Open spoilers are fine for this thread.
I read this on the plane the other day, and I can’t say I liked it at all. A lot of other people liked it, so maybe I just missed the point. Can anyone help me out with these questions:
(1) I get that this is a symbolic/metaphorical/bullshit story, but what’s the deal with the island and the French guy? Neither of them seem to have any relation to what actually happened, and I can’t figure out where they fit in the story. Seemed to me like he was having a delusion inside of his made up story. That right?
(2) Was there anything important about the Orangutan (i.e. his mother) floating on a ton of bananas before getting on the lifeboat?
(3) What was funny about this book?
(4) How is this book supposed to make me believe in God?
I think the “voice” of Pi in his ‘fictional’ version of his story is quite funny. just a matter of taste, I suppose.
and I don’t think the book’s supposed to make you believe in God. Where’d you get that?
I enjoyed the heck out of this book and recommend it, and I usually like more traditional fiction. But I’m not very good at explaining myself, so I hope another fan will come in who is more clear.
I’ve heard the “will make you believe in God” claim as well. What’s ironic is that my favorite part of the book was before he ever got on the ship. It’s when he was in India and became simultaneously and secretly a Hindu, Christian, and Muslim and his three ministers all meet and begin arguing. It’s an interesting exchange, with the Hindu & Christian siding against the Muslim, then Muslim & Christian against the Hindu, Hindu & Muslim against the Christian, etc… I thought it did a great job at poking fun of the overzealously religious in all camps.
It’s been a while since I read the book, but I remember the part you refer to, Sampiro. If the book would make you believe in God, it sure wouldn’t make you believe in religion.
So, he joins 3 major religions, and then becomes the sole survivor of a trip across the ocean with a tiger. It’s a miracle! Believe in God!
Or…I just lost my family, which is a bummer, but I survived a trip across the ocean with a tiger! And I’m still a happy positive person! I go on to live a normal life. Believe in God!
Or…I just lost my family, including my mother who was murdered and cannibalised before my eyes. Maybe I had to stoop to cannibalism too. Believe in God?
This is a post-modernist book–check out that unreliable narrator–that wants to discuss “what is true.” Is it still a revelation that no fiction is entirely “true” even internally and that authors do not have to follow traditional narrative rules if they don’t feel like it?
I agree with Marley–even on a “meta” basis, it is coolest taken literally.
Doesn’t it say in the book that the book will make you believe in God? Mine might have an extra thing from the author, but I’m 99% certain the author explicitly says that the book is supposed to make you believe in God. I’ll check my copy when I get home from work.
Martel presents “Life of Pi” as a story he was told by somebody else, and it’s that somebody else - Mr. Adirubasamy, apparently - who makes the statement.
The “book” (a work of fiction) says that the (self-referential) “book”–or maybe it’s that “author” who may or may not be a “character” in his own “book” or another “character”–will make you believe in God. Get the story straight, for God’s sake! If you can’t believe what some character told a narrator an author has created, who can you believe?
My understanding is that he is saying that believing in God makes for the better story, just like the story with the animals is a better story than the other, truer story.
You take a look at the universe and say, well, either there is a god or there isn’t. I’m not going to change my behavior either way, but I do need to choose one version or the other to believe. I guess I’ll choose to believe in God, since that’s the more interesting version.
In the book, whether a sailor killed his mother or whether a tiger killed an orangutan, it does not really matter any more. At this point, years after the fact, the only difference is whether you want to believe a terrible and depressing story or a fascinating and wonderful one.
Personally, I’m agnostic, but I think this book presents just about the only compelling argument for any belief in a deity.
I almost agree with you, except for one key point (and I, of course, could be totally wrong myself, so please don’t take this as criticism).
The point I took was not that the “other story” was truer , but simply that it is so much easier to believe - and that that is one seriously great shame. He spends 200 pages telling us this wonderful story about the animals, and then spends 200 words changing the story to something gruesome; and yet it is somehow our natural reaction to hear the gruesome version and immediately assume that it is obviously the true version, even though there’s no proof for it and it doesn’t fit the facts any better than version #1.
Put another way, it’s much easier for us to believe a tale of a group of people committing atrocities than to believe a story about one kid doing something extraordinary. But then whichever story you choose to believe, it still ends with Pi having endured something truly incredible. And if you sit down and think about why you instinctively believe the worst possible scenario, then whether it ends with you believing in God or not, at least it got you to ponder the question. And maybe if you work on believing the better story about Pi, you’ll be more likely to believe the better story about the existence of God too.
Or not. I’m pretty agnostic myself, and thinking deep thoughts about this book just made me want to think better about people as a whole.
