Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

This topic is about
Life of Pi
Specific List Books
>
Life of Pi


I think the true story is the second one - and I loved the book!


That makes the comment on the cover about the book making you believe in God make more sense.


My friends that are more religious like this book better than the ones that are not.


Katie, it might not be a bad idea to put "Spoilers" in the thread title. Knowing that there are two stories might ruin the book for some people who haven't read it yet.

I think both stories are true in the sense that the whole book is an exaggerated imagination of a person struggling for survival, and that was the real thing.

Cathy, my interpretation matches yours. I completely bought into the tiger story, though, until he told the second story. Then I had a "duh" moment.
Sowmya, I agree it was the struggle for survival that required his exagerated imagination to work as a coping mechanism.

Pi recounts the harrowing journey but hidden in his account is an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of religion and writing, and the difference between truth and fiction. Pi realizes he must learn to become the tiger's master, with the interaction between the two forming rich metaphors for spirituality and belief--to some extent, each of the (possibly imaginary) animals could represent a different facet of the hallucinating Pi. The underlying current of the book is that Pi must master his own dark side, his fear, despair, and desperation at his condition and the loss of his family. In a philosophical twist at the end after Richard Parker disappears and Pi is rescued, Pi placates doubting officials with a more credible version of his survival story. This is the version he is convinced they want to hear, and the reader is reminded yet again of how hard it is to tell whether a story is true. (905)

Thanks, Emma, for posting that!



The tiger story was false - the coping mechanism that created this story being born out of a 'real' struggle.
The second story was True - the absolutely normal recital of it that conveys little emotion is false.
Wonder what the author's views are?
Yeah great book!
The second story was True - the absolutely normal recital of it that conveys little emotion is false.
Wonder what the author's views are?
Yeah great book!

Not all things in the world can be explained. I believe the tiger story is true the boy was simply smart enough to realize that adults need something more rationale to believe in. The abstract, it's hard to wrap one's head around and thus unbelievable because no one wants to be "that guy" who belives the crazy stuff.
It's been a year since I read this book, I need to re-read it, absolutely loved it.


In the end, which story we choose to believe in tells us a lot about ourselves.
And yeah, I really loved this book!
Daniel wrote: "I think the real question here is not which story actually occurred, but which story we CHOOSE to believe is true.
In the end, which story we choose to believe in tells us a lot about ourselves.
..."
Yes I agree
In the end, which story we choose to believe in tells us a lot about ourselves.
..."
Yes I agree

I feel the same. I always had trouble liking that part; it just seemed so detached from the rest of the book. Perhaps the leap of faith required of me is just a bit too much in this case ;)

That's why I think it's a shame if someone is put off by the book because of the different versions, because it wasn't 'clear' which story was actually true.
To me, this ambiguity forms the essence of the book, and forces us to think about our ideas on faith and how it affects us.

The ambiguities are peppered throughout the book, which makes the reader (I think) readily buy in to the authenticity of a person's state of mind during a horrendous struggle for life.
Yes it would have been less interesting if the second story had been left out. A curious mind always seeks that extra bit of information.. did the writer favour either version or 'fix' the ambiguity with the intention of letting the reader decide ?
A good debate.
Yes it would have been less interesting if the second story had been left out. A curious mind always seeks that extra bit of information.. did the writer favour either version or 'fix' the ambiguity with the intention of letting the reader decide ?
A good debate.


It almost seems that by offering a second account of what happened to Pi, the author is saying: it doesn't matter which account is true, but what you choose to believe is true that's important. But just like religion - they can't Both be true; the story accounts are mutually exclusive, and only One is actually the truth.

Clearly the fantastic story with the animals and the island are the "better" story. In truth, the only things that stick out of that story as ridiculous (if you can believe that a kid can control a tiger -- but then that's the whole point of the introduction as him being a zookeeper's son), is finding another person stranded on a small boat and the island.
In some sense, you're supposed to have fun with this story. For instance, I went and checked if a large amount of bananas actually floated, which they do. Although one story might jump out as the realistic one, it all comes down to which true story you want to BELIEVE.
That is the message of this wonderful book.
That is very true Duane. Ultimately the main aim is to enjoy a story. It is just interesting to see how many people agree with whatever version you chose to believe.

I hope I didn't come off as too pushy with what I said. It's just I read the first few replies about disliking the vague ending and all, and I thought that was the whole point of the book.

I hope I didn't come off as too pushy with what I said. It's just I read the first few replies about disliking the vague ending and all, and I thought that was the ..."
You should have kept reading ;-)
Duane wrote: "That's true and understandable.
I hope I didn't come off as too pushy with what I said. It's just I read the first few replies about disliking the vague ending and all, and I thought that was the ..."
You did have a point ...
I hope I didn't come off as too pushy with what I said. It's just I read the first few replies about disliking the vague ending and all, and I thought that was the ..."
You did have a point ...



Wow. I never thought about that. Although personally I believe that Pi's second story reflects what really happened, I really love the way you interpreted the book's ending.



The interesting thing to me, then, is figuring out what we're supposed to take from this - the adventure and exotic nature of the first story versus the brutality and horrendous nature of the second. It says something about the power of fiction, the power of imagination... not sure where god comes in to it.



To answer the question of how he would have the presence of mind to recite all that, I'd say this was far more plausible than the movie The Usual Suspects (which I really liked, btw). Pi spent a lot of time alone in the middle of nowhere having to cope with a tragedy that I hope no one would ever have to survive. He also would have been experiencing physical delusions from the elements and from lack of food/water. He quite likely went through the whole story in his own mind over and over again--changing it every time to make it easier for himself--long before he was rescued.
I think the whole point of the novel is to illustrate the contortions of our minds while we attempt to cope with trauma.

I really enjoyed this book and did not question or hesitate in believing the story with the tiger until he met another person in the ocean. Then I knew something was up. But now that I know that it was all an illusion, and he ended up telling us what really happened, I do want to re-read the book and observe all the symbolism.
Great book.


Books mentioned in this topic
Life of Pi (other topics)1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die (other topics)
I think the true one is the second one that he told the reporters. It might have even been a more interesting story if they had skipped all the animal stuff and just told that one, but because they chose to tell the animal story instead I kind of wish they had never brought the second story into play at all. I'm being rather vague, but don't want to give too much away to those who haven't read it.