[TTLG Book Club] An introduction and August's selection: The Life of Pi (discuss!)

ignatios on 2/8/2006 at 12:20

I'm in the same boat (lol) as those who liked the survival bits and the zoo parts of his upbringing. Pi himself is too smug a character to really be likeable, but of course I'm sympathetic to his situation. I just can't fucking stand THE WISDOM OF INNOCENCE THAT WE AS ADULTS FORGET vibe coupled with the snide vegetarian comments.

OnionBob nails it:

Quote Posted by OnionBob

Everything is presented as so clear and simple, and with such exuberance and enthusiasm, it's almost like the implication is that if you don't agree with Pi's observations, you must be a miserable person with no joy or love in your soul, or even worse, gasp, an agnostic (although he curiously has a different opinion of atheists, because he believes they will all do a death-bed recanting of their Godless lives).

As far as the end goes, I think the story with the animals is the truthful one, but I can't abide Pi acting the way he does to the two Japenese men. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to sympathise with Pi after he endures such hardship, but I just can't get over how patronising he is about his experience. For someone with such a wonderful, insightful faith that TRANSCENDS DIFFERENCES, you'd think he would at least be understanding with people not believing his story.

I'm far more sympathetic to the Japanese men than I am to Pi, who remains an arrogant cunt after being given a most remarkable experience. I don't think that was Martel's intention, but Pi really is a jerk.

Morte on 2/8/2006 at 14:26

Quote Posted by Stitch

Despite the fact that the flashes to the present were an extension of the theme of the book and, to some degree, the key to fully understanding it?

Well, yes. Since I really didn't care much for his grand theme, all I want is to turn it into Tiger On A Boat, and shove the selfconcious post-modernism and Importance far into the background. But if we do keep faux pre-interview bits, I still feel there's a fair bit of redundance get rid of.

Tenkahubu on 2/8/2006 at 15:06

For me it really failed because I didnt care at all which story was true. Neither was particularly better than the other. Although the tiger version was written in more depth, the people version could have been written up to be more or less as exciting but in different ways.
The pretentious question at the end is whether one would prefer a happy fiction (belief) or a sad reality (disbelief) but as far as the reader is concerned both versions of the actual story are fiction. Therefore it becomes more a case of long inspiring fiction vs short depressing fiction. However, in this case the long fiction was ruined by essentially having no complete ending, and the short fiction was too short.
As both are poor works of fiction, the final question becomes `Which of these botched stories is best?`
To which the best possible response is `Shut up.`

Edit: Really liked the island part as a stand alone. Reminded me a little of Lovecraft or similar. Quite supernatural. Make a good short story perhaps.

lomondtaffer on 2/8/2006 at 15:29

Quote Posted by Tenkahubu

The pretentious question at the end is whether one would prefer a happy fiction (belief) or a sad reality (disbelief)Lovecraft or similar.

Yes that is the question, but how can the graphically described sufferings of that poor zebra be seen as part of a 'happy' version? Both versions are full of horror. Which leads me yet again to ask HOW is this story meant to make you believe in God ? Why was it introduced as one that would? Surely Martel doesn't think that Pi's survival presents proof of God? That's just silly.

Oh, and the meercat remains would seem to be proof which takes away the necessity to choose at all, if you take the book at face value. So, is the author actually saying that LACK of faith (the japanese guys attitude) is just a willful refusal to see the 'reality' of God ?

Starrfall on 2/8/2006 at 18:47

Quote Posted by Stitch

I agree with you overall, especially in regards to the tone of the book. I enjoyed the novel as a light diversion but the central conceit fails in its aims, as a good story is no more or less true than a bad one. Reality is reality, and any story is merely a distorted reflection of reality.

The other thing is that if it's a question of doubt, it's generally doubtful that a boy would last that long in a lifeboat whether or not he was dealing with animals or other people. I don't think the story without animals is really much more believable than the story with, so the point he seems to be trying to make in the end falls flat.

The God connection fits if you want it to, but I think that perhaps we're putting too much stock in the "this story will make you believe in God" thing. I don't think it has to be that literal. God is so prevelant in Pi's life I think it can be taken to be representative of faith in general, and you can have faith without being all Goddy. Yes religion is brought up quite a few times, but not nearly as often as I expected it to be. It's not really heavy handed until the end, and at the end I think the chiding doesn't have to be read as "you bad men you don't believe in God" but can be read as "guys the fact that I am here at all is beyond belief, but here I am, so why would you doubt my story". It's not necessarily a belief in God that you need, but a belief that the near-impossible can happen.

Or anyways that's how I'm choosing to think of it because the first way is pretty heavy handed. Overall an entertaining read. I think the biggest single con for me was that rant in the beginning about zoos being the bestest things in the world ever for animals. It was a bit preachy for so soon in the story and I was worried that the whole book would be like that, and was pleased to find that it wasn't.

CountMRVHS on 3/8/2006 at 02:15

Overall, I thought it was all right.

I never read contemporary fiction, so this was a bit of a change for me. The most recent *somewhat* contemporary thing I've read is Lolita, which I read last year, and that was published in the 50s. This is a neat book, but doesn't hold a candle to Nabokov's masterpiece.

Anyway, I didn't find Pi to be annoying at all, really. Sounds like a bunch of you were offended by the agnostic comment he made at the beginning; but come on: who EVER picks on agnostics? Being agnostic is probably the coolest, most popular thing to be in the western hemisphere right now. In fact, I myself go back and forth within a kind of agnostic Catholicism. And it's pretty easy for us agnostic-types to dismiss people with faith. So for once, someone who (I assume) isn't a psycho fundamentalist took a jab at agnostics -- big deal. Maybe it'll make us think about things a little differently.

Now -- DID it make us think about things differently? I don't think it particularly did, in my case at least.

As for Pi's "arrogance", I didn't really see that, except maybe for the interview at the end; but it's nothing that annoyed me while I was reading. The only arrogance that came through, after I had finished the book, was in Martel's final twist.

And I think the end was the biggest annoyance for me actually; I mean, the "point" at the end. That "point" -- God is all about the stories -- was straight from Yann Martel rather than from Pi. Of course Martel, the *writer*, is going to see stories as most revealing of God. It's a little parochial (if I'm using that word right) in a way, too: someone who is passionate about painting would see God in the images; a poet would see God in the precision of words. Here we are with a story, or a couple of differing stories, and the big point we're left with is: God sure loves a story.

To me it seemed too much like the comfy I'm-ok-you're-ok relativism I clung to in college to be very surprising or inspiring. And the unreliable narrator aspect of it has been around for awhile, too.

I read this book in 4 days, and I enjoyed reading it. It was entertaining. There are parts that I still don't know what to make of -- the island above all. But I liked it much better than I was expecting I would -- the book was all over local tv last summer, so I was prepared to be properly disgusted. I wasn't. The thing I missed, however, without realising it, was a meaningful use of language. Last year I read Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, and right afterwards read Lolita -- those of you who have read both know how diametrically opposed the authors are in their use of language. Hemingway's sentences are short, blunt; he's getting rid of all cluttery metaphors, trying to give us straight-on images. You get the impression he's trying to clear away language itself from his books. But in Lolita -- Nabokov practically *drenches* that thing in allusions, metaphors, puns, alliteration. Language in Lolita is dense; the main character is obsessed with it. It's the closest thing to Shakespeare I've ever read, in terms of play, precision, and the hyper-intellectualization of it all. Watching these authors wield language is fascinating, and reminds me why I'm so interested in literature and language.

It's unrealistic to expect every writer to be as linguistically energetic or innovative, and I'm sure it's simply personal taste that leads me to consider Martel's plain prose a mark against him. As his "big point" proves, he's all about stories, after all. But that point wasn't so big when you stop to think about it, and so, although it was an entertaining read, interesting at times and unoffensive throughout, it isn't going to make any "must read" lists of mine.

Malygris on 3/8/2006 at 06:55

Most of what I have to say has already been said. It was a reasonably enjoyable story, spoiled somewhat by the final chapter. Pi's description of life at the zoo, human/animal interactions and the rules that govern them were insightful and entertaining, albeit perhaps a bit much to expect from a child his age; on the other hand, this is a story about a boy and a tiger surviving together in a lifeboat for the better part of a year, so what the hell. It's not until the final chapters, during his interview with the Japanese gentlemen (who, for the sake of brevity and not racism, will heretofore be referred to as "the Japs") that things start to go south. His obnoxious behaviour is mitigated somewhat by the fact that he's a young man who's just gone through a horrible ordeal, but given his obvious intellect and ability to adapt, I'd expect better. Someone who could so easily manage a full-grown Bengal tiger under such trying conditions should have a better handle on simple, civil relations with his fellow humans.

Even more grating, the final chapter was completely unnecessary, not simply because it was heavy-handed, but because it was completely extraneous to the story as a whole. Why do we need the truth suddenly thrown into question? Hell, why do we need The Truth at all? God either exists in a lifeboat with a boy and a tiger, or he doesn't. I'm not going to find an answer to that question by being beaten over the head with it.

As a nice, simply story, the book worked fairly well for me. The tale of the tiger, for instance, was smart and enjoyable, and while I'm loathe to expose my literary lightness of being to this crowd, the idea of a great, ferocious predator named Richard Parker amused me right to the end of the book. But by trying to make it into more than that, by standing up and hollering BEHOLD MY PROFUNDITY, Martel ends up missing the mark.

snowcap21 on 6/8/2006 at 15:35

Does anybody else see elements of worship in the relationship of Pi and the tiger (like naming a natural force, ritual/domestication and sacrifices/offers of food)? This way of interpretation doesn't fit well with the "tiger is the wild part of Pi's nature", that the comment of one of the Japanese men in the last chapter hints on, but I think it would make an interesting statement about the nature and origin of religion.

Also, I don't think the book is simply meant to make you believe in good. A comment by Martel about religion and the important difference between faith(=good) and belief (=bad) (sorry, I don't have a link to it) gave me the idea, that he tries to exemplify this difference with his two versions of the story.

btw, there seem to be two different versions of this book, but I'm not sure if the first one's still available.

Tocky on 7/8/2006 at 01:22

I thought of it more along the lines of dealing with the violent unruly forces within ourselves, violence, survival, revenge, wildness. The whole book is an allegory of religious belief. It is as neccessary for Pi to believe in the tiger for his own spiritual well being as it is for some to believe in God for thiers. Humanity in the microcosm of a boat. So much bad to deal with so avert it into symbols and stories.

In a way it's a "yes Virginia there is a Santa Clause" story. I found it very readable once survival became the order of the day. Humanity stripped to it's roots. The taking in of the tiger because it was an essential part of survival. The fear of it. The reason holding it at bay with it's tricks and manipulations. The fact that it would be something that not only had to be dealt with but was essential for survival was telling. The letting go of it once the need was gone. But not fully letting go the rationalizations and the acknowledgement of a piece missing.

It did make me think about the need for religion as a painkiller for the soul.

tungsten on 7/8/2006 at 09:51

Quote Posted by Stitch

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.

Ah, you let me understand the book!

That's where the "hype" about this book being religious and unifying is:
Several stories, all rather fantastic and the truth behind them all is the same (but not exactly one of them).
So the story tries to tell us that all religions are the stories about the same thing, just different versions. None of them tells the "true"/direct story, but they all serve the same purpose.

I see why I didn't get it.

PS: are tigers really social animals like lions? I thought they're loners (and therefore never omega)...