[TTLG Book Club] An introduction and August's selection: The Life of Pi (discuss!) - by Stitch
Stitch on 1/8/2006 at 17:04
Quote Posted by henke
Was it now? Did you read the final chapter?
Yes, the entire point of the book was the application of faith in regards to the better story. This applied to every aspect of the story, even the author's foreword (which was, of course, playfully fictitous).
Quote Posted by Uncia
Seconded. I read the final chapter as a recap of the true story, with the rest of the book being what he told himself happened so as to not go insane.
So you read the book as an argument that reality is bleak and we invent gods to better help us deal with this cold fact?
I'd agree with that assessment of religion but I doubt Martel would.
Uncia on 1/8/2006 at 17:12
I didn't read the book as any sort of argument, that was just what the most likely conclusion seemed to be (to me). I thought that the fantastic nature of the island he finds before hitting mainland was a strong hint into which direction the true story tilted.
ignatios on 1/8/2006 at 17:14
But there were unidentified/meerkat bones in the boat at the end.
Uncia on 1/8/2006 at 17:17
Random potshots at their origin are still far more likely than that island.
Jackablade on 1/8/2006 at 17:36
Can we get a plot summary in here for people who were reading much longer books (Moby Dick) to participate this month?
OnionBob on 1/8/2006 at 17:38
Quote Posted by Uncia
Seconded. I read the final chapter as a recap of the true story, with the rest of the book being what he told himself happened so as to not go insane.
I wasn't sure what to think of that final chapter. On the one hand, if it was meant to be some kind of "twist", it was ham fisted and unnecessary; a clunky prosthesis of which M. Night Shayamalan would be proud. On the other hand, I understand the drive (and message) throughout (and in the foreword) to appeal to all possibilities, however remote, in order to tell a juicier story. But really, in fiction, does this kind of thing need to be said? Doesn't it go without saying? Isn't that what fiction
is? And I'm not really convinced that it "didn't happen" and it was a rationalisation by Pi because of the "unidentified bones" and such found on the boat - although that would make that whole section all the more irrelevant.
Anyway, my general thoughts on the book:
First and foremost, I'll say this: On the whole, I enjoyed reading it. There are a number of fascinating points and philosophies about the human / animal relationship, and particularly on zoos and other institutions, that I found terrifically interesting, and the anthropomorphising of animals is kept more or less to an impressive minimum throughout. Also, the immediate survival type stuff on the lifeboat is gripping, and the struggle between vegetarian ideals and starvation was particularly illuminating.
I have to say though, that I, like a lot of people it seems, found Pi himself a somewhat unlikeable main character, almost entirely because of his trite and condescending attitude towards religion and life in general that smacks of middle class jollies and AMAAAAAZING experiences had while travelling in a student gap year. This did taint the enjoyability of the book for me. Yes, I know it's a little bit tongue in cheek, and it's a little bit self conscious, and he suffers for his ideas at times, but it is still ultimately posited as The Way to Be, with a certain sense of perplexed small-mindedness at other Ways of thinking. Pi cannot understand why you can't just worship God in every doctrine, and it not make sense, and this "innocence" is clearly supposed to say something terribly clever and incisive about the way in which religions bicker over the minutiae of worshipping the same basic entity, but that's hardly a groundbreaking philosophy is it? If so, shouldn't we be airdropping copies of
Life of Pi into Lebanon?
And also, as Noid has already said, I felt unchanged at the end of it. It hasn't altered my perception of much, really, except the previously mentioned non-fiction stuff about animals. Not every book has to move your world in a radical new direction, but it's nice to be able take something more away from the experience of a book, even if it is self consciously written for the "sake of the story" alone.
So in conclusion: For me, the book was interesting and a bit of fun, especially in the middle, but flawed in its irritating main character and essentially empty. It's about finding God in the World and in The Story, but ultimately God doesn't seem to really show His face as much as the protagonist may imply He does. I'm a little surprised it won the Booker. I enjoyed it, and I'd probably give another book by the same author a shot, but I'd be approaching it with caution.
dracflamloc on 1/8/2006 at 17:51
Wheres the thread for septembers book? I missed out on this one =(
Stitch on 1/8/2006 at 18:09
Quote Posted by Uncia
I didn't read the book as any sort of argument, that was just what the most likely conclusion seemed to be (to me). I thought that the fantastic nature of the island he finds before hitting mainland was a strong hint into which direction the true story tilted.
If you think a "true" story exists then I rather think you're missing the point of the book. Both versions of events are true, depending on your perspective.
henke on 1/8/2006 at 18:44
Quote Posted by Uncia
Also baffled by all the hype this book got about god, but I suppose it's a matter of what mindset you read the book with; the discussion of religion at the start was interesting, but survival on the boat and later revelation kind of put it off the front burner.
But I think that's a good way of making the point about belief. If he'd spent the whole book going on about why it's important to belive it would've felt like tedious preaching. But first telling the story and then concluding it like he did felt very clever, imo, and not at all "ham fisted and unnecessary" like Bob says. Oh I guess more clever people might figure it out but personally I'm rather naive and take everything fictional characters tell me to be the truth. I mean, why would they lie?
btw, M Night Shayamalan did consider adapting this book to film, but eventually decided against it, saying
"I was concerned that as soon as you put my name on it, everybody would have a different experience. Whereas if someone else did it, it would be much more satisfying, I think. Expectations, you've got to be aware of them." So now Jean-Pierre Jeunet(Amelie, City of Lost Children) (
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454876/) is making it instead. :)
Kyloe on 1/8/2006 at 19:57
I thought the whole idea of the book was to see how an author can sell a fantastic story as based on a real story, however wild it is. At first the idea of surviving alone with a tiger on a life boat seemed absolutely ridiculous.
While reading the second part, not only did I enjoy the story, I also more and more accepted that someone with Pi's background as the son of a zoo director could end up in that situation and could survive it. Because the story is pretty well told in that part, contrary to the first part, I wanted it to be true, I wanted it to be more than just fiction.
It was the third part that reversed all that and I don't mean the alternative story without animals. It was the alleged verbatim interview that made me doubt that any part of the book, including all the auctorial speeches, was anything but fiction through and through. No Japanese bureaucrats would talk like that. The whole account of them driving through half of Mexico (completely irrelevant to the story) was only there to flesh out the fable.
I don't know what all that talk about religion and finding god was all about. That was unnecessary and pointless. That's one of the reasons why I think the book isn't as good as it could have been. But it's not flawed enough to be a bad book.
