Life of Pi

I finished Life of Pi last week and clean forgot to post. Honestly, the ending really -really- made me think (and mope a little). My brother in law actually advised me not to read Part III (which is only a few pages long), claiming it ruined the book, and I think that, had I listened to him, I would have walked away content in the beautiful story I read, but perhaps a bit less thoughtful.

If anyone else picks this up I'd love to discuss.

Man, I thought for sure there had been -some- discussion on this book. I obviously have mixed feelings on it, but considering I spent my lunch staring into space and thinking about this book I read years ago, I thought I'd check in again and see if anyone else had checked it out.

So. Anyone?

I have a copy of the book on my shelf, but I haven't read it yet. Give me a week or so, and I'll be ready to discuss =)

Bumping this yet again :X. I do have new infos though! Ang Lee is directing the film version of this story, and judging by the preview it looks absolutely beautiful.

[video=youtube;_J3cNY929k4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J3cNY929k4[/video]

I imagine the movie is going to have to be visually stunning, since there's very little dialogue for most of the story. I do wonder if the guy playing Pi has the chops to pull off a largely solo performance.

But, back to the book! I'm particularly curious to hear what people thought of part 3. Does it make, or break, the rest of the book? What would this book be without that last bit?

I'm undecided. I don't remember what part 3 starts with; I guess the interview? I choose to believe that he was just telling them a story they'd believe, just like he says. Is there any reason to believe that the story that makes up most of the book is not true, other than the fact that it is miraculous?

Accidentally submitted post. Oops.

That isn't a rhetorical question. Aside from the lack of tiger, there wasn't any reason to disbelieve the story, other than our own assumptions, was there?

I think the other thing that could not be readily proven was the carnivorous island. Either he discovered a natural wonder, he was hallucinating, or he was speaking allegorically.

And...I think that's what gets me about part 3. It introduces the possibility that the entire story was allegorical. It turns a wondrous story into something else, some sort of post-modern there-is-no-truth sort of thing that I'm not sure I dig, to be honest.

Well, Fahrenheit 451 is not about censorship, and I had a hard time believing that. It doesn't matter. Ray Bradbury can get as mad as he wants about it (in the afterlife or whatever cause he's dead now); the message most people take away from the book is basically "censorship is bad". Since it is intentionally left open to interpretation, I choose to read Life of Pi as if the story were real, and Pi, after his religious schooling and the survival of his descent into his own personal hell, knows the hearts of men (and I guess knows that life is not all happy flowers and songs about sunshine), and that they will not accept anything so amazing as being real. So he makes up that other, horrific story about... that other stuff.

That the author bothered to point out the "post-modern there-is-no-truth sort of thing" doesn't change the fact that it really IS a thing - whether or not there is an objective truth, people are going to make their own "truth" - and I am able to dismiss it as if he had pointed out any other obvious feature of life or the book, such as "human beings respirate", or "the title of this book contains the word 'Pi'."

I like that outlook. Too much indoctrination in the public schools with this idea that the author/artist has the monopoly on truth when really we should be able to decide for ourselves.

And you added a piece of evidence I hadn't really wrapped my head around before in favor of the animal story being true. That ties in with his interesting religious beliefs quite nicely.

I like the part with Pi's children, where the author reminds us that this story has a happy ending.