Life of Pi
discussion
Which version did you beleive?
Артём wrote: "The third part of one soviet animation Plasticine Crow (1981) is formally somewhat similar to the Life of Pi. It goes like: "Once upon a time there was a crow... or may be a dog... or a cow... or ..."Very succintly put! You are quite right - we believe the first story until we hear the second, more plausible one.
Version 1 is definitely a better story, yet, I will pick version 2 just because it's the true story.
The metaphor of the animals was wonderful and creative, but isn't that a writer's job? I read this as part of a bookclub and there was a lot to discuss. As for the belief in God, I think that is something to discover on your own. If the book helps along the way then I would say that is a good read!
I think some part of the story is "overly dramatic" with " overblown decorative". As to religion, I believe we are saved through faith.
This is a curious question to ask - which version of the story one believes to be the "real" story - but one that fits well with what I found made Pi not work for me.Of course, there is no real story when we are talking about a work of fiction, since fiction by definition relates a story, not history or what we call "real" events. The only meaningful sense in which either of the book's stories can be called the "real" story in the sense of what the author intended to have actually happen in the life of the character. The fact that most readers will see that what "really" happened, or what story was "true" was the second, horrible story, is telling.
What I found disappointing with Pi was that the author implies through the characters is that one should believe in god in order to make life more rewarding. The problem with that idea is that we cannot simply chose our beliefs. That isn’t how we arrive at them. In a very real way, our beliefs simply happen to us. If you don’t believe this, try believing it. Can you? Try believing something you do not. Try believing, for the sake of argument, something you know to be false. Or even something you are undecided about. You cannot do it, can you? That’s because our minds simply work – they cannot be pushed into working one way or the other. The famous notion that “you believe what you want to believe” is not a refutation of this idea, because what it really means is that sometimes people successfully delude themselves into seeing or believing things that they really do not see or believe in, as a way to cope with the reality that they find intolerable. But these are not cases in which one believes what they want to, they just ignore their own minds, ignore their beliefs, and push their emotional convictions to the forefront and abide by them instead.
So back to the question: readers know that the second story is the “true” story but are being asked to ignore that and “believe” that the first story is true in order to enjoy life more, be comforted, etc.
To do this is understandable, but is it really the best way to go? It is possible to confront life’s unpleasant sides or circumstances and, rather than reject them or invent fantasies to cover them up, try to arrive at an understanding of them that allows one to find happiness, to make sense of what seems senseless, and to embrace life without self-delusion, without giving up.
Does it matter which version is true?
What the author wants to tell a reader is the only thing that matters. Sometimes, an author isn't trying to tell the reader anything, other than to offer something to think about. In this case, I think the author intends us to know that the second story is "true" but is asking us, or advising us, to "just believe" that the first story is true anyway, which doesn't makes sense to me, and is why I have a problem appreciating the book fully.
As a person who believes in faith and God I found the book to be very enjoyable. As for which story I believe I could probably believe the story with the animals. I don't know why but I feel like that would have happened to Pi rather than the other story. It just didn't seem real for me the second story but the first was more real. IDK I can't explain but that's what I think.
If the second story had just involved random people from the ship, then I would say either story could be true. What convinces me that the second story is what really happened is that it involves Pi's mother. No one would make up such a horrible death for their own mother. So I believe that the first story is Pi's way of dealing with the tramatic events of the second story.
My takeaway (and that of many others):Pi could tell a colorful story or he could tell the brutal truth, but while some want to believe the colorful story, that doesn't negate the brutal truth.
You're going to live. You're going to die. Your mind will disappear and your body will return to the ground from which it originally came. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
There's just no happy ending to the true story, so make the best of it while you're here (I recommend craft beer, travel, and good friends).
Does not matter which story you believe, neither happened. This is fiction. ;-)
Katie wrote: "My friend and I were debating, and perhaps I need to go back and re-read, but I felt that of all the characters, Pi was Richard Parker. Is this how everyone else felt?"I guess so too, and that was exactly what the two Japanese thought too... And what is symbolic - Pi was the tiger - the noble, aristocratic animal, and not any other...
I started reading the book because of the tiger - I adore big cats. But the more I read the more I understood that this book is something more. You truly believe the very least fact the boy narrates, even the fact that he managed to survive with the tiger and to train him. I doubted only the drifting island, but that's OK. But the very last chapter made my rethink everything I have read up till now. I think I won't reread the book in order to comprehend the plot from the point of view of the "realistic" version, because I (as well as everyone else) like the "version with animals" more. I gave this book "10" because no other book made me want to read it non-stop.
James (JD) wrote: "All belief--or lack thereof--is based on story/myth. I thought that was the point of the book. We can adopt the myths we hear or make up new ones to suit our needs at the moment. "Perfectly said!
As an atheist, I'm used to skimming through any preachy religious parts of novels, and it wasn't until I read reviews that I wanted to go back & read this book again to think about the religious/faith issues.
Even on a second read they don't seem all that important to the story. (but .... maybe that's why I do not understand the island at all)
I purposefully choose the 1st, because the 2nd is too possible!
I believe the second story is the true one, and, moreover, I believe this is clear too! I will try to base what I'm saying, for whomever cares to read:1) When the Japanese interviewers questioned the basis of Pi's story, even though the castaway, initially upset, tried to persuade them it was a true story -however unbelievable, he didn't try too hard for it.
He started narrating a second story instead, which bore scary resemblance to the first story, only this time most of the events were described in a more realistic context.
In my opinion, if the first story was true, Pi would have insisted on it, he wouldn't have produced a similar story out of the blue, on the spot... With sooooo many details too... If you were Pi, would you have conceived a story similar to what you've endured, a more realistic one, just in case anyone doesn't believe what you're saying? I don't think so, I don't think Pi had the courage or the will to do so. I think he experienced the gory, disturbing 'second story', and then "Solitude began. I turned to God. I survived", i.e he prayed and made peace with God, his 'sins(he killed a man) were forgiven, he justified his actions, and he devised a 'lighter' story to tell OR he somehow experienced it almost like this animal story (hallucinating etc), in order to be able to cope with it.
2) When Pi finished his story, he asked the interviewers 'Which is the better story?', since both stories made no factual difference to them, and when they agreed that the animal story was the best, Pi started crying ("Oh look-he's crying."). It's as if Pi surrendered, decided to tell them the truth, and they agreed it's better to keep the metaphorical story for further inquirers, because it's more acceptable, and more pleasant, let's not kid ourselves. And when they ask about Richard Parker, he says 'He's hiding somewhere you'll never find him', as if to say he partially made up his being with him on the lifeboat (since it was a symbol of himself).
3)The carnivorous island, the fact that Pi survived with a tiger on the same boat, nay for so long, and the appearance of another castaway in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, are some if not all of the elements of the story which, I think, are put there on purpose, so that the reader doubts the credibility of the story. I myself started wondering about it when Pi reached the island. On the other hand, the second story has data that cover all aspects of Pi's journey, in a way that is more likely to have happened. Some readers state that the Meerkat skeletons are not explained in the second story, but a possible solution could be that the skeletons were in reality those of the ship's mice (something which the interviewers initially suggested to Pi when he claimed those skeletons were evidence of his animal story).
AND:
The whole story serves greatly as a metaphor of what really happened, the climax of it being when Richard Parker ditched Pi, once they made it to the shore. That is, he was at last rescued, therefore he took off his other guise, the other self he was forced by the circumstances to transform into.
HOWEVER
I think I've read somewhere that Martel himself has said it is up to the reader to choose which ending to believe, and that both versions of the facts have some elements unexplained, with the intention of not having a 'correct' story, so that there is this ambiguity.
I'd be glad to discuss it further with you guys, anytime.
Happy reading!
we are animals,no difference on the books circumstances,god is how we prevail life on the living that surrounds each individual.
Both stories are true.
I think that both stories are true. Pi is Pi but he is also Richard Parker. He is a calm and God loving vegetarian and also a animal and ultimate survivor. The amazing and the terrifying. Good and bad. We all have a Pi and Richard Parker inside of us.
I find this thread extremely interesting. Someone wrote that "we want to believe the first is true because it is so fantastical" (I'm paraphrasing), but the doubt that has been created and exemplified in this thread is exactly the kind of doubt that the investigators had after hearing the story. It IS hard to believe, it IS improbable...but does that make it untrue?
Reading the book alone, I believe the first story. I know first-hand that improbable does not mean impossible and therefore can be achieved.
After reading interviews with Yann Martel, I still believe that it is the first story that is true.
The people who survive are the ones who narrate the events.Practically, surviving is of utmost priority. It gives 'hope' to humanity, against all odds.
Sugarcoating the Survival story keeps the 'faith' alive.
Sometimes people tell stories that they know someone wants to hear. It can be their only way to be left alone with the reality. Pi told the second version of events with people because he knew it was what the Japanese interviewers wanted to hear. He is deciding that people would ultimately rather hear something horrific because it seems to make more sense. He knew that the interviewers were incapable of suspending belief. They saw things as black and white, no grey areas which is why he leaves us with the question of which story do you believe.For me this is a lesson of the book. Things aren't always as they seem and the unimaginable does happen. It is left for you to decide what works for you without deciding the others are right or wrong. Perspective, tolerance.
I believe the first story happened. (I know it is fiction) And because I believed it from the start I never caught a glimpse that it could be otherwise. Although the retelling gave me a lot to ponder and raised more questions than answers, I turn to this quote:
'Tigers exist, lifeboats exists, oceans exist. Because the three have never come together in your narrow, limited experience, you refuse to believe that they might. Yet the plain fact is that the Tsimtsum brought them together and then sank.'
hey guys I have a question that has been eating at me ever since I have read the book and it was a few years ago. In the book he spends time on this "island" and I was just curious what are everyones thoughts on this islandl. I kind of made the asumption that it was like his "happy place" where he could escape. I forget a lot of the details but would love some feed back.And for the main question I do agree that the story really took place with the people but he made it so the animals were the ones doing the animalistic things, because it is just that animalistic. I feel that it was much easier for him to deal with the adventure in the animal kingdom because animals always behave that way were people are suppose to me more refined.
Heather wrote: "In the book he spends time on this "island" and I was just curious what are everyones thoughts on this islandl."See the discussion taking place here:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
To be honest I'm not sure which story to believe, since I want to believe the story with Richard Parker and the animals, but the one with the people on the boat has more chance of actually happening, but some of the things that happened with the people would be very very unlikely. I wonder if i ever got the chance to ask Yann Martel about this and how he would answer this. My head tells me to believe the story with the people but my i would like the story with the animals to be real.
I had read this book when it came out and could never forget the ending. the question "which one do you believe?' always haunted me. as long as I was reading about animals I never doubted it. but in the end when the author brought in the story with people it was like being stunned. I remember thinking when did this happen and how could he!:) I wondered what the author believed himself. rationally the people story being real and the animal story being there to make the story better makes all sense. but I still.believe the animal story no matter how fantastic it was. one of the most intelligent books I have ever read.
Neither story is plausible and I believe that none of the stories happened as PI told it. But excuse me if I bring a rush of logic to this discussion. This film did not make me view religion or God differently. God is NOT anything I just whimsically decided to take a leap on one day, tantalized by fantasies or aesop's fables.
No, I followed a greatly overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in multiple tragedies within my life - including a death experience by three family members - which unquestionably led me to believe God exists. It is far too preposterous for me to consider any other conclusion, the deity God, Creator, or for some "I AM" definitely exists...What isn't decided is what that means to most people.
Also, aside from God existing the world is an extremely horrifying place...How could it not be, because the existence of God does not make evil any less real nor the reality of faulty organized religion and conscious moral failures.
For me in particular, PI's journey, held as a non-fiction account in some libraries....represents a desire of human spirit to "make meaning" and "color" out of that which is more mundane or reasonable.
The pessimistic view we all so often hear, is really the real one but we like to "dress it up" in our own fantasy to cope with that daily ordeal. In PI's case, we don't even have any evidence of the Tiger. So for all we know PI fell on a life boat at night, the Cruise ship sank, and from there the Cook scraped aboard with the Zebra and Hyena. They were stranded for less than a day, the Cook killed and ate the Zebra before the Hyena bit into his arm. The Cook killed the Hyena by the third day, and PI, relating to his rival as a Tiger, tried to tame his actions. I choose to believe the Tiger was on the boat, simply because of the large claw marks seen on the tarpaun. He likely devoured the Cook, killing him instantly half way through the boat ride. PI then learned to be an expert fisher man, by diving into the water with a wet-suit to kill and collect fish. It doesn't explain it another way.
Rather than magical flying fish or color trout, he killed dozens of salmon over a long 200 days. The routine was monotonous but is the only explanation for their survival. Then, PI in our eye landed on a deadly Island in the South Pacific; not far from Madagascar which does hold Meerkats and small animal life.
He imagined it all to be a bright, glowing phosphorous Island when reality shows it is a small circular land mass amidst coral and garbage...housing Caves that hold deadly Algae. The Poisonous Algae was too much for PI. A higher power sent him to this Island, so that he may observe there is no such thing as a perfect answer. What one believes is true and just, may not turn out sustainable; and in God's view, is just another test to pass. PI's Perfect Answer lies within...which is a WISE lesson for everybody. However we are of the belief he did land upon an Island in the South Pacific, because it does have an archipelago there, and is the only thing that explains the plants and meerkat bones.
Then when he lands in Mexico it all merges together in PI's head. So he combines the two stories into one he made up. That is just as likely as either of the other stories were to begin with. Because the only certain fact anyone has to rely on, is PI somehow lived and has not died.(By grace of God?)He lived on a boat after being shipwrecked for 200 days straight, that is the only version of events that's ever fully proven.
The first story is true, the second story is false.The second story is true, the first story is false.
The first and the second story are true.
The first and the second story are false.
Once a story is told, it becomes true.
Lies, lies, lies, it's all lies.
The story... and there really is just one story... is true.
The story... and there really is just one story... is false.
True or false, all that matters is what one chooses to believe, or dis-believe.
This book is an excellent piece of fiction.
Emily wrote: "So, if ya'll have determined that the second version is the real one, than why did Pi not give an animal to the frenchman? Why was he left human? Also, why did he go into so much depth about the tr..."It's been awhile since I read the book but i don't think the second story had any animals on the boat....just people (the cook, Frenchman, sailor, mother and Pi). There were no animals to be "given to anyone. The violence took place among those people who were represented by the animals in Pi's first story. I believe the reality of what actually took place in the killing of those on board the lifeboat was transformed in Pi's mind to animals therefor making his experience tolerable. He was strong and smart.....he was the tiger. In the end when the tiger left ...he left because Pi no longer needed to "be" him. He was safe.
Reading over everyone's comments here, I've definitely come to see that the second story may be the true one. I think [the first story] is an eloquent and beautiful metaphor [for the second story], and the second story also is more believable and lends to the overall spiritual themes in the novel. I especially like the idea that Pi saw how people became "animals" in his mind, because of the horrific things they had done. That being said... I honestly think that the first story is the true one. As fantastical as it may sound - "I survived in a life boat, in the middle of the Atlantic, for 227 days, with a Bengal Tiger" - the details of Pi's survival seem believable to me. With Pi's upbringing in the zoo and his knowledge of animals, I think he would definitely have a chance at training a tiger. (And if the first story is purely a metaphor, than where does this plot line come into play? Pi was training himself?) Also, it seems more fantastical to me that someone could survive ALONE for that long at sea. Why wouldn't they just give up? Throughout the entire story Richard Parker acted as Pi's life force... Oh hmmmm, maybe Richard Parker could be a metaphor for both Pi and God... Okay now I've come full circle and have reached no conclusion. But I still lean towards the first story. Either way, I think this book is quite the masterpiece.
Jessica wrote: "Reading over everyone's comments here, I've definitely come to see that the second story may be the true one. I think [the first story] is an eloquent and beautiful metaphor [for the second story],..."I thought at one point that Richard Parker in the first story actually was God. I saw the movie and toward the end when Pi and Richard Parker were in the lifeboat both dying, Pi put Richard parkers head on his lap....therefore accepting God into his life? Shortly thereafter, Richard Parker leaves and goes into the forest forever...while Pi moves on with his life, saved and with more strengh due to his belief in Richard Parker/God? Not sure what to think now. It's very confusing and with all sorts of Metaphors. I like the first story....the horrific happenings of the second story are more realistic and disturbing..and what human beings are capable of being. Who wouldn't want to believe the first story?? :)
"I honestly think that the first story is the true one."But its basically blind faith, because there is no evidence that much if any of this fantasy ever happened and in fact quite the opposite - there is abundant evidence that the entire thing was a fantasy.
In the end, PI does not actually seek "God" except for a fleeting moment. He goes through the "motions" of wanting to be close to God, such as the rituals at Church. But he never actually seeks God and admits as much. The way he detaches himself from God, is no different than how someone will detach themselves from seeking any sort of relationship. While they claim to seek one thing, in reality they seek the exact opposite.
They detach themselves from emotional connection all-together, as recent novels like "Kisscut", "A Night with a Stranger" or "The Center of The World" demonstrate bluntly. While the audience is led to believe the protagonist is seeking a relationship, reality shows all they're after is a quick-fix addiction.
Whether that be a fleeting moment of drugs, sex or hallucination; the point is moot - because that one second of perfection is all they sought at all. Everything else, including their seeking a relationship is a fraud; since its quite clear they have no interest in anything complicated or stable & healthy. All too often, the same thing applies with those who claim they desire a relationship with God. PI likes the fake fantasy built up around God, but he hates reality. When he finally does get some sort of connection with God/a higher power, it's NOT what he envisioned: It nearly drowns him if not for some type of intervention that jarringly lands his boat in Mexico.
What a terrific discussion! Of course, since the book is fiction, neither version is "true" per se, but I agree with those who value the parable, which uses the story mechanism to convey a deeper "Truth". I loved this book and it stuck with me for quite a long while after reading it. I hope the movie doesn't disappoint. At least not too much.
so the religion debate is too confusing and abstract for me to comment .. obviously anyone would prefer the first version , then the second . but if the second version was the reality, what does it mean...? that the tiger(who was really pi ) ate the sailor, the chef and his mother ... ? pls explain !!!!
Of course, the second story is real. The whole point of the book, is to showcase how blind faith in something unreal can help you get through the toughest of circumstances. Just as believing in God or religion enables us to bear the miseries of the world. It doesn't mean that God exists, it's just a way to fool around your mind.
Wow this discussion is what I have been wondering about for years since reading this book. I can't wait to re-read it before watching the film.I think the second story is 'true' as the author can explore ideas which would be more shocking should the characters of been human.
Such a fantastic book!
I didn't really enjoy the book at all, sadly. It was just a little too much over the top from the get go. If the story had actually been just about him surviving on a life raft with a tiger, I would have enjoyed it so much more. It was also hard for me to swallow the "living island" bit.
Liz wrote: "so the religion debate is too confusing and abstract for me to comment .. obviously anyone would prefer the first version , then the second . but if the second version was the reality, what does i..."No, the only one that Pi/tiger killed was the chef/hyena. In the first story, the hyena kills both the zebra and the orangutan (he eats the zebra, then just kills the orangutan). The tiger only kills the hyena. In the second story, the chef kills both the sailor and Pi's mother (he eats the sailor and beheads Pi's mother). Pi then kills the chef. Did Pi have to eat part of the chef afterwards to survive? Perhaps. Which is one reasons why it would have been easier for Pi to think of the situation in terms of animals and separate himself from his "tiger" self (ie, the part of himself that would go to inhumane lengths to survive).
I think its perfectly fine to believe in what you will, whether it be an Easter Bunny or some mythological figure to make everything seem clearer or better. That of course doesn't change the fact it isn't real.
With the amount of abundant archaeological/scientific evidence now uncovered, it is obvious that a divine being exists. ("God") However everything else built up around it, meaning organized religion and their ceremonies probably are made up fairy tales that don't serve a purpose.
At the least they are exaggerated nursery rhymes, because I have yet to see a single man who is the size of a giant or forty feet high. Living or deceased.
Jacque wrote: "My take is similar to Nif's. The story with the people is what actually happened, but Pi's story is what mind his gave him to preserve his psyche. And I think Carol nailed it when she posted"I th..."
Anita wrote: "i'd go tooo with Nif, yet somehow the story reminds me of one of those sartre's, can't tell which one. not the whole idea, just you know...the philosophy. "
Agreed~!
I always thought Richard Parker was metaphorical. He represented the strength and courage Pi had to have in order to survive. Once he got to the island, he no longer had to be strong and brave and that's when the tiger disappeared. The mind has strange coping mechanisms. Like someone said above, if he hadn't made that world for himself, his mind would have shattered.
I love the analogy to that episode of MASH. I was so young when that show was on but that was the ONE episode I never forgot.
It's clear that the second story is JUST a story to Pi—you could even hear him say "yes, let me think for a minute..." As if he was creating the story. Why would he need to think about the death of his mother, and the murder of all these people??
Maybe the point of everyone accepting the second story is that it is more simply for humans to believe the worst about each other (murder, cannibalism, etc), than to accept a story that is beyond their understanding or experience. If I look at the book from the context, some of the earlier religious content of the book makes a little more sense to me.
Great interview with Yann Martel in The Times (UK) last week in which he discussed words and meanings - and how difficult it is to describe things as opposed to ideas and emotions. It's not online but I discuss it on my blog here http://songoftheseagod.wordpress.com/It didn't take me any nearer to knowing which version of the ending to accept but it was certainly an interesting insight into the way his mind and his writing work!
I think they were both true, but seeing as how the boy was so horrified and scarred by the events, he created an illusion to allow him to cope with it.
Samsonread wrote: "I think its perfectly fine to believe in what you will, whether it be an Easter Bunny or some mythological figure to make everything seem clearer or better. That of course doesn't change the fact..."
Samsonread wrote: "I think its perfectly fine to believe in what you will, whether it be an Easter Bunny or some mythological figure to make everything seem clearer or better. That of course doesn't change the fact..."
Care to post some links to this scientific/archeological 'evidence'?
Chantal wrote: "I think the first story is true. I'm kind of confused by the ending though."hey.. no are not suppose to post when u dont understand.
I choose to believe the second story. Pi created his own illusion as he was with Richard Parker. The story of animal is what we hear and believe as legends. Miracles in religious are based on this believe, That gives you strength and faith to follow and to do what makes you to believe. atrocious story may disturb many viewers but thats the bitter truth in reality.
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)
The important difference between the two stories though is that a (Russian) viewer knows, which version (A Crow and a Fox fable by Ivan Andreevich Krylov) to believe. Nevertheless we enjoy watching the ever transforming characters enacting all sorts of permutations of the "actual" and "apocryphal" events.
I find that Life of Pi is more about transformation of a narrative in people's head than about faith or truth. As we read the novel for the first time, we believe the animals story because we have no reason not to. But once Pi comes up with a horrific account of the events the grand narrative of the first story collapses without providing any support for the second version: Pi has compromised himself as a narrator, why would anyone believe anything he'd say now? Conclusion: someone needs to write a true account of the events on the boat that transpired while none was watching. It'll probably have to be written from God's perspective for obvious reasons. Or from the tiger's.