Life of Pi
discussion
How did you feel at the end of the book when a new story is told?
The story that he tells at the end is a story even more horrendous than the first story because all of the animals suddenly have human faces. Richard Parker becomes the narrator, by default. The second story brings home the actual terror and grief that humans would suffer in these circumstances, and the tale he tells is no longer one of wonder and awe.
I thought Richard Parker was really Pi himself.
I agree, the "real" story which he tells in the end is more scary but will miss all the romance. (romance between Pi and Parker).
I felt the same way as Sanlema. Before I even read it I was finding it hard to believe how the story was going to be pulled off, but once I started reading it, I could see it happening, the boy surviving on a small boat in the middle of the ocean with a tiger. I fell right into the story and was actually mad at the ending with the second story. But after a couple of days (this is one of those stories that doesn't go away long after you've read it) and rethinking about the ending, you realize that the second story just makes the first story that much more personal to you based on your beliefs. It's a hard story to shake off and one that makes you think.
The ending story was dark remainder of the varied faces of a human being.It shows that no matter what,when the battle for survival kicks in,you don't have a friend anymore.The human turns into a monstrous being and the rules that follows are of survival and existence.
Perhaps Pi was suffering a form of psychological pain. I still want to believe the main story. Some of these things would be hard for Pi to know otherwise.
Besides, the end story just made me feel sick all over
again. It was bad enough seeing what happened to the animals in the boat, but the alternative made me want to throw up.
It's possible that Richard could've been an imaginary friend, so to speak, but I don't want to believe the end story.
Besides, the end story just made me feel sick all over
again. It was bad enough seeing what happened to the animals in the boat, but the alternative made me want to throw up.
It's possible that Richard could've been an imaginary friend, so to speak, but I don't want to believe the end story.
I found it hard to believe, but by the end of the book I was sure the story was actually real. Then I just got annoyed when it became possible it was all not true. It's sad that it is easier to believe in human's being vicious than animals not. Still I chose the story with Richard Parker...maybe because I had spent all that time reading it...
Sanlema wrote: "What amazes me more about this book is that before I started to read it I knew it would be difficult to believe a story of a boy surviving in a boat with a tiger. Finally after more than 2 hundreds..."Keep in mind, the guy was named after a municipal swimming pool.
The little red kitten you meet at the beginning when the journalist first interviews Pi, is Richard Parker... or not.
Gobsmacked. Just Gobsmacked. I was finding the story itself tedious, but kept reading due to the beauty of the telling...and then the ending just smacked me in the face and changed my whole experience of the book. Now I recommend it to everyone, where if the boy and the tiger had been the whole thing, I'd have panned it to anyone who would listen.
I felt like it was a test on our faith in Pi.
Whether we would change our opinion quickly within a couple of pages just because the last story seemed more realistic or if we would believe in Pi, and in the story he has long told us.
Personnally, I believe in him, and in his story, and I have faith in his words.
Whether we would change our opinion quickly within a couple of pages just because the last story seemed more realistic or if we would believe in Pi, and in the story he has long told us.
Personnally, I believe in him, and in his story, and I have faith in his words.
he seemed to me to be saying that we construct happier tales to diminish fear and make the unacceptable acceptable. given the book was also largely about faith i found his line "so it is with god" to be his admission that the stories we tell ourselves in relation to heaven and god are essentially night lights to keep the dark away and that deep down we know them to be falsehoods
HATE this BOOK!!!!!!!
I absolutely loved loved loved this book. My niece had to read it for school and so I agreed to read it along with her. We both loved the story line. Before we ended the book we discussed the different animals and the island. How the book was so amazingly detailed and made you feel like you were there with Pi on the boat and the island. When he was parched, you were suddenly parched. The end of the book, told an interesting story but its funny when he asks which they would prefer? Most people would choose the adventure story with interesting parts. I would recommend this book to everyone to read before they die. So great!!!
Elsie wrote: "Perhaps Pi was suffering a form of psychological pain. I still want to believe the main story. Some of these things would be hard for Pi to know otherwise.Besides, the end story just made me feel..."
You basically just summed up my own thoughts. I don't want to believe the second story either.
I felt very confused and awkward, that my beliefs were shaken and that the second story was more credible than the first one because there were more "real" and "tangible" facts.However, after some hours of reflection, and also thanks to my brother, my mind was set to believe in the first story.
I know that there are some things in this world that cannot or are difficult to explain, but in the end is a question of having faith and decide in what to believe and why.
One of the things that I think Yann Martel does so well (in what I've read of his work so far) is to show how multiple stories can exist within one. Or, more: how many truths can co-exist. Pi tells two stories, but I think both of them are true, even if one is only the emotional truth of it. Does that make sense?
I actually thought the animal story was more believable, because the cannibal chef was just too much for me. (Though there's no reason it couldn't have been true, I guess. The way it was told was just so over the top.) However, the movie made it clear which one we were supposed to believe was true. Annoying.
One of the things that I think Yann Martel does so well (in what I've read of his work so far) is to show how multiple stories can exist within one. Or, more: how many truths can co-exist. Pi tells two stories, but I think both of them are true, even if one is only the emotional truth of it. Does that make sense?
I actually thought the animal story was more believable, because the cannibal chef was just too much for me. (Though there's no reason it couldn't have been true, I guess. The way it was told was just so over the top.) However, the movie made it clear which one we were supposed to believe was true. Annoying.
I thought, wow, now this book was worth reading 350 pages half of which were tedious. But, I do have to say with the ending I did rate 5 stars. Loved it.
I felt "duh". It was so obvious.
I read this book about 10 or 11 years ago, and since the movie has been out it seems like the main thing people talk about it this "twist" at the end...when I first heard this, I was very confused, because I could not remember a twist. It honestly never even occurred to me that the second story could be real, I thought it was just something he was making up to placate the two businessmen. It seemed like a relatively small thing to me.Maybe I was just naive back then? I do generally tend to take things at face value. I wonder how I would react to it if I had read it now.
John wrote: "I read this book about 10 or 11 years ago, and since the movie has been out it seems like the main thing people talk about it this "twist" at the end...when I first heard this, I was very confused,..."Maybe you were, or maybe it is because as one becomes older, one becomes more skeptical about everything.
I felt like the Japanese ministry officials. I felt surprised that Pi is making up a ridiculous story and glanced knowingly, also thinking he's such a smart guy to pull their leg!
Loved this, and as soon as I finished it, I wanted to read it again knowing the "twist" at the end. I still want to. I want to go back and see...was there ever a tiger at all? Was the early scene, with Pi trying to feed Richard Parker before his father intervenes, something that really happened? Or was that a metaphor for Pi coming of age, reaching out (literally and figuratively) to "feed" the darker/more cynical/less "friendly" side of himself, while his father pushed him back and told him that side was no friend of his? Why did his father treat the tiger as an animal, but the orangutan as a human? There are so many questions, and so many layers for interpretation. I can't get this story out of my mind. Honestly, my inclination is to believe that Pi imagined the animals from the very beginning...that his subconscious mind "invented" them in order to make the unbearable bearable, as someone mentioned earlier.I can read so much symbolism into this, but one place where I'm confused is the dialogue that immediately follows the telling of the second story. "Which story do you prefer?" "The one with the animals." "Such is the way it is with God." Despite the lengths that were taken to set this up, with the following of several religions, etc., and the promise that the story would "make you believe in God," I still don't think I fully understand this at the end.
"Such is the way it is with God." Despite the lengths that were taken to set this up, with the following of several religions, etc., and the promise that the story would "make you believe in God," I still don't think I fully understand this at the end.Let me offer my interpretation. And you can decide whether this adds anything. I've always believed that the second story is the truth, and that the first story is a fiction. Of course, the first story is of perseverance and triumph over nature. The second story is of depravity and pain. So, in the end, Pi is suggesting that we need a God story to make sense of reality. The brilliance of that message, I thought, was that it was completely neutral. Because if you're religious, you'll take that to mean that you need God to get through life's difficulties. If you're not religious, you'll take that to mean that God is a fiction we tell ourselves to absolve ourselves of the horrible things that people do to each other.
I found it to be quite a brilliant way to tell the story.
Devon, brilliant insight! Thanks for sharing. That makes perfect sense to me.
I was buying into the first story until the floating island with meerkats. At that point I was sure that something weird was afoot. So the second story won out for me in the end.
I actually preferred the second story. I was relieved and enthralled by it, finally feeling connected to the book. It was dark and grisly but it was alive with crackling with real emotions. The rest of the book seemed colorless in comparison. That is not how it goes with the religious stories I know and love (I positively adore religious stories). I love how they elevate us and help us understand how to navigate through life. I love how they inspire wonder and amusement and contemplation. I love how they are true, even if they aren't real. Pi's journey on the boat did none of those things for me. It was neither true nor real. It was an attempt to deal with something very difficult for him to come to terms with. I think the goal behind the book was missed for me.
I totally agree with the insights of Devon and Sandyboy about "and so it is with God". I think this is a brilliant book, one of the best I have ever read. I read the entire thing in two sittings which for me is unheard of. And to think I only bought it because it was available on Amazon for less than £1! I found many parts of the boat story, with the hyena and the zebra and killing the turtles, very hard to read and pretty harrowing, but very compelling. I don't know which story we are "supposed" to believe, but Richard Parker is a great story and quite possibly the more plausible of the two!
I admit I didn't read all the above messages. Bits and pieces. How did I feel? Sadly, I felt the second story was the real story, but the first was how his mind coped with it. The only problem with that theory is that he wouldn't remember the real happenings if his mind had actually converted the events to the first story. But that's probably over thinking it anyway. Actually, I could buy into the idea that THIS boy and THAT tiger managed to cohabitate even in such a small vessel.
At the end of the day, I would prefer the Richard Parker story, but don't think that's the story.
John wrote: "I read this book about 10 or 11 years ago, and since the movie has been out it seems like the main thing people talk about it this "twist" at the end...when I first heard this, I was very confused,..."Nah you're right the first time. Why would you read a whole novel with so much detail and it turning out to be fake? Animal story true.
John wrote: "I read this book about 10 or 11 years ago, and since the movie has been out it seems like the main thing people talk about it this "twist" at the end...when I first heard this, I was very confused,..."This is exactly what I thought when I finished this book. It never occurred to me that the second story could be true. It just sounded way too ridiculous and unreal to me... even more than the first story.
I don't know, I just think people are over analyzing this book.
actually the end in the book is filled with horror events that may ruin the films' climax...the whole enjoyment got from the movie will be lost...its better to have a nice happy end...
When I first read this book I felt betrayed when the second version was revealed. But then remember the opening premise... This is a story that's supposed to make you believe in God.
We are then presented with two versions of a tale, one that is life-affirming and miraculous and filled with wonder, then one that is base and revolting and filled with all the shortcomings of man.
Then we are left to choose.
I'm still not sure that we can "choose" to believe. But I know which story I'd prefer to believe. But just as in the belief in God situation, there's still some small nagging doubt that the horrible version may be true despite how much I'd prefer the other.
The original story was more like a beautiful and terrifying fable/fairytale and once I bought into it, I was not happy that when the second story of an ugly and not at all special scenario (typical lifeboat survivors turn on each other story) turned out to be the true one. I would have rather the story stayed as it was. Who needs the harsh reality of life at the end to ruin the magic?
When he told the second story, I could really feel his grief, and pain as he was telling it. You could tell how deep he hid the true story because of how much the men had to force him to talk about it! I was amazed at how much I felt for Pi because, like him, I came to love the story with the animals as well! I was so inspired when all of them agreed that the story with animals is the better one. Just confirmation that we all choose our own realities and seeing it differently doesn't make it any less real.
Forgetting the work is fiction is the best way to enjoy this aspect of the book :)I guess my reaction when the new story was revealed was between a surprise saying 'he was making it up!?' and a relief that there actually was a story easier to believe in. I guess I wanted to believe Pi but also couldn't find the heart to do so. But the two stories seems so closely tailored to fit, you can't be sure which one is true. I think I thought he didn't want to relive the pain of seeing a man eaten by a man and his mother murdered, he just made some story up.
But then again, however important that part may be, the book isn't really about the first 3 days on the boat. It is the 224 days (I mean it also is not specifically that, but it is the part that is more obvious to the reader). So he may have made a story up to cover his pain in means of humanity. But the rest of the journey is more up to him.
In the end, it doesn't come to whether or not there was a gorilla on the ship or a hyena or a zebra: but the tiger. It is directly stated that the tiger is a metaphor for Pi (at least in the final story). Maybe the tiger is there, not as in material but an idea: the idea that keeps you from surviving even though you can survive. You are alone on a boat that can jeep you alive for a long time (you have the means to survive) but a tiger occupies that chance to survive. So you have to tame your tiger and accept it instead of killing it. You have to learn to live with it.
While metaphors are very easy to fish in the book, they aren't so easy to give meaning to. But I think this story deserves to be thought on. And that is what puts me in a dilemma. I want to believe Pi's story because I want to believe it, which means accepting it as it is and letting go. But also, I want to think that Pi was able to make a story that wasn't more depressing and sad than it was fascinating. I want to believe he had an experience which was challenging to the mind as much as it is to the body and he wanted to use this experience to make the reader to learn from it, to feel but feel anything but as miserable as he had been.
Thank you everybody for your feedback. I read the book 3 months ago, and every time I read your comments I start thinking again about this issue, and it twist, and meaning... This only reaffirm my feeling that this is a great book!
Pi does tell which story is credible: The first one. However, he leaves it up to the writer to choose which one he prefers. Pi survives in both, but the first one is better for obvious reasons: It tells the tale of a boy and a tiger and how they evolve past their natural instincts. The second one tells one of sacrifice, but also of killing. Although the first one has its heartrending, disgusting moments, it shows something tangible and real we can all achieve. Pi says, "And so it goes with God" when the reporters fished for a more realistic story. We have all created our own individual, false images of God/life because some things seem hard to comprehend. In conclusion, this book shows if you are open to things you had once turned aside, you will find God.
I loved the book, although at first I couldn't put it down, then I got bored and left it alone for awhile. When I returned to the story I once again couldn't stop reading it until the end.The story that was told at the end was believable but the "real" story told by Pi was much more rewarding to both Pi and the reader.
I was awe-struck when he told the second story. There were things in the Richard Parker story that I just couldn't believe, as much as I wanted to. It's a wonderful story of course, but when he told the second story, a lot of things in the Richard Parker story started to make sense. I definitely see why he prefers the story of Richard Parker. He had a lot of time out there to contemplate his situation and the events that took place. I think Richard Parker is his interpretation of the events & his way of coping. When it comes to survival, our most basic instincts kick in, and raw human nature can be terrifying, even ugly. I prefer the story of Richard Parker. I believe the second story tells us what really happened, but I like Pi's interpretation of the events. It makes the horror of the story bearable. It's frightening to think what we are capable of doing when we are pushed past our breaking points. *shudder*
I think also it depends on what you believe.Pi talks about being religious, agnostic, and being a atheist.
A religious person would choose the better story, a agnostic would be stuck in between, and the atheist would believe the the second story.
So you fit in one of those categories. I fall in the last one.
The whole point, I think, is Pi tells himself the story of the tiger to explain the beast within that allows him to survive. The beast and the human are necessary to one another. For Pi, it's not a matter of which story he believes. He knows what happened. It's a matter of which story he'd rather live, and relive. That's the first story for almost all of us, because that's the story with magic.
message46: excellent.
Jonah wrote: "The whole point, I think, is Pi tells himself the story of the tiger to explain the beast within that allows him to survive. The beast and the human are necessary to one another. For Pi, it's not a..."Yes, this is a good explanation. I think you're right.
Sunsette wrote: "I was awe-struck when he told the second story. There were things in the Richard Parker story that I just couldn't believe, as much as I wanted to. It's a wonderful story of course, but when he t..."You said it as well as could be said. As did Jonah. I loved this book.
I was amazed at the ending. I then realized that Richard Parker was Pi's ego...the dreadful part of ourselves that believes in death and will do anything to stay alive.When he reached the shore safely, his ego walked away, and he could resume his life, returning to his thought process of being a vegetarian and kind person.
I was touched by Pi's transference of his conscience and ego and in order to cope with his ordeal. He very honestly told of his ordeal in both an innocent's point of view and as an outsider looking on by transferring the burdens of survival to the Tiger. It was like you needed both a conscience (PI) and ego (Tiger) to survive. Pi almost left Richard Parker on the island...
Julie wrote: "I was touched by Pi's transference of his conscience and ego and in order to cope with his ordeal. He very honestly told of his ordeal in both an innocent's point of view and as an outsider looking..."Julie - that's interesting and first time I've come across that take expressed in those terms. Nicely done.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
In any case I chose the story with animals, since he does not ask wich story is more credible, but with is the best story.