KWBC: Life of Pi by Yann Martell - Discussion

[I'm Murrin]

It's time to talk about the book we read in March, Yann Martel's Life of Pi.

What did you think?

[ussusimiel]

As I've said elsewhere, I don't usually read 'literary fiction' and I think the reason is often because the story is slow to get going. In fantasy or sci-fi the story generally kicks off quickly. (Another feature of literary fiction (that I've noticed) is that the characters have to be a bit quirky or strange. My problem with this is that quirkiness quickly becomes generic.)

So, I became bored with the start of this story. It immediately reminded me of similar books that I have read (Arundhati Roy comes to mind). Because I knew the outline of the story I skipped to the end and basically read it from the back to the front (there's still some of it in the middle that I haven't finished yet).

I'm not really sure what I make of it. There's whiff of metafiction off it (as the writer seem to have a biography similar to Martel's). There's a melange of spiritual material in there. There's a whole adventure story. There's a strong dash of fantasy as well, especially where the floating island is concerned (the notion of an island with a single species (meercats) was really odd).

I found the name of the tiger, Richard Parker, created a persistent cognitive dissonance. For a creature that was consistently (for me) non-anthropomorphic to have such a distinctively whole name made me constantly want to know who Richard Parker was.

I found the turn at the end good and felt that it made the story much more interesting. Pi's persistent wondering about why he bothered to hang on to life came much more into focus, as if they were speculations that were totally irrelevant to the animal part of himself.

Probably the best thing I got from it is the contrast between the powerful religious beliefs of the central character and the strong suggestion that he survived the disaster because he ate the rest of the survivors. The connection that I made is that in Pi the will to live (the attachment to life) is an extension of religious feeling. This is not something that I have come across before and I find it interesting.

u.

[Orlion]

Well, guess I'll have to read it, then:lol:

I've kinda started it, so I'll give initial impressions: reminded me of that Paulo Cohello book The Alchemist. What, with the whole "this story will convince you that there is a God" gimmick. It's very easy to see, by the tone, why this book became a bestseller. There's a market for readers that want to believe positive things and have them "proven". (in Cohello's book, it was that the universe works to make your dreams come true)

So all ready, I'm filing this under 'bubblegum' which leads me to the first of u's points:

As I've said elsewhere, I don't usually read 'literary fiction' and I think the reason is often because the story is slow to get going. In fantasy or sci-fi the story generally kicks off quickly. (Another feature of literary fiction (that I've noticed) is that the characters have to be a bit quirky or strange. My problem with this is that quirkiness quickly becomes generic.)

There's "literary fiction" and then there is literary fiction. In my opining, a work of fiction can not be literary until it has aged... passed the test of time, as it were. Life of Pi, whatever my opinion of it turns out to be, is simply too new to be considered literary. It may be culturally significant at this time, but that could change in the next twenty years.

As far as 'quirky' characters go, that seems to be the result of popular American media. That seems to be the phase the US is in right now... to the point where it is becoming generic and boring and repetitive, etc. It's a means to grab attention, maybe actually make some bucks by appealing to an audience that would normally not read your works (Faulkner would call it a 'potboiler').

And that is where we get to another similarity between Cohello and Martell. They both got a huge bestseller based on a 'positive' book that catered to a larger audience and the rest of their books are ignored once that general audience finds out what they normally write is...not to their taste.

[I'm Murrin]

usussimiel: I found the early parts of the novel interesting, but was never particularly gripped by them. But then once I hit the ocean, I found it hard to put the book down. The best parts of the book, in my opinion, would be the first few days at sea after the ship sinks.

That first section of the story is there to make the main part plausible. All of the things about the zoo, animal behavior and psychology, is all there to make you more likely to accept the part of the story that matters - which, I guess, could be why it's not as engaging.

Orlion: The "this story will make you believe in God" bit is something I don't think ever pans out. It's referenced again near the end, I think, but I don't actually see where that comes into it. It doesn't make any effort to present such an argument.


Speaking of the ending, I think the key thing there is what he says when he asks the Japanese men to choose which story they prefer. "And so it goes with God." This is the key point of the ending, shown through Pi's own religious belief - that it doesn't matter what the truth is of what happened to Pi Patel at sea. What matters is that he was put through an impossible experience, and survived it. The details aren't relevant to who he is, once he puts that experience behind him. As far as he is concerned, it is between him and God.

On a critical level, I found the second story, of the Frenchman, harder to believe than the first. Something about the way it was told seemed caricaturish, and off. And I don't know if Martel intended it to seem that way, or if he intended it as blunt, brutal truth. I suspect the ending works despite the author, not because of him, because the unreality of that last retelling provides an ambiguity that makes the story even stronger than it would be if it had just been a blunt "shocker" ending.

[Avatar]

Keeping in mind its been several years since I read it, I remember not liking it much at all.

I think I preferred the "second" story to the first, and the ambiguity wasn't intriguing so much as annoying. Nor was it all that ambiguous by the end. I would have been more interested if the book had just been about what happened, and not what "could" have happened. Or how he justified what happened through his imagination.

--A

[danlo]

I finished this a couple of weeks before the discussion and didn't know when, if ever it was going to start. Can't say much more than what's already been said--ussusimiel's a hard act to follow--I've quoted Roy but never read her...I liked the cultural and mixed spiritual journeys (now spoiled for me after the astounding rape statistics from India: in real life). The island thing was a little too weird...I didn't like the questions the Japanese guys were asking, didn't really think they were the right ones...but, for what they were actually entrusted to investigate they really didn't have to ask most of them anyway. I can now survive much better alone in a fully equipped large lifeboat now and appreciated a movie I watched the other day, Monsoon Wedding, probably a bit more had I not read LoP...

[Orlion]

Whelp, finished Part 1. Seeing more of what u had to say about this.

Ultimately, the writing seems a bit clunky. Martell has a message, and by golly, it's an insightful message! And he's witty! And isn't he clever, belittling agnostics but being all right (if saddened) by atheists?

It's mostly stereotypical views on these beliefs that are presented... perhaps some slightly accurate, others mere popular (if benign) perspective. The sad thing about this is that it detracts from the ethos of his passages on animals and zoo management. Those seemed to be genuinely researched and authentic, but I can not be sure Martell is not pulling a fast one and taking the lazy, easy way out like he is with the religious background.

Also, his metaphors are odd.

That said, it is quick reading thus far, and that was all set up, it's time for the actual story. See how this goes.

[I'm Murrin]

I guess I just read things differently, because I saw the opinions on atheists and agnostic as belonging to the character, not necessarily the author. And yeah, it bothered me. The suggestion that an atheist really has faith and will inevitably repent on the deathbed? Bah.

danlo - Discussion always begins on the last Monday of the month, at the same time the poll for the following month ends. The dates are usually noted in the poll thread. Discussion is held to the end of the month to give everyone time to read the book.

[danlo]

really? guess I never read the rules. Orlion you're right, of course,...the guy wasn't that old though...anyway i thought the challenge was how he blended and compared the religions I read all that for entertainment not enlightenment or theological debate...Murrin sorry I can't be on the board all that much--I do enjoy the book club, but seem to be reading things much earlier---right now I'm half way through Eye of the Pyramid (which makes Avatar's title weirder than EVER so I get REALLY eager for the discussion to begin--rules or no... (No rules! all hail Discordia!)

[ussusimiel]

That first section of the story is there to make the main part plausible. All of the things about the zoo, animal behavior and psychology, is all there to make you more likely to accept the part of the story that matters - which, I guess, could be why it's not as engaging.

I've been thinking about this and it occurred to me that when this technique is used in literary fiction (and it's used a lot) I often feel that I am being forced to read the Encyclopedia Britannica in the company of someone with Aspergers. For a while I am required to have an interest in something that I usually couldn't care less about. The first time I experienced this I found it intriguing and interesting, subsequently I have felt that I was being manipulated (unless it is being used in a totally integrated way e.g. W.G. Sebald's Austerlitz).

The book that I found myself comparing Life of Pi to was Cloud Atlas, which really worked for me. I think it has something to do with how the genre was used. In Cloud Atlas the sci-fi genre elements are kept to the forefront of the novel. In Life of Pi the adventure/fantasy elements are delayed until about 1/3 of the way into the novel. I have no problem with 'literary' genre novels (Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow is one of my favourite books), but Life of Pi seems to be a mixture that doesn't suit my palate.

It's mostly stereotypical views on these beliefs that are presented... perhaps some slightly accurate, others mere popular (if benign) perspective.

I thought this was a genuinely funny part of the story. The way the major religions are shown to strongly agree on their exclusivity and being cranky with Pi because of it (all men. Hmmm, need to think about females in the story.) I also liked his representation of Islam, as it resonated with my experience when I visited Morocco.

u.

[I'm Murrin]

Females in the story? You mean the Orangutan?

[ussusimiel]

Females in the story? You mean the Orangutan?

And the spiders

u.

[I'm Murrin]

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.

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

[Orlion]

I found the name of the tiger, Richard Parker, created a persistent cognitive dissonance. For a creature that was consistently (for me) non-anthropomorphic to have such a distinctively whole name made me constantly want to know who Richard Parker was.

While I am reading this in a more conventional method (from beginning to end ) Yes, Richard Parker as the name of the tiger is still jarring. This is mostly because up until right after he gets into the boat, Martell makes a big show of not mentioning that Richard Parker is a tiger. He essentially sets it up so that he is a person, even as Pi helps him into the boat. Then the "big reveal" happens that he is a tiger.

Is far as who the "real" Richard Parker was, he was a hunter that captured the tiger and his mom and sold him to the Ponnicherry zoo.

[Orlion]

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.

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

Yep. There's also a passage about how 'fear' is the only enemy in life. Doubt (agnosticism) is just an ally or avatar of fear, reason can never hope to conquer fear and the only 'allies' that will help you in your battle against fear is "trust and hope"... synonyms for faith.

And is it just me, or does his 'Muslim' portion of faith seem to be.. mere lip service? Sure, he invokes the prophet and Allah when he lists all the various gods, but he relates to events in a Hindu and Christian manner, he has yet to do so in a Muslim manner.

[I'm Murrin]

The way it was put forward was that he was taking the ritual and symbolism from Hinduism, the personal, human side of god from Christianity, and the devotion to god and seeing god in everything from Islam.

[aliantha]

I'm not quite done with the book (19% to go!), but I've seen the movie, so....

The reveal of the tiger's name didn't throw me because, of course, I'd seen the movie. The big scene toward the beginning of the book, when Dad shows the boys how vicious a tiger can be, had a better set-up in the movie; instead of Dad deciding out of the blue that the boys needed to learn it, in the movie the demonstration is sparked by Pi trying to feed the animal himself.

I'm finding the middle portion of the novel -- the detailed retelling of all the days at sea -- to be kind of boring and drawn out. The movie dwelt on this a fair amount, too, but it was more visually interesting, what with the pretty special effects and stuff.

I've gotten as far as the island, and I think Pi's on the verge of figuring out what's going on. In the movie, he spent a much shorter period of time there, so I'm sort of surprised at how long this scene is.

Re the religion aspect: I had sort of a bad taste in my mouth at the end of the movie. I felt like I'd been tricked, in a way -- yes, Pi's religious journey was recounted at the beginning, but then there's a very long stretch of film (and book!) where religion takes a back seat to simple survival. To bring it back to faith at the end seemed jarring and a titch heavy-handed. I'm hoping the book handles the transition better.

Now I'm gonna go finish the book -- and when I come back, we can talk about some of the meta stuff going on here. In particular, I'd like to hear whether you guys think Richard Parker is a metaphor for the shadow side of Pi's nature.

[Orlion]

All right. Finished the book, now for my pronouncements.

The Good:
-The information on zoos and religions was interesting.
-The actual "survive in a boat with a tiger" plot was fairly fast passed for me and seemed to be the most developed part of the story.
-After scoffing at the idea that a practicing Hindu would drink milk or eat ice cream, I learned from the interwebz that Hindus are not necessarily vegan... actually, it seems like most practice some sort of vegetarianism depending on what area they live in. So yeah, cultural misconceptions corrected is a good thing.

The Bad:
-The religion and its application to the story is pretty superfluous. Aside from 'hail Mary's and "praise Allah" Pi could have come to the same conclusions with one of the religions or even just being a Deist. The specific attributes of the religions did nothing for Pi's development as a character and seemed more to be thrown in to show an "enlightened" view on religion... as if practicing three religions would make him more credible.

-The sharks do not act like sharks. With the amount of sharks in the water and the amount of fish parts being thrown over, you would think they would act more aggressively. Then again, this is could be viewed as proof that that whole story is a lie... but Martell does not strike me as that good a writer. He is merely competent (like L. Ron Hubbard or Lev Grossman).

-Speaking of which, the vast majority of the metaphors were just...awful. They seemed like the result of a high school student that tries too hard to be original.

-Finally, the tone, meaning, whatever is all over the place. This leads to problems such as Murrin suggested about some of the stories seeming 'caricturish', even though they are probably meant to be brutal and shocking.

The Ugly:
-That whole island deal. Even with the theme of a 'better story', that just came right out of nowhere. This incident, more than any other, did not seem to fit into the book. The main purpose it serves is to worsen the:
-Interview with the Japanese. I mean, seriously, that section up to the 'second story' reads like a bloody Chick Tract with its absurd idea of a 'logical, brilliant' Pi and his bumbling opponents that 'don't believe him'. This ultimately lead to the theme of a 'better story' to be cheapened and ultimately thrown aside in my view. How can I take that concept (interesting in of itself) seriously when the vehicle for expressing it is a poorly written Chick Tract without pictures?

Ultimately, I do see this as having appeal to a broad audience which would be able to discuss its ideas. It is also this broad appeal that irked me: everything is literally spelled out. There is no subtlety, Martell essentially treats his readers with bemused contempt.

[aliantha]

The religion and its application to the story is pretty superfluous. Aside from 'hail Mary's and "praise Allah" Pi could have come to the same conclusions with one of the religions or even just being a Deist. The specific attributes of the religions did nothing for Pi's development as a character and seemed more to be thrown in to show an "enlightened" view on religion... as if practicing three religions would make him more credible.

Or he could have drawn the same conclusions without being religious at all. That's where I was going with the tiger-as-shadow thing -- the whole tale strikes me as Pi battling with his interior demons, with the religious stuff simply laid on top.

Re the island, I guess it's the "safe harbor" you can fall into when you're at the end of your rope, but that ends up sucking the life out of you. So a metaphor for an immoral life, maybe?

Also, I forget: how old is Pi supposed to be when he leaves home with his family? By the time he meets the Japanese inspectors, he seems awfully well-spoken. And the fact that he thought up an alternative narrative so fast is kind of unbelievable. I think a teenager who'd been lost at sea for the better part of a year would be nearly feral.

[I'm Murrin]

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.