Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Julie--I saw him in person. The "One Book AZ" people picked his novel as their reading selection a few years ago, and he came here to speak. The room was PACKED with people. He spoke for a bit, and an expert on Hindu culture from ASU also spoke. Martel talked about how this book came to be, why he wrote it, etc. He was pretty vague when answering questions. Someone asked him which story was true...and he said that he didn't know. Another interesting thing he said was that he thought readers should read the whole book, and then go back and re-read part one.

I agree, Julie...I hope this isn't his one and only great novel. But if it is, it was a fabulous one.

I think the island was meant to emphasize the absurdity of the story.

It's clear that the book is making the analogy between Pi's excessive religiosity and an atheist's understanding of the world, and the tiger story and the actual story.

I was actually willing to buy the tiger bit in the context of the novel- there were a lot of issues with it, obviously, but not enough to keep me from suspending disbelief.

However, as soon as the Frenchman popped out, suspension of disbelief was popped. The island cinched it. The way I interpreted it in the context of the novel was that he was hallucinating from the illness that made his eyes swell up, as all these things happened after he began to get sick.

Now I think that the island was meant to push even the most willing to believe to seriously question Pi's interpretation of events.

personally, i was/am disappointed with the ending. it is so easy to veer off into wild fantasy. the fact is yann martell could have included dwarfs, chipmunks and pink elephants. and because the story goes off in this vague dream world and ABANDONED there it loses all the tension and meaning that is built up throghout the book.
its one of those "it was all a dream" books , and i hatebthose books.

funny, I just read what you wrote Sinjinn "all a dream books". I had just written a comment on books I was most disappointed in and that is exactly what I said. I hate books like that. They are cheap shots. O.k. So if you were stranded and all your loved ones were killed or eaten but you survived, you'd rather tell the story he made up but why waste our time having to read it.
The island is our first clue that this cannot be a real story. That we are to look further into the story.
I'm sorry I wasted my time on it.

exactly val

as soon as he starts to move off in to the fantasy world proper is precisely when i started to dislike the book. also , i think this is contradictory to his 'message' because the better story actually becomes the worse story because it disintegrates. if you want us to believe the better story , WRITE the better story and dont abandon it half way on some carnivorous island infested with chipmunks.!

I didn't find myself being upset by the ending of the book. I loved the entire book and the twist at the end was intriguing and thought provoking. When I closed the book I said to myself I choose to believe the first story but haven't thought about it once since then. I didn't look through the facts or try and figure out the island I just liked that story better so that is the one I went away with. My only thoughts after reading through all these comments is, why can't the book just be enjoyed? Why does a side have to be chosen?

The ending of this book made me think of the last episode of MASH when Hawkeye, who has had a mental breakdown, tells his psychiatrist that while hiding from the enemy, a lady smothered her noisy chicken. It turns out that the chicken was in reality, her crying baby. A mother killed her child so that the enemy would not find them. Hawkeye was so traumatized by this event that, in his mind, he transformed the child into an animal. Although I am a faithful person, I believe the second story. The first story was Pi's way of psychologically dealing with a heinous reality.
As for the island, I too believe that it is a symbol of the Garden of Eden. The genius of this book is that all facets of the book can create so much discussion and thought.

Laura - great point.

I can buy both the Garden of Eden theory and the idea that the island is there as an example of something perfectly fantastic that we could only believe through a willful disregard for our reason. The island forces you to either throw up your hands and cry "miracle!" or accept that some facets of the story can only really exist in Pi's head.

I found the ending jarring, certainly, but it wound up the story perfectly. Finally, things made sense - Pi made it all up. He had to. And he did it because he needed things to make sense - which is why, I think, most people really believe in god.

Brilliant!! I totally agree. thanks. i've been wondering about the island, too. and I think you are right in your interpretation.

I just finished the novel and am very happy to stumble upon this discussion. I, too, like the "animal" version of Pi's story which, as many of you pointed out, is the point--the Japanese shipping reps don't believe it but at the end conclude their official report with reference to R.P., apparently ultimately agreeing with Pi that the "better" story, which requires faith, triumphs over the (possibly) "true," which denies faith. As to the allegory, yes, right about the time R.P. eats the faceless Frenchman I began to believe that the tiger is the man--that RP is that aspect of Pi, the self-described gentle vegetarian, who resorts to murder and cannibalism to survive. He cannot accept what he has become, so RP comes to represent his anamalistic nature. This is supported by RP's abrupt departure--Pi doesn't need him to survive anymore. It is also possibly supported by Pi's admission to missing RP so many years later.

So I have to admit, when I got to the alternative story, I felt somewhat validated, rather than cheated. As to the island--I've been puzzled by that too, but I like the comments (don't remember the names, sorry!) related it to the Garden of Eden and the leap of faith necessary to believe. I also consider it essential to the plot--something has to revitalize Pi and RP, or they're not going to make it to Mexico.

Anyone heard of "The Narrative of A. G. Pym of Nantucket" by Edgar Allan Poe? In it the narrator is shipwrecked with a friend an a sailor who suggests that they use cannabalism as a way to survive. They draw straws to see who will be killed. The sailor who makes the suggestion and who draws the short straw is named Richard Parker. Pretty interesting!

Hello, I just finished reading the book and am happy to find this discussion.

Susan, that is an interesting fact, and very telling. I want to read that story.

My idea is that it is all true! Both stories are true. I definitely see the reasoning behind the second story and I do think the island could represent Pi's break with reality. I also like the first story so much more. It is interesting that the interviewers at the end so easily believe the second story and so quickly dismiss the first, although they go on to record the first story as the "official" story.

I think both stories are true because that symbolizes the way Pi approaches religion. In Part One, the representatives of the three faiths, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam surround Pi and tell him he must choose one, yet he continues to believe in all three faiths. Isn't that a little bit like us debating over which one story is the correct one?

susan

you know what is REALLY strange? the narrative of gordon pym was published in 1838 , but in 1884 a cabin boy called richrd parker was actually eaten by his sailor friends. the case went to court too.

Remarkable! No I didn't know. Thanks for the wikipedia ref. How Poe-ian!!

I think the Island represent Pi's vision of what he is becoming. He himself, a vegetarian, eating meat to survive (and starting to enjoy it)... then there is is island which is vegetation eating meat to survive. Pi has gotten comfortable with Richard Parker (his alter ego) and sees what he is becoming. He realizes he has to keep Richard Parker around until he can get back to another place where he doesn't need Richard Parker anymore.

Well, why CAN'T the island be real? let alone, the whole first story? either way, both stories are incredibly unbelievable, one just slightly more so.

there are similar island-type things (i had thought they were called a bog, but i could be wrong, i'd been to one years ago) that occur on lakes, simply debris that has broken off from the land and floats around, with full grown trees and everything. eventually these "hook" onto a shoreline. why couldn't something similar happen in the ocean?

either way, i loved the book! i did not feel "cheated" by the ending, it's still a story, one you can take and interpret any way you personally choose to.

I think the entire Richard Parker background with Poe is interesting, and that will give me something to explore further.

I also think it's interesting that several times in the first section of the book, the author makes comments about atheists actually being okay, but agnostics being the worst kind of people because they simply refuse to make a decision. I believe he even uses the phrase "sitting on the fence", with great disdain. Yet here, many people are agnosticizing the ending, saying they like both and that they actively refuse to pick one over the other because they don't see why both can't be true. This seems to be the predominant reaction: it makes me wonder if the author did this on purpose. He abuses agnostics, but then creates on story so unbelievable and another so horrible that it's really difficult to choose because logic stands in your way with one, and desire stands in the way with the other.

Also, I think it's important to make a distinction between literal and figurative truth. On a literal level, it's not possible for both stories to be true: the characters either must be humans or must be animals. True, one can certainly ENJOY both stories, but if you choose to believe that the first story is figuratively true and the second factually true, that's not really saying they're both true, is it? That's saying one REPRESENTS a truth while the other IS a truth.

As for the island, I was bothered by it, but after reading everyone's responses (some of which I agree with, and others I disagree with) I think the island fails to parallel the Garden of Eden myth. After all, fruit from the tree of knowledge leads to the fall of man, while "fruit" from the carnivorous trees leads to Pi's ultimate safety. The fruit, in this case, is horrible. Sickening. And it's teeth. This is because the tree ate a man. Pi/Richard Parker ate a man. The island brought a seemingly pleasant and healthy surge of life to Pi/Richard Parker, just as cannibalism would bring to a starving person. If you're going symbolic with the tree, it seems reasonable to assume that the seemingly-ideal time the pair spends on the island is parallel to the aftereffects eating meat (albeit cannibalistically) would have on a starving human being. He and his basest survival instincts would celebrate and feel stronger. But even Richard Parker is secretly terrified of what he has done, and eventually when Pi really takes a good look at the situation, both must flee the island almost immediately.

As for the amount of time lapsed after the island, Pi says he guesses the blindness was after 150-200 days at sea. Richard Parker kills the Frenchman and eats him during the few days of blindness (so if RP is Pi, this is the act of cannibalism) and shortly after Pi gets his sight back and discovers the island. This leaves anywhere from 27-77 days from blindness to rescue, and the island didn't seem to last THAT long. He started sleeping in the tree fairly quickly after arrival (maybe 1-2 weeks) and then started making other discoveries quite quickly after that. However, when he leaves he mentions that after this, there was nothing but misery to report. So he doesn't report it. It's not that no time has passed, it's that after the island/act, nothing is worth mentioning. It's more of the same. Surviving off fish, etc. When they land on the island, Richard Parker is staggering. It's never stated that this is from weakness. Consider another possibility: have you ever been on a boat for a long period of time, then tried to walk on solid ground? You'd fall over too, especially if your muscles were atrophied from confinement in a tiny place where you spent most of your days huddled under a bench for shade anyway.

Even so, the extreme survival instinct is strong within Pi, but as some of you said earlier, it's not something that can stick around in what we call "civilization."

Anyway, for all of the author's smack talk about agnostics, perhaps there's a reason he says he thinks people should read the entire book, then reread the first part. Adult Pi, narrator of the first section, hates agnostics. Can't stand them. Thinks they're worse than atheists, because at least atheists pick a side. But isn't it interesting how the author seems to have manipulated so many into not WANTING to pick a side? That's what made me want to reread the first section and see what I really think he's trying to say about beliefs. I'm not sure I should have taken it at face value as I did on my first read.

Anne, all I have to say is WOW! what a brilliant analysis.

Laura--I love your interpretation. That's so interesting. I also loved the Garden of Eden analogy and the madness idea that someone else put forth.

I think that's why I loved the book so much--there are so many layers and we're given the chance to gain own own meaning from the tale.

I personally believe that the first story was "true" (as in what "really happened" to the fictional character). The tiny rodent bones, not explained in any other way, make it possible. And I think that's the whole point of the book--we can believe the ugly, the bad, the depraved story, or we can believe the more pleasant story. And just because one story is more pleasant than the other doesn't mean it's false. We have no way of proving that Pi's first story didn't exist, just as there is no way to prove that God isn't real. But just like with the meerkat bones, believers are given hundreds of tiny evidences of God's existence daily. Furthermore, the only people that Pi condemned were the agnostics, those who doubted. Choose a story, choose your belief. I believe our choice says a lot about us.

It's a metaphor...the "island'. Why can't Pi just be dreaming? I mean, for goodness sake, he has been stuck on a life raft with a man eating beast for ever! The mind feeds the soul, yes...so maybe the mind fed the body by providing an escape from the harsh reality. I loved this part of the book, and felt it to be perfectly fitting.

I have always felt kind of a combo of other posts. The island was stumbled upon on Pi's journey to his ultimate desire and destination of land. It seemed like land to him. It gave him everything he thought he was looking for in his search for land. But it wasnt land and it wasnt the fulfilling of his journey and dream. When he found the tooth and realized the island had killed someone before him he had to leave. Why didnt the previous tenant leave? Cause even though it wasnt the actual destination it seemed "good enough" and settling for "good enough" seemed better than nothing at all. But Pi knew that living life that way isnt living life at all. Its existing and eventually merely existing will leave you lifeless. This is why Pi left but also why it was difficult for him. It was just so close to his image of where he wanted to be and to go back to the ocean and the opposite of where he wanted to be was devastating. Leaving the island gave him a chance at least though for the life he knew he wanted while staying on the island never would.

As soon as the tree was discovered on this island, I too thought of the Garden Of Eden. Pi had everything he needed on this island, just like Adam and Eve did in their new world. There was only one thing they could not touch, which was the tree. When Pi touches the tree, he starts to see the truth around him, and the truth is something that seems unbelievable. Perhaps this relates to how sin, etc, is unbelievable itself, and it too will "eat us alive" like the island will when someone's defenses are down (i.e. when they are sleeping/not paying attention).

Now, if any of this is true at all, why do we need to worry about Pi and sin, when all he is trying to do is survive? Whether he imagined this or it really happened, Pi did soon after re-enter human civilization, and perhaps this was a reminder of him to avoid the dangerous ways of man and remember what he has learned.

I didn't initially feel that the religious part was that important, and was a bit annoyed that it went for a long time. It seemed like the only important part of the religion was to give Pi something to keep him going (except for Richard, of course). However, at the end, I started to wonder. Pi couldn't really choose one religion, and he practiced three although he leaned more toward one. He didn't know which was "better", and the people around him all had their own opinions-or none whatsoever. At the end, we are left to wonder which story is better - and, for that matter, which story is "right". I believe this could be commentary on religion by the author.

Thoughts, etc? Sorry if this has been said before in here somewhere. :)

I agree with some of the people on this board of discussion and some I don't.

Here is what I think.

First of all: this is a fictional story. That ought to be taken into consideration...

Two: While I was reading it I felt that the author was somewhat detached from Pi himself. And that I didn't like. But as I read on, I really started thinking about my own perspective on life, how do I live it, what would I do in his situation, would I just lay there and die or do all the things he did to survive? Hmmm....

Tree: When at the end he asks the Japanese men: "which story do you chose?" I believe he's asking the reader: "How do YOU perceive life? Are you a pessimist, a romantic, an optimist? Would you rather be with humans, who very often act so inhumane, animalistic; or with a tiger, who is 'Less' intellectual, but who doesn't over think everything to a point of losing his purpose on Earth, his function?"

Four: In my opinion (pointed out by a very dear friend of mine): books are there not for mere stories, but to change our perspective on life. Which this book did. So I say, some books are for me and some aren't.

Five: I agree with Mrs. Turnbow, that the island is the Garden of Eden.

Six: I'm being haunted by this book and that's already good.

I think there is no "right" answer, only interpretations. But the book in its entirety was about life; life is unpredictable. The island may or may not exist, but how can anyone ever know? There are no bounds as to what may happen during one's lifetime--Pi's life is a prime example. (more to add later, must teach my next class...)

I've always felt that way about books. "Our interpretations say more about us than they do about the book." Which is why I really want to believe the story with animals, and not with people. But the floating island is so hard to believe, and the author was once quoted saying you either believe all of the first story or none of it. I want to believe, I really do.

I was totally agreeing with everything you said, and then I read "I am a devout Mormon" and I thought, "That's why! I am too!"

I know this is a really old thread and I just read the book and wanted to comment on the Island.

The Island seemed to pop up very suddenly right after Richard Parker kills the Frenchman. Which, like me, if you believe that the "human, cannibalistic" story is the true one, then it seems obvious to me that the Island is actually Pi's own mental refuge from reality.
By day, Richard Parker hungrily hunts and kills meerkats to the point that he's even killing beyond his need. And the whole while that RP is doing this, Pi himself just leisurely explores this beautiful island which provides him with all of his physical needs and spiritually revives him. It is Pi's mental escape from his own barbarism, and at first he still occupies the boat with RP at night, but eventually he abandons the boat completely, inhabiting the island night and day.
There are no real time references to the island. We don't know how long Pi truly lasts on the Island, nor how long each stage of activity lasts on the island. We don't know how long it takes for Pi to abandon the boat completely, nor how long it takes him to spend time "training" RP to jump through hoops. I think each stage represents some part of Pi's mental journey across the Pacific.
When Pi recounts the "second" story to the Japanese men, he really does not talk about any part of his journey that follows the death of the Frenchman. That's because it's insignificant, there's nothing to tell except that he fished and killed turtles to help himself survive his journey. But whilst on his journey, Pi is traumatized by the events of the cannibalization of the sailor and his own mother, and by his ultimate murder of the Frenchman. That's why he "lands" on the island immediately after the death of the Frenchman.
His journey goes on, tentatively exploring his own daydream, his escape from reality, at first just exploring it's edges, then seeking to tame the tiger (teaching RP to jump through hoops), because he can see that his own carnivorous alter-ego is getting out of control and may take over his whole personality (consume Pi himself). He continues to sleep in the boat at night, aware of his reality, the circumstances of floating on a boat through the Pacific, but eventually he is so tired of his journey and the confines of the boat that he begins to escape his reality, choosing to live (mentally) completely on the island both night and day.
All the while, Richard Parker continues to hunt and eat during the day and sleep in the boat every night. At some point, Pi seeks the fruit from the tree of knowledge - that the island, which gives him his mental refuge, will ultimately cause him to loose all touch with reality - effectively consuming whatever humanity is left of Pi, leaving only his carnivorous "teeth". So Pi chooses to leave the island - he chooses to live with the reality of his situation, surviving in a boat with nothing but his primal self.
That's why, after Pi chooses to leave the Island he basically reports nothing more of his journey. There is nothing fantastical to tell because he has at that point embraced reality and life on the "real" boat is nothing but a boring repetitive routine of survival.
At one point while on the island, Pi cleans out all the bones and death from the boat. The only bones left when he lands in Mexico are the rodent bones. My take on the rodent bones is that they were probably from some rodents that were living in the boat with them (rats that came from the ship for example), and when Pi "cleans out" the boat, he purposely leaves behind the rodent bones so that he can hold on to his mental escape from reality. I think that by keeping the bones he is clinging on to the fantasy that he has cooked up for himself as a means of surviving the trauma of his experiences.

I read this eight years ago but missed my book club's discussion because I was on bed rest. I'm happy to have stumbled on this thread so many years later.

It's interesting that when I read the ending my mind refused to see the second story (which I believe to be the true one) as reality. Like Pi, I found it too horrible to believe. It was only after thinking through it (it's been a long time, so forgive me, but weren't those animal cages locked?) That I found holes in the first (though admitting so broke my heart).

Maybe the faith aspect comes not from believing what's more pleasant to buy into but facing the ugly side of life and continuing to find hope.

Suzanne wrote: "I know this is a really old thread and I just read the book and wanted to comment on the Island.

The Island seemed to pop up very suddenly right after Richard Parker kills the Frenchman. Wh..."

Suzanne, I think you have had a lot of great insight into the significance of the island in this story. To me, the island added another whole dimension to Pi's extraordinary experience. Like the dichotomy between earth and sea, it mirrors the dichotomy between reality and fantasy, or reality and mirage, maybe. But the templates are never totally black or white, either. The island is a continually moving thing, not anchored; the boat is a kind of home and castle, even as it bounces around the Pacific. Well, this is the stuff of great fiction, isn't it? Can't really be pinned down altogether ...

In my book Doing Max Vinyl there is a character named Tris who is Max Vinyl's lover, and to his great annoyance she puts off their lovemaking so that she can finish the chapter in the book she is reading. Max demands to know what could be so fascinating about a book, that it would make her put off making love to him. So she describes the plot of a boy caught in a lifeboat out on the open ocean with a tiger in the boat. Max just cannot understand why anyone would want to read a book with such an implausible premise. Well, there are a lot of things Max doesn't get ...

I thought the island was the main character psychologically coming to terms with what had happened on the boat; a kind of purging and coming to grips with the horror of the experience (if you will), eventually leading to the point where he could soldier on with is life because there was something to hope for. Then again, I could be completely off my rocker for thinking so. At any rate, I really loved this book.

Sarah wrote: "I found that I liked Life of Pi as a story and I feel like I understood some of the symbolism used, but I became angry at the end when we learn this adventure/horror might not be true. I felt lik..."

Yes thats how I felt!!!

The island is a break from the monotony of the sea. For the reader and characters. More importantly Pi is interested in stories and what makes a better story, hence his interest in various bible stories. They might not be true, but they make for fabulous tales. Instead of telling us what actually happened to him, he chooses to let his imagination run free and give us a more palatable version of events. Hence this weird and strangely wonderful island. turning his story into a fable, to him, makes for a better story. We are given an alternative version at the end and it is up to us to decide which makes the better story.

(Im looking at this island symbolically) I kind of read most of the first page and then skipped the second just cause im really tired (not an excuse i know!) but i dont think anyone has really mentioned that....

prehaps the island represents a dichotomic blend between both science and religion. This can be examined where Pi states that it island was a "chlorophyll heaven". Heaven obviously is attached to his relgious beliefs and chlorophyll, a scientifc word for a green pigment, is also the colour representing islam.

Furthermore, Pi referred to the meerkats in a way that again could suggest a blend as he states "to see so many beings bending down at the same time reminded me of prayer time in a mosque". Therefore, the blend reveals science in the form of an animal itself, and, religion through his observance of the meerkat.

Also, not relevant to this part of the book, but Richard Parkers furr was orange and so was the lifeboat which commonly represents saftey and is also the colour of hinduism. As the lifeboat starts to fade and the colour of Richard Parker's furr dimenishes so does Pi's faith so there again you could elude to what happens to the colour of orange as a symbol and representation of Pi's devotion to faith :)

I haven't read all of your comments, but this is for Sarah. I took a fiction writing class some time ago and I wrote a short story. At the end of the story, I dropped the bomb on the reader that this story was a dream. My teacher slammed me. He said it is one of the worst things you could ever do as a writer - inform the reader that what they had just read was merely a dream. To my teacher, this was fiction 101, so in my opinion, the writer did not have that intention.

I wondered if the author was told a story where the storyteller had embellished the details and the author of Pi became curious and decided to do the same thing - hence why he may have included the storyteller in parts of the book.

I also wondered if the author was trying to say that people are going to believe whatever they want to believe.

Just some quick thoughts... But if the question is which story was real, I would have to choose the story Pi told, as improbable as it may seem.

I can't recall off hand reading a book like Pi where the author was able to pull off a story that seems so implausible and combine all of the elements of story to make it plausible.

I thought Pi was a good book...

Katie, your take is my own. The author put it in to cast doubt on Pi`s tale. The island is way over the bottom in credibility and this is the first moment of doubting Thomas.
It doesn`t necessarily cast a complete denial of the tale`s truth, as at this point, if we have swallowed the tale so far, explain it away as this is the point that Pi loses his sanity and the hallucinations take over. Everything up to this point is true, to our thinking, but so many days at sea have affected Pi to the point of impending madness.

The island appears to symbolize the struggle Pi has within himself (between himself and the tiger, who is symbolically himself): does he strive to live after what he has done to survive? Or does he submit to death i.e. give up the struggle after what he has done to survive?

The carnivorous island may also be viewed an allegory(story within a story)and a metaphor for Pi's spiritual and mental breakdown during the ordeal. Pi has 2 sides in the story, himself (human) which is innocent and nice and his animalist murderous side(Richard Parker) which does whatever possible to survive --> cannabolism. Therefore the carnivorous island could be an allegory of Pi's life on the boat. This is because... like Pi, the island is innocent, clam, lifesaving and moral on top. But deep down it has a hidden side of death and murder. "The radiant promise it offered during the day was replaced in my heart by all the treachery it deliever during the night." Therefore the island could simply be a metaphor of the final part of his journey in which he is wreched, spiritually destroyed and barely holding on to life. "The rest of this story is nothing but grief, ache and endurance."

chancealot wrote: "The carnivorous island may also be viewed an allegory(story within a story)and a metaphor for Pi's spiritual and mental breakdown during the ordeal. Pi has 2 sides in the story, himself (human) whi..."

I agree. Well said.

Forgive me if this has been stated but is the island not literally a giant bunch of lost bananas inhabited by rats? The meercats are rats that likely hitched a ride on this lost floating cargo, likely from a recently sunken ship - perhaps the one that almost ran the lifeboat down. Pi is almost dead when he reached this island and gained his strength and sustenance from the two forms of food the island had in abundance, bananas and rat protein. There are no heads found with these bones in the boat and Pi most likely got rid of them as they would be most readily identifiable as rat skulls. As for the meaning, what everyone said here is probably right. All of you, good on you. I loved this novel.

I have no idea. I felt the island was the most random and pointless thing ever. I kind of felt that the author needed something extra in his story than: some kid is out on the ocean for a really long time. Finds land. End.

I think the meerkat island is intended as a stage-setter for what will follow. To me, it is a surreal moment that could not be true - meerkat's are only found in one place in Africa. And not on islands. The tooth thing is equally surreal. But they seem to suddenly wrest us from our reality into the idea that this is indeed a fantasy world (not unlike a CS Lewis Perelandia I might add...) that is decidedly un-real. It is indeed a leap of faith that shows us that not all is right with this story - that Pi's madness is coloring experiences with vividly imagined alter-tellings. It is his way of coping with the unimaginable! Had Martel not included this scene, the ending twist would've been - in my opinion - too fantastic, too shocking in its out-there-ness to be interesting. We as readers would've been more frustrated then. I hated it at the time I read the scene, but appreciated it after for what it was.

Sheer genius if you ask me.

Yes, by Jove, that`s exactly how I saw it John. You said it much better than me.

If we're going to get all smbolic about it, I think the struggle to survive the boat and the ocean represented a spiritual/religious journey. Testing of faith. The island was the temptation that would have caused him to abandon his journey, and so he had to leave before it ate him away.

Interesting posts! I agree we all have to make sense of the book in our own way and I have two comments:

1. The island story spoilt it for me

2. I believe that the boat had people in it to start and because of the horrors of what happened to them, Pi turned them into animals to cope with what he had witnessed. He turned himself into a tiger, being the strongest and most resilient creature on board.

Hasn't anyone thought of the idea that the novel is actually meant to teach a lesson? The fact that it doesn't matter what is the actual story it is what makes the BETTER story?

As for the island, I personally think it represents an anti-eden. Pi initially finds optimism however he realises that this optimism is short lived. The meerkats act as the serpent does in the actual eden tempting Pi but also simultaneously revealing what is real. This is then linked to the end of the novel as Pi actually reveals what has happened.

Beckyyy wrote: "Hasn't anyone thought of the idea that the novel is actually meant to teach a lesson? The fact that it doesn't matter what is the actual story it is what makes the BETTER story?

As for the island..."

Right on. I totally agree.

Sarah wrote: "I found that I liked Life of Pi as a story and I feel like I understood some of the symbolism used, but I became angry at the end when we learn this adventure/horror might not be true. I felt lik..."

Its been awhile since i read it but the end of the book for me was a choice, of both the reader(me) and the character Pi. I as the reader could choose which story to believe (which says something about me), and Pi obviously chose his symbolic story to be his truth. Its about a way of looking at life and dealing with what and how things happen to you. Both stories, what really happened and Pi's version, correlate with each other but one is about what happened to him and the other is about how he chose to deal with it. I think there are so many more levels of meaning and symbolism involved, but this is one aspect to consider. I hate to see you enjoy the story but feel robbed in the end; the end Is the story.

After reading this I don't buy the argument that this is a book about belief in God at the centre. I do think its a book about the nature of belief in general. The concept of the two stories of Pi (animal characters vs. human characters) leads me to this thought.

The story with the animals (Story 1) is preferred because it is easier to BELIEVE because it lends comfort from the facts of the story and its implications on human base-nature (cannibalism). Its what we would like to believe, even if the facts don't support it. Its easier to believe because then we don't have to accept what happened to the people on that boat.

Which leads me to the Island: What if the Island represents something completely different here?

I have a tugging feeling that the island may represent religion itself. The island is comforting and unreal, and is written so by Martel. Very few things about the island make 'sense' from a logical point of view. However, the island does provide soothing comfort from the harsh reality to Pi's situation. Religion provides comfort and an escape (real or imagined) to those in dire need, yet its promises of bettering the situation if one escapes into it very often aren't realized at all.

Pi's only real 'escape' was to get back on that boat and face reality. The reality he dealt with by the creation of a 'reality' with Richard Parker, the hyena, zebra & orangutan.

To me the island represents religions from the concept that if you delve too deep into anything (science, religion, etc) its concepts ultimately dissolve you and prevent you from seeing/dealing with the world as it is.

One thing I didn't understand was that Frenchman? Was he introduced just to validate the OTHER story Pi tells the policemen?

The Frenchman is the cook in the 'real' story (one without animals).

I still fail to get how the book can make one 'believe in God' - Pi's animal story is clearly an attempt to come to terms with the real horror on that boat.

Was God's merciful act to allow his mind to create those characters & story so Pi did not have to deal with the truth?

Wouldn't God have had the power to stop the events in the first place?