What's the idea behind the island?

[Nsmith]

As far as who the blind frenchman was, I believe that he was actually the cook, who was the one who knew the sea, had knowledge of fishing, survival skills, and who, "was full of good ideas". He was the one keeping Pi alive, long after he had murdered and cannabalized Pi's mother.

In version #1, after the hyena (the cook) killed the oran-utan (murder of Pi's mother), the tiger killed the hyena (the cook). However in version #2, there was no tiger to kill the cook and avenge his mother's death.

As a good son, it was Pi's duty to avenge his mother's death, but this man was far bigger and stronger, and Pi wouldn't have stood a chance. Even if Pi could have figured out a way to kill him, he didn't want to, because without him, Pi would also have been completely alone. A scared little traumatized boy, left to fend for himself on the open sea, he wouldn't have survived for long. Aside from all that, Pi simply was not a murderer. The very notion of murdering for revenge, went against everything he believed, and that wasn't a line he was willing to cross.

But having to sit on a tiny life boat, facing his mother's murderer, reliving the horror, day after day, a constant reminder of his failure to avenge his mother, and his shame and guilt, was all far more than Pi's fragile, damaged psyche could bear. So it split into 2 parts, boy and tiger. The image of the tiger was a coping mechanism created by Pi's psyche, replacing the face of his murdering companion, with an image of a bengal tiger, hiding the murdering cook from Pi's sight, enabling him to convince himself that he was dead, and Pi no longer had anything to feel guilty or ashamed about.

Subconsciously, Pi's rational mind realized that this cook was still there, and was only allowing Pi to remain alive, just as long as he remained useful, and even then, only just until the other food supplies ran out. At which point, Pi would suffer the same fate as his mother.

The cook was probably also prone to seasickness, so covertly, Pi would intentionally rock the boat, not only to keep the cook too seasick to attack him, and also to render him incapable of caring for himself. This ensured that the cook would continue to need Pi's assistance, and keep him alive. Pi would also blow the whistle, pretending he was trying to signal a ship he saw on the horizon, to train the cook, not the tiger, to associate the whistle with his seasickness.

It worked too, for a while, until the envitable day came when, with all food supplies exhausted, they were both facing death by starvation. The only food source that could possibly keep either one alive, was each other.

When Pi realized it had come down to "kill or be killed", the thought was so unbearable, that rather than even acknowledge that the cook was still alive in the boat with him, he made himself go "blind" to keep from having to witness what as about to transpire.

Inventing a blind frenchman to play the part of victim, was just another coping mechanism. Holding am imaginary conversation about food served the purpose of providing Pi with the justification he needed to convince himself that the cook deserved to die.

This is demonstrated by questions Pi asks, first, of whether he's ever killed a man? The frenchman/cook replies that he's killed 2, "A man and a woman." (Of course, referring to Pi's mother and the chinese seaman he murdered on the life boat.) Pi then asks if they tasted good, and the frenchman/cook responds "No, they didn't taste good" The frenchmen/cook then tells Pi he had done as out of need, that, "It was them or me." (This is Pi's way of convincing himself.) Pi then accuses him of being a monster, and attempts to convince him instead, they should both die with honor, together, as brothers.

But the cook had already crossed the line, and had nothing to gain by accepting Pi's offer. As the battle ensued, Pi's tiger again rose up to defend Pi's psyche from accepting the reality of having become a murderer.

The food Pi supposedly "found" in the frenchman's boat imn reality, was cook's flesh, which is also why, as the blood filled his nose, Pi states "Something in me died then that has never come back to life." What had "died" in Pi was an important part of his humanity, his innocence. He attempted to maintain self-control, by not consuming any more of the cook's flesh than absolutely necessary, but he was starving, and no matter how hard he tried, wasn't able to restrain himself.

Sinking into despair, his mind escapted into the fantasy of an island paradise, or Garden of Eden, created as a coping mechanism to escape from the horror of the monster he had become, as he consumed the flesh of his murdered companion to regain his strength.

The Meerkats represented the cook's flesh, meekly submitting themselves, so eager to be devoured by the tiger, that they jumped up and down, crying "My turn! My turn!" This is how Pi envisioned the cook's flesh as granting him not only permission to eat, but also, by wrapping their soft furry bodies around him at night, they were granting him forgiveness.

But in his sleep, his nightmares betrayed him, as his fantasy meerkats screamed, awakening him to the truth of his own murderous, carniverous nature. The teeth were those of the cook's, which to his horror, he found in his own excrement, awakening him to the realization that while his fantasy island was comforting, it was cannibalizing his soul. The knowledge of this truth resulted in his exile from his self-made "Eden", returning him to the harsh reality of survival on the high seas, where Pi turned himself over to God, to do penance for his sins, receiving forgiveness, redemption, and finally, salvation.

[Garry]

Sinjinn wrote: "i just found this site and reviewed this book , and then found the comments and see that everyone agrees.

to me , the middle third was the best because of the adventure , but even that third kind ..."

Little wrote: "Ok, so Martel beats us over the head with the interpretation for much of his symbolism, but what's the deal with the island? It seems so tangentally tacked onto the main story, and I can't place i..."

I thought it was about faith with no depth.

[DHRUVA]

MARTEL by citing the occurrence of such bizarre island just tried to accentuate the faith in the almighty.Even in midst of ocean,the floating island with carnivorous plants and those strange creatures,clearly point out the creation of god-fantasy though it may seems -such bizarre instances are not out of place in the real world.

Pi escapade from that that island unscathed also highlights the gods intention of being on the side of HIS unconditional believers.The island was a mere need to extrapolate the continuous faith in almighty throughout the story.

[Nsmith]

I heard Yann Martel talk about this book at a lecture for One Book AZ a few years ago. Someone asked him about the island...and he said that he put the island in the book because he wanted something in the book that required a leap of faith. In fact, he said the book is primarily about faith. His lecture was fascinating.

I'm very jealous, and I had read an article where Martel stated in the interview that he wanted readers to pick the first story, and intentionally added the island, designing the carniverous features as something so implausible, that believing would require readers to "take a leap of faith."

So your explanation of the purpose of the island is correct, and I actually did know that. I just liked my version better.

[Dale]

Paola wrote: "This is what I think. The island does jump into the story quite suddenly, but I think it is very symbolic. If much of the story symbolizes someone finding his/her way through the journey of life, t..."

I think Paulo nailed it. I didn't pick up on that as I read the book, however, his explanation makes everything else snap into place.

[Sinjinn]

I think martels explanation of the island, it's function being to tempt the reader to make a leap of faith, is unsatisfactory. Nobody is going to believe the Island actually existed as described in the book. Not one person. why? Because the island is illogical, and, actually repulsive and disgusting. How is it tempting ? It's not tempting at all. For me to make a leap of faith i have to want to like the place I'm leaping to. The Island is a freaky and bizarre place, nobody likes it .
I think martels explanation is something that is only considered when they hear it from Martel, a person would go back to the book, consider it again and say "oh , that's what it's about". Doesn't that mean the island has failed? , when an author has to explain it?

[Val]

Sinjiinn, I agree. And once more I wish for a like button beside a comment.

[Sara]

Sinjinn wrote: "Sinjinn I think martels explanation of the island, it's function being to tempt the reader to make a leap of faith, is unsatisfactory. Nobody is going to believe the Island actually existed as described in the book. Not one person. why? Because the island is illogical, and, actually repulsive and disgusting. How is it tempting ? It's not tempting at all. For me to make a leap of faith i have to want to like the place I'm leaping to. The Island is a freaky and bizarre place, nobody likes it .
I think martels explanation is something that is only considered when they hear it from Martel, a person would go back to the book, consider it again and say "oh , that's what it's about". Doesn't that mean the island has failed? , when an author has to explain it? "

You're not supposed to like the island. It's supposed to be terrifying. A "leap of faith" isn't about the island being a desirable place to visit--quite the opposite in fact. The "leap of faith" is about accepting the reality of the horror of the island and understanding its context within the realm of the story. Any horror shrouded in beauty is all the more horrifying for the beauty that surrounds it--darkness feels darker after coming out of a brightly lit area.

Also, authors like to talk about their work. It has something to do with the fact that they poured blood and time into their project, so many like to talk about what they were thinking about at the time. Some authors avoid it because folks tend to think that their perspective is the only "right" perspective on the story once they open their mouths, but it's difficult to resist when people are actually paying attention to something you worked so hard to create.

This doesn't mean, however, that the author's perspective, whatever it may be, is the only perspective that is "correct." With textual justification, any perspective on the "meaning" of the island is valid, because all authors are influenced by subconscious variables that can have a significant unknown impact upon their work and make other ideas just as valid as their own. You can't say that "this is what the author was thinking," but who cares? If the island has another layer of significance that even the AUTHOR hadn't thought of at the time, that adds even more depth to the story.

[Sinjinn]

Sara wrote: "Sinjinn wrote: "Sinjinn I think martels explanation of the island, it's function being to tempt the reader to make a leap of faith, is unsatisfactory. Nobody is going to believe the Island actually..."

Fair enough. I'm not disputing their are layers, allegories, metaphors in the book. The reason i criticise it is because to choose the first story, because you like it, is impossible because the island is the part of the story that fails to capture you.
I'm with the story, i will choose the animals, yay, oh wait, what's this, an island, what the hells going on , ugh yuk, eff this story....

the island fails in a narrative sense, it doesn't pull you in further, it actually pushes you away, what once was believable becomes unbelievable, by all people. There never is a chance to make a choice, their never is a dilemma for the reader, it is absurd and can only be rationalised by invoking a diminished mental state on pi's part.

Their lies the failure, because narratively it has failed (imo, it loses a lot of readers who rather than rooting for pi in this epic situation are too bamboozled to relate to pi) , and, consequently philosophically it has failed too ( because it never presents this "choice", this "leap of faith" which the author suggests is present, is something he was trying to present. So I'm not disputing the dilemma was there, I'm just saying that if it was, it was badly executed for a) being to vague, and b) losing the audience who would otherwise accept the first story.

Also, i think it's fine to ask what the author intended and to criticise that choice. i really liked the book all the way up to the island and i really liked the twist, i just don't like the way it was implemented.

[Scottw]

Sinjinn & Sara;

I Agree the use of the island is weird and the book is about faith. However, it does not have to be an affirmation of faith - nor has Martel ever stated this (but others have, but not him).

I will repost my past thoughts on the island here because it, to me and others, makes some sense as to its place in the story:

What if the Island represents something completely different here?

I have a tugging feeling that the island may represent religion itself. The island is comforting and unreal, and is written so by Martel. Very few things about the island make 'sense' from a logical point of view. However, the island does provide soothing comfort from the harsh reality to Pi's situation. Religion provides comfort and an escape (real or imagined) to those in dire need, yet its promises of bettering the situation if one escapes into it very often aren't realized at all.

Pi's only real 'escape' was to get back on that boat and face reality. The reality he dealt with by the creation of a 'reality' with Richard Parker, the hyena, zebra & orangutan.

To me the island represents religions from the concept that if you delve too deep into anything (science, religion, etc) its concepts ultimately dissolve you and prevent you from seeing/dealing with the world as it is.

[April]

Oh - This has been my all-time favorite book for years. I read it over and over, and glean something new every time...
The island bothered me for a long time. Martel is not a writer who throws random scenes in without purpose...

I completely agree with Scott's interpretation. The island is organized religion. It provides a foundation, solace and succor. When you consider the weird behavior of the meerkats - Reminded me so very much of the parishioners at Mass - the analogy becomes even more powerful.

But - Martel makes an impassioned argument for faith, so why is his religion model carnivorous? I don't believe he's arguing against faith at all. He almost forces us to accept a yarn about a young boy surviving for months at sea in a life boat with a Bengal tiger, even though the story he told at the end is almost certainly what "really" happened, despite the intricate storytelling selling the better story (any similarity to religion?) No, he demands we suspend our disbelief, and accept the idea of God.

Pi loved religions. He was a devout believer in three, and this is why I think the carnivorous island was a warning. Religion can provide nourishment, community, a language for describing God, if you will. However. When we cling tightly to dogma, and when the name we call God becomes more important than loving Him, religion becomes a vehicle for hatred, war, and obscenities that would make the Deity weep. And the island becomes carnivorous. I think this is why the adult Pi continued to practice all three faiths. He learned the island's lesson.

[Rebecca]

The book is so bad I wouldn't be surprised if the island was never meant to signify anything, if it was supposed to be as real as the flying fish or the turtles. A concrete part of both of the silly stories.

Maybe it's about how the world isn't the happy equilibrium you expect it to be as a child, it's just waiting to digest you.

Maybe the island was actually very nice and habitable, but both Pi and Richard Parker realized that if they stayed there they would never get home, and so they came to loathe and fear it and so left it. Maybe the island, like the hunger, was something that unified them although they were polar opposites.

Maybe it was put there by a wizard, meh.

[Val]

The island could be there to make the animal story difficult to believe. We can chose to believe the nicer story, which is difficult to do because it is improbable, or we can choose to believe the cannibalism story, which is difficult to do because it is horrific.
When Martel was asked which story was true he said he didn't know, which is a politer (or nicer) response than "Neither, it's an allegorical novel": the truth.

[Scottw]

Its basically a choice between the 'truth' (cannibalism) and fantasy (Richard Parker & the Island).

I fail to see how the entire subject 'makes you believe in God'. Unless its God who allows Pit to concoct the fantasy in his head to deal with the horrors of reality...

[Артём]

Scottw wrote: "I fail to see how the entire subject 'makes you believe in God'"

Pi believed in three gods and was the only person to survive the shipwreck. One hypothesis is that one of the gods he believes in is for real and saves him.

We don't know wether Richard Parker the tiger believed in gods or not. We also aren't sure wether he survived.

[Scottw]

How ridiculous - that Pi survived because he believed in god(s)!

Pi's mother also believed in at least 1 god... and she met a b-a-d ending.

[Артём]

Scottw wrote: "How ridiculous - that Pi survived because he believed in god(s)!

Pi's mother also believed in at least 1 god... and she met a b-a-d ending."

Wrong god.
Or wrong number of.

[Boris]

Surabhi wrote: "One thing I didn't understand was that Frenchman? Was he introduced just to validate the OTHER story Pi tells the policemen?"

I think the blind Frenchman and the hyena from the first story BOTH represent the French cook in the second story. Richard Parker, who represents Pi's violent animal side, kills the hyena. This, however, is not enough for Pi to come to terms with murdering the cook. He creates a brief episode where the tiger, Pi's inner beast, kills a Frenchman without a face.

[Boris]

Scottw wrote: "Its basically a choice between the 'truth' (cannibalism) and fantasy (Richard Parker & the Island).

I fail to see how the entire subject 'makes you believe in God'. Unless its God who allows Pit t..."

The difference between truth and fantasy, according to Pi/Martell, is the concept of story. Pi is obviously rational enough to know both stories, he isn't crazy, but he chooses the story that isn't cold and heartless. Both stories begin and end the same way, so what's the harm in modifying what happened in between to help yourself come to terms with the results and perhaps to inspire others? The story doesn't MAKE you believe in God, it argues that you at least consider choosing to believe.

[Артём]

Boris wrote: "Both stories begin and end the same way, so what's the harm in modifying what happened in between to help yourself come to terms with the results and perhaps to inspire others?"

Good observation.

If Pi knows the truth but won't tell, does he believe the made up story himself or is he just asking us to believe it? Doesn't knowing the truth prevent him to suspend disbelief himself? Or does his experience at religions help?

[Scottw]

Boris wrote: "Both stories begin and end the same way, so what's the harm in modifying what happened in between to help yourself come to terms with the results and perhaps to inspire others? "

The harm is that of solipsism - that if I believe it... therefore it can be (and is) true, regardless of fact.

This is ironic because Buddhism has a core tenant of solipsism - that reality is an illusion - but the religions Pi is familiar with do not share that same philosophy.

Pi KNOWS the story he tells is not true. Pi also hasn't chosen either story.

There is great harm in fabricating the facts, over the truth. Just because the beginning & end match facts, does not excuse the middle not doing so - or the path to get there.

Its leads you to a similar argument as the end justifying the means.

[Jenny]

I read something where Martel states that the story is not allegorical and it is what it is.

[Артём]

Jenny wrote: "I read something where Martel states that the story is not allegorical and it is what it is."

we can't trust writers, they make stuff up professionally.

[Scottw]

Jenny wrote: "I read something where Martel states that the story is not allegorical and it is what it is."

I've read this as well, and searched for similar things about what Martel has said about the Island.

I still re-assert my original suspicion that the island is an analogy to religion itself: Comforting & Safe on the surface, but ultimately treacherous when one tries to use it escape real problems - one must face the problems, and as Pi did - get back in that boat.

[Jenny]

Scottw wrote: "Jenny wrote: "I read something where Martel states that the story is not allegorical and it is what it is."

I've read this as well, and searched for similar things about what Martel has said about..."

Oh, I definitely think it's about enlightenment (possibly in a religious sense) and transcendence but I also think it's more about just the process of the story, the journey. It is wholly irrelevant whether any part of it is true or not. It is what it is. ;-)

[Jendayi]

I believe that the island wasn't a representation of anything- but this isn't to say that I think the island didn't exist.

The island itself was probably real, but I think that by that part in the story, Pi had lost his sanity. If one believes that Pi is the tiger throughout the whole story (which I do), he was eating strange animals and drinking saltwater.

That's just my interpretation of it.

[Julia]

Sarah wrote: "I found that I liked Life of Pi as a story and I feel like I understood some of the symbolism used, but I became angry at the end when we learn this adventure/horror might not be true. I felt lik..."

I completely understand. But I see it as the author giving us choice. Depending on the one who's doing all the talking, a book can seem really controlled--the setting, the exact thoughts of the characters--or it can seem loose and open to interpretation, which I think is the general atmosphere of Life of Pi.

Ultimately, Pi talks about his experiences and a lot of his thoughts on them, but when it comes to exactly what happened, and all those little details I personally love to figure out for myself, Yann Martel gives us a bit of a blank slate. I like that. And yeah, I was a little sad when I realized that it might all be a figment of Pi' imagination. But like in most book, readers learn to embrace to personality of the characters and I foud myself agreeing with Pi, even believing him and deciding to choose for myself that the story I read and not the replacement at the end was the true one.

Anyways, I'm ranting. The story's unique end twist is a trick I found kind of exciting, but of course like everything else in Pi, it's open to observation. :)

[Julia]

Paola wrote: "This is what I think. The island does jump into the story quite suddenly, but I think it is very symbolic. If much of the story symbolizes someone finding his/her way through the journey of life, t..."

That's exactly what I was thinking. You put my thoughts into words other people could understand!

[Tony]

Sarah wrote: "I found that I liked Life of Pi as a story and I feel like I understood some of the symbolism used, but I became angry at the end when we learn this adventure/horror might not be true. I felt lik..."

actually i think that was the point
the end of the book they refuse to believe Pi they refuse to believe in the fantastic beautiful adventure so out of frustrating gives them a story that they want to hear, one that makes the world ugly and violent.

you are forced to decide if you want to believe in the fantastic or the realistic and its not neccessarily a lie its a spiritual statement (or just a general statement about convictions)

[Leela]

Julie wrote: "Wow, I disagree with just about all of you. I've read this book twice. My husband read it before me and didn't like it because of the same reason a few of you mentioned. He felt betrayed at the end..."

I agree with your take on this.

This is further supported by Pi's comment to the Japanese duo at the end where they state that the island is impossible, and Pi's reply is "only because you haven't seen it".

"yes, we believe what we see" they say

"what do you do in the dark?" adds Pi.

Humans inability to believe in what they can't see.

I felt the author presented the first story as a truth (within the context of a fictional novel). The island is real and mankind's folly is that they have difficulty believing what they can't see. Some things require a leap of faith.

[[deleted user]]

The point of the story is that both accounts are true, the way the three religions at the start of the book are all true. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, three different stories about God and each true in its own way. Hence Pi's closing remark 'And so it goes with God'.

To choose one story as fact and dismiss the other as fiction is to be like the religious leaders who wanted Pi to choose one religion over the others.

Much like our own lives, the 'truth' is found in what the journey 'meant' to Pi and what he learned about himself, not in a series of 'literal' events.

The Island was the ship that passed Pi on the sea. The ship 'rescued' him (hence the floating island). He was fed and regained his strength but at night the crew 'the meerkats' began abusing him, remember the references to them sleeping with him (on his neck and in his crotch). He knew the island/ship would eventually kill him (at the very least his soul) if he stayed and so he became the tiger again. Killing one of the meerkat/crewmen to make his escape, his blood soaked feet left a trail back to his lifeboat as he escaped back into the sea. During the time his lifeboat was moored to the ship 'small rodents' who's bones would later be discovered made their way onto his lifeboat.

[Артём]

Dion wrote: "The point of the story is that both accounts are true, the way the three religions at the start of the book are all true."

That's close to my current interpretation. Except I also allow for the atheist's interpretation as well ("both accounts are false, the way the three religions are false"), or the agnostic's ("we can't know which account if any is true or false, just like we can't know which of the three religions, if any, is true or false").

Dion wrote: "The Island was the ship that passed Pi on the sea. The ship 'rescued' him (hence the floating island). He was fed and regained his strength but then the crew 'the meerkats' began abusing him, remember the references to them sleeping with him (on his neck and in his crotch). He knew the island/ship would eventually kill him if he stayed (spiritually if not physically) and so he became the tiger again, killing a crewman to make his escape, IE the trail of meerkat blood he left when he coated his feet in it in order to return to his lifeboat and escape the island..."


Nice one!

[[deleted user]]

Артём wrote: "Dion wrote: "The point of the story is that both accounts are true, the way the three religions at the start of the book are all true."

That's close to my current interpretation. Except I also all..."

Good point.
As i remember it Pi didnt like agnostics much but respected athiests.
Since he continued his relligious life after his adventure i must assume that between the two equally impossibe farytales of creation by God or creation by random chance he felt God was the 'better' story.

Thanks for commenting Aptem.

[Laura]

Well, Richard Parker is obviously Schrödinger's cat, therefore both stories are true as well as untrue at the same time :)

Somehow I do not feel compelled to decide. I can accept both ways simultaneously and accomodate them in my head; however, there is one thing I cannot accept: that Pi was hallucinating. I do not know why, I just cannot.

[Deresh]

Paola wrote: "This is what I think. The island does jump into the story quite suddenly, but I think it is very symbolic. If much of the story symbolizes someone finding his/her way through the journey of life, t..."
i agree with this interpretation. the island sequence did not detract from the theme of the book as in general the book did become increasingly surreal towards the end.

[George]

Particularly, I thought the Island was the best part!

[Sushma]

wow!!...i get more insights from reading the comments then from exactly reading the book...such a writer in each one you...thanks for sharing...love u all..

[Harii]

We discussed it in class and we never did have an explanation for the island. I mean we had some guesses but never concrete explanations.

My teacher though got to ask the author in person (when he visited our city) what he wanted the island to mean and he just said that it was up to the readers to interpret it the way they see fit.

The book would have been really great with or without the island part.

[Rebecca]

Ugh, I hate analyzing books to death. Just enjoy the story for what it is. Why do we have to put everything under a microscope? Sometimes writers just like to weave a magical tale.

[Drew]

Rebecca, a magical tale is one thing but when book professes to be a story that will make you believe in God there is BOUND to be a whole boat load of analysis.

[Ernie]

I just saw the movie last night and thought there was a third story to be told.

The Third Story behind the "Life of PI" is the journey of PI as he struggles thru the challenge of training his inner Tiger. It is the universal challenge all human beings go thru. PI and the Tiger are one. As human beings, we have both an animal side and spiritual side to each of us. To survive in this phenomenon world as part of the animal kingdom, at times, it is necessary to embrace the "Eye of the Tiger" to focus on winning (as addressed in the song performed by the rock band "Survivor" in the early eighties). Towards the end of the movie, when the Tiger walks off into the forest with out looking back, PI's dad is proven to be correct that the Tiger has no soul, no spritual connecting to PI --- it was all about survival. During the journey, PI recognizes that he could not survive the ordeal without his animal instincts. He also is enlightened that he can not survive in this shared vessel if his animal side is unchecked. Many wars and monstrosities against mankind have occurred because of failure to keep our inner Tiger restrained. PI saw multiple paths / religions towards spritual cultivation but had to confront the one consistent challenge of all human beings --- training their inner Tiger.

[Sarah]

Ok so my take on the island is The island is somewhere that consumes men, which the tiger tries to get the boy away from. Also the tiger is very sick beforehand. Therefore the island was a metaphor for somewhere that caused harm or could consume a person (anger, depression?) God then (by the tiger waiting on the boat) acts as the strength to help a person escape that situation/emotion.

The tiger represents god and in the version where he is the tiger is the version with no faith

[Beckyyy]

Ernie? Has this not already been said about the book? This is EXACTLY what it is about. Also if the film actually gets the meaning of the book right I can't wait to see it.

[Ernie]

Beckyyy wrote: "Ernie? Has this not already been said about the book? This is EXACTLY what it is about. Also if the film actually gets the meaning of the book right I can't wait to see it."

Hi. I have been on the look out for other assessments that are similar to mine but have not come across any. Becky(or anyone else), please point me to those references. BTW, the movie in 3D was well worth the cost of admission.

[Kathy]

From an amazing blog post I came across:

One of the great moments of the session on the weekend was Yann’s explanation of the purpose of “the island”, one of the more obtuse plot developments in modern literature.

He said it served the sole purpose of making the “animal” version of the story harder and harder to believe. Even more so than the chance of a blind boy and blind tiger, coming across another blind shipwreck survivor, it’s at the point of the island that disbelief breaks down and the reader wants rationality kicks in.

END BLOG POST...
It makes perfect sense and answers so many questions!

Blog: http://paula-greatstories.blogspot.co...

[Samsonread]

To me, the entire movie and book Life of PI is a parable that does not have to hold any meaning to somebody while it may hold meaning to someone else.


Regarding the nature of the story, I choose to summarize it as PI got stranded on a boat.

He was there alone, with a couple of animals, and had to survive a long time out on the water all by himself.


He therefore exaggerated events, to suit the nature of the voyage he was on. There really was a tiger, but not a magical fish.

The Zebra really did get killed but there was not a hyena since no hyena bones were on board. The tiger ate the Zebra out of necessity.


The mythical so called "Island" really did occur, but not in the way we were told it occurs.


Due to his calling out to God/Creator, he did land on an Island. It was not a giant plant Island that could grow like a tree.

I surmise it was this Island, which history has found ample evidence of that exists in the South Pacific region.
"It was in 1581 that the valiant explorer learned of an atoll in the South Pacific that one might not visit, save on peril of his life, for this coral ring enclosed a group of islets on one of which the Death Flower grew; hence it was named El Banoor, or Island of Death. This flower was so large that a man might enter it — a cave of color and perfume — but if he did so it was the last of him, for, lulled by its strange fragrance, he reclined on its lower petals and fell into the sleep from which there is no waking."
http://www.archive.org/stream/carnivorousplant23prio/carnivorousplant23prio_djvu.txt

El Banoor, is a mud Island Atoll that does exist in the South Pacific region and has been encountered on several occasions. It is out the way of Madagascar. El Banoor does hold life, such as an exotic plant, Meerkats, Rats and Large Beetles.

However, the Death Flower is a combination of many various Poisonous Algae rolled into one shape so it appears like a giant trap. Also it doesn't float, it's made of mud & partly touches the bottom of the Sea Coral floor.

I surmise PI landed on this terrifying Island, imagined it the way he wished to see it and imagined it also floated in the water with an eerie glow. I believe some force "sent" him to this Island (which is hard to chart, but today's ships can easily visit the remains of this Atoll Island) in order to teach him a valuable lesson: There is no such thing as the Tree of everlasting perfection. The Life he thought he was nourishing was not his own, as he was in the middle of a dangerous place, Death Island, which is quite a few kilometers SOUTH of Mexico. At night it got easier for the carnivorous Algae to attack him, the Tiger and those Meerkats. They thought they were entering paradise but awoke to the reality it was a giant Cave, one that rots with the real taste of death. That would explain all the Algae on his boat, the Meerkat bones, and evidence he carries but also explain how he exaggerated this aspect of his journey in LUMINOUS detail - by making the viewer wish to believe it was a glowing phosphorous, perfect paradise.

And in that, lies a valuable lesson for us all. You can learn more about El Banoor's tainted world in National Geographic magazine & plant documentaries.

[Ana]

well I think the ocean is meaning or God and in order for him to manifest who he is he needs to go through the illusion of seperation and pain and suffering so his essence manifests it self. The tiger is his ego and the whole time they were fighting and in contradiction, and eventhough they were at odds, the tiger was necessary for him to find his truth and grow in his spiritual journey, The island represents earth or the universe, which gives the illusion of all good and nuritishing but in reality it takes away your essence and eats it up if you are not aware and dont realize its dangers. The animal side of him(his ego, or the tiger) instinctively knows of its dangers so do the animate and animals, however the humans fall for its illusionary beauty and dimise to distruction or death if they do not awaken and come to relaization of its dangers. so in the end he comes at peace with his ego and ego leaves and that is how he survives, this only happens after he submits to every thing that God sends to his path and comes at peace with it.

[Samsonread]

Here is more evidence to add a rational dose of logic, since the circle of Islands with El Banoor does for certain exist & is located extremely close to this tropical Island far off the coast of Madagascar:
http://www.matadornetwork.com/trips/how-to-visit-pitcairn-island

A set of explorers including myself assume he landed directly ashore this obscure set of Islands. Until recently this Island region, has been largely inaccessible by any known navigation chart. It is also in a coral reef area, so extremely difficult to find.

In the 1970's or earlier, they would have had no humans living on them matching the description word for word. Also, Meerkats are plentiful there and so is carnivorous fables. Aka poisonous algae that can devour meat and acidic nature. A long time ago there would have been so much plant life there, its very possible foxes or other animals could have been poisoned by the Algae or died. Also the Algae has never changed over this long period of time...pitcairn & surrounding atolls are still as dangerous as ever....leading us to assume that is directly where PI was. He may have imagined all the scenery, but the deadly Island is something his mind did not make up...

[Cap]

I think that the island is a rotten human body, and the meercats are the maggots eating the body...

[Samsonread]

Also, I find it vital to note the frenchman "sailor" is nowhere to be seen in Ang Lee's movie. They cut this part out of the film in its entirety.

Therefore it was not important enough, in Yann Martel's own words, to "get the message across" that was intended. The absence of there being any mention of the frenchman in the film indicates PI may have daydreamed the incident, as a way to cope with what happened on the cruise ship which nearly broke the raft.

A lot of authors believe the event really happened, after Yann interviewed someone in his home who calls himself "PI" or uses a similar acronym describing a shipwreck.....however there is no tapes of it. So its just as plausible it never happened, and is all just fiction.

Its what always bothered me about that book, there is just as many who consider it fiction versus those who say its non-fiction. Curiously enough, a tanker did sink around that time that was leaving India...but it wasn't named Tsimtsum nor was it big news. I believe we'll never know and that's his desire.