Life of Pi
discussion
Which version did you beleive?
message 51:
by
Laurie
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Oct 28, 2011 10:32AM
brilliant
reply
|
flag
After reading a little bit of this stream I scrolled to the end and was about to start with a sentence almost identical to Tara's leading sentence. I agree, but I'd like to piggy back some. The true story is the one you want to be true. They are each true to each who believes they are true. I'd agree that the story Pi knew as truth (since this is what I believe was the question to be answered) is the one with the animals; the one we rode in with him for dozens of chapters. In his frustration he fabricated a second story to satisfy his interviewers. As a side-note I felt my intelligence being insulted when the other character had to point out the similarities as though the reader hadn't caught them.
The point, is not to figure which story to believe, but to BELIEVE in story. In Pi's exploration of God, he is drawn in by the difficult story of Christ and he constantly understands stories through other stories (i.e. his understandings of Vishnu and Krishna and Brahma). We as humans let our "yeastless factuality" hinder our ability to indulge in stories. As soon as we break back into our disbelief, the story-- in all it's beauty and splendor-- is lost.
The application for life, I'd say is in faith. People don't believe in God because they don't understand Him, his story is selfless, paradoxical, and a stumbling block to our human logistical way of understanding. But as Pi learned, the reason for Christ's story is love (another thing we often find an enigma).
Believe in story. It may not always be easy to comprehend or understand-- like God-- but Set your silly understanding, facts and laws aside for just a minute, because if you can just move with the story, you might find they are not of as much value as you thought. In fact the story you transcend with in your faith, will take you to the most beautiful, real, abundant places imaginable.
Believing is real. Whatever you really believe is what really happened. I am NOT religious but I do believe in faith and this book was about faith I think. One of my favourite books of all time. I love to read and write about animals.
I agree with the second story,also my belief in the second story was reinforced by Pi. When the investigators questioned Richard Parker being around, Pi said pretty much that they would never find him. And also when the investigators were listening to the second story they had the connection between Richard Parker and Pi, and when Pi was hallucinating about Richard Parker talking and the other blind french man,I just got the idea that all of it was in his head. The second story to me was the real story, but who wants to know such horrible things happened, so Pi came up with a much better story.
The point is that if you believe the first story is the true version, you are a believer and in itself, proves the existence of God.
Geoffrey wrote: "The point is that if you believe the first story is the true version, you are a believer and in itself, proves the existence of God."What?
The What? comes from a rationalist. But to a potential believer, the belief is the proof. No, I guess you wouldn`t get it, Will.
You're right, I don't, because it makes no sense. Perhaps you mean that belief in itself is validation enough for the faithful, but in no way is a reflection on any actual proof.
So says a rationalist. I happen to agree with you, but I understand the other point- the thinking of the true believer.
Okay, I see what you're saying. I thought you were confirming that line of reasoning as valid, which it obviously isn't. Even the most faithful would agree that believing soomething isn't proof of its existence.
Will wrote: "Okay, I see what you're saying. I thought you were confirming that line of reasoning as valid, which it obviously isn't. Even the most faithful would agree that believing soomething isn't proof of ..."Maybe not, but believing, or having faith can make it happen. And before you start to argue, I agree that this is NOT logical. It is just something you have to learn by experience and if you doubt it, it cannot work. (catch 22 I know)I was lucky enough to learn it by experience during a traumatic childhood, before I was old enough for the logic to kick in and tell me it couldn't happen that way. My life is a complete illustration of the words of that corny song, "Believing can make it real".
Trust me, I used to have the same exact sort of faith, it's when you consciously decide you want as many true things in your beliefs, and as few false things that you will begin to realize how easy it is to fall into this trap of faith. I don't think many people realize how easy it is to fool the human brain. It's why even to this day we still have "psychics" and charlatans who not only claim special powers, but often have believed themselves into thinking they really do. This is the trap. You've made yourself believe something, which might make it true for you (in your mind), but just realize that it is a belief entirely unto yourself.
I can't know what the author had in mind. I can't know what anyone who's read this story thinks. There were two stories in the book. I'm not sure which the author intended to be the 'true' one or even if he meant for there to be a 'true' one. I think it's about personal choice. Which do 'I' think is the better story? I'll live in the question. Just like I do about God. I'm ok with that.
I want to believe the one with the animals, kind of like Pi. In the end, it doesn't matter. Your reality is whatever you want it to be. If that happened to me, I would defintley prefer believing a lie than living with the agony of a truth that does nothing for you.
Nif wrote: "it's funny - i believe the second story actually happened, but that he colored it with the fantastic story of the animals to preserve his faith in people... himself... and faith. the second story ..."I agree with your synopsis. Sandy
In case anyone wasn't aware of it, amazing director Ang Lee is making a movie of the book. Have a look at the synopsis here.
I agree with those who say that both are true, depending on your religious orientation. It's been a while since I read it, but I remember being interested in the fact that when drawing parallels between the two stories, Pi is Richard Parker. I have never managed to work out the significance of this, although I have wondered whether the strength, Pi needed to overcome his ordeal is symbolised by the metaphorical Tiger. Richard Parker's training could in fact be his own disciplining of himself. I also wondered about the moment where Pi bathes his feet in the carcasses of the two meerkats. It strikes a startling contrast with Pi's initial observations about the sanctity of life, and confused me somewhat.
I believe the first one, because the behavior of the cook didn't make sense to me in the second version, even in a disaster situation, but it did sound like a hyena.
I don't think this book is a fair portrayal of the decision we have to make in real life. Because first of all, in the novel, it does not matter if the interviewers believed in the wrong version of the story. In real life, however, it DOES matter, especially when it comes to matters related to worldview. If I believed that I wwould definitely go to heaven if I got killed in a war, then what can you deduce about my actions following this belief? Believing in a lie is not always harmless in real world.Secondly, in the story, the journalists had no way of determining which version is true, but in real life we can make fairly reliable (although might now be 100% definitive) conclusions based on the evidence that we find. If I heard a story that tells me a certain individual has come back from the dead, all I needed to do was to dig up his grave and if the body was there, I instantly know that the story is a lie.
Thirdly, there is subjective truth and there is objective truth. Saying that this girl's ex-boyfriend broke her heart is subjective truth. He cannot literally break her heart, as it would constitue a crime, but the statement is no less true in a subjective sense, because what she went through was truly painful. Saying that there is or isn't a God, however, is appealing to the objective side of reality. There either is or is not a creator. The universe was either caused by some infinite, immaterial, timeless, intelligent and personal being at a certain point in time in the past, or it came into being through some other means without such a creator. Statements like these cannot be both true at the same time.
So I guess all I wanted to say boils down to this: in the novel, there either was a tiger named Richard Parker, or there wasn't. He was either real, i.e. phisically existed at some point in time, or he was made up. In a subjective sense, both can be true, if we were to go with the allegory and literary device and all that stuff. But objectively, they cannot both be true.
Finally, let's not forget this--the author did not say which version of the story is true. So why must we be so quick to conclude that the second story is what really happened? Should we judge the truthfulness of a story based purely on its probability? So perhaps my stance here is like that of an agnostic: both stories are equally likely to be true, and until given further evidence, I withhold my judgement.
The horror of the literal story makes the fable necessary. That's the basis of magic realism, yes?
believe is misspelled ...
I want to believe the story with the animals and pi but when hearing the story he told to the guards makes me realize how true his words were.How he changed it so it seemed to fit better in his mind and in the minds of others. To make canabalism sound purely as if wild animals are only doing what is right to survive instead of something so unknown to us.
What I believe is that the entire book is a work of fiction. Pi is not a real person, none of the events actually transpired, so neither story is "true." However, what I also believe is that Pi's existence, and his entire world, were created by the author, and the only place either (and both) versions ever existed, is inside the authors own head. In creating the stories in this book, the author IS God.
As creator/author God of these stories, the true version is which ever one God the creator/author, decided upon. Come to think of it, as God, he can make himself omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and/or whatever else he pleases, so why couldn't he make the decision that BOTH versions are true? Or, for that matter, that neither version is true?
God the creator/author of this story doesn't ask the reader to decide on truth, only on preference. If he hadn't presented an alternative version, the question of which the reader choses to belives, wouldn't have even come up, now would it?
If you read the Harry Potter series, did you question the existence of magic? If you read the Twilight Saga, did you even think to consider the fact that there's no such thing as vampires and werewolves?
Both Harry Potter and the Twilight Saga are pure fantasy. Both are totally unrealistic, and we all know that! But did that knowledge make the stories any less enjoyable? Didn't those elements of fantasy add to that enjoyment? Make them more interesting? Contribute greatly to their popularity?
In an alternative version of Harry Potter, I could say it was really the story of an ordinary young boy who loses both his parents in a tragic car accident. He is then forced to live with his cruel aunt and uncle and obese cousin, who all gang up on him, taunting, teasing, bullying, and beating him mercilessly. To escape the pain and trauma, in his mind, he retreats into a wonderous world of magic! Where he fantasizes that he fiercely battles against the forces of evil, and saves the entire world!
Which version of Harry Potter do you believe is more plausible? More realistic? Mine, or the author's? Which do you prefer?
My alternate version of Twilight, is that it is the story of a young teenage girl, who is torn between 2 boys. One is a "crackhead", who,in his desperation to support his addiction, drains everyone around him dry (emotionally and financially). While the other, is usually a nice boy, but he's an alcoholic. And when he drinks, he transforms completely, into a "mean drunk", who is violent and abusive. In the end, she finally chooses the first boy, becoming a crackhead, just like him! They marry, but when she gets pregnant, her parents drag her off, and force her into rehab. She escapes and the couple are reunited, but their baby is born addicted to crack, taken by child protective services, and placed in foster care. After proving they can stay "clean and sober", they go to court, regain custody, and live happily ever after.
Now, do you like my version of Twilight, or the author's better? Unless you actually believe in the existence of werewolves, vampires, and magic, you have to admit that my versions are both far more plausible, far more realistic, but as they are ALL works of fiction, as the reader, your only real decision here, is which version you prefer.
As far as which versions of these stories are true? I did not create these stories, and I am not their God. The authors are. The "true" versions, are theirs. Good thing, huh?
The existence of God can neither be proven, or disproven. No one really knows for an absolute fact, one way or the other. What each individual believes is their choice, their opinion, all of which ultimately boils down to a question of faith. Theists have faith that God exists, while atheists have faith he doesn't. Agnostics are the only ones who do not have faith. They simply decide that lacking proof positive, they are not going to make up their mind, one way or the other.
So, which will you choose?
I thought it was clear that the 2nd version was the true one. The point of the book seems to be that religion is our construct. We need the stories (whatever religious story you prefer) in order to cope with the brutal world we live in. Apart from those stories we are nothing more than brute beasts, but by believing in those stories we rise above and can have some measure of peace.
I really appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments here - you all have truly enriched my enjoyment of the book, and deepened my appreciation for it.This discussion has well covered all the parable and other aspects, but I didn't see any discussion around math yet, so I thought I'd add my math-geek thoughts:
Pi = an irrational number
Life of Pi = an irrational life, comprised of and salvaged by equal parts faith (his spiritual world and pursuits) and reality (the grim set of circumstance with which he was faced and what he had to do to survive)
In order to know the circumference or area of a circle (the whole person), we need the Radius (Richard) and Pi (Parker or Pi) - interesting use of letters.
Deverre wrote: "I really appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments here - you all have truly enriched my enjoyment of the book, and deepened my appreciation for it.This discussion has well covered all the para..."
I missed the Radius=Richard aspect. Very nice. I also like what you said about Pi=irrational number/life. Excellent thought.
I agree with Nif on this one. Traumatic experiences are hard to cope with, which is why they lead some people to do bad things, or develop a mental disorder. Pi went through a traumatic experience that was so hard to cope with, he had to do something to make it easier to take in.
I don't believe the frame story about the boy named Pi. I think it's an allegory - something the boy on a boat invented to cope with his desperate situation. He just wanted to have a past and a future.
As soon as I finished reading this amazing book, I googled TSIMTSUM, the name of the ship that sank, out of curiosity. I found the following, which I believe gives you the answer to what story was actually true:-The concept of Tsimtsum is a 16th century kabbalistic explanation of how God, if infinite and omnipresent, could form a material, physical world separate from himself. If God is everywhere and in everything, how could he create a place where he was not? How could God create a world infused with evil?
Tsimtsum was a concept first taught by Isaac Luria, a kabbalist rabbi, who posited that God vacated a region within himself in order to create the world. Through this act of “shrinking,” “withdrawal,” or “contraction” (the literal meaning of the Hebrew word tsimstum), God brought into being a vacuum in which to create something other than Himself. He could then fill this vacuum or empty space by the simultaneous process of self-revelation and creation.
Katie wrote: "Illustrated version is already out - I was looking at in a bookstore this weekend. Is beautiful - I'd like to own it. $30 US I believe."who is the publisher
Neither. The book is fiction.
Josh wrote: "As soon as I finished reading this amazing book, I googled TSIMTSUM, the name of the ship that sank, out of curiosity. I found the following, which I believe gives you the answer to what story was actually true"That's a great find, Josh, thanks for that!
Not that I can guess how your analysis goes from here. How a reference to God's withdrawal helps us choоse one story over another?
I think this is essentially a book about faith - so the question at the end - what do you believe? is kind of the whole point. In a way it doesn't matter which version we choose to believe - or even if we believe neither. The important thing is that we've seen that gulf open up under us - where something we believed was true one minute could turn out to be a lie the next.
For me, the main thing that made the first story hard to believe was the incident with the merecats. Interestingly, the incident with the merecats was the only part of the story that had evidence. (The bones in the boat) With this in mind, I am inclined to believe the first story. Improbability is not good enough reason to disbelieve something. It had more details than the other story, which seemed to be a retelling of the first, designed to be believable.
It is YOU who has the freedom of deciding which story, or stories, you like to be true. The warm feeling that comes with believing, relaxed, in absence of any doubt, is a nourishment of happiness for PI and he consumes it from many different religions simultaneously in the first chapters of the book.
You choose to believe a story (or religion) is a truth because it makes you feel good. At the same time in the back of your mind you have told yourself to feel OK not to question the truth of that belief, or else you may loose that good feeling.
It is all about your own freedom to choose to believe something.
I think that is what constitutes the most basic meaning of this book. Support for it I find when he says towards the end of the book that believing either version of the story is 'just like religion'. You choose the one that feels best for yourself and fully accepting this truth makes you feel at rest and happy, fullfilled.
So, believing is something pleasent that you can do with your mind. Personally, I consider the state of believing equal to the standby-mode of your household electronics. Happy and calm, yes. Freed from the ugly realities in the real world, yes. Answers to everything, yes. Sure it is calming, but the world is a far bigger wonderous and exciting place. You do not have to believe, because in the world, answers can be validated by proof and evidence. I don't want to miss it. I am learning new things every day. All you have to do is believing that it is OK that you may never have all the answers.
Interesting that just about every comment I've read believes that the animal story is a psychological coping mechanism for dealing with the more horrific human story.But I think we have to consider the possibility (Though it is more far-fetched, it IS possible) that the human story was the coping mechanism. It makes sense that Pi could have invented the human story to familiarize the situation. Being trapped with animals would have been very stressful, so he may very well have ascribed a human persona to each creature, to make the situation less frightening.
(I wrote a fantastic essay on this when I read it for school. Wish I still had it.)
Also, the boy was probably half-way out of his head through most of the trip (heat, malnutrition, trauma, etc) so it would make some sense for him to see humans as animals, animals as humans, or just hallucinate the entire thing
Personally, it think the question isn't 'which story is more plausible/true?' I believe it is 'which version do you CHOOSE to believe?'I choose the story of courage over the story of horror. I choose the story of an unlikely friendship over the tale of a battle with one's inner darkness.
I choose the story of Richard Parker roaming free, and a boy who had a grand adventure.
Kira wrote: "...we have to consider the possibility (Though it is more far-fetched, it IS possible) that the human story was the coping mechanism"Kira, I like your hypothesis.
Nevertheless I refuse to choose a story. We don't choose the truth. If the author haven't left enough clues as to which story was true (and I feel he didn't), than there is nothing to base our choice on. Yes, we can literary-analyse the hell out of the story and write a convincing argument either way, but that won't never convince me. In fact, if there is no solid basis to discover which story is true, I don't care which one is. I like the animals/island story because it has more details. But that's not a good reason to believe it.
Interesting to see everyone's take on it.I felt that the whole point was that there is no way in which to be certain what is the true account (no way to prove it) but that many people will take the 2nd story as truth simply because from a human standpoint, it is more logical or scientifically plausible.
- The first account was far more tolerable and provided much more hope, yet it contained a few aspects (carnivorous island etc) that appear to be outside the 'human' scope of plausability.
- The second account offers little or no hope, is dark and horrifying, yet it seems truer based on human thinking.
Questions and doubts can be raised of both accounts.
I thought that this was symbolic of life, and our choice whether to have belief in a God. As the reader, for the most part of the book the author presents us with a reality - the story with the animals. We are heavily invested in the boy and the animals and wouldn't even consider it may not be truth UNTIL something starts to contradict human logic & science.
When we are presented with the alternative version told only in brief, we are in danger of accepting it quickly as truth simply and only on the grounds that is appeals to our logic. In the same way we are in danger of dismissing a truth soley on the grounds that it is partially outside the realm of human comprehension.
This is understandable, we are human after all. Yet history proves that this is a folly of humankind (how many of the laws that apply in quantam physics would never have been believed as truth?) If everything points to a truth, but we allow our inability to completely comprehend it to hold us back, then we just might be in danger of missing out on the greater story.
After Pi described the island and all of the wonders it contained, the Japanese duo are adamant in their denial that these things exist. Pi's response is "Only because you've never seen them"
"that's right, we believe what we see" say the Japanese duo.
"what do you do when you're in the dark?" says Pi.
A part quote by Stephen Hawking "it is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws".
I think that the book wasn't trying to preach about God, but rather trying to say that just because we (human) don't see something (the island) it does not mean that it does not or cannot exist, or cannot be equally plausible.
At the end of the novel Pi explains how neither version makes a factual difference to the men, nor can they prove which is true or untrue, so it is left up to the men to choose which version they want to believe. I felt that the ultimate question then Posed by Martel was that if there was a chance that the better version was true, why wouldn't you choose that version? (Pi had stuck firmly with his faith after the event) Wouldn't it be worth it, even on the chance that it might just be true?
Fascinating discussion. I am most aligned with NSmith, but appreciate the variety of expression and contribution from everyone. The author has the last and only word on what he meant, but neither story is "true." It's a story. A story doesn't need to be true to have transforming power. One doesn't need to believe a story to appreciate it's lessons. Life is what it is, beautiful and horrifying. Live with it. I need to read this again before the movie comes out, and will keep all this wonderful discussion in mind when I do.
I couldn't have said it better than Nif. I totally agree with his analysis.
Floramanda wrote: "This has been a popular Book Club book, but my club hasn't read it yet. I'm curious what other readers have thought about the two alternate versions of Pi's life on the boat. Which version did you ..." I think the second story was the true version. However, most people would prefer to believe in the first, less credible story, maybe in the same way that people prefer to believe in religious stories rather than the more mundane, brutal reality of life and human nature - maybe?
Dawn, I'm fairly positive that the first story was representative of religion.
Hyrum, what makes you believe that?
The first story was more fantastic than the story of cannibalism. The second one was more mundane, dark, and depressing. The first one wasn't directly impossible, but was more unlikely, though more hopeful. The point made at the end of the book, I think was that the details of life are still the same whether or not you believe in religion, just as the events of the two stories were similar. If the details are the same, and neither story is provable, than why should you not believe the better story(religion). The first story was the better story.
I think choosing to believe one story over the other severely limits the "Truths" to choose from. I want to believe the first story until Pi comes up with the alternative, but from then on I want to be free to make up endless number of explanations of the text. While we thought we were watching as the story unfolded before our eyes we had no reason to mistrust it. Once Pi makes us realize that all we've read so far was just a story, we shouldn't feel forced to choose just one of two stories. May be both were true and the text unfolds in two parallel universes, magically entangled. May be none is true and Pi is just crazy. Or may be none is true and Pi is just very creative. Or may be none is true and Pi wants to teach us a lesson. Actually "none is true" version seems the most potent, one could produce new explanations daily and never exhaust the possibilities. Which doesn't make "both are true" or "choose one" any less interesting.
Leela wrote: "... just because we (human) don't see something (the island) it does not mean that it does not or cannot exist, or cannot be equally plausible ..."Something that I see is definitely more plausible than something that I don't. Like I see a horse and I don't see a unicorn: I might doubt that there is really a horse there but it's much more plausible than a unicorn, which I don't even see.
If I see a unicorn, but no horse, that makes the unicorn hypothesis more plausible to me. But if I relate my experience to you and you've never seen a unicorn and seen thousands of horses and never heard of an instance of a reliable witness having seen a unicorn, my story will sound implausible to you. But then I might take you to the place where I've seen it and, provided it's still there, make it much more plausible to you too. And the more people we show our unicorn to and the better documentation we make - the more plausible they'll appear even to those who never seen one.
I think there is a difference that needs to be made between religion and believing in God. The author never says that this story will make you believe in your religion more. It won't make you a better Christian, Muslim, or Hindu (or any other religion). What he does set out to do is make you believe in God. You don't have to follow a religion in order to do that.With this in mind read message 20 again.
Michael wrote: "What he does set out to do is make you believe in God."Have you started the book as agnostic or atheist and finished as a believer?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Life of Pi (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Басни (other topics)Life of Pi (other topics)
