting for one explanation rather than another, like a tick on a questionnaire.


Tiffany Ruth wrote: "You know, I didn't take that from this book at all. If anything, I think Martel is advocating a belief in God as an essential part of human survival. He is saying that faith is a choice, and that c..."

I think that's an interesting reading as well. Thanks for the insight.


Michealla I have to agree with the fact that it's a very long and dragging sort of book. The story itself, and the writing is good, but the first section of the book is just really boring.


Ronald Anleu Wow, you really got it completely wrong, you couldn't have written a shallower interpretation of this novel.


Bibliomantic I never did get "choosing to believe" in something.

I think people often do choose that. Then they behave accordingly, follow rituals, fit events in their lives to their new scheme, and they end up believing (or falling out after a time).


message 19: by Lucy (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lucy The Richard Parker version of the story wasn't "cleaned up" - it was the same story, essentially, with just as much violence and cruelty and despair as the second version. The only difference was that the Richard Parker version had been 'fable-ized', with natural figures becoming metaphorical stand-ins for characters and forces and human characteristics. The factual version tells you precisely what happened; the fable version distills the facts into symbolic representations that cut to the core meaning of the events. The book thereby contrasts literal with metaphorical truth.

Whether you read it as atheistic, agnostic, or theistic is up to interpretation, but your review reads to me like a knee-jerk offended reaction to what you percieved as an atheist point of view.


Danny To Lucy, Martel, in interviews, has specifically cautioned against reading the entire book as an allegory for the more "factual events." that said, my knee jerk reaction was similar to yours.


Chris I agree with Corbadon aswell


back to top