Life of Pi
discussion
Which version did you beleive?
The second. Faith allowed a transition through the roads of reality.
Will wrote: "Peter wrote: "Care to post some links to this scientific/archeological 'evidence'?"I've seen this Samsonread person say this in a few threads. He has no evidence. Only assertions and a few "sienc..."
Shouldn't that read "seancy". ;)
I believe the first story was a coping mechanism the mind protected PI from the horrible situation.
The second story was so horrifying that most of us refuse to believe that's what happened. But to some point, it is more likely to happen than the first one. Shocking as I was coming to the last chapters, I finished the book with a lot of doubts. I think besides the story that praised the greatness of human being and the connection between man and animals, there's another story, the realistic one, that showed us the naked truth of life. Most of us will "prefer" the first one, but the more we think about it, the more real the second one seems to be. Maybe the first story was made up to cover the pain and help Pi get through all that tragedies. Maybe it wasn't. But it's true that life is not always full of happy endings, it's tough and merciless sometimes, depends on how we decided to see it. I think that's what we should understand after reading this book. And about the belief in God, believers will go for the first one, while skeptical ones will stop and think before choosing what to believe in.
I totally believe the first story, the one with the animals. That's the one I spent hundreds of pages with and that the one I would always take. I also feel this way about my religion, I have spent about 26 years with it, and I will always choose it. So I guess you guys aren't far off in categorizing the story with animals as religious and the second one as agnostic.
Going with the assumption that Pi is Richard Parker, the whole book could then be a struggle with his animal nature that comes to the fore when he finds himself in the middle of the Pacific.
I believe that the best argument for the second version is the fact that if there had truly been a tiger on the boat, the Japanese men would have found more than Meercat bones. Where was the Tiger poop? The cat pee with which Richard Parker marked his territory. Pi cleaned the boat on the Meercat Island, but Richard Parker should have dropped a little more before they got to Mexico... at least that's what I think.
I still believe the story with the Animals though.
Anoush wrote: "First of all: this is a fictional story. That ought to be taken into consideration...While I was reading it I felt that the author was somewhat detached from Pi himself. And that I didn't like. B..."
I have to agree with you on your view that it causes you to examine how you look at life. I choose to believe the first one because, I believe in miracles. I have never realized that I did until I was given the power to choose what I believed in. I choose to believe that there is more to human beings, than such a base and crass nature. There is more to life than such a cruel reality. That is what I believe.
Peter wrote: "Shouldn't that read "seancy". ;)"Whoops, typo. I meant to say "science-y."
excellent work in fictional writing.. watched the movie directed by Ang Lee, brilliant work.., could not take my mind out of yet, who is Pi and every other character... there is a meaning to all of them.. exposed the readers to open our minds to various dimension of life..enjoyed all the comments by all readers..
Egalbraith86 wrote: "Nif- I agree with all your comments, thus I believe both stories really happened... one in his head and one in reality. I think it is amazing that a child could cope with the horrific reality in s..."
I too loved this book. No, it didn't make me any more or less religious. I enjoyed it as an imaginative story, clever and captivating. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie, though books are always more belivable than movies for me. JoAnn Hill
For my money, Pi cohabited the lifeboat with the tiger. That was the story vividly and convincingly told for hundreds of pages and the story I believed in. The storyteller is obliged to weave a story that becomes real for the reader—no fair telling the reader at the end "it was all a dream!"
In the context of the novel I want to believe the first but believe the second.. Of course, in reality, as an atheist I don't believe either.. I think they were both made up by a guy called Yann Martel - in reality not even the Indian boy exists!!! :O
The first is just an allegory; like the metaphorical happenings in the bible and therefore open to interpretation.
The conundrum of this book is to see whether you're for the factual evidence, trusting only in what you see, or if you're willing to bend over and believe the unbelievable, whether you're willing to stick with reason as we all know it, or take that leap of faith and touch the invisible. Here's the thing, both stories have the same amount evidence, you can't outweigh one story to the other, true that the second story makes more sense but we don't have enough proof that the first one was a mere illusion. Simply, one's beautiful yet hard to believe, and one's ugly yet holds more reason. It's all up to how the reader perceives "life". Whether he/she chooses to believe that it was created by something magnificent and incredible yet not visible. Or whether to narrow his/her perception to scientific visible facts that contain no purpose or beauty... Ball's in our court.
Hence why it's called 'LIFE of Pi.'
I chose to believe that the first story is true for three main reasons.1. Somewhere in the novel, Pi explains how he would have lost the will to live entirely if the tiger wasn't with him too. The tiger is clearly very influential in the making of Pi's survival. So if the second story was true, then what he said would of translated to something like this. "If it wasn't for myself, I would of lost the will to live and let myself die." See? Doesn't make sense.
2. I truly cannot see the point about going on and on about sharing a lifeboat with a 450 pound Bengal tiger and the extraordinary experience of it if it isn't true? 200 pages of lies. That's what it would be. I thought the tiger was very important...
3. In the first story, when he woke up on the day of the sinking to an explosion, he doesn't wake his mother and bring her with him, although it is her who is in the second story as a castaway with him. And even if she had somehow managed to escape the ship before it sank anyway, isn't it very possible his father would be with her?
There are many other reasons I have to back this up, however I do admit that I wish I knew for absolute certain what story is true. Anyway what I think, it's just a belief; not fact.
Alice wrote: "I chose to believe that the first story is true for three main reasons.1. Somewhere in the novel, Pi explains how he would have lost the will to live entirely if the tiger wasn't with him too. The..."
200 pages of lies! Yes! The reader agrees to go on the journey the storyteller takes him on—the storyteller cannot tell him it was all a lie/a dream/ a better story than the "reality."
I enjoyed reading everyone's comments. You've said it all. In summary, the story with animals was magical and beautiful; the very same story with humans was ugly and grim.
As I closed the back cover after completing reading the mystical journey of Pi I felt comfortable in the assumption the first story was true. Probably that it made more sense to me without diving deep into analyzing the symbolic nature of the story but rather based solely on my pure enjoyment of the book. I absolutely loved it. With that said after seeing the movie which was equally as excellent I have now flip flopped to the other side having a better visual understanding of the symbolism and the true point of Pi's journey.
I dont think either version of the story is the "correct" version. Life of Pi is just the version that Pi saw as his own. I think that everything he chose in the story was seen through his eyes. Perhaps the fact that he is vegetarian, and that animals take a big part of his life, was the reason that he chose animals to be on the boat and not people. And since religion also takes a huge part of his life was why the island was green (the color of islam) which symbolizes his paradise, and the fruit with the tooth showed him that life always has it's bitterness, and that he should continue his journey on the boat to reach God and where the real paradise is, so he moved on. The orange whistle (Orange is the color for hinduism) represented that he had control over the tiger and that he was strongthrough Hinduism. The boat it self represents his journey in life to reach God, through hardship in life alone. And the strength for his journey was God alone. There are many versions of the story,that even you yourself could change; perhaps if you swap the animals on the boat to become something you express great love towards, the story still wont change just like Pi said. But the main reason is for each person to realize according to his/her own percpective that we are too weak to survive life alone, and that is why in every version, we will surely have a great love towards God, because we will never be alone with him around!
I think the first one was true. This could be for several reasons but if I were to go on logic it's because of this: When the Japanese men at the end are reluctant to believe Pi' first story he says: "There are meerkat skeletons." The Japanese men thought the island was a replacement for a seemingly horrible truth just like the animals were for people. But the meerkat skeletons were still there and they weren't mongoose or rats. So if the meerkats existed then that meant that Pi did sleep in that tree where they all came rushing up, which means the water was acidic like he said and if that preposterous story was true (because like Pi said: The meerkat skeletons were still there), then it leads me to believe the rest of Pi's first story no matter how bizarre it was.
The writer really wanted to test his readers. I haven't read the book. I just saw the movie. And I believe that it is the first story because 1. it is what they have shown the whole movie and thinking that it is the second will oppose the previous scenes before Pi was left alone in the boat. 2. It is like testing our faith. I think Pi was actually telling the real story and kinda looked impatient when the Japanese men wont believe him so ge told the easier version himself. Like in real life, people only wanted to believe what is more possible to happen. When something surpass that possibility, then to them (or us), its not true.
Maybe beside the point but does anyone feel that a runaway tiger landing in Mexico would not have gone unnoticed, would have been reported by the local population? The Japanese investigators might have checked with Mexican authorities. ???
The lifeboat for sure would contain evidence of Richard Parker's presence: hair, urine, dung ???
I think the the following interpretations I read from other website will be the closest to what I believe, even though I do not want to:-----------------------------------------------------
Young Pi told two seemingly unrelated stories, which are actually one story. Survivals zebra, female orangutan, hyena, tiger, and Pi in the first story are the corresponding characters of the second story, which are vegetarian sailor, Pi's mother, chef, and Pi.
The hyena killed the zebra and female orangutan, and then was killed by the tiger in the first story; and the chef killed the sailor and Pi's mother, and finally was killed by Pi in the second story.
It is obvious that the animal-animal relationship is a metaphor for the real relations between characters in Pi's consciousness. The tiger is the embodiment of brutish nature of Pi, which was ignited by his mother's death.
Since then, Pi had to learn to face everything alone and get along with his own brutish nature.
Obviously, it is by no means a fantastic story that occurred on the sea, but may expose a dog-eat-dog world. However, the second story did not touch the more cruel side, which was retained in the first story as a metaphor.
The mysterious floating island where the story happened provides a lot of implications, including lotuses, ropes symbolizing farewell, acid lake, teeth, and the island looks like a woman lying on the sea.
All seems to indicate that Pi ate his mother and other dead bodies, thereby awakening.
Maybe the tiger is the face of God... wards of evil- hyena. He helps Pi through his ordeal and discover his inner strengths and learns how to overcome his fears and come to understanding with those who he feels threatened by and find peace. The gift of flying fish is like the manna from heaven. On the island is he feels he will be fine so he is at a distance and left waiting but when he is wanted Pi just has to call on him. when he is safely ashore the tiger does not look back..his work is done..he needs not to say goodbye because he is still around whenever he is needed but just in a different form. Just another thought.
The Tiger, Richard Parker, represendted Pi and how he had to act more like a wild animal in order to survive. All of the other animals represented the people who were on the boat with him. Remember how when Pi became blind, Richard Parker just HAPPENED to become blind, too? Really, there were no animals at all. There were other people on the boat (Pi's mother, the chef, and a sailor) The tiger represented himself.
I believe that he made both stories up. It was all in his mind.
I believe in the first story, but not because it sugars the pill, it is because I decided to believe in his story since the beginning even though the japaneses doubted him and he told the version with humans which seems more "real" and there is a lot of "evidence" which makes the second story stronger. (I also started to doubt it after that, but my resolution is the same)In the end, the most important thing is to accept what one believes and not trying to impose to or hurt others in order to make them think otherwise because those beliefs are their "fuel" to live and be in harmony(of course, if those beliefs don't hurt third people).
Eg. Maybe God doesn't exist and there is "tangible evidence" that he doesn't, but one still believes in God so one can have the strength to continue living.
Of course, one doesn't have to become a fanatic and get a nervous breakdown in case it is proved the contrary, because the most important thing is to enjoy life and know how to live it.
What would have happened if Pi had insisted that the story with animals was real? would the japaneses have left him alone?
I belive the first version, with the animals.I think the book is 'testing' us. Seeing whether we belive the truth (however mad it may be!) or whether we choose to belive what is easy to belive.
When I had read the story and watched the movie I took the moral of the story was that God is within us/we are god. When Pi talks amount looking into the eyes of a tiger etc he is looking inside.Just a side note: why is it so hard to believe that a human could survive with a tiger, what about the children that have been raised by wild animals, no one believed that at first but it was proven to be true? Just thinking
I believed in God before "Life of Pi' and believe in God now too. The book didn't impact on this belief, however, what it did do was consider whether this could have really happened. I think I believe the tiger story more:-)
I've been through some bad things - albeit not as bad as Pi but I've never transferred animals for people.....I read real life interviews and see real people interviewed that have been through unspeakable horrific experiences. They have never transplanted animals for the humans. I do love that so many bring so much depth to the simple fact that he coexisted with animals in an odd situation.
Amazing book! It was kinda hard reading the first part..didn't know when the sea and tiger would come into the story. But after finishing this novel, I am mystified. I was actually reading a story within a story and ended up having to choose my own ending. Fascinating! I will go back and read the beginning though, just for more analyzing. What a contradiction, usually one needs to go back and read the ending/conclusion again for further understanding...Also, the reason I liked this book so well was because you could draw your own conclusions...obviously from a fiction novel...which makes it all the more creative. Religion only plays a very small role in my admiration of Yann Martel's book...it's about being creative with your own life path or journey!!!!!
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 ..."Fully agree.
Christina Stind wrote: "It reminded me of an episode of Mash - towards the end, the main character Hawkeye goes crazy and nobody know why. He keeps telling a story of how they were all hiding in a bus and a woman had a he..."Thanks for bringing the MASH episode up. I fully agree, and I had the same association myself. Human psyche has all kinds of tricks to protect itself from too painful or too traumatic memories. Conversion reactions, neuroses, amnesia, PTSd, flashbacks etc....This is what I think the "animal" story was to protect the kid's psyche from total disintegration if he had to actually process what really happened.
It's fiction FFS. Neither version is true. The first version loses credibility as soon as Pi lands on the island. The second version is far more credible.Either way, neither is true. It's fiction. A story. A fairy tale.
The thing I find most ludicrous is they dragged the bottom of the barrel far enough to waste money making a movie of it.
I just finished Life of Pi today. Once Pi was on the boat, I couldn't put the book down...literally. My eyes hurt. I was shocked to read these reviews stating that the animal version was made up! When Pi gave his second account of his journey to the interviewers, I thought that he simplified the story and made it more realistic because they were people who don't have faith. My take was that he was placating them because they don't believe in miraculous things or believe what can't be seen. Yann Markel has religious faith, so he is of the belief that there is much in life that can't be explained or seen, so he would believe that Pi's "fantastical" journey could have happened. I didn't doubt it until I saw these reviews. True, I want to believe the animal story, so perhaps I'm swayed, but, actually, I think that is what happened. Pi only made up the realistic story to placate the men who don't have faith. I think Markel's point is that we should be able to believe in things that can't be seen or explained. Does anyone out there agree with me?
was a life inspiring book,realising the effects on both stories,sort of entwining,each one horrific,was very well done,my imagination worked overtime,even when i put it down.awaiting the dvd,visually it will be good.but that tiger came to me first in my imagination,as did the evil man in the boat.
I felt cheated. It seemed all along that it was this marvelous fantasy, and I was interested on how it would resolve: how would the boy deal with being back in the world after this interlude. And then the author chickened out and said "No, it was all in his head- he made it up."
It would have been different for me if there had been clues along the way that this was a mutable reality. I could have accepted then that maybe he was hallucinating or deluding himself. But to go all the way believing this and then be told "no, he made it up" felt like a slap in the face. I felt I had wasted the money spent on the book and that the time and interest I had invested had been stolen.
Patrice wrote: "My daughter went to see the movie last night. She's 21 and knows all there is to know. So I asked her which story she believed. "NEITHER! IT'S FICTION!!!""I love that response!
Stephanie wrote: "I just finished Life of Pi today. Once Pi was on the boat, I couldn't put the book down...literally. My eyes hurt. I was shocked to read these reviews stating that the animal version was made up! ..."Stephanie - I am with you 100%. I love the discourse however on the subject. I totally understand everyone else's points and they give me pause but I've always felt that things can happen to one person that they can not explain to another. People don't tend to believe or understand until they live through a situation themselves. So in an effort to help someone see, Pi put his tale in terms that were familiar - albeit hideous - for the investigators to understand. Additionally, I feel it speaks to the fact that people would rather believe in the heinous aspects of life before they would choose a reality that may stretch the boundaries of their imagination.
Lyds wrote: "Additionally, I feel it speaks to the fact that people would rather believe in the heinous aspects of life before they would choose a reality that may stretch the boundaries of their imagination."I just finished the book and can't stop thinking about it. I am really enjoying reading all these reviews. Just picking up from the last few, to Lyds, I am one of the people that BELIEVES the second story, but PREFERS the first story. I don't think it's a matter that people would RATHER believe the heinous grim story (the 2nd), but that they DO, based on their knowledge and logic. I would RATHER believe the first story, but I don't, if that makes sense.
Lyds wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "I just finished Life of Pi today. Once Pi was on the boat, I couldn't put the book down...literally. My eyes hurt. I was shocked to read these reviews stating that the animal ver..."Lyds wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "I just finished Life of Pi today. Once Pi was on the boat, I couldn't put the book down...literally. My eyes hurt. I was shocked to read these reviews stating that the animal ver..."
Lyds wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "I just finished Life of Pi today. Once Pi was on the boat, I couldn't put the book down...literally. My eyes hurt. I was shocked to read these reviews stating that the animal ver..."
Lyds wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "I just finished Life of Pi today. Once Pi was on the boat, I couldn't put the book down...literally. My eyes hurt. I was shocked to read these reviews stating that the animal ver..."
Lyds wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "I just finished Life of Pi today. Once Pi was on the boat, I couldn't put the book down...literally. My eyes hurt. I was shocked to read these reviews stating that the animal ver..."
I agree Stephanie.
Wow really loved this book! Can't stop thinking about it! I choose to believe Pi's animal story. To me, the second story was told for the same reason Jesus told parables - to make the truth easier for our human minds to believe/comprehend. The truth in both stories is the same. If you have faith, you understand the truth for what it is. If you lack faith and need logic/reason, like Pi's father and the insurance men, you may need to hear the second story to be able to understand the truth. Also, both stories point to he same truth, like all religions point to the same truth. When he asks which version do you prefer, it's like saying, it doesn't matter which faith/religion you believe, the truths are the same.To me, the island represented religion itself. The island in the movie was the same shape as the Buddha figure pi thanks for introducing him to Christ as a boy. The island's intricate intertwined root system represent how all religions are intertwined. They all point to the same truths. Religion can be life giving, sustaining- food and water on the island, but if you get too wrapped up in dogma you will find that religion can become toxic, creating an us/them mentality. Fear and hatred arise for anyone who don't hold to the same beliefs. You become your own island. Pi realized that he could not stay on the island. He took what religion had to offer him and took a leap of faith that he would make it on his journey.
Erin wrote: "Wow really loved this book! Can't stop thinking about it! I choose to believe Pi's animal story. To me, the second story was told for the same reason Jesus told parables - to make the truth easier..."I love this interpretation Erin. You said it so well!
I was also curious if the animals represented facets of our personality with the tiger being the ego- the most difficult to be free of to achieve a deeper spiritual reality. Pi cried out at one point "you've taken everything from me, what is left?".... The ego.
I also liken the two versions to the style in which various spiritual texts are presented. In Hindu texts such as the Vedas, the authors remain anonymous, thus preserving the teachings.
When our mind is given a 'visual' representation it immediately must make sense of it somehow. It is simply how we are wired.
My point of this I can try to explain by-
Socrates once declared a list of 'the greatest thinkers' and their writings- but in NAMING each, people suddenly became caught up in the semantics of 'WHO WAS the greatest' thus losing the essence of the teachings.
This is the danger- getting caught up in 'which version'. The focus should remain on the spiritual journey.
It's all about which story you "choose" to believe! Like Pi said, they are both just stories. I loved Richard Parker, so I liked living in his world much better. :)
Why we all believe the second story is, in my opinion, the entire argument of this book !
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)
I've seen this Samsonread person say this in a few threads. He has no evidence. Only assertions and a few "sience-y" bits that have been debunked. It's sad, really.