Life of Pi: Part Two
Blog Two
Please comment on the rest of the book by August 4th.
In your second blog, please comment on the following:
In his interview with the disbelieving shipping officials, Pi is forced to tell a more credible account. He asks the officials which story they prefer. “...since it makes no factual difference to you and you can’t prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?” Which story do you believe? Which story do you prefer?
Please comment on the rest of the book by August 4th.
In your second blog, please comment on the following:
In his interview with the disbelieving shipping officials, Pi is forced to tell a more credible account. He asks the officials which story they prefer. “...since it makes no factual difference to you and you can’t prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?” Which story do you believe? Which story do you prefer?
posted by Joeseph Deffner | 10:09 AM
27 Comments:
If I was interviewing Pi Patel I would have believe the first story he told me. Even if the story doesn’t match up with our scientific standards, it was his experienced. Not only can he tell us about what he tasted, touched, saw, and smelled on his time at sea, but we can read about it. We have the diary that he kept until the pens ran out.. The only thing he can change is his story, by slightly mixing up the words to create a fabrication for those who want something plain and simple, with no twists, turns or surprises. Although both stories he told have a connection with each other, this was only because he could not start from scratch, so he took what he knew and turned it into a more “believable” story. I believe in the original story he told with the up-most assurance that he is telling the truth.
I feel that in believing the first story that is also the story I prefer the first story. The first is much more interesting. The time he spend alone in a boat with an adult Bengal tiger, how he made it through grueling day after grueling day to get enough food and water for the both of them. His incredible experience when he goes blind and you can see him going insane when he begins to talk about food with Richard Parker. When he lands on the mysterious island that saved his life and could have been the eventual death of him. Every single detail about the first story is riveting compared to the second story, which we all have undoubtedly heard before. A ship lost at sea, and people killing for food. Sadness seems to be the emotion portrayed in the ladder story, while the first has all emotions.
So overall I believe that the first story he told was true, and I found it much more enjoyable.
The story of Pi Patel, told in the book "The Life of Pi" is an incredible story, one which I would very much like to be true. Of the stories told to the Japanese officials, it is the most interesting, with vivid details and a flawless storyline. It is definately a less believable story than the other which was presented, but I much prefer it over the other. But fact is a difficult thing to come by in a book such as this one. After finishing, I quickly looked in the first few pages trying to discover whether the book was listed as "fiction" or "non fiction". I sadly discover that It was indeed fiction, which starkly contrasts the author's note, which claims he interviewed Pi himself for the book. So, with the conflicting evidence as it stands, I can't say one way or the other if I believe this story or not. But it sure is a good story!
First of all I thought this book was great and showed us a great deal about religion and survival. I would say that without reading this story, if someone came up to me and told me a story of how they survived on a small life boat with a 450 pound Bengal tiger, I would not have believed them. Whereas if the same person came and told me a story of how they survived with a 150-200 pound cannibal man on a life boat I would be more likely to believe them. It would be much easier to control a medium sized man, than a large Bengal tiger, which would be double to triple the size of yourself, and has sharp teeth. Even though I believe the second story more, I prefered Pi's real story. What he had to go through to make sure that him and the tiger would survive is tremendous. All of the details in his story are what make it seem so real and yet the details also make it seem hard to believe. I think that's why I like it so much, because you have to let go of what you might think is possible and just believe in Pi.
There is no doubt in my mind that being adrift at sea for 277 days would damage one’s psyche, yet from what we are told, Pi remains unscathed. His original story, although rich in detail and content, is unbelievable. After being at sea for so long with the cook, I believe he wrote the narrative that is his journal. Imagining himself as the tiger, and the cook as the hyena could have been an emotional release for him, not to mention a simple way to pass time. I feel that the ordeal’s effect on him was that he had eventually convinced himself that he was really the tiger and that the animals were all real.
Another reason that I believe Pi’s second story is that it seems hard to believe that Pi could make the second story up on the spot, twisting the first story to incorporate humans. It seems more plausible that the story with the humans is real because it would have been an incredible feat of improvisation for him to spin the story just to please the shipping officials. While Caitlin Dennis-DeVries makes a valid argument that Pi’s second story lacks emotion, we do not know how much emotion the first story actually had. This is because we did not get to read it. We experienced Yann Martel’s novel as story number one, not the official transcript that is story number two.
That being said, I prefer Pi’s story that incorporates the animals over what I believe to be true. I can attribute this to two factors, the first being that as readers, we got to read and experience the first story along with Pi. I felt what he felt- from when he first tasted the salt-free water from one of the solar stills, to when he believed that he was blind. The second factor that makes me prefer the animal-filled story is my belief that it is human nature to want to accept and read about the paranormal. We actively want to read about topics that we don’t see on a day-to-day basis. The creditability does not affect my ability to like his first story better, because as Pi says, “If you stumble at mere believability, what are you living for? Isn’t love hard to believe” (Martel 297)?
After reading Pi's account of his adventures on the open sea, occasionally wondering myself whether his autobiography was actually true, I could fully understand the shipping officials' doubts. Pi is obviously a very clever boy, as in response to the prying officials' challenges he quickly relates a shorter, much more believable story. However, on closer inspection, the stories are really the same, with some elements of the first carefully disguised in the second, although they are still clearly there. While reading, I actually stopped and thought for quite a while about which of the stories I actually preferred. I had to realize that the stories were essentially the same, the question therefore being which one was actually truth and which was fantasy.
The version of the story "with animals," the one which composed most of the book was much more interesting, since the escapades were just far-fetched enough to be captivating but not completely unbelievable. For this reason, I preferred the first story. However, the second story may be much more appealing to some people. For some, such as the shipping officials, the first story is simply too outrageous to be true, so they seek a simpler, more realistic explanation for what happened.
I believe this parallels the doubts involved with the previous debate about religion. When one doubts-for any reason-the existence of a god, he tries to explain the happenings of the world without any form of higher power. In the same way, when one doubts the truth or accuracy of extremely rare occurrences, he may try to explains them away as mistakes or exaggerations. This is of course much easier to do when the subject involved had the opportunity or motive to twist the truth.
Whichever story is actually true, they both stimulate the mind by providing tricky questions to which there may be no right or wrong answer. One must simply decide for himself what to believe.
It is difficult to say which of Pi's stories I believe. As I read the first story there was not a moment in which I doubted the creditability of the story. As unrealistic as it is, I simply went along with it. Then all of a sudden the second story was quickly thrown at me at the end of the book, and it's not that I find a story about a murderous cannibal more believable than a story about a sixteen year old boy and a bengal tiger, it's simply that the second story is the one that is fresh in my mind. The two stories have undeniable parallels, and so, to me, they seem to be the same story, told in different forms of course, but none the less the same. These similarities makes it difficult for me to choose a more believable story. I believe both stories, I feel that aspects of each story are true. Perhaps what really happened was a combination of the two, a more brutal form of the bengal tiger story or a gentler form of the second version.
Despite my difficulty deciding which story to believe there is not a doubt in my mind as to which story I prefer. I would rather re-read the first story numerous times than read the second story once. The beauty, companionship, knowlege, and detail that go into the first story make it my obvious preference. The brutal and gruesome version about the cannibalism repulses me and in many ways I wish that it had not been included in the book. Though it definatly puts an interesting spin on the story, it is very disturbing to read.
I would have believed the first story Pi told. The second story he told I found far less believable. I do not believe that humans could bring themselves to do the terrible things that he told in the second story. I do not believe that some one would cut someone's leg off for bait, or eat human flesh when there was still good food around. I do not think that someone would eat flies and eat people unless they were starving and close to death. When people resort to cannibalism it is usually only because they think the only other option was death. I do think that the first story was more believable. It had questionable parts, but overall I thought that it was more believable. I liked the first story much more as well. The first was more interesting and likeable. The second was far too gory and horrible.
The story I believe and prefer is the story with the animals. I believe the story with the animals because I don't see any reason for Pi to lie about his experience. Another reason why I believe the story with the animals is because in the story without the animals, the sailor dies, the cook kills Pi's mother, and then Pi kills the cook. That means Pi would have been alone for a very long time on the lifeboat and I don't think he would have survived if he was alone. Richard Parker helped Pi survive because he kept him occupied. It is however understandable that the shipping officials would not believe Pi because living and surviving with a 450 pound Bengal tiger and coming upon a carnivorous island does sound a bit outlandish.
I definitely preferred the story with the animals. The story without the animals was awful to read. With the animals, it was okay for the hyena and the tiger to eat the other animals because that's what they do in the wild. I really did not like the imagery of the cook killing and eating Pi's mother. It was extremely disturbing.
Overall, I really liked the book. The story of Pi Patel is incredible because of his faith and will to live. The story definitely made me grateful of my family and I don't think I will be traveling by ocean liner anytime soon.
This is my second time reading Life of Pi and I remember the first time, I really did not like the ending of the book. Reading it for a second time I think I appreciate it more. As for which ending I like better (the one with animals or with humans) I would definetely have to say the animal one. This is probablly because the story was told in much greater detail. It was like I was actually journeying along side Pi, witnessing his every move, training progress with Richard Parker, living on the algae Island, his encounter with the "blind" man who tried to kill him, days where he would starve, and some days where he would catch a turtle... etc. It drew me in so much that I didn't even think to doubt it. I just really didn't like Pi's alternate story. Animals killing each other is a natural thing, but for humans, it's not. As for being in such close quarters with a Tiger for so long... yes it's quite hard to believe, but for me it seemed more acceptable then a crazy, murdurous cook.
I was angry that the two men interviewing Pi thought nothing of Pi's story. It was too extreme. Too unbelievable. They needed a more realistic version to please the public. But then I read the very last sentence of the book: "Very few castaways can claim to have survived so long at sea as Mr. Patel, and none in the company of an adult Bengal Tiger"
(319). There in one sentence out of an entire news report, they released what they finally believed was true, or at least what they wanted to believe.
Of the two accounts Pi explains to the officials, I believe the first one yet prefer the second. The sole reason that I believe the first story is because I know from the book that it is the truth. It is as believable as a Disney fairy tale, and I am rarely inclined to trust in these types of stories. I prefer the second account because it makes more sense. There are more facts, and more instances that I can imagine happening. To me the first story is exactly that; a story, while the second story is more of an account.
I think that Pi’s question to the officials is downright ludicrous. He is obviously hinting at religion, and it is another link to what Mr. Adirubasamy says about this book leading us all to believe in God. He is right when he says that “it makes no factual difference” and “you can’t prove the question anyway” however I’d like to rebound with the phrase of “I’ll believe it when I see it.” It seems to me as if Pi is finding other words to say that no one has proof that God isn’t real. We also have no proof that aliens aren’t invisibly living among us dictating our every move. Simply put, it should be the other way around. Looking for proof is leaps and bounds better than looking for “not proof.” I find Pi to be the type of person who leaves conversations on a well thought out inspirational line and a wink, leaving the other person dazed and starry-eyed while he walks off knowing he just gave a show of fiction.
Between human-tiger cohabitation, and french cannibalism, my ability to believe is being exercised. I want to belive that Pi Patel survived 227 days on a lifeboat with a bengal tiger named Richard Parker. The facts that are presented to us throughout the story, support both of Pi's versions of the events. Choosing one to believe is a task of deciding whether you are willing to believe the first version. But all along until chapter 99, we believe the story, given this alternative everything changes.
I believe the second story, Not allowing my self to be fanciful, and thinking logically. I believe that Pi created an alternate reality and survived through fantasy. He changed people into animals because everybody's behavior on the lifeboat was animalistic, doing so made things bearable for him. He imagined himself in control of the situation, but in fact was not. Not to mention, I wouldn't want to admit I killed a man.
Pi told the same story twice, he just switched the species of the characters. The story I read for 90 chapters was fantastic and evocative but if I were to choose one to "believe" it would be story number 2.
Pi Patel is easily the most fascinating characters I have followed through a novel. I loved the whole story and the way it made me think
Upon reaching the end of Pi's story, I found it difficult to choose which of the two tales I believed more. Throughout the entire novel, I never at any point questioned the story that portrayed the characters as animals, no matter how unrealistic it was. The story that showed the characters as people, though it is more plausible, in my opinion is still incredibly unrealistic. The odds of a young boy surviving 227 days alone at sea, whether accompanied by a tiger, or with actual human beings are slim to none.
Throughout the course of the book, I never once pondered the idea of Richard Parker as an actual human being. Suddenly, at the end, another tale was thrown at me, causing me to question all of my previously concealed notions regarding Pi and his entire story of survival. After reading through the second story, I found myself blurting out, "Wait, what?" and having to go back to read through it again. Up until that point, there was no doubt in my mind that Pi Patel, a 16-year old Indian boy, had miraculously survived 227 days at sea accompanied by a 450-lb Bengal tiger; However, now, I am forced to choose which of the two stories to believe. This just isn't possible. There are areas of both stories that seem fictional, yet on the other hand, there are things that occurred that seem 100% plausible. Aside from my inability to choose which of the two stories I believe, there is no doubt regarding which of the two I prefer. I found the simple, yet intricately detailed plot of the first story to be much more enjoyable than the gruesome brutality of the second. Although the second tale deffinately added an interesting twist to the story, I don't think that it was any more believable than the first.
It is certain that the novel that is written about Pi Patel holds a copious amount of stories; however, the two stories that Pi tells the officials are hard to believe. Disregarding either, the fact that Pi survived living at sea for over 200 days is incredible. Also since the Tsimtsum was carrying zoo animals in its cargo it seems much more conceivable that Pi shared the boat with animals, instead of a cannibalistic crew member. This idea of a man eater seems much more far fetched.
Not only is the animal story better it is more interesting. Though both stories are a little hard to believe, Pi's story about being able to defend himself from a tiger and survive the elements of the ocean are truly remarkable. Besides this being a better story I also prefer it. Having the ability to train and live with a tiger under such circumstances is impressive. In addition, the other story is gruesome and also hard to imagine considering the love Pi had for his family. Having the cannibalistic man kill and eat his mother seems unreasonable because of the strong family bond the Patels shared. This bond with his family and god is something that helped him survive, therefore the second story shows a weakness in him that does not seem very prevalent through most of his journey.
While I do think that the first story is an imaginative, interesting, and magnificent story, it is totally unbelievable. Pi created the story to use it as a coping mechanism for the trials he endured while aboard the lifeboat. After living through that ordeal and witnessing the disturbing deaths of his mother and the sailor, as well as cannibalizing the cook, he needed to hide those complex feelings and experiences behind an elaborate story.
“So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can’t prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?’ … Mr. Okamoto: ‘Yes. The story with the animals is the better story.’ Pi: ‘Thank you. And so it goes with God.’… Mr. Chiba: ‘Oh look—he’s crying" (Martel 317).
This dialog reveals that Pi, by having his epic story about his experience on board a lifeboat with a Bengal Tiger, believes that he has made peace with god. The horrible acts that occurred aboard the boat with the cook never happened, the sailor was never butchered, and he never witnessed the death of his mother. It was all a bunch of animals. In creating the story involving Richard Parker, Pi has found a way to live with what actually occurred aboard that forsaken lifeboat.
The first story, though unbelievable, is an entertaining read. I find the second very dark and depressing when contrasted to the first, yet it is the more believable of the two.
I believe in the first story more than the second one and I prefer the first one as well. I think the first story is closer to the truth because, like others, I find the second story just as fanciful as the first. Besides, why would Pi lie about his experience to those shipping officials? It's not like he was trying to get rich off of a good story considering he was recovering in a hospital bed or like he would get in trouble for anything that happened in the second story.
I mostly agree with Katie. I never really doubted Pi while reading the book and I do think that it is more likely that what really happened during Pi's time at sea was a combination of the two stories in question. I find the carnivorous island to be the hardest thing to believe but does one story have to be the complete truth and the other one a complete lie?
I think that there is just as much proof if not more that supports the first story rather than the second. For example, how do you explain the bones of the meerkats? Also it seems to me that it is more likely that Pi made up his second story on the spot just to appease the officials who were pestering him than to make that first one up in the beginning just to ease his mind. Pi belongs to three religions that to not approve of lying. After Pi asks the officials which story they prefer and they say the one with the animals Pi says, "'Thank you. And so it goes with God'" (Martel 317). Then he cries. I truly do not believe that such a religious boy would lie to such a pointless extent.
I prefer the first story because it was displayed in a book full of details rather than a few pages of Pi's recorded conversation. I feel the second one was disgusting but could have been just as interesting if given the right attention.
I don't think people should be so quick to reject supernatural or extraordinary things because humans discover new things about our lives and our planet everyday. You and I were not on that lifeboat so we should just accept that we don't know which story is true. I believe more in the first one because I think more proof supports it, but who am I to say? My beliefs might be a little harder to grasp but if Pi practices Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam than I can believe in the coexistence of a boy and a tiger in a lifeboat for 227 days.
If I were to choose which story was more enjoyable, I would pick the first. Who wants to hear about sick cannibals and sixteen-year-old murderers? As to which story is true is a completely different matter. I think that the first story was a figment of Pi's imagination and that the second was fact. I think that in most stressful and strange conditions, the human body will find ways to deal and relate to what is happening.
Pi had grown up in a zoo in India, he knew many of the resident animals by name and they were a perfectly natural surrounding. Cannibals, death, solitude and murder, on the other hand, wouldn't be. I believe that in his mind he took each of the horrible experiences from the lifeboat and put them into boxes in his mind and filtered them into ways that he could relate to, and, from there, invented his own story of how he survived the 227 days at sea. I also think that the largest reason for him to believe that he is in a life boat with a tiger is because he is lonely. For a boy who has grown up in India, the second most populous country on Earth, solitude would be a very strange and unknown feeling. A tiger might be dangerous, but at least Pi knows it is dangerous. Solitude is something unknown and, consequently, something to be avoided.
I enjoyed Pi's first story more than the second by leaps and bounds, yet I could also understand why his mind would be playing tricks on him under such circumstances. I believe that these are the reasons for his blocking out of the true events.
The first story is very entertaining and would seem to be a miracle that is possible under the circumstances of Pi Patel’s life; although, there are many areas that seem very impossible such as the meerkats on the island. I found that the whole first story was very attracting and an easy choice since I just read it. The second story which had people gave me the first impression as him just changing the names to explain the same story to make it seem believable. He did that because he was asked to. Once the officers became tired of the animals they asked for the story straight up. Pi responded “I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently. You want a flat story. An immobile story. You want dry, yeastless factuality” (Martell 302). This made me feel that the first story was more of a truth and the second was not true.
The second story would seem too different and is harder to comprehend. The second story is just as Pi describes it, flat. On the other hand it might seem more factual because of what people believe to be true. Pi living aboard a ship with others is much more believable, but there are too many differences between the stories. I had the first one set in my mind when suddenly this other story was presented to me. I was so sure the first story could be true that the second wouldn’t seem plausible. Overall I think that both stories are unbelievable, especially since Pi spent 227 days at sea on a lifeboat so he could easily be insane. To me this whole book is just icing on a cake that is not there. Basically, I did not believe the stories in the book.
In terms of which story I believe to be true, it should be stated that both stories are entirely believable. However, the first story, (the one with the animals), seems to be more believable than the first. This is because, for one, the first story is far longer and more detailed. It seems improbable that after suffering a trauma of 227 days at sea, one would, when telling the story, (which might already be mentally painful), make up such a detailed and in-depth story. However, the second story could indeed be true because it is far shorter, as well as more emotionally painful for Pi, and thus, not wanting to re-live the situation, created a second story involving animals. Although, in the second story, there are discrepancies, such as when the very weakened Pi is able to kill the far stronger cook, that seem to point to the story being a false one. In addition, the way the book presents the second story, it seems that Pi made up the story so as to appease Mr. Okamoto and Mr. Chiba.
As for which story I prefer, I much prefer the first story. From Pi surviving, taming, and training an adult Bengal tiger, to his ingenious raft building and acquired survival skills, to his encounter with a floating, carnivorous island, the first story is far more interesting and appealing. The second story on the other hand, is a bland, boring, and short story about what happens when the self-preservation instinct of humans kicks in.
Of the two stories Pi Patel told, I’m not sure I can make a decision on which to believe. I defiantly prefer the first story with the animals, with such intriguing in-depth details that make you want to continue reading. As opposed to the cannibalistic second story, that is a simple, grotesque recording of the conversation, which makes you not want to persist.
At first I wanted to lean towards the second story more to accept as the truth. As Stacy had said, with all the details mentioned it becomes an even harder choice of which to believe. I think that it’s very possible that while on his 227 day ordeal, he may have tried to come up with an alternate reality to help him through the days. So, if the cannibalistic story was what really happened, he may have tried to comfort himself by changing the people into animals. But at the same time, I feel that a boy with such strong religious values wouldn’t lie. Seeing is how there is no reason for Pi to go to such extremes to change his story around.
Looking back and forth through each story, both are the same; just with different characters. I have to say that I believe that with-in the first, along with the second story is the truth. Maybe there was a mix of both people and animals that had been on the boat along with Pi. The Life of Pi leaves many possibilities open to imagination.
When confronted with the questions posed by this prompt, I have two choices: I can say that I believe neither of Pi’s stories, or I can say that I believe both. Either way, I would be telling the truth. I have read over a thousand books by over a thousand authors, and I have always found myself believing in the most improbable of plots and the most impossible of situations. Here, however, I have encountered a tale that is not set in a fantastical world, but in the one I call my home. It is a tale that does not involve magical creatures, but animals that I would have been able to name in elementary school. Who am I to decide whether all that Pi says is untrue? I cannot logically say that a 227-day journey across the Pacific in a lifeboat is impossible, but every part of me wants to take this book for what it is: a novel, a fictional work of literature. Therefore, I believe that neither of the stories Pi tells is truth as we know it, but I believe that both stories represent truth to Pi.
When Pi’s ordeal truly begins, he finds himself alone in a lifeboat with two basically harmless herbivores, and two of the animal kingdom’s most fearsome carnivores. Three of these animals are dead almost immediately, and yet Pi manages to survive despite the presence of a full-grown Royal Bengal tiger, which also happens to be fresh out of food. As the two continue their journey, all of Pi’s efforts to survive seem perfectly reasonable, as he catches fish, turtles and sharks for food, and uses solar stills to collect fresh water. Clearly, before writing this novel, Yann Martel did his research. Even Pi’s probable course across the Pacific Ocean is plausible, if his lifeboat was caught in the Equatorial Counter current. Wind and water would have carried him almost directly from the Philippines to Mexico’s western coast. But no matter how possible the story seems, the fact remains that Yann Martel wrote a novel, not a biography. Both stories are wonderful, horrifying and inspirational, but neither one can be taken for truth.
However, if we look at Pi’s tales within the context of his life as a character, it is clear the both versions are as true as they can be. For Pi, it seems, truth is whatever you want it to be. He asks the shipping officials which story they prefer, not which one they believe, because it is clear to him that they will choose the story they see as true, and that is good enough for him. Like Yann Martel, I do not think that Pi expects belief from everyone who encounters his tale, he simply hopes that you will find something to take away from it.
As for which of the stories I prefer, I must say I prefer the first story, complete with animals, a homicidal Frenchman and a carnivorous island. I have always been a fan of fantasy novels, and the first story is easier to view as a fantasy. It takes the believable premise of a boy lost at sea and makes it unbelievable, and therefore fantastical. But if you put aside the aspects of the story that are difficult to believe, you find the inspiring story of a boy who had lost his entire family, and yet, somehow, found a reason to go on living. It is a story that demonstrates the power of one small boy’s belief in himself and in God, a belief which allows him to stay alive long after most would have given up hope.
Although both of Pi's stories are somewhat absurd, I believe that the initial account of his journey is correct. The only reason for creating the latter story was because of the two Japonese and their lack of imagination. Pi told his original narritive flawlessly, documenting the majority, if not all, of what happened during his experience at sea. His second, more believable story was only an abridged version of the first; it was mainly a detailed description of how the castaways died that substituted the animals for humans.
Pi's first story is also the more entertaining and captivating of the two. His second tale is more blurry, leaving out important aspects and events such as the entire episode of the cannibalistic island. The small details and descriptions illustrated only in the original version allowed me to really imagine what was occuring every moment. The original story intricately plays with Pi's emotions and mentality, quickly turning doubt into hope, joy into misery, hate into love. It also shows how Pi adapts mentally to certain situations, for example his opinion on killing animals; Pi changes from being a peaceful animal lover to becoming an experienced butcher. The second tale shows none of this.
Altough neither story is easier to believe than the other in terms of factuality, the original was definitely more enjoyable to read.
The two stories of Pi are both very and interesting. Whether realistic or not, I enjoyed the first story with him and the animals a lot while I though of the second story as an interesting take on the same events. I liked how in the second story he told the shipping officials he used the viewpoint of Richard Parker instead of himself. It was also interesting to see what people he replaced the animals with. It is unfortunate that it was not nearly as long as the first because I believe the author could have done a lot with it, and it would be interested to see how he explained the carnivorous island and how two humans dealt with it. Even if he did write the story completely from that view I think I still would have preferred the one with the animals. The first story is just much more interesting because it is so much different than most tales of being lost at sea. I’m sure almost everyone has heard several stories of people against the elements at sea, but how many stories like that included a huge feline that wants to eat the people?
In the final pages of the book two Japanese men who are trying to figure out the reason the Tsimtsum sank interrogate Pi. Pi retells his incredible story to the displeasure of the men who find it completely unbelievable. They ask him to tell the “real” story with no animals. He obliges and replaces the animals’ characters with human ones. But, what difference does it really make. None, which is exactly the point Pi makes when he asks the two men which story they liked better. I believe the story with Richard Parker because to Pi this is the true story. As Pi says there is no reason it shouldn’t be the “true” story. The same goes for which religion is the “correct” religion for Pi to follow. What it really comes down to is what a person believes. Who is to say that Jesus is the true leader rather than Allah or Vishnu, it is what we make them.
In the final pages of the book two Japanese men who are trying to figure out the reason the Tsimtsum sank interrogate Pi. Pi retells his incredible story to the displeasure of the men who find it completely unbelievable. They ask him to tell the “real” story with no animals. He obliges and replaces the animals’ characters with human ones. But, what difference does it really make. None, which is exactly the point Pi makes when he asks the two men which story they liked better. I believe the story with Richard Parker because to Pi this is the true story. As Pi says there is no reason it shouldn’t be the “true” story. The same goes for which religion is the “correct” religion for Pi to follow. What it really comes down to is what a person believes. Who is to say that Jesus is the true leader rather than Allah or Vishnu, it is what we make them.
It is easy for me to say that I much preferred the original story, algae and all, to the second one which Pi told the Japanese officials. Not only did this story have a sense of hope and companionship that the animal-free telling distinctly lacks, but it also tells of Pi’s adventure with a level of detail that the quick second story cannot give. The second story is all facts, only covering the most important events, and not providing any insight into Pi’s emotional state during the journey. In contrast the original story, although sometimes skipping over long periods of time, makes you feel a part of many of the smallest details of Pi’s time on the boat. Whether “gathering” turtles or simply going over his daily routine, you have a constant window into Pi’s mind.
I find the question of which story is true to be much more difficult to answer. Although Caitlin makes a very good point that much of Pi’s time on the boat was chronicled in his diary, Jenna may very well be right that he wrote the story while on the boat as an outlet for the emotional trauma he was certainly dealing with. I do not think the detail of the second story discounts the first from being true. If the animal story is indeed true, Pi was very smart to tell a vivid and gruesome alternate story. If he had told a boring account with no elements that were hard to believe, the officials would have been satisfied with it, and their meeting would have concluded. By telling the story he did, he left some doubt in the officials mind as to which story was the true one.
In the end, I find myself in the position of the Japanese officials. Like them, it makes no difference to me which story was true, and I have no way to prove that either was. Therefore, I must choose to believe the original story, because as Pi warns, if I “stay beholden to dry, yeastless factuality”, I may, like the agnostic on his death bed, “lack imagination and miss the better story” (Martel 64).
I prefer the story with the animals but I don’t think that anyone could read the book and say they preferred the eight page story in which Pi mother is murdered and then ferociously consumed. The story with the animals is better because it full of rich details and emotions. The story with the people seems pieced together haphazardly to be like the story with the animals. I can’t however say that either story is believable.
For example the floating island that Pi discovered to be carnivorous. This seems to be metaphorical to the fact that you would die of loneliness living on a island alone away from society and other people. In this way the island would kill Pi and he would need to leave to survive. Or maybe it is Pi altered state of mind from his journey, but either way it is not believable.
While reading "Life of Pi" I thought the book was non-fiction and I didn't even wonder if this storywas made up at all. At the end when I found out the book was fiction i was very upset. many of the things that happend in the first story are so incredible that looking back it's hard to see why I thought it was real, nut the truth is i wanted it to be real. As a kid i always hoped that Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings was real and i would be thrown in to some wonderful adventure. Being the lover of great stories that i am and wishing they were real i much prefer the amazing and wonderful first story to the bland and harsh ssecond story.
Post a Comment
<< Home