the book was a interesting read, especially towards the end with the interview, but im a bit lost

what’s the deeper meaning in the story exactly? i resonated with some of the chapters particularly chapter 22:

“I can well imagine an atheist’s last words: “White, white! L-L-Love! My God!”—and the deathbed leap of faith. Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try to explain the warm light bathing him by saying, “Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain,” and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.”

but after that, it just seemed to be a survival story with some philosophical undertones to
it rather than some great realization towards the end of the book of sorts (which is kind of what i was expecting lol)

anyone can break it down a bit i guess? i did just freshly finish reading it, so i haven’t left much time to myself to puzzle over it truthfully.

bump i wanna discuss this before my memory falls apart

I'mma keep it a bean, I only saw the movie

damb.

likewise

3.14

Some of the main themes are the desire to survive and all that comes with it, belief, aswell as storytelling and it's different aspects. As you'll probably know It is extremely likely that Richard Parker is not real and is simply a reflection of Pi's animalistic desire to survive on the boat, as well as a psychological cover for other things he did while stranded. At first there is a clear separation between the two as pi goes through the acts of taming the animal and appearing dominant, but over time Pi let's go of principles he held dear such as vegetarianism due to the overwhelming desire to survive at all costs. With him embracing the tiger like aspects of Parker due to these circumstances, Pi has lost his innocence. The ordeals he has went through (and the horrific nature of a lot of them) are reflected in the story of the tiger, Pi seems to relay some fantastical story of it as a kind of coping mechanism after going through things no one should have to go through, but also simply because it's more pleasant to do in a more general sense. That story is in a way still real, where even if it isn't the accurate way things went down there is still a truth to it even if this truth is abstract. This links to the theme of God. When reading we may feel a strong desire to believe the tiger story as being the 'actual' account of events within the story, and we as readers may even choose to believe that the overall novel is in fact a representation of a true story when it is most likely not. We do not know if we can trust the validity of the authors note, as well as various aspects of pi's journey- but in Pi and by extension Yann Martels eyes the belief in something at the very least is better than not. With it simply being more enjoyable. Pi while being religious in an extremely non restraining way still respects the atheist, as they believe absolutely that there is no god just as he believes that there is. Being agnostic in Pi's eyes is the worst you can be due to the indecisiveness of the belief (something I personally disagree with but its an interesting view). In the survival environment while you can say Pi's faith was tested he didnt lose it, it was just pushed back in his priorities. This clearly shows the absolute importance of survival at this time for Pi, his physical needs were way more significant than his spiritual ones while on the boat. And furthermore being stranded at sea shows the relationship between the animalistic nature that dwells within us and the more civilised way we act when not in such danger, it is a conflicting relationship between the two but at times they intersect. Pi overall separates the animalistic survival instinct of the tiger from himself, disconnecting himself from the things he did but simultaneously also not having deluded himself that it wasnt truly him. Both stories told by Pi have merit but there is great beauty in the tale of the tiger, how it melds the truth with the fictional and all that can be interpreted from it. I guess the main thing i took from the novel overall is the belief that beautiful crafted stories that truly stick with those that hear/read it are superior to the mundane or grim absolute truth. Storytelling is a way to survive and cope with the horrors of life.

I used to do English Literature, didnt think I'd miss essay writing (even in a short, rushed, informal sense) but it was surprisingly nostalgic. It's a pretty good novel.

thanks for typing this all out and bringing it full circle for me. i skimmed some a***ysis on the book and it rang about the same, about the ambiguity of the stories and how you the reader get to choose what type of story is the actual account, but as you said we don’t even know if the Tiger and Pi story isn’t another story that Pi invented on the spot as well, it’s just the one the author relayed back to us as a proxy i find that so layered and interesting honestly

SPOILERS SPOILERS

yeah, there was a chapter in the book where pi realized he was consuming food the same exact way the Tiger on the boat did and he realized he was losing his humanity to the sea for the sake of survival, as you said, the Tiger could easily had just been a manifestation of his imagination to help him cope, because if i recall correctly didn’t Pi’s father throw a goat to a hungry tiger and they watched as it tore it to shreds?

that easily could’ve been a very traumatizing event and i imagine it could’ve been brought back as some sort of repressed memory, but instead of it falling into a detriment of some sort for him (although it was at first) he manages to conquer Richard Parker and in a way, conquers that traumatization through his ordeal and survival on the boat, and when he finally reaches mexico to land, the Tiger leaving almost symbolizes him coming to terms with that memory, and also simultaneously regaining his humanity back (if that wasn’t pretty much directly alluded to when one of the people took turtle flesh out of the boat and tossed it aside when only a day ago or so it was like gold to the man)

i wonder if that’s why it pained him in particular to see Richard Parker go, because as Pi recounted he said his family did not survive, despite that event being extremely traumatizing for him, it’s a treasured lesson taught from his father, and in letting go of Richard Parker without even a farewell of sorts, it’s almost like he loses an integral part of himself, especially since he dealt with it for so long on the boat. very bitter sweet honestly. let me know if you think im reaching lol

also im interested in why you disagree with agnosticism not being such a bad standpoint to take? i honestly agree and have had that thought occur to me myself before i even touched the book, that it’s better to be sure in the belief of something or not rather than leaving everything up to dumb probability or just waving it off, it’s in the same vein for me as “i don’t see color” i see it as an extremely lazy way to dismiss the notion of a higher power/god in exchange for dry apathy

also, Pi’s parting words “so with god it goes”? I think he said, i feel like that kinda almost ties in with like the Bible (not the content) but more of like the publishing side of things i guess i’d say, the interviewers have their choice of stories (the one with his mom, the one w Tiger etc) and it’s completely out of Pi’s hands as to which one makes the print, so it’s almost like the interviewers in that story are like the authors in the Bible and Pi is a prophet of sorts relaying the story back to them, that’s the significance out of that line from me, lmk what you think

it was a great read (although to tell you the truth, the beginning of the book talking about his family and all was a DRAG honestly.)

also what was the significance of the island you think? kind of just another manifestation like the blind Frenchman he came across in his journey as well?

No worries, it's a really interesting novel to really look into. I enjoyed it a quite lot when I read it like 8 months or so ago?

Yeah you choose to believe what you wish to after reading it, I think the contrast between what is presented as the dark truth and the truth you can gather from the story surrounding the tiger is great. But ultimately even if it's clear that the tiger is most likely made up by pi, theres a deep beauty in the story and believing it to be true is an enjoyable path to take.Yeah his father showed him that to teach him the danger of wild animals. But iirc wasnt there a mention that the most dangerous was man? Im definitely of the belief that there was no tiger, but still that ambiguity and openness as to the nature of storytelling that the novel so fervently pushes is nice. In my eyes Richard Parker is both a representation of the savagery he knows a tiger obviously poses from that past experience, but also of the savagery that dwells within and which has been allowed/forced to come out. I wouldn't personally say he conquered Parker however, parker being there shows that the savage things Pi had to do were happening from the tigers first appearance. Him taming him in my eyes is a reflection of him coming to terms with what he has done and has to do, and the ways that he himself becomes more primal showing that what the survival instincts have driven him to do are interlapping and becoming normal to the civilised aspect of him. The rational part of him coming to terms that it is needed and it not just being instinctual due to the situation. Parker leaving does seem to reflect him disconnecting from being driven to survival and regaining that humanity. But ultimately what we call humanity has many different facets, the aspect parker represents is completely human albeit animalistic, it's just a part most of us dont desire to ever be released. Pi just became more like how he was before being stranded, obviously changed from all he had to go through but that desperation had gone. That bit with the turtle really shows that when driven by survival you take what you can, theres a wastefulness in safety but ultimately its what we desire after struggle. That's a very nice point you've made lol dont worry. Parker just leaving like that without a farewell seems to show to me that Pi is quick to separate himself from what he had to do because he needs to so that he doesn't truly lose himself. Parker belongs in the wild, sentimentality and other such feelings are pointless to that aspect of Pi that was purely driven to survive. However Pi himself still feels this, he has a connection to this Tiger that kept him going for so long how couldn't he. But yeah all that occurred, the loss of his family, the loss of the others that were stranded with him, he had dealt with it for so long with just Parker. But ultimately he is the only one that can deal with it and is the only one that cares. The attachment to the Tiger is a relationship he cant hold onto as he returns to civilisation, and the Tiger has no desire to hold onto it in the first place now they're safe.

I disagree with the view on being Agnostic because it takes the view that being Agnostic is purely being indecisive as opposed to being open minded and unable to come to an absolute conclusion due to the lack of proof. Being stagnant in this and simply saying I'll never know so what's the point? Yeah that isn't that great lol but different people have different focuses. But it's not bad in my eyes to be unsure about such a thing due to this lack of proof while striving to try find an eventual answer or eventually gaining belief. While I can respect those who abide by yes or no absolutely through what they have already experienced, the path of questioning is often a very personal one that is often ever changing. It is clear that most likely there will never be absolute proof for either side and there is importance in belief, but simply picking a side without true reasoning to back up the belief is more often worse than not picking one at all. Agnosticism and other middle ground approaches are really a belief in itself, the belief that you do not know and you wish to know. Or at the very least see enough that belief may aswell be equivalent to fact. Absolute belief and even to some extent blind faith is to be respected however, its just not a path for me. I'm open to believing completely, I'm just more often than not on a journey of discovery to solidify my beliefs further.

Yeah indeed, in that sense it's up to those who record the story to choose what they write. Some may choose the cold hard facts and dismiss the more fantastical version, others may pick and choose from both going for realism while keeping in that which they wish is real and some will go all in on the tiger story with all the surreal aspects due to what it all represents. That Bible comparison is very good, like in the bible there are many verses where they aren't meant to be taken literally but have interpretations that are to be drawn from them. But yet like the story of the Tiger there is beauty in such dramatisations that often enriches the messages should one understand it. Lol I do feel you on that, it added depth to the later part of the novel though atleast. And the island is to me a serious coping mechanism. It seems to reflect cannibalism, after a while and with Pi's hunger and instincts taking over more one of the bodies of those who died are still are still there (perhaps the cook) and well he does what he feels he has to. The island being great during the day, but dangerous at night perhaps showing how he eats what he needs to and there is at the very least a positive for him in his survival, but parker leaving at night instinctively beforehand showing that driven by survival there is no excess it is simply something he has to do. Pi eventually seeing the darkness of the island and choosing to leave being him knowing that he cant fall into the excess of the horrific act, he just eats all he can cause he needs to. He cant lose himself. The island being in the shape of a person/corpse plus the tooth he finds also seems to support this, plus it was confirmed that he did delve into cannibalism at a point. And those meerkats being the other things that feed while one rots. F\*\*\* that imagery is dark. The blind Frenchman was an interesting part too.

Sorry for the longass response lol, I'm quick at typing and decent enough at putting together my thoughts. You got me thinking real deep about the book lol, I was enjoying myself writing that up.

yeah, he did say the most dangerous animal was man i think that was sort of exhibited when he came across the frenchman and the frenchman tried to eat him, but thankfully the tiger took care of him (or, Pi did ) conquered is probably the wrong way to put it, more in the sense that he survived the tiger (or the animal tendencies within himself) its weird, do you think Pi enjoyed that animal side from him at least a tiny bit? because he did say at some point in the book that he loved richard parker and promised to get him off the boat alive. did he want to keep that new-found feral nature with him off the boat, or was it just a sort of resolve to survive? he said that he wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for richard parker as well. i guess thats solely just the survival side of his brain coming out and doing what it needed to do in order to survive for 200+ days. its a symbol for his resolve to live, maybe thats what that taming was all about, instead of richard parker overcoming him, he overcame it and retained his humanity, pretty much as you said. thats such a pretty thing to think about honestly.

i agree, its not fair to say if youre agnostic youre just being indecisive, no one truly knows anything and everyone is trying to come to terms with what they believe themselves, i mean more in the sense that there is some people out there that will simply just not care and hold that agnostic viewpoint to not think about it (ofc theyre not all like that, cant generalize) i question myself all the time and look up a ton of atheist viewpoints, atheist arguments etc etc. but i maintain my position as a deist (someone who believes a god created the universe, set the laws etc. but does not interact with humanity further, although i kinda feel like theres an exception with prayers here and there to explain off miracles. ill probably warp that out of my viewpoints eventually too. idk!) its good to stay skeptical and always questions your views so you evolve and change as a person, me personally being an agnostic would just make me anxious. you are right that you shouldnt commit to either side without actual reasoning, just because you have the option to choose doesnt mean either choice is a right one, especially if you have skeletal bareboned reasoning to fall alongside it. i agree, i wish you luck on your journey and hope something pushes you to either side of the argument.

yeah the bible is such a weird thing, some people think most of the stories in it period are purely metaphorical/folk lore and are supposed to be taken as like a mythical story of sorts (although im not sure how sound that argument is considering that iirc that the most distinguished atheists agree that jesus was indeed a real person, so idk) i think the enrichment of the messages make everything more memorable and much more interesting, the story Pi pushed forth at the interview was realistic, but of course it wasnt even remotely as daring on interesting as the story with the tiger, if we got the version that Pi gave the interviewers, it wouldve still been a solid book i imagine, but it would lose a lot of its mysticality and any innate meaning that we have gleaned from the version we have today. what do you think was the significance of parker and pi talking to one another? you think it was a coping mechanism of sorts to separate himself from that ¨animal¨ side of himself? (that was a crazy part to me too i was like wtf is going on )

ur fine, im happy someone wants to discuss it lol. its cathartic to talk about the book cause i kinda miss it already good cleanse for my psyche for a blank slate for the next book i read

Honestly didn't like the book very much

After he gets on the boat it's 150 pages of filler where nothing happens except for the part on the island

You're making me almost want to reread this

Richard Parker not being real makes sense tbh

i can get this, but i was too interested on pi and richard Parker interactions along w his psyche while on the boat only part where i got really bored is at the beginning with all the family stuff, but it set up the survival situation nicely

Sorry I've been real busy the past few days, just got round to replying.

It really shows the desperation that we can feel when in situations like that, plus only the most dangerous species could grow as much as we have, and run zoos where dangerous predators are kept on show. Yeah conquered may not be the best word for it lol, and I do believe bi enjoyed that side to some extent. On one hand cause it's what kept him alive but also because I suppose a part of us enjoys that primal aspect even though we know we shouldnt. But ultimately he recognised that it cant be brought into the civilised world. It really is isn't it, the taming of and coexisting with Parker really shows the extent Pi went to in order to keep his humanity, even when he knew what he did on that boat was needed.

Good luck on your journey too, it is important to question things and ultimately belief is a pretty nice thing when you feel you have a reason to truly believe.

How I see it is that some of it is folk lore meant to be interpreted for a purpose, some is what is believed to have occurred requiring faith to believe and some are also accounts of events of people who did exist (the question being just how true these stories are). There really a lot of greatness in those kind of fantastical stories though, theres a reason why they stick with people so well. I do believe the book is a lot better off for focusing on the story of the tiger for it all represents, but the 'factual' one is good too. It would just be a different type of experience to read it. Wasnt him talking to Parker him getting confused cause he went temporarily blind but then realising it was actually the Frenchman? Sorry it's been a while, I remember most of the novel but have a few gaps

Yeah, at first I thought it was Parker he was talking to and then he came across the Frenchman later on, Pi even commented on the issue that Parker had a French accent of some sort and wondered why he had one, later on he hears a voice in the distance and it turned out to be the Frenchman, they talked for a moment, brought boats together and the Frenchman tried to kill him and then thankfully Parker killed him and ate him. Pi said “something died in him that never came back to life” since that incident, was a quick roller coaster lol.

Thinking about it, the island really does represent the man’s body, it makes perfect sense.

I think his father saying the most dangerous animal is man was nicely implemented in the story that way later on too, his father did warn him and the Frenchman tried to kill him while Pi thought he found a friend of sorts, before the Frenchman even touched Pi Parker gave a faint growl, was a really a nice touch into the story.

And yeah, folk lore is always interesting like King Arthur, it’s recounted of him being some great fantastic hero, and he did actually exist but as to whether or not he did those things that were detailed in those stories are up in the air, some people speculate that the Bible is strictly metaphorical and that the miracles Jesus performed in the book are more or less just lessons, but I’m pretty sure it’s consensus that he was in fact a real person.

I would’ve been just as interested in the factual story too, it really does just drop down into preference and whatever makes a story more believable to you.

Pi really went through some s*** man
The whole bit with the Frenchman was a great part to read albeit it extremely dark. The use of symbolism in the novel was used really well tbh, I feel people when they say some parts particularly early are boring but it definitely does ramp up. When you see that theres more to Parker after reading going back and a***ysing moments like that is great, Parker (the survival aspect) knew s*** was up from the get go. Oh yeah its general consensus that Jesus was real, it's like how for most myths theres some truth to it. I enjoy thinking about people/characters like that and wondering just how much is actually true. It would have been a lot more gruesome and desperate if we just got the factual story, I would have definitely enjoyed it but idk I think I prefer the one we mainly got. With how the ending revealed it was probably fictional it allows us to a***yse just what really went down ourselves, and also enjoy what the story represents in a deeper sense