Life of Pi question

I believe the tiger story as well but I think a friendship between Pi and Richard Parker would have been beyond the realm of reality for them. This was a wild animal under duress, he was operating on instinct and fear. Had there been more of a friendship I don't think it would have been believable to me.

ETA: I don't see how the tiger story is unbelievable. Improbable perhaps but not impossible. Given the spiritual nature of the book I drew a parallel between religious belief and the tiger story. We take so much for granted without question based on the word of an entity that was supposedly there.

I think Leila makes a good point about Pi developing an emotional attachment to the tiger. The tiger relied on Pi for sustenance but I don't believe he needed the companionship that Pi found in him.

Ditto, Abby. No, I was not disappointed. Theirs was an adversarial relationship, mitigated by the extreme exigencies of their dire straits.

To reduce the story to mere metaphor is perhaps to miss the point. Is this not what the last section is all about? Pi reluctantly gives up a more 'believable' account and the investigators lap it up because they can then deconstruct it into metaphors in a way that makes sense to them. They can then catalogue, classify and compartmentalise the events and then let go of them because they are now defined, dealt with, safe.

Pi is clearly disappointed that they need this and even the investigators themselves struggle with the process because it doesn't marry up as neatly as they'd like. There are too many questions left hanging, too many parts that are beyond any explanation (particularly the floating island bit which seems purpose built to confound rationalisation).

This to me is the essence of the tale - what is the relationship between truth and a story, myth, legend, fiction? Given that all perception is a form of invention is there even such a thing as truth?

Is the Bible less important or interesting just because parts of it are so unbelievable? Should we be disappointed that the burning bush and Moses didn't become more chummy and that the character development is poor? Or should we refine this event down to a metaphor for a more rational actuality? And if we do, is what is left made valueless by doing so?

To me it is an important part of the book that Richard is an unknown - whether in one version as a dark part of oneself that cannot be acknowledged, or in another as a force outside of oneself that is both destructive and protective - nature itself - that demands respect and understanding even in the absence of total knowledge: a form of faith.

The Canongate myths series have been an incredible eye-opener for me in terms of learning to think about these kinds of questions more deeply - Karen Armstrong's Short History of Myth was particularly helpful in giving my sceptical/rationalist side a reset.

I was very slightly disappointed, but the fact that the tiger wasn't real does make it more real and not just one of those unrealistic fairy tales. Besides, not everything in life is what it is lived up to be.

Granted that the interaction between Pi and the tiger was "adversarial" at first. There was, however, a fascinating development in their relationship during the course of the novel. Once the carcasses of the zebra, jackal, and orangutan had been consumed, Richard Parker was dependent upon the resources of his human companion. Had the tiger killed and eaten Pi, (obviously, I admit) no passengers, human or animal, would have survived. As Pi admitted toward the end of the book, had it not been for Richard Parker--and the decision to live, despite knowing nothing about the fate of his family--he himself most likely would not have had the will to keep going. The acts of fishing to feed Richard Parker (and himself), furnishing potable water, and building an extension of the boat on which Pi might be safe from Richard Parker's predations are what keep Pi fighting for survival. I quite believed that Pi felt some sorrow at seeing the tiger disappear into the Mexican jungle. To share an experience as harsh and taxing as existing more than a year on a tiny boat, lost at sea, would make any companion dear.

It surely seems more likely that a storm-wracked, starving, desperate young man would learn to attach emotionally to a tiger. I'm not so certain I believe Tom Hanks character's relationship with a volley ball (or was it soccer?) in the film "Castaway". But then, I have never been lost at sea. That probably makes all the difference.

Loved the Martel book; haven't seen the movie yet.

The point of the relationship may not have been to establish a friendship, as much as a grudging respect; and that might be all that can be hoped for.

your responses are all rather odd

When you say you believe the tiger story was true, do you mean you believe that the book was a straight forward story about a boy and a tiger lost at sea? If so, you've missed the mark. The tiger (as well as the other animals) was clearly a metaphor. The tiger was Pi; it was who he had to become to survive. This is why Pi respected him, this is why he feared him. This is why there wasn't more "friendship" between them.

I recently read Jamrach's Menagerie, and it reminded me, for obvious reasons, of Life of Pi.

Likewise.

It's art and therefore down to any individual's own interpretation. Neither should be any more believable than the other. It's the reader's choice.

Adding love and friendship at the end of a book, no matter how stupid it seems is something that has made me hate many books in the past.
This lack of the love thing, is what made me like this one.
Authors should learn not to put love or friendship everywhere. Sometimes, it just destroys the book.
Just like the indian cinema -.-

But the tiger story is very much believable. People wouldn't find it hard to believe if they watched documentaries on channels like Discovery.
What the author has written, surprisingly, has a lot more facts than what he is given credit for.

I have been staring at this thread for a while and do not quite know what to say.

Suppose the main story (boy, tiger, boat, etc.) really happened. Why would I expect the tiger and the boy to be friends? To see why friendship is not expected, try to find stories in the news (or google) where a person jumps into a tiger cage, a polar bear cage, a lion cage, etc. and then anything relating to friendship occurs. I will be grateful if someone knows of a single example. What happens is that the person is eaten, mauled, or otherwise injured. If that does not happen, it is because the animal is sedated, killed, or otherwise prevented from eating the intruder. That is what predators do. That is why one shouldn't leave little dogs out in the back yard when coyotes are around. If Pi had formed a friendship with RP, I would have shaken my head more than I did when I read about the island.

This does not work for the alternate story. That story is very plausible. The trouble is that nobody wants to hear about it. The story of the Donner party was even featured in a recent novel (Beautiful Ruins) as an example of a preposterous Hollywood pitch, even though the story was true.

i've always been staggered how anyone can see the tiger story as believable