Life OF Pi

jackdaw

what an amazing read!!!! ???


SPOILER

which story do you think was the real one ?
and what did the Algae Island represent ?

TT&TO

great read alright; i agree. it was very funny when you think about the end. i don't know how to do spoilers but i think you know what i mean. i love the reaction of the listeners to the story. i am not giving anything away there. i hope.

jackdaw

FYI spoilers you just enclose the text with [ SPOILER ] and [ / SPOILER ]

without the spaces...

Illkillya

jackdaw wrote:

what an amazing read!!!! ???


SPOILER

which story do you think was the real one ?
and what did the Algae Island represent ?

Do I have to put this whole thing in spoilers? Will play it safe.

You are faced with two choices, you have no way whatsoever of knowing for sure which one is true. Choose the negative, horrible version or choose the amazing, hopeful version. This is the reason why the story makes you believe in God. A cynic will choose not to believe, even though he has no way of knowing which is true or not. The message is that it is better to believe the positive story, because it will improve your life and give you hope.

The Algae island represents the same thing - you have a choice, believe it or not. Do you have any reason not to believe it? Just because you have never seen it or heard about it, what makes you think it doesn't exist? There's probably more to the island part, but it's been a few years since I read the book.

jackdaw

IllKillya you raise a few good points ...

it is totally up to the reader

ZorbaTehZ

A great book. One funny quote in particular that always stuck with me

(Talking about the white light seen upon dying)
Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try to explain the warm light bathing him by saying, 'Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain,' and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.

Psychedelic

amazing book, definitely one of the best i've ever read

impr0v

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_v._Dudley_and_Stephens

ZorbaTehZ

impr0v wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_v._Dudley_and_Stephens

Worth noting that the name Richard Parker is actually taken from Edgar Allen Poe's novel, and that it is a coincidenc that he has the same name as the sailor from that particular case.

loumac

By Gregory David Roberts
True story but the guy has such a fantastical life you'd swear you were reading a fictitious novel. I believe the rights to the film were fought over like gold dust in Tinseltown and Johnny Depp will play lead.

Oops, just realised you were all banging on about Life of Pi!

besty

Very good read alright. Yann Martel actually did a signing in Dun Laoighre a few weeks back. There's a new illustrated version out.

kmick

I really liked the start but it faded badly for me in the last third. Sorry

Wilde

blah. loved the premise, just hated the execution.

dudara

Have to agree with the last two posters, it faded badly towards the end.

slinky

I agree with the last three posters! There's a lovely taut book in there, about half the size, that deserved to see light-I've yet to read a book that's underwritten...but then what do I know: it did win the booker:o However, it's still worth a read and anytime this book is mentioned I immediately get an image of the orangutan sentimental old chap that I am.

matrim

I'm about half way through this and really enjoying it

[-0-]

I thought this faded badly as well. It was a good book but certainly not a great book. I found myself wanting to get to the end of it more and more the further I read into it, and that's never a good sign for me.

I also thought there was too much at the start regarding animals and the zoo. I found that a bit boring.

Psychedelic

Seeing as the thread was bumped, for those who don't know, there's a film being released this month:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7WBfntqUoA

MagicMarker

[-0-] wrote: »

I thought this faded badly as well. It was a good book but certainly not a great book. I found myself wanting to get to the end of it more and more the further I read into it, and that's never a good sign for me.

I also thought there was too much at the start regarding animals and the zoo. I found that a bit boring.

I concur.

Decent book, looks like the movie could be better though, trailer looks great.

--Kaiser--

Halfway through the book at the moment. The beginning part of the book annoyed me when

he started talking about religion. This guy wants to be Hindu, Christian and Muslim? I'd find it hard enough to identify with someone who wanted to be part of one of these faiths, never mind be part of three, which clearly isn't possible according to the rules of each religion

gozunda

It is an amazing story - brilliantly written.

Tbh It's a story to sit back and enjoy and not get too caught up in metaphysics of the detail

Look forward to seeing the movie...:D

[-0-]

gozunda wrote: »

It is an amazing story - brilliantly written.

Tbh It's a story to sit back and enjoy and not get too caught up in metaphysics of the detail

Look forward to seeing the movie...:D

It has some wild claims - like one that will make you believe in God. Perhaps you need to switch your brain off to believe that. :pac:

gozunda

[Quote=[-0-];82124433]

It has some wild claims - like one that will make you believe in God. Perhaps you need to switch your brain off to believe that. :pac:[/Quote]


No it's simply a story....this one is well written imo, As with other fiction There is no agenda to have to believe that which is written. - just enjoy it for what it is...:D

Tom Joad

Loved the book and hope the film does the book justice..

--Kaiser--

[-0-] wrote: »

It has some wild claims - like one that will make you believe in God. Perhaps you need to switch your brain off to believe that. :pac:

Actually, having just finished it, I would say....

...to me it seems like it explains why people believe in gods (the fact that the main character subscribes to three faiths would make me think it is mocking religion). There are two stories told, one incredible but full of hope and redemption, the other believable but brutal and inhumane. Which one do you want to be true?

--Kaiser--

For what it’s worth, here’s my interpretation.

The second story is the true story, but it is such a harrowing one (watching his mother being murdered) he has invented an alternate story in his head. One with a tiger sharing the journey with him. Pi is an avowed vegan so invents a savage beast to share the boat with him. One he feeds. One who has killed the hyena (Pi can’t think of himself as a murderer). Once he provides for the beast he can begin the provide for himself. The tiger represents the primal side of man, he nurtures the tiger for as long as he can, but the exact moment that he lands the tiger disappears, never to be seen again. He no longer needs to eat meat to survive so no longer needs dear Richard Parker (he does say to him several times 'I couldn't have survived without you'). Early on in the book Pi expresses disgust that he once ate meat.

The island, this is trickier. This is obviously not real, meerkats living on an island of algae in the middle of the Pacific, algae that can nourish him but turns deadly at night, simply absurd (this more than anything proves the first story is fiction). Pi is approaching his lowest ebb when he reaches it and it provides him with solid ground, lush greenery, shelter, plentiful and easily caught food, companionship (sleeping with meerkats). Everything he yearns for basically. Then he discovers that it is a deadly island. Once he makes that realisation he leaves. Basically I think this is all a hallucination (he admits to day dreaming a lot), he realises that this will kill him so he awakes and then lands alive after relinquishing his fantasies.

Grievous

I thought the Meercats were stand-ins for Muslins looking out to MECCA?

"Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it" Andre Gide.

I think a few people are mis-reading the sections on the 3 Abrahamic religions:

You can read Life Of Pi as a comparative commentary on the big 3 monotheisms, not some sort of attempt at conversion or proselytism. I'm sure the writer is an Atheist himself and what better way to serve the character of the tale and his curious and imagnitive nature by pragmatically using each claim to truth as a coping mechanism for his current predicament.

raah!

The book does proselytise, and rather explicitly I thought. In particular near the end when he says things like "why not choose the better story". It's not an explanation of why people are religious, but of why they should be. Now I haven't read this book at least 4 years ago, but I'm pretty sure I also remember the author himself saying as much.

If you can read a book and come up with an interpretation which is the direct opposite to the meaning the author directly states the book has, and which requires forgetting huge tracts of it, then there is something deeply wrong with how you are approaching the text.

Here is a paragraph at the end:

'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: 'That's an interesting question?' Mr. Chiba: 'The story with animals.' Mr. Okamoto: 'Yes. The story with animals is the better story.' Pi Patel: 'Thank you. And so it goes with God.'

In comparing the religions he also explicitly states that he is takign the good parts from them all, and says that finding them incompatible doesn't make sense to him.

--Kaiser--

^^^^^^
The book also states that it will make you believe in god (a preposterous claim). I doubt this book has convinced one single atheist in the existence of god or gods. There are two stories, thesists will believe the first one, atheists the second.

Becky, the three religions because I wanted to discuss faith, not organized religion, so wanted to relativize organized religion by having Pi practice three. I would have like PI to be a Jew, too, to practice Judaism, but there are two religions that are explicitly incompatible: Christianity and Judaism. Where one begins, the other ends, according to Christians, and where one endures, the other strays, according to Jews.

A quote from Yann Martel, clearly he knows little about religion if he thinks they are the only two incompatible religions, they are all incompatible. In fact, religions are incompatible with each other almost by definition. The real reason, I think, is that he didn't want the character to be one religion and risk alienating other readers of other faiths. I don't think it's a coincidence that Pi subscribes to the three most popular religions in the world

Grievous

raah! wrote: »

The book does proselytise, and rather explicitly I thought. In particular near the end when he says things like "why not choose the better story".

In comparing the religions he also explicitly states that he is takign the good parts from them all, and says that finding them incompatible doesn't make sense to him.

1) The animal story is the less stressful story. The truth is too much for some people. Would you (Anyone) rather someone you loved who passes away go to a nice place in heaven, or confront the fact that they will go in a box and stay there.

2) This sounds like pragmatism to me. He's only focusing on the big 3 religions because picking less known ones wouldn't serve the story. I'm not sure.

There's also another angle in the story related to his mathemathically inclined name PI, but sadly I hated Maths in School so would have to research this angle further to shed some light on it.

I have to say, I read this novel 10 years ago and I knew it then that it was going to be huge. It's a well written novel and opens up many discussions.

Regina Filange

Loved this book when I read it but it's been a while, will have to revisit before I see the movie.