Why is it so impossible to believe the first story told when you have a depressing, people murdering, lonely suffering tale to replace it? I thought that was the point of the book. I suspect that most people are religious because it makes them feel better. And so I find that we have descended and degenerated, from some far ancestor some microscopic atom wandering at its pleasure between the mighty horizons of a drop of water perchance insect by insect, animal by animal, reptile by reptile, down the long highway of smirch less innocence, till we have reached the bottom stage of development namable as the Human Being. I love the way Richard Parker always dogs Pi, like we struggle to shake off the darkness that invades our hearts and minds. The following link tells the story of a Brazilian man and his family and their seven pet Bengal tigers. The main literary device used in Life of Pi is symbolism. The ending is mistifying and leaves you thinking.
I think that the second story is true, and the first story is just a way to make coping easier. I completely believed the animal version of the story, until a friend told me that the other version was true. My take is similar to Nif's. Pi after all takes a few moments before telling it making me think he was making it up. We are drawn to the first story because it makes us feel better, just as some people are still drawn to stories and myths that make them feel better about the world we live in and what happens to us after the ultimate ship-wreck we call death.
Next to the tiger, zebra, and hyena Pi is small and feeble; he has no way to defend himself against the other animals. Orange Juice is also quite sympathetic and courage as she fearlessly attacks the hyena and she gently comforts the zebra in his dying moment. Life of Pi's ending can be confusing. A wonderful way to indulge in this beautiful story. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. His aim in doing so: 1 to please the men who do not believe his story, the true story and 2 to encourage them to take the leap of faith, by telling them a horrific story. Cases of Anthropomorphism Any reader would know that there are two version of the story of Life of Pi written by Yann Martel.
It explores the nature of reality, truth, religion and storytelling. I think people should be careful not to anthropomorphize animals to an extreme because large misinterpretations of animals, especially wild animals, can be dangerous. It seems that he was giving the necessary information as quickly as possible so he could get to Pi's story. Me, trying to tell myself that doesn't mean anything negative about us as a whole. Pi states earlier in the book that he did not understand Jesus and why he, being divine, let death conquer him. Light day versus dark night ; life-giving abundance during daylight versus nighttime hellish acidity.
A possibility in my mind is that Martel doesn't want us to interperet it a specific way. Interesting that fish Christianity icon were one of two compelling food for the soul? Early he says that Christianity has one story whereas Hinduism has many. Personally I don't like the human story I'm not sure anyone does. In the novel, Pi is a sixteen year-old Indian boy stranded on a lifeboat with a Royal Bengal Tiger, Richard Parker, in the Pacific Ocean who is trying to find a way to reach the shore. We see anthropomorphism in our entertainment very frequently. Even things as strange as two life boats with two blind men on each bumping into eachother, in the middle of the pacific and one life boat has a tiger on it.
He is in a such a state of mind that anything is possible. To put it in one sentence the author is saying that we should believe in god because it is the better sounding story aka animal story than the alternative of no god aka human story. I know zoos are no longer in people's good graces. Religion faces the same problem. The animal story was most likely imagined in order for him to cope with the tragedy and his long ordeal. You can not just simply believe something is true after much introspection on the subject. In my first read, I desperately hoped the animal one was true.
I can't imagine actually eating another person. Pi assumed he was peace-loving and kind, but when the tiger slaughters the meercats with malicious pleasure, he can't deal with that side of himself, so he imagines a tiger doing it. However, mayber Pi just told the second story to appease the Japanese men, and it is all just sarcasm and clever symbolism. When Pi returns to civilization in Mexico, Richard Parker leaves immediately, Pi no longer needs to be savage or be in survival mode, so that part of him disappears, but his savagery will always be with him, like when he says that Richard Parker is forever with him. The owner also dresses her monkey in human clothes, which is another example of her anthropomorphizing her pet.
The he realized that the could excuse any actions he would feel guilty about by blaming Richard Parker, who no one can prove or disprove existed. When Pi replaces all the animals with human characters, the reading get a prospective that this story seems to be realistic, rather than a fictional story. I'm not sure if the book made me believe anymore in God than I already did, but it definitely made me believe in the power of the human mind ten fold! Look in and see which side you are on. Or is it one of these Middle Age type notions that somehow became incorporated into Christianity not Judaism as far as I know -- have no idea about Islam. The version with animals is incredible, not believable, but we like it better. Its just supposed to make you realize that believing in the fake awsome story of religion can help you cope and can make life seem better.