Life of Pi discussion

Why do you assume that Pi's sanity and strength were diminished when the ship sank? He was a swimmer, and so strong, and was exploring religion as a way to answer the big questions thinking people ask that result from us all being afflicted by the human condition. Thinking about the human condition by exploring religion does not equate to diminished sanity. People have traditionally, and cross culturally, used religion to help one feel at ease with their own mortality.

A different, but related and interesting question is the significance of the meerkats. At first I thought this was crazy, that there floating in the middle of nowhere was an island, that wasn't really an island, inhabited by millions of meerkats. On face value it's ridiculous. However, their presence on the 'island' is no less probable than his or Richard Parker's. The original one(s) were merely similarly unfortunate souls that also happened to find the island and not being able to comprehend the true nature of the island (because as Pi's father had tried to teach him by demonstrating how Richard Parker would react to the tethered goat, we often anthropomorphise animals when really it is just a reflection of ourselves in their eyes and they don't have the gift of rational thought), set about to form a symbiotic relationship with it.

This was not clear to me until I saw the movie and thought, look how they all turn at once, do the same things, do things by routine in order to survive as do people trapped in less than ideal circumstances where they must do whatever they need to in order to survive and in time come to accept their lot and adapt.

It reminds me of social media such as Facebook. It's like a cyber island floating in a cyber ocean and it is collecting swathes of human flotsam by offering them sanctuary. Unfortunately it will ultimately consume them and they will be forgotten in a blink of the eye like the hapless soul whose tooth was discovered embedded in the island's vegetation. Some people do not possess the ability to realise their peril and so they end up trapped and in the end adapt to their incarceration consequently losing their ability to function effectively in the real world. Like the meerkat, once they are on the island they have no way (strategies), of getting off it again. As time goes on more and more people are attracted, like moths to a light, to this cyber island until there are literally millions of similarly unarmed people trapped, forming a counter culture that seems perfectly normal to those in it while the island keeps getting fatter and fatter.

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 an idea I read from another blog: The island represents life without God, without faith. Initially it seems a good thing, but then realize it is superficial and without true substance.

I think the Island represents religion and the meerkats are followers. The island being carnivorous explains how religion can consume someone when they take religion for granted. I'm not religious, so i don't believe in what i have said. I just think that was the message Martel was trying to give.

I haven't gone through all the comments yet, so I appologize if what I say has already been said, but the way I see it, whether or not the animal story is true or not, the island is the hight of pi's maddness.
After all of his trials at sea, with the lack of food and water, pi decends into his own mind to escape the harsh reality that takes place on the boat.
Pi lets himself slip into the oasis of his mind for the time that he is on the island; in essence, he has given up. Here he is sheltered from the daily passing of the real world because his mind creates a paradise for himself, one with food and water and in which he grows strong and happy.

It is a way of saying that it would be easier to let go of his body and die than it would be to continue to put up with the horrors of life on the boat.
Though he may be content to reside within the sanctuary and escape of his own mind, he also knows that this nonacknowledgement of reality and detachment from his physical needs and body is slowly killing him (like the poisonous plants) and that he cannot stay that way for long before it devours him.

The discovery of the carnivorous undertone of the island is pi's mind's way of pulling himself out of his delirious and self destructive state and pushing to continue to fight for life. By doing so, the island forces pi back onto the water and therefore back into the reality of the daily struggle for life.

i think you are on to something with your theory here!

Liana wrote: "I haven't gone through all the comments yet, so I appologize if what I say has already been said, but the way I see it, whether or not the animal story is true or not, the island is the hight of pi..."

I like it!

Liana, I agree with you too. My thought all along was that the island, while saving him temporarily, would have killed him in the end. He needed a respite from the horrors he faced daily on the boat, but staying there was to admit to totally giving up and ultimately dying alone.

For me the island was the point at which the story crosses the line of reality. Up to this point, the reader is taken in by the reality Pi is describing. Everything that has happened, while remarkable, is within the realm of plausibility.

Then we get the island. And we start to think that maybe something's up. We can't rationalize the islands existence as being real. Orangutans, Zebras, Tigers, sure. Huge Island that eats people... not so much.

This is where we get the true divide in the two story versions, and in the implied choice between them. One version is completely plausible, the second is not, and yet we still feel an affinity towards the version with the tiger which (because of the island) our rational minds tell us cannot be true. If it weren't for this blatant magical element the reader would still be able to make the tiger story seem rational, but because of this the reader really has to pick between what their mind is willing to believe and the story that must be accepted on faith.

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..."

agreed!!

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 like your interpretation of the island. I also think that it talks about the foundation of our decisions and what we settle for (the idea that nobody is safe to be on the grounds of the island at night).

Katie wrote: "here's something I just thought of, so forgive if it takes a minute to form coherent sentences.

What IF... the story really is not true, it was in his head... if that is the case could the island ..."

I like it.

I just finished reading and I've to say that I didn't like the book too much. However, the isIand story kept me thinking. It comes down to pretty much two things: #1 The reader has to start questioning the credibility of Pi and actually start thinking what's going on in this book. #2: Essentially, he eats the cook, thereby re-gaining some of his strength.

I Love this book. I've read it twice. Both times were a different experience. It has stuck with me long after I read the last words. For me the island was finding "solid ground" , thinking you're saved, it's over. You made it! But only to realize that nothing is as it seems.

Found the island part of vegetarian/ vegan knowledge. Meat eating causes human bodies to become acidic.

Jessica wrote: "For me the island was the point at which the story crosses the line of reality. Up to this point, the reader is taken in by the reality Pi is describing. Everything that has happened, while remar..."

Yes, this is a correct interpretation. And it almost possibly could be read at the point at which the extended stress has finally affected Pi´s mental process, so the book can be read on even another level.

My thinking about the acidic island are connected to a vegetarian message reflected throughout the film. Eating meat and dairy cause the body to become acidic as opposed to alkaline. Pi and Richard Parker (one and the same) are becoming acidic eating so much meat and zero vegetables.

Pi became Richard Parker who eats nothing but meat

I read about the island as representing a sort of illusion of a paradise that hides a dark truth behind a facade of an oasis. Looking at this spiritually, what this island symbolizes can easily be related to some aspect of our own lives.

Kristen wrote: "I loved your interpretation. I think that spiritually, the island was a point of renewal, granted him right when he needed it, truly a gift of mercy from God. In time, he learned that he couldn't..."

I really agree with and appreciate this insight! Thank you!

I was really displeased with the island when I was reading it. Everything seemed random and illogical. Even after I'd read opinions on it and Martells explanation for it I wasn't satisfied. I am still not satisfied with Martells reasoning for the island. He says that it had to be so outlandish so that you would have to either discredit the whole 'animal' version of the story, or accept it all as real, which NOBODY can. If there is anybody here that actually believes it I would be amazed.

So this is one major problem with his reasoning. The other problem is that I find the other story way more interesting. To think that Pi hallucinated and 'animalised' the chef, his mom, and others, after falling into cannibalism is far more interesting. Whether by conscious chioce, or from falling into a mental stupor that made him incapable of separating his hallucinations from the decrepit and base reality he was living in, Pi's animal story makes logical sense, in that he would have to return to a state of mind that would help him live with his actions on the boat, and thus the story fits, and is to my mind by far the 'better story'. Who disagrees?

I have not read the book since that first reading, but I am more satisfied now with it than when I first read it. Its a sort of the ultimate proof for me that the writer does not own the story, and perhaps does not wholly understand it himself. I have the hankering to read it again.

The island is symbolic of cannibalism.

to me the island was one last obstetrical for pi to face. he has the choice to live on the island with fear or to take a chance that he is close to the end of his journey. the island has food and a promise he would not be hungry on the ocean again, but he choose humanity. (ironic)

I thought the island was just that. An island that he encountered. Yes it was a bit strange, fantastical..dare we say almost unbelievable. But I found it as just another strange encounter.
As he mentioned- when we speed along in a car by a forest. We may make judgements about its contents. But if we slow down, possibly become stranded in that very same forest- you happen to come across all kinds of strange things.
Things that are not explainable or seen in what we know today.
I would think most of the scientists in the audience would see it as just that. It need not symbolize anything.

The island is in the story, because Pi was brought up with a father as a zookeeper and had a love of zoology. On his journey, He saw a 'carnivorous plant like organism' and described it. If he was brought up with an astronomer as a father, we would have likely heard about some new constellation/eclipse...and had a shorter story no doubt as navigation would have been possible. :)
Anyhow. I think the island description...truth or not... is placed to aid with the authors premise that not believing in God- or not believing in the unbelievable/intangible - will make you miss out on some parts of the story. The nonbelievers will struggle to explain it away, just as his interrogators did. Only if you believe in it, despite the fantastical nature, does everything fit

As "New World explorers" set out and encountered new flora and fauna- their descriptions were likely unbelievable to folks back home. . But later, we found the diary sketches of animals that had long stretched out necks and serpeants with teeth- to be just giraffs and alligators. All things that turned out to be true...and still within the realm of scientific explanation. Think a platypus, a chameleon, a dorado's death. I think Pi and the author is toying with the idea that just because meerkat island seems unbelievable -doesn't mean it is not true. Just because you don't know of such a thing, or can fathom such a thing- doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So when asked to discount the truth, just like a teenage boy, he makes up a violent story, one without animals, one that does not explain everything- he lets the viewer decide. Now, I have given you exactly what you want. Now that you have a story that seems perfectly reasonable - you think that its suddenly true. The island is placed to point out the error of this thinking. Do you dare to believe in the unbelievable? Would you go look for a platypus in New Zealand circa 1850 after hearing a native describe it...or would you tell the natives - clearly all you saw was cat sleeping on a birds nest, in the process of eating the birds eggs
Furthermore, what do you tell such a person if you were describing the first platypus. If you were 16, before iphones and google, you may get frustrated and throw your hands up and say- well all I saw in that New Zealand forest was a cat and an old hobbit type survivalist stalker killer dude, the cat killed the dude. yep. turned to god. end of story

Pi has been out at sea for so many months without a fellow human to converse with. His mind is beginning to show the strain of hallucination, early derangement. Yet the story is so outrageously preposterous that it's the first inkling that the story is not true. But really it could be so very true as this is exactly what happens after a lengthy duration of time without company. So now we have a moment of undecided belief? Disbelief? And so now religion is put into the same category as our reaction to the story at this point. We believe the story as real despite its hyperrealism.

Something like a Biblical story, wouldn't one say. Waters part for escaping Hebrew slaves, but come together to drown the Egyptian charioteers. A story about God's intervention in human affairs to guarantee his "people's" survival.

What great discussion. I love the fact that I found this board.
I am surprised that the believers of the story without animals don't discuss how unbelievable that version is. Its like Patel didn't even try to give non-belief in God/unbelievable a chance.
How did the mother escape the sinking ship?
Pi tried to return to his cabin and encountered a stair well of water. The Oranguatang being on the bananas - ok they both were in the cargo hold. The mother being on the bannas? She swam out, left her husband? encountered the bananas after the ship sank?
Why didn't she ever mention these details or seemingly mourn her husband and other son during their time in the life boat. Its like Pi describes made up characters, not even human....I mean I know they are starving but this account does not seem realistic. Less realistic than the version with animals.
What do you think?

Illiterate
Your name hardly says anything about you. I believe the mother didn't survive the trip because the cook butchered her and then Pi killed the cook. I find both stories plausible but the true one most implausible.

How's that sentence for throwing smoke in everyone's eyes?

But how did the mother get on the life boat in the first place. How did she escape her slumber from her cabin, yet her husband and son did not. Remember Pi goes to waken them prior to the boat sinking, but then hesitates and does not do so... when he tries to return to his cabin...as the ship is beginning to sink. He encounters water filling the stair well and passageway and thinks " my family is down there".

I think the mother suddenly, magically appearing on the lifeboat and not discussing how she did this...is just as unbelievable as a meerkat island....
But the meerkat island is explained in detail. And the mothers appearance is not. To me it takes a greater leap of faith to explain the story without animals than the one with.

Like I said elsewhere... I so wanted to believe the story without animals. But a second read does not offer any support for it... It simply does not fit. I think the author does this intentionally. I think this is why he asks which story do you prefer... both stories require some leap of faith to be taken. For me, the story without animals is ironically too great of a leap. Just too much speculation and interpretation to be had....
Perhaps a thread detailing the proof for a story without animals is order.

1) How did Pis mother get on the boat
2) What is the explanation for the bones on Pis life boat... No mention of human bones found. He throws the human bones overboard...but then keeps rat bones...rats that have survived...freshly eaten after 227 days at sea.
3) After everyone is killed.. In a reasonably short time span... Estimate 30 days at most of on the boat mayhem... Now how does Pi survive ...? Fishing... Well he is an assumed accomplice killer at this point... Why does he struggle over the killing of a fish?
The list goes on..

I believe the island represents the human heart. On the outside it can look very warm, inviting, and friendly, but deep down, it can be very evil and eat you alive. I think he's saying how the human heart can trick us into thinking that it is all good and friendly, but in the right situations the human heart can be very cruel. Also, it shows how we humans are social creatures, and living alone we cannot survive.

Islands often are symbolic in novels. I didn't see it as 'tacked on.'

I am looking for reviewers of my story but I'm scared to ask on this thread...because my story has an island!

Contact me if you're interested for a free download. Below is the Goodreads link.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

Thanks,
Ross

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 think the island represented Pi's replenished health. He was nearly dead when he was forced to dine on the cook. He was provided with a meal when there was noting more to eat from the storage. Pi was once again brought back from the brink and he body craved the protein. This euphoric experience was represented by the island. So weak that he could not walk and then quickly building back strength. And then, the teeth in the trees was strange, but perhaps it was the moment when he reflected on the horror of being vegitarian and actually eating a man, the antithesis of all things vegetarians stand for. So the story was that he left the island or a "beautiful place" and was back in the reality of the situation which was the boat.
I don't know about the small bones they found on the boat. Anyhow, this is my thoughts on the meaning of the island.

I thought the island was death tempting him. The human tooth! He had the choice to die and in so do finally find rest or to continue to live and struggle with life on faith that things would get better. Of course he choose to live.

The "Island" was his conscience and guilt. It would have consumed him if he hadn't accepted what transpired, and then let it go.

I read this book when it first came out and I loved it!

Do you remember how people didn't believe Pi because of the island? They said islands like that don't exist and therefore he must be lying.

Pi is trying to say that just because there's no proof something exists, that doesn't necessarily mean it does NOT exist. Like it is with God.

That's what I always thought :)

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..."

Leslie wrote: "I totally agreed with your comment...It was such a let down for me!"

I agree... the island is the first solid ground Pi comes across. After all he has been through he is tempted to settle and stay on this island that has fresh water and food. I think when he comes across the tooth he is really finding bones of another traveler or maybe not. Whether the bones/teeth are real or not he realizes that if he stays here he will die and must continue on

It's a few years since I read this marvellous book, but my interpretation of the island was that it represents the conscience/consciousness.

I agree Cecilia! :-)

Rachael wrote: "I agree with Paola but I also think the island is there as a reprieve for the reader as well as Pi, sort of to show that it can't always be so awful. I know that by that point in the book I was gra..."

I think so too, can't really describe it any better.

I Like Simon's opinions on the much discussed Island - they're analogous with my thoughts on the allegory and symbolism, in as much as I've always perceived the island as a place that represents a kind of sustaining limbo in the absence of faith for Pi. The island gives in one sense and takes it back in another for no net gain or purpose, and this represents a place Pi has arrived at while adrift and questioning his beliefs both physically(The allegorical and imagined animals version) and metaphysically(The real, people version).
The discovery of the tooth in the narrative alerts him to the likelihood that others have been this way before and have been consumed by a contented and liveable but, without faith, ultimately purposeless existence, and that this will be the outcome for him if he stays.
Deciding a life of struggle, but supported by faith, is preferable, he climbs back aboard the lifeboat(wonderful synergy) and resumes his uncertain but more rewarding journey. It can be taken as an allegory for life in a larger sense(Meerkats as a herd like, consumable and faithless humanity that exist in an illusion of there own creation) or on a more personal cannibalistic level; as without the compassion of a sentient, questioning and spiritual self his animalistic alter ego quite literally consumes the souls around him.
A more simplistic, less spiritual but no less valid interpretation would be to say that the island represents the choice of either simply surviving life or living it fully.
This is of course only an opinion, and a simplified one at that. One of the great things about books is how the reader interprets it their own way. I would love to know what Yan Martel has said on the subject.

Illiterate wrote: "But how did the mother get on the life boat in the first place. How did she escape her slumber from her cabin, yet her husband and son did not. Remember Pi goes to waken them prior to the boat sin..."
This is the story that Pi puts out for the animal version, so why need accept all the details. The mother in the second version escapes to the boat. The detail in the first version with the animals is fallacious at the point of the mother not waking up as is most of the rest of the story.

Geoffrey wrote: "Illiterate wrote: "But how did the mother get on the life boat in the first place. How did she escape her slumber from her cabin, yet her husband and son did not. Remember Pi goes to waken them pr..."

Could we go for a straight Christian analogy, perhaps? Given there are many metaphors and direct references to Christian spirituality in the book. That is, the mother in the novel represents (virgin)Mary, mother of Christ. In the Bible, Joseph and Jesus's brother James are pretty well dispensed with after Jesus's youth, with Mary being a significantly more important presence, hence, Pi's mother gets onto the boat....? Well, yes, perhaps this does go too far...

No we couldn't go for a Christian analogy, or an Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Scientology, Mormon, Jehovah's witness, or the Church of the Immortal Space Bats. If only because the non-specific humanist nature of any and all spirituality alluded to was clearly illustrated in the narrative.

David wrote: "No we couldn't go for a Christian analogy, or an Islamic, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Scientology, Mormon, Jehovah's witness, or the Church of the Immortal Space Bats. If only because the non-spe..."
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from, and I think you've missed an important gist of the narrative which does allude to a few religions and philosophies, but it does not seek to blend them in some atheistic post modern swill, but actually compares them. Pi undergoes a conversion experience to Christianity as a young boy ( perhaps reread the chapter where he meets and is influenced by the Christian teacher he meets on his walk). Overall, I think you're correct that, ultimately, it is a 'non specific' humanist message, however this does not de-legitimise the use of specific religious or philosophical imagery...

So tickled that this discussion continues on. Really speaks to the interesting nature of this book.

This is the story that Pi puts out for the animal version, so why need accept all the details. The mother in the second version escapes to the boat. The detail in the first version with the animals is fallacious at the point of the mother not waking up as is most of the rest of the story.


Anyhow, Geoffery- If you feel not all the details of the animal story do not have to be accepted. Then the same would go for the story without animals....Which would mean- Both stories are equally true. As well as both stories are equally false.

So again- the author asks, which story do you prefer? It is a preference in the end. Spirituality and Religion (regardless of type) does require a leap of faith. Even to believe the story without animals- you are taking a leap of faith that the meerkat island is not true just as it is presented.

For me, I do believe that animal story is the more plausible story.
To believe the story without animals requires one to ignore too much of the story. One would have to set out picking and choosing information to ignore. Ironically that is just not a very scientific approach. In science- you can not ignore data just because it does not fit. That is dangerous and dishonorable endeavor. So in this story even the scientifically minded- must take a leap of faith. No matter which story you believe.

Good book- most definitely.

One more thing.

I think the disbelief in the story with animals is mostly centered around how true 'meerkat island' can be.
Some are taken aback by the idea of a carnivorous island. They find it to unbelievable...

Here is a link to carnivorous plants ( obviously on a much smaller scale) that are similar to what is described in Life of Pi. Those in tropical environments call them butterworts. Some times if people see a small garden lizard -they have an easier time believing in the existence of tyrannosaurs rex.

I present to you the 'garden lizard' of carnivorous plants

Utricularia (bladderwort, Figure 2), a plant named for its tiny bladders, or utricles. Unlike the other carnivorous plants discussed here, Utricularia often lives in open water, but again where the nutrient concentration is relatively low. One common habitat is in the nutrient-poor bog lakes. In the open water, it supplements its nutrients by trapping insects in a bladder that is like a suction bulb (Figure 1, Figure 4, and Figure 5). Tiny hairlike projections at the opening of the bladder are sensitive to the motion of passing organisms like Daphnia (water fleas). When they are stimulated, these hairs cause the flattened bladder to suddenly inflate, sucking in water and the passing animal and closing a trap door after it.


an excerpt from the link below

http://www.botany.org/Carnivorous_Pla...

...Acidic pools of water? Rubbish you say. Ridiculous?

I present to you a common problem encountered by people who keep back yard ponds.
Look at the answer to the question posed. Note the day time and night time variance of pH based on presence of algae in the water.


Q. I have just established a backyard pond and it is now one month old. When my pond was newly filled, the water's pH reading was normal. Now, however, my readings are very high, about 8.4 to 8.6. I have this idea that it has something to do with the high levels of pollen. What can I do? Can my goldfish tolerate this condition? They seem to be doing okay for now.

A. First, let me congratulate you on good pondkeeping skills. The fact that you measured the pH upon setting up the backyard pond and have monitored it since then puts you in the top 1 percent of pondkeepers in my book. You are quite right to question the unusual change in pH and to wonder about its effect on your goldfish.

Your suspicion that the pH change is at least partially related to plants is correct, though not pollen. In your part of the country, water tends to come out of the tap at a pH between 6.8 and 7.2. This is what I presume you meant by "normal." (There is really no such thing as a normal pH, so you should always provide the actual numeric reading.)

Fresh from the tap, the water has a fairly high content of carbon dioxide (under pressure) that, when dissolved in the water, forms a weak acid. Thus, the pH is artificially low. When the water is allowed to sit in the open air, a considerable amount of the dissolved carbon dioxide dissipates. Correspondingly, the water's pH rises.

The second cause of pH rise in new backyard ponds is algae. I will bet you noticed that your pond water began to turn green after a week or two. That green coloring is planktonic algae. Algae, like all green plants, converts sunlight to food via photosynthesis. As part of that process, the algae remove carbon dioxide from the water and produce oxygen. Again, removing carbon dioxide from the water produces a rise in pH.

If you measured the pH during the day when the algae was busily sucking up carbon dioxide from the water, it is not surprising that the pH was so high. Had you measured the pH about 4 a.m. before the sun rose, you would notice the pH was around 7.5. This change in pH occurs because at night the algae switch to respiration and dump carbon dioxide back in the water, acidifying it. So your backyard pond pH oscillates over the course of a day between 7.5 and 8.5.


An excerpt from the link below


http://www.fishchannel.com/fish-healt...

Illiterate
Yes, both stories are equally plausible, implausible. And yes, neither story need to be totally accurate to be what actually happened. How many of us get ALL the facts correct in relating such a long-winded account? But it's not only a matter of spirituality that so many of us accept the animal story. The sheer horror of cannibalism far exceeds the atrocious behaviour of Parker.

Yes, this is an incredible book, one which I hope to read more than once. Its repeat would be very much worthwhile. I would heartily recommend it to anyone.

The cannibalism idea, was not that horrifying to me.
Faced with starvation or any amount of extreme stress- people will revert back to the animals that we truly are.

The scene that played out on the boat was not unrealistic in my mind as a result of cannibalism. Of course we see many examples of cannibalism in some "pre-civilization" peoples. We know it occurs occasionally with our close cousins- the chimpanzees. A recent popular movie was based on the idea, Alive. And from time to time we run across newspaper articles of the "odd" serial killer who chooses to kill and eat parts/all of the human victims. Murder and cannibalism are as real to me as the sunrise and sunset.

Tell me, how do you rationalize the existence of the meerkat bones in the boat. Were they just rats bones? How are there rat bones left- when he had to resort to cannibalism? Why resort to cannibalism if you had lots of ship rats to snack on? Why leave rat bones in your ship, but not the human bones? He could have used them to fish/weapons etc

The island episode was pure hallucination. He was physically and emotionally exhausted at that point. The meerkats didn't exist.

I find the island a bit over the top. Cannibalistic plants with bones;that just beggars the imagination. The story up to that point had the barest plausibility, but I simply can't buy the island. I suspect the author was influenced by Doris Lessing's novel about the Descent to Hell, can't recall the exact name but it was the book that first garnered her international fame, in which there is likewise a mysterious island with strange beings.

How funny! But the Shipwreck investigators saw the bones on the life raft. Was it a group hallucination?

pg. 299
"... By the way, how do you explain the meerkat bones in the lifeboat?"
" Yes the bones of a small animal were--"
" More than one!"
"-- of some small animals were found in the lifeboat. They must have come from the ship."
" We had no meerkats at the zoo"

:) I would really encourage you to do that second read, with your premise in mind.