|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2012 15:22:49 GMT -5
Why do I always feel like the last Romantic standing in this horrid world of Post-modernism? Post-modernism is the bane of all I hold dear; truth, love, honor and justice! I loathe Post-modernism! Boy that felt good! Now, back to the story . . . . . I am in the other corner (opposite DD and sacerdotal). When I finished the book, I set it aside and said to myself what a perfect book for starting a TMB discussion group! I was able to answer the OP strongly in the affirmative. The description of Pi talking to the Japanese investigators is precisely the same as posting to a thread on TMB, the audience wants to hear what they already believe. I am going against what appears to be a consensus. In a work of fiction, I have absolutely no problem with the floating island. As I have been known to say . . . . . yknot? “Rafting” on floating masses of vegetation has long been a theory commanding serious scientific consideration as a possible explanation for the transport of land species between continents and islands. It is one of the major explanations for the transport of land animals from Africa to Madagascar. Interestingly, meerkats are members of the mongoose family that some argue may have reached Madagascar on floating masses of vegetation. Natural islands of floating vegetation are relatively common in lakes in the Northern part of Mexico. No, I take the position that the “true” story was the story told through the first 94+ chapters. Life is a journey of experiences that each person takes alone. One can tell others of their journey, but no other person can ever experience life as you have experienced it. Pi tried to share his experiences and the faith that sustained him. But the investigators (inquisitors?) needed instead to hear their own beliefs confirmed from his lips. He complied. And why not, he had told them what happened, they rejected him, with compassion he met their need and maintained his own convictions. What would any of us do differently? That sounds awfully much like a post-modern interpretation to me. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2012 15:24:17 GMT -5
I have a theory on the ending. But I am stumped as to the meaning of the island as well. My first theory about the island went along with my first reading of the book (when I still thought the author's notes were nonfiction and preferred the alternate ending's description of events). Just before the island episode, Pi's lifeboat encountered another lifeboat while his vision was impaired by malnutrition. Perhaps the island episode was a hallucination triggered by malnutrition, or the stress of the demise of the other lifeboat's occupant. I'm more mystified by that occurrence than that of the island. Did he really run into another lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific? He was blind at this point, correct? Somehow that has to be significant.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2012 15:25:37 GMT -5
Dinosaur bones! Now THAT didn't occur to me! I confess, I am baffled by the island. It's obviously paradise, Eden. The big tree on the island is the tree of life, or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or both (some readers of the Bible think--like Revelation says--there is only one tree, they are the same). These bones came from the island, the really "supernatural" part of the story. Is the island giving us hints about the true nature of God? God can't be a life-sucking, survival-of-the-fittest, primal force, can He? Ugh!!! Help! And I just KNOW the truth of God is tied to those dang cookies at the end. Pi is hoarding the cookies, taking everything he can, still in survival mode. Then he admits the animals are humans. Then he breaks down and cries. Then he promises "you'll never see Richard Parker again." Then he gives the cookies back in bunches, underscoring his promise. Can't say the idea of dinosaur bones ever crossed my mind either. Interesting idea. It seems to me, however, that the allegory of the floating island is sufficient within itself. Neat idea thinking of the floating island as Eden. My interpretation of the island carrying elements of creation from place to place would be consistent with that model and the idea of the dinosaur bones mentioned by sacerdotal. DD, you suprise me . . . . . "Is the island giving us hints about the true nature of God?" Of course it is! The island appears when Pi and Richard Parker need it the most. It provides hope and sustenance. Is this not part of the true nature of God (for true believers)? And you say: "And I just KNOW the truth of God is tied to those dang cookies at the end." But of course! Recall - "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Those dang cookies represent Pi's very life (having been so long without adequate food) and yet he is willing to give them up to strangers. Is not such love also the true nature of God (for those who believe)? But what about the water turning into a potent acid at night? Some paradise!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2012 15:28:12 GMT -5
Good (East Coast - North America) Afternoon to All! Have been wondering about the pace of discussion. Have not previously participated in an on-line book club, is this a typical pace for the conversation? As I check in for new ideas and interpretations and discussion points about the book, I find myself drifting over to the main board where I invariably get myself into hot water. ;D Thoughts? Comments? I last participated in an online book club on a pre-Internet Compuserve forum. It went along much like this one.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 26, 2012 19:31:59 GMT -5
That island is still a mystery to me. When I first read it I thought it was as real as I felt the rest of the story was real. If it wasn't real then it needed some explanation-It does seem to go against all knowledge of biology that we have.
So then, I thought it was a hallucination, because of Pi's condition.
Actually I didn't give the other man in another life boat a lot of thought, but now that others have mentioned it, it does seem unlikely.
I think I must have read it all as being real. That's is why alternate story seemed not true & made up by Pi to satisfy the investigaters.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 26, 2012 20:07:14 GMT -5
That island is still a mystery to me. When I first read it I thought it was as real as I felt the rest of the story was real. If it wasn't real then it needed some explanation-It does seem to go against all knowledge of biology that we have. So then, I thought it was a hallucination, because of Pi's condition. Actually I didn't give the other man in another life boat a lot of thought, but now that others have mentioned it, it does seem unlikely. I think I must have read it all as being real. That's is why alternate story seemed not true & made up by Pi to satisfy the investigaters. There's a lot of evidence that you are right about that. Pi says, "The world isn't just the way it is. It is how we understand it, no?" IOW, there is no independent objective reality; there are only various interpretations of reality seen through our individual lenses. After trying to convince the investigators with a number of arguments spreading over 10 pages or so, "Tigers exist, lifeboats exist, 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." He finally capitulates though with the comment, "Here's another story." Not, the real story, the true story, but "another" story, one that will seem more reasonable in terms of everyday experience. I believe the author's strategy is to present the two alternatives in an irreconcilable way. You can find a basis that either story is the correct one. But there's no question that the main story which is told is how Pi remembers events in his own mind. That's the real story to him.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 26, 2012 21:29:07 GMT -5
That island is still a mystery to me. When I first read it I thought it was as real as I felt the rest of the story was real. If it wasn't real then it needed some explanation-It does seem to go against all knowledge of biology that we have. So then, I thought it was a hallucination, because of Pi's condition. Actually I didn't give the other man in another life boat a lot of thought, but now that others have mentioned it, it does seem unlikely. I think I must have read it all as being real. That's is why alternate story seemed not true & made up by Pi to satisfy the investigaters. There's a lot of evidence that you are right about that. Pi says, "The world isn't just the way it is. It is how we understand it, no?" IOW, there is no independent objective reality; there are only various interpretations of reality seen through our individual lenses. After trying to convince the investigators with a number of arguments spreading over 10 pages or so, "Tigers exist, lifeboats exist, 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." He finally capitulates though with the comment, "Here's another story." Not, the real story, the true story, but "another" story, one that will seem more reasonable in terms of everyday experience. I believe the author's strategy is to present the two alternatives in an irreconcilable way. You can find a basis that either story is the correct one. But there's no question that the main story which is told is how Pi remembers events in his own mind. That's the real story to him. [/color] I agree, that the main story is how Pi remembers the events.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 26, 2012 22:38:58 GMT -5
If Pi was Richard Parker, who was Pi?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2012 8:40:43 GMT -5
If Pi was Richard Parker, who was Pi? I've been thinking more about the book, and the various posts, many which contain thoughts that never occurred to me but are quite interesting and insightful. After this my second reading, and struggling with the two endings I've now come to regard them in the following way. I will get around to addressing the question of Richard Parker and Pi, so bear with me. Neither story is completely "factual". It is clear to me that Pi's story, the bulk of the book, is very real and true to him. But it's not a wholly reliable story. It seems too fantastic to be entirely in the real world. Before Pi's rescue, he goes blind, meets another lifeboat, and lands on the incredible meerkat island. I think Pi has entered a mystical dream world at this point, and for all we know, he could have just been lying in the bottom of the boat from the time he went blind, until he hit land. I enjoyed some of the metaphorical thoughts in some of the posts, that the island was a representation of heaven, and so on, and think it's highly appropriate to interpret the story in this way. I haven't worked it all out yet, but somehow Pi's journey is one of enlightened understanding progressing toward some kind of centre where first, everything about human existence is laid bare, and next, some kind of reconciliation or understanding occurs. I need to think about this some more. But as far as Pi and the tiger. There might well have been an actual tiger in the boat; in fact, I feel strongly at this point that Richard Parker was actually a tiger, and that that was all true. But 1) we can't take Pi's story as wholly reliable, and 2) we can't take his more realistic explanation as wholly reliable, either. The second story is clearly something he squeaked out under pressure. My first take on the story (on concluding the second re-read) was quite jaded. Well, I thought, according to Martel, God is just a crutch used to make life more understandable, to give us a purpose, but ultimately, it is just a chimera, an invention, nothing more than mythology, at best. Something to help us deal with the horror of life. Of course, that kind of interpretation reduces the entire story to one of not much value at all. I've moved back away from that stand, and my take now is that the story also demonstrates that life has many mystical elements and that we need God as an explanation to understand those elements. (Or rather, many of us do.) For me, some of the crucial passages of explanation of the story lie in the argument between Pi and the investigators, where he appeals to their sense of mystery by using commonplace examples - human love, and so on. I like how Pi defends what happens by appealing to our innate sense that life has a transcendental quality, that there is meaning and order beyond our immediate understanding of things. (I liked DD's observation of Pi's transformation in his relationship to food ... first, in eating all their food, then, in sharing his own food. When the author goes to Pi's house in Toronto early in the book, doesn't Pi have all kinds of food ... And food is always an important element when we meet with our Christian study group.) So, the first story is not wholly reliable, neither is the second. Regarding either story as wholly correct, as competing interpretations, does not make sense for me. Consider, if the second story was completely true, that would mean that Pi was deliberately lying the whole time, and that just doesn't work for me. Or that the scales fell off his eyes and he suddenly remembered what really happened. No evidence that that was the case. So BOTH versions are unreliable. So my latest explanation of Pi and Richard Parker is that there was indeed a tiger on the boat, but that Pi came to see "the tiger" within himself. He became like a beast, and lived like a beast. He vanquished the tiger, bringing it into obedience, but he also tamed the beast within. Considering the two stories as unreliable/ reliable is how to make the book work for you. I noticed that the book works really well for sacerdotal, and he's got quite a lot out of it. The actual question of what is fact and not fact can't entirely be determined and the best idea is to make factual sense of it in your own way, and then go from there.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jun 27, 2012 12:23:01 GMT -5
The actual question of what is fact and not fact can't entirely be determined and the best idea is to make factual sense of it in your own way, and then go from there. I see the Life of Pi as a work of fiction, which it is, and I go from there (just as you suggested, What). Just as I learn from movies, such as this great quote from The Outlaw Josey Wales "Dying ain't much of a way to make a living"- Wales said to a bounty hunter that had arrived to capture him, so I learn from works of fiction. A little bit of the thoughts and experiences of the writer, director, etc. are placed into the work and I am enriched by that (or repulsed, whatever the idea may be). The only other book that I can compare the Life of Pi with, is The Little Prince. The author writes the Little Prince as if the event of meeting a boy from another planet had really happened. The Life of Pi throws a twist by challenging the reader to disbelieve everything that the author had just written for the largest part of the book. And so it is in life. Ideals that we hold, we may later have to confront. I once believed the idealized versions of history as taught in public school about the great conquistadors/explorers, so imagine my surprise to learn the truth of how ruthless and horrible some of those men were. The "real" version of the history was not nearly as palatable as the sanitized version of history. Or the idea that the United States was founded upon the notion of religious freedom, but what they really meant was that one was free to worship in THEIR version of religion (whether Quaker, etc.) I believe the second story is the true story. Remember how Pi's dad made a point to his family not to imagine animals as humans- and that Pi was the one that he was most worried about doing that? Pi protested that he didn't, but in other passages he did indeed imagine the zoo animals as having human traits. Reality is a tough pill to swallow. I believe the island was Pi drifting into madness. He was at the end of his rope. I believe that he recognized that he was giving into the seductive call of madness- which, like the island meant death if he stayed, so with one final push of rationality, he shooed the madness away and found safety a very short while afterward. Maybe, to answer Emy's question about if "Pi was Richard Parker, then who was Pi?", Pi was who he thought he was, vegetarian, loving, God fearing Pi- and Richard Parker was the animal within him that he fought to keep under control. As Christians we would call it the battle between first born nature/Christ nature. Or Esau vs Jacob. As yknot suggested, I believe the manner in which Pi handled the cookies (taking them, but then later giving them back) demonstrated that he was still conflicted in nature (first born nature wanting to preserve itself- by nature selfish, while the Christ born nature puts self second and seeks to put others first ("let each esteem the other better than himself"). Pi was conflicted up until the very end- but- he was confident that Richard Parker would never be found. I think that this was a confidence that he had that the beast within had been tamed.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2012 14:58:50 GMT -5
I'm with some of this, but not all. It's worth breaking down (to me). The actual question of what is fact and not fact can't entirely be determined and the best idea is to make factual sense of it in your own way, and then go from there. I see the Life of Pi as a work of fiction, which it is, and I go from there (just as you suggested, What). Just as I learn from movies, such as this great quote from The Outlaw Josey Wales "Dying ain't much of a way to make a living"- Wales said to a bounty hunter that had arrived to capture him, so I learn from works of fiction. A little bit of the thoughts and experiences of the writer, director, etc. are placed into the work and I am enriched by that (or repulsed, whatever the idea may be). When we tease out what's fact or not fact, actually, it's all fiction. However, I suppose within the work of fiction, there is fact and there is fiction, if that makes sense. The technique of using an unreliable narrator is very common in current fiction, where we try to guess what really happened, or determine why or how the storyteller is distorting events. My parallel is Heart of Darkness or the movie Apocalypse Now. The latter was based on the former, although Apocalypse was set in Vietnam, and the earlier novel was set in the Belgian Congo. I was struck by your comment that Pi sunk into madness, since that is what happens in both the book and movie. I don't accept the second story as the "true one" for the reasons I already mentioned. I think both stories contain elements of what actually happened, and its a matter of conjecture as to what is 'fact' within the 'fiction'. I don't have much trouble with that explanation at all. But I haven't figured out for myself what the island represents. Someone said 'heaven' and that might work also. Yes, I agree. Although Pi was stripped down to a survivalist animal-like mode of living for a while. Perhaps like Nebuchadnezzar? Yes, that makes sense. Perhaps that is what Pi means by having found God, or believing in God, that man can be transformed by a touch of the divine nature. (That's a strong feature of Eastern religions, and some versions of Christianity.)
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 27, 2012 16:17:00 GMT -5
It's an interesting thought that Richard Parker was Pi's "animal" nature, but it really doesn't fit for me. Given that it's all fiction anyway, I'd go with the original story being the "factual" one. Some of the elements that make me think that is Pi's understanding of animals and zoo animals in particular. One of my favorite parts of the book is when he explains that zoos are not prisons for animals and they are really quite comfortable there, if a little care is taken to provide appropriate habitat. I see this book as a fictional adventure story. And though they may not grasp the deeper elements, I think junior high readers would enjoy it and discussion of it very much! I found it an easy read. Maybe I am totally naive, but I didn't find myself digging very hard to understand the spirituality. After all, just how spiritual IS a young boy who practices 3 different religions simultaneously!? It does seem (and maybe I missed something) that he leans more toward the Judeo-Christian God in the end. Think I should suggest this for jr high/high school reading lists?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 27, 2012 17:22:40 GMT -5
It's an interesting thought that Richard Parker was Pi's "animal" nature, but it really doesn't fit for me. Given that it's all fiction anyway, I'd go with the original story being the "factual" one. Some of the elements that make me think that is Pi's understanding of animals and zoo animals in particular. One of my favorite parts of the book is when he explains that zoos are not prisons for animals and they are really quite comfortable there, if a little care is taken to provide appropriate habitat. I see this book as a fictional adventure story. And though they may not grasp the deeper elements, I think junior high readers would enjoy it and discussion of it very much! I found it an easy read. Maybe I am totally naive, but I didn't find myself digging very hard to understand the spirituality. After all, just how spiritual IS a young boy who practices 3 different religions simultaneously!? It does seem (and maybe I missed something) that he leans more toward the Judeo-Christian God in the end. Think I should suggest this for jr high/high school reading lists? I had commented that typically a young lad has not thought deeply enough about religion to consider that experience within another religion might have similar qualities to one's own religious experience. So I feel that the 3 religion story would be atypical. But that doesn't meant that children aren't spiritual; perhaps they are more spiritual than adults because they are more trusting and less jaded. As far as the deeper elements, you can go as deep as you want in a story like this. When taking university English Lit course I often had problems with not wanting to overload a story with too much interpretation. But of course sometimes that is what you must do in order to get a good mark on an essay. This would be a great junior high/ senior high reading selection. For one thing, both the vocabulary and sentence structure are at a fairly basic level. (And I found it difficult getting through the second reading at times because the prose itself is not very captivating or subtle.)
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 27, 2012 19:08:14 GMT -5
From what:
I am beginning to understand how Pi could be confused himself about what is truth. I still can't get over Pi breaking into tears; how frustrating that these investigators FORCED him to examine the cold, hard facts.
I wanna believe in the first story. I wanna believe...I wanna believe...I wanna...I can't. I've gone postmodern, accepting that there is no truth, that's the closest I can get anymore. If I could break out of my left brain, live entirely in the God-world, life would be more palatable. The enlightenment, the historical Jesus quest, the historical-critical examination of the Bible I've gone through...I'm stuck in the second story wishing I could be in the first.
One thing I have learned: I'm not critical of people who believe the first story is the factual one. I got past that years ago. They're probably the smart ones.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 27, 2012 22:53:11 GMT -5
So true, so true! But now that I'm not reading for class, I leave most of that behind. It would be really interesting to read a few essays on the book from junior high, senior high and college and compare.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 28, 2012 9:02:03 GMT -5
gonna rip What's analysis apart a little, again by comparing to the undercurrent of God and religion that pervades the book. But 1) we can't take Pi's story as wholly reliable, and 2) we can't take his more realistic explanation as wholly reliable, either. The second story is clearly something he squeaked out under pressure. I don't think so. The second story is too carefully devised to match the first. It couldn't have just crossed his mind how closely the animal natures match the personalities and actions of real people, like his mother. Pi's blindness and delusion may act as a veil, and he may be wondering exactly what happened, but he seems to coherently separate the basics of truth and fiction. Others have mentioned how elaborate the animal story is, as evidence of its factuality. All I can say to this is that our religions today (and yesterday) are incredibly elaborate. Not much value??? Are you saying crutches have no value? It appears Pi's very survival was by slipping into a dream world. It appears this is the whole key to life, Pi sank to the depths and found life's secret. While this may be true, I don't think it's the moral of the story. Rather, we need the mystical, so we take the unexplained and blow it out of proportion...into God. We build castles in the clouds, and then build on top of the castles, until it's become a full-blown story. Now we're talking! That's like saying it doesn't make sense to pit science against religion. Well, hey, I've been arguing that for a long time. Quit mixing fact and faith, we need both views, and for our spiritual well-being we must somehow overcome the fact that the two do not jibe. Pi has managed to do that, juggling two stories. "Lying"...you know I hate that word in the context of religion. Every now and then somebody here on TMB goes on a rampage, claiming that workers past or present are "deliberately lying" about something or other. Such people do not get religion at all in my opinion. They are trying to mix fact and faith, oil and water. They are trying to pull Pi's beautiful animal story down into ugly "truth." Curiously, the most vocal of such people continue to cling to their own animal-type story, ignoring its dark underbelly of "lies." Can't we learn from Pi's experience and just let religion be religion so that we can survive as a species?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 28, 2012 17:42:58 GMT -5
gonna rip What's analysis apart a little, again by comparing to the undercurrent of God and religion that pervades the book. But 1) we can't take Pi's story as wholly reliable, and 2) we can't take his more realistic explanation as wholly reliable, either. The second story is clearly something he squeaked out under pressure. I don't think so. The second story is too carefully devised to match the first. It couldn't have just crossed his mind how closely the animal natures match the personalities and actions of real people, like his mother. Pi's blindness and delusion may act as a veil, and he may be wondering exactly what happened, but he seems to coherently separate the basics of truth and fiction. Others have mentioned how elaborate the animal story is, as evidence of its factuality. All I can say to this is that our religions today (and yesterday) are incredibly elaborate. Not much value??? Are you saying crutches have no value? It appears Pi's very survival was by slipping into a dream world. It appears this is the whole key to life, Pi sank to the depths and found life's secret. While this may be true, I don't think it's the moral of the story. Rather, we need the mystical, so we take the unexplained and blow it out of proportion...into God. We build castles in the clouds, and then build on top of the castles, until it's become a full-blown story. Now we're talking! That's like saying it doesn't make sense to pit science against religion. Well, hey, I've been arguing that for a long time. Quit mixing fact and faith, we need both views, and for our spiritual well-being we must somehow overcome the fact that the two do not jibe. Pi has managed to do that, juggling two stories. "Lying"...you know I hate that word in the context of religion. Every now and then somebody here on TMB goes on a rampage, claiming that workers past or present are "deliberately lying" about something or other. Such people do not get religion at all in my opinion. They are trying to mix fact and faith, oil and water. They are trying to pull Pi's beautiful animal story down into ugly "truth." Curiously, the most vocal of such people continue to cling to their own animal-type story, ignoring its dark underbelly of "lies." Can't we learn from Pi's experience and just let religion be religion so that we can survive as a species? Let's look at the common ground we have here. You consider Pi's first story as honestly told, but perhaps he is operating under delusion? So both stories have some veracity under both our views. Now, could it not be that Pi had thought of the orang utan as his mother, so it was easy to make this substitution in the second story. Read chapter 42 again. And after all, who is more likely to have access to a raft made of bananas, the orang utan or Pi's mother? My point is that we'll never know for sure exactly what happened. And I'm not sure it matters. I don't think he manufactured the second story out of whole cloth. He did pause for quite a while before he told the second story. Pi could be making substitutions in the second story just as easily as he could in the first. Anyway, you did say that Pi entered a dream-like state, although you next say that he was deluded by the dream. But life is a dream. The hymn says, life passes like a dream. Or as Prospero stated in The Tempest: We are such stuff As dreams are made on; and our little life Is rounded with a sleep. Our brief lives are very ephemeral, and our experience as human beings, whether we are religious or not, transcends the prosaic. Our existence is informed by stories, by movies, by music, by poems, by conversation, by language; life is so much more than the rational reduction provided through science. I don't think you would disagree with this. I don't really agree though with your comparison of Pi's story to some of the over-wrought explanations of the religious world. Pi's spiritual experience transcended religion, I believe. "Thank you, and so it goes with God". There's a loaded utterance.
|
|
|
Post by zen on Jul 2, 2012 14:54:11 GMT -5
if we follow the evolution path of the earth, most animals in the book are mammals. they still kill each other to survice nowadays, even they were all the same thousands years back. Now thinking the future of evolution, human being has learn the fuction of brain and hey can pass the knowledge to the next generations. Who is the Richard parker, when tiger is EXTINGUISHED one day? Who is Gods, when mammal can deal with fear one day.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 2, 2012 21:59:57 GMT -5
I have enoyed all the comments. I wonder if the author really knows all the answers himself?
I know as I've tried to write some myself, I get to a certain area & I see more than one way to finish. There is no set one. I think, now if I do it this way some people will like it. If I do it another, they might be upset even angry. However, it is fictiion, I'm the creator-I can do whatever I want with these charactors.
I wonder if somewhere we can find the author's thoughts?
I think that even if it does show "god to be a crutch" to help us get through this horrible life, it has value. IMO we really don't need to disect it a lot.
I still believe the first story is the real one(except possibly the part of the island & the other life boat- I think he was probably so ill that he could be hallucinating)
Taming the lion, handling all those actions he did to survive, could actually have taken place. He was a very intellegent boy & you could see how his childhood living at at zoo, was put to use.
I think he was useing his ability to survive by making up the 2nd story to give those investigators what they wnated.
Maybe that is why he cried. He wanted to be believed & they would rather take what was really a horrid explanation that was just as unbelievable( if not more so)than the real 1st one
Anyway, I really enjoyed the Life of Pi & all the comments!
Cheers! everyone!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 2, 2012 22:24:29 GMT -5
if we follow the evolution path of the earth, most animals in the book are mammals. they still kill each other to survice nowadays, even they were all the same thousands years back. Now thinking the future of evolution, human being has learn the fuction of brain and hey can pass the knowledge to the next generations. Who is the Richard parker, when tiger is EXTINGUISHED one day? Who is Gods, when mammal can deal with fear one day. I find your comments very interesting. As to mammals killing each other, we are mammals & we are still killing each other. Are we humans the end of evolution? I don't think so. If, when we evolve further, will we be a less warrior type? I also doubt that. If, as we now know, evolution uses the survial of the fittest to change, then we will not be any less war-like.
|
|
|
Post by zen on Jul 3, 2012 8:20:24 GMT -5
when i watch the evolution progress of a whale on YouTube , i was completely stunned. Every species will be extincted one day in this earth. It's sad. Outside our small earth, there is totally emptiness. No killing but collision. The fear is deep rooted for any animals to survive in this small planet. the human being before us were confused, they leave their thoughts behind. when a multi-religious person facing his last fear, ie, death. he will go to the deepest(earliest) one in his long- term memory, because his short term memory is fading away first. "don't do to others that you do not like others do to you" is very basic rule for fear too.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 6, 2012 17:00:36 GMT -5
Are we settling to a halt on this book? It was a fascinating discussion, many thanks to sacerdotal for the recommendation and topic guidance!
Not meaning to stifle any further discussion on Pi, but when's the next one, mr. what?
|
|
|
Post by zenbutt on Jul 10, 2012 9:09:56 GMT -5
i enjoy the intelligent discuss from everyone, I will keep on follow this wonderful space .
I am not Christian, but i love to read bible as classic spiritual material. The image of mar is more beautiful than that of the moon, but the earth is still the most beautiful one if there were no evolution on it.
I will eat more cookies to survive.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 10, 2012 18:28:57 GMT -5
do you feel like you showed up to the party late, zen? Join us on the next book, Holy Ghost Girl. After that is Love Wins.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 11, 2012 11:03:20 GMT -5
I have enoyed all the comments. I wonder if the author really knows all the answers himself? I know as I've tried to write some myself, I get to a certain area & I see more than one way to finish. There is no set one. I think, now if I do it this way some people will like it. If I do it another, they might be upset even angry. However, it is fictiion, I'm the creator-I can do whatever I want with these charactors. I wonder if somewhere we can find the author's thoughts? I think that even if it does show "god to be a crutch" to help us get through this horrible life, it has value. IMO we really don't need to disect it a lot. I still believe the first story is the real one(except possibly the part of the island & the other life boat- I think he was probably so ill that he could be hallucinating) Taming the lion, handling all those actions he did to survive, could actually have taken place. He was a very intellegent boy & you could see how his childhood living at at zoo, was put to use. I think he was useing his ability to survive by making up the 2nd story to give those investigators what they wnated. Maybe that is why he cried. He wanted to be believed & they would rather take what was really a horrid explanation that was just as unbelievable( if not more so)than the real 1st one Anyway, I really enjoyed the Life of Pi & all the comments! Cheers! everyone! Nice post. I had only a thought or two to add on the "author's intention". From the literature courses I've taken, it's very clear that many current author's work hard to hide their intention. They try to tell a story that is open ended, and where the text they produce resists closing around one particular interpretation. Martel has succeeded in doing this in my view. Have you noticed that the more "dubious" of us have argued in favour of the second interpretation as correct, while the more "faith" oriented prefer the first. (I've tried to hang in the middle, but I'll confess that I'm not sure that even works.) Life is like that though. We interpret life using various devices, various means. Believe yknot above contrasted faith-based versus scientific discourse as two ways of interpreting a situation.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 11, 2012 11:06:43 GMT -5
i enjoy the intelligent discuss from everyone, I will keep on follow this wonderful space . I am not Christian, but i love to read bible as classic spiritual material. The image of mar is more beautiful than that of the moon, but the earth is still the most beautiful one if there were no evolution on it. I will eat more cookies to survive. Thanks for your input, zenbutt. I carefully read your previous post and you made a number of interesting comments. I'm not sure what to say in response; I guess I have no argument with what you've said.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jul 11, 2012 15:43:26 GMT -5
Have you noticed that the more "dubious" of us have argued in favour of the second interpretation as correct, while the more "faith" oriented prefer the first. A minor correction, here: While the second story is correct in that it is factual, we dubious folk still prefer the first...it is correct in that it is healthier to believe. The trick, of course, is properly balancing the two without succumbing to cognitive dissonance. Those who cannot do this in their religious life either risk depression on the one hand or unwise decisions like choosing faith healing over necessary medicine on the other hand.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jul 11, 2012 18:45:42 GMT -5
DD, could you remind me again of the evidence presented in the book that "proves" that the second story is correct. Thanks.
|
|