KWBC: Life of Pi by Yann Martell - Discussion

[Orlion]

Yeah, he definitely had time to think/live through the tiger story. Not much else to do. Also, one could argue that what we read is the result of the interview decades later and is not from the interview tapes. Those probably just have the bare bones.

Ultimately, I think all of this would have worked better as an "art makes life more bareable" lesson than a "life sucks, so it's better to believe in fairies"... in fact, I would not be surprised if that is what Martell was going for to begin with and he just decided, "Naw, I'll make it about the existence of God instead!"

And apparently, Obama thought this was a compelling argument for the existence of God No one who loves this book seems to see Murrin's point:

It all kind of undermines its own point, of course, by emphasising that you're choosing to believe a comforting fiction.

[aliantha]

He was 16 in the story. And was at sea plenty long enough to invent the whole tiger narrative before anyone asked him about it.

Not the tiger narrative. What I meant was that he appeared to make up the version with the cook on the spot. And I was thinking that he was no more than 12 or 13 -- but I'll take your word for it.

And I get what you're saying now. You're saying he made up the tiger narrative to shield himself from the reality that he watched his mother die, and then killed her murderer. But that's just a psychological trick. How does that prove the existence of God?

I guess I missed the point of the book.

[I'm Murrin]

I thought both stories were meant to be ambiguous and not-quite-true when I first read it, but a little thought led me to conclude that Martel intended the last story to be the truth, and the end to be shocknig rather than surreal. I don't think he quite managed it.

And yeah, as evidenced in this thread, it took me a while to realise how the "make you believe in god" thing worked. See my post earlier on how it's about believing the "better story".

[aliantha]

"Story", indeed. If the story with the cook really is the truth, then you're right -- the book isn't an affirmation of God, it's an affirmation of "it's more comforting to believe the shinier story."

[Frostheart Grueburn]

"Story", indeed. If the story with the cook really is the truth, then you're right -- the book isn't an affirmation of God, it's an affirmation of "it's more comforting to believe the shinier story."

I seem to have missed some segments of the red thread as well--apparently this is it.

Ant-sized review as I'm off to bed in a trice and when I'm tired my English tends to mingle with Swedish and elsewise become clunky and grammar-less: listened to the audio version some weeks back, liked it as "light reading" in spite of the weak points. Not interested in seeing the movie, however. It's interesting that this book attempts so hard to be all deep and philosophical, yet SRD manages the same a tenfold better even with secondary characters.

[ussusimiel]

So I finally realised what the whole "makes you believe in God" thing is. The book is trying to tell you that you should believe in God because it's the better story. The main story with the tiger stands for a story of the world with God, and the ending story is for cold, hard reality.

That's a cool interpretation, Murrin, and I think it fits with what I've been stretching for.

It all kind of undermines its own point, of course, by emphasising that you're choosing to believe a comforting fiction.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. The point for me is that if the whole thing (i.e life) can only be represented as a story anyway, why not choose the more colourful and imaginative one? (There've been plenty of discussions on this point in the Close )

On a more general point, this book certainly does provide plenty of scope for discussion, however, as people have pointed out, that doesn't mean the book is great. I have a better understanding of the book from our discussion of it, but still don't really feel that much warmer towards it.

u.

[Avatar]

Personally, I think the cold hard reality is the better story. Because it's the true and unembellished one.

(And I don't mean in a metaphorical sense here...I mean in reference to the actual story. )

--A

[ussusimiel]

Personally, I think the cold hard reality is the better story. Because it's the true and unembellished one.

(And I don't mean in a metaphorical sense here...I mean in reference to the actual story. )

You know you mean both

(There've been plenty of discussions on this point in the Close )

But, let's leave it there


On topic: if the more factual story was told then the whole middle of the book would be different. We would have more of a 'literary' literary fiction book than a 'potboiler' and lots less people would have read it. The religious themes would have been much more difficult to highlight (they kinda need metaphor and symbol to give them their kick ). It would lose its fantasy element and so, we wouldn't be discussing it. (In a way this may actually highlight how much of social discourse is generated by this divide. If everyone was an existentialist would there be half as much to talk about?)

u.

P.S. Blake came into my mind when I was thinking of Richard Parker:

Tyger! Tyger! Burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

P.P.S Then I was prompted to associate Richard Parker with colonialism and the influence of that in the story

[aliantha]

Ah, colonialism -- yet another vein the author could've mined and didn't.

Frosty, I totally agree with you. SRD is deeper at his shallowest.

[deer of the dawn]

I read the book several years ago. You people pretty much summed up my feelings. If I wasn't already a God person, this book probably would not have done anything to change that. Great story though, and the ambiguity is the thing that made it memorable.