I'm so glad I read The Life of Pi before the movie came out. While Ang Lee does a beautiful job, the inner struggle of the main character is difficult to capture in film. Pi Patel, son of a zookeeper in Pondicherry, India, is a sensitive, philosophical young man, who is interested in world religions. After a shipwreck, he ends up sharing a lifeboat with a terrifying Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. In this harrowing coming-of-age journey, Pi's physical strength, courage and spirituality are all tested.

The Life of Pi novel shares a thematic basis with J.P. Donleavy's The Beastly Beatitudes of Balthazar B, a literary wonder. The protagonist, Balthazar, is studying zoology, while his friend Beefy studies theology. Balthazar and Beefy come of age while exploring their hedonistic and spiritual natures. I love the way Donleavy breaks all the rules of grammar and goes straight to the funny bone.

I recommend both of these books to readers who enjoy beautifully crafted stories that take on animal vs. spiritual themes.

I read this book two years ago, but when we discussed it this month for book club, I remembered how much I liked it. A good discussion always ups my appreciation of a novel as does an ending that makes me requestion my givens in the story. I find myself reading contradictory interpretations and agreeing with both sides. That's the beauty of symbolism: as long as you back up your cause, it's plausible.

Initially it took me several weeks to get into the book. The beginning reads more like a textbook with inserted clips of the main character's future self. While the knowledge I gained about zoology and theology was interesting, it wasn't intriguing enough to keep me awake for more than a few pages at a time and often I found the tidbits a confusing distraction. But with distance I enjoyed the backdrop information it offered. If you're struggling through the initial background, jump ahead to the second section. Yeah it's important, but it's not vital. And maybe once you've read the story you'll want to come back and appreciate his analysis.

I highly enjoyed this strange journey at sea and found it almost believable--until the castaways encounter the island at which point I wondered how much of his sanity wavered. Being shipwreck is one of a plethora of phobias I have. Throw on top my even stronger fear of tigers and this was a story straight out of a nightmare, one that kept me intrigued for a resolution. How could a boy keep the upper hand shipwrecked with a tiger? I had a picture in my head of Pi clinging to the side of the boat to avoid both the salty water infested with sharks and a foodless boat housing a hungry carnivore.

I found myself stuck in the unusual place where as a reader I find a story plausible with full knowledge that had this story been presented in real life I would have doubted its authenticity. I wanted to believe the story and all its fantasy. The end initially annoyed me, but if you look at the rich metaphors in the story, it becomes delectable for a story analyst like me. There is nothing I enjoy more than tearing apart a story and pulling out the intentions and symbols buried inside. Instead of just a fantastical story, you find a fable with a moral.

Spoilers here.
I want to reread the story now and analyze Richard Parker as Pi's alter ego, seeing that alpha and omega struggle as an internal one. Even the name Richard Parker is a hint at cannibalistic roots since it is the true account of a sailor who died at the hands of his cannibalistic crew members. I keep going back to that moment when Pi calls for Richard Parker to join him on the ship and then is appalled at what he has done. Once Richard Parker has joined his voyage, there is no banishing him. If they are one and the same, they beautifully represent that internal battle between the civilized vegetarian and the animalistic instinct to survive, showing the compartmentalization he needed to prevent madness.

You would not expect the small boy to conquer the beast (whether animal or himself), and yet he keeps the upper hand for an unimaginable 227 days. Had the cannibal overrun his pysche, he would have lost his battle and landed a madman. When the duo landed on the beaches of Mexico, Richard Parker took off, never to be noted by civilians again, but alive and surviving. Thus the horror of the incident will always live in Pi's memory but he chooses to repress it as it has no part in civilization.

I enjoyed the portrayal of the characters on the boat as animals. I could envision the quiet maternal sadness the orangutan gave his mother. Since the crew would be blamed for the demise of the ship, the wounded sailor as the zebra lying as prey to a demented and angry foreign chef who is just as crazy as we view the viscous hyena. The symbols were perfect and I think a second read would bring out their traits even stronger.

Some of the richest symbolism comes from the cannibal island and sailor. I think Pi's childlike mind could not deal with the cannibalism of a loved one and lets this theme leak into other story elements. The blind sailor is a second portrayal of the French chef, a character too big and conflicting to fit into one projection. At first he is the mean animal thinking only of his own survival, but as the journey progresses, Pi is conflicted with his friendship for the man. A bond is bound to happen between the only two survivors in limited space and Pi could not come to terms with his human feelings for the barbaric man. So he invents a second character, one whom he can make human, worthy of connection, but in the end is still untrustworthy and Pi must kill or be killed.

So what of the strange island? In his hallucinating state, it serves as a mirage where life is not as sweet as he suspected. The island parallels his own problems at sea with rich religious symbolism of the Garden of Eden. No matter what one's ethical code, the will to survive trumps one's moral haven. These vegetarians (person and island) don't want to harm, but are killing to survive. Something happened out at sea that his waning mind (and blindness both real and spiritual) could not substantiate and like all else he twisted it to a socially accepted tale. Since the island is discovered just after the sailor dies, maybe finding one of the chef's tooth on board turned him. Or maybe Pi happened upon a pile of garbage infested with rats and this boy, starving and demented enough to have tried his own waste, sees it as a heaven. His civilized nature knew he should scorn the filth but his barbaric needs were grateful for the nasty feast. The bones in the boat, proof that his experience was real, could have been rat bones.

Whatever the cause of his epiphany, he had to enter the depths of his own personal hell to realize this was not a heaven, or Garden of Eden, and a return to civilized behavior was vital for his own survival. Richard Parker was winning as he felt completely detached from civilization. He almost wished to stay and die at sea, to live at a level of base survival, instead of have to emotionally deal with his ordeal to progress. But his innate need to survive wins out as he realizes that as the lone castaway if he does not fight his mind's descent into madness, the sea will eat him mentally and literally.

One of my favorite interpretations of the island is a religious fork in the road. Whatever truly happened, the island cements your belief in the first or second account. Either you see the meerkat remains as proof that the beauty of the first story is true or the island is the point at which you start questioning the credence of his tale and believe he threw in this unbelievable turn of events to ready you to accept his alternate ending. As readers we are given the choice between two stories. We can pick the miraculous version of the first story, an icon of those who believe in God, or we can pick the grim atheist view of the pessimistic--although reasonable--second story, as do those who believe science disproofs God. In section one, Pi references religion to not only show where his beliefs give him strength but to give backbone to the religious allegory. He shows disdain for the indecisive agnostic (see quotes below) and bids you chose your path. The island serves to question your own religious devotion, but you have to pick what you think it represents, which story you care to believe.

Pi states this is a story that makes you believe in God. As a believer in God and the second story, I don't think there is merely an atheist interpretation to the second. Either you accept God with a leap of faith despite dissenting controversy or you take the bleak realism and see God saved him from death at sea and even more protected him from mental anguish by healing his soul from the horrors he experienced. Both stories can justify the belief in God or justify your belief in nothing. Just as I don't believe people who buy the second story are atheists, I do not believe people who chose the first story follow blindly or idiotically. It's a matter of interpretation. The story isn't going to make you believe or disbelieve God anymore than you now do.

At first I was annoyed he recanted his story because I wanted to believe his original story. It is imaginative and well written and I didn't like being called out for believing fantasy from the fantasy itself. But how could I not love an allegorical explanation to a literal story? So now I love that he presents both stories: the imaginative far-fetched one and the plausible horrific one and leaves you the reader to decide which one you want to buy into and let you ponder what it says about you. That is the point of the story.

Some of my favorite quotes from the book:
"Life is so beautiful that death has fallen in love with it, a jealous, possessive love that grabs at what it can."
"It was my luck to have a few good teachers in my youth, men and women who came into my dark head and lit a match."
"Doubt is useful for a while...But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."
"All living things contain a measure of madness that moves them in strange, sometimes inexplicable ways."
"Memory is an ocean and he bobs on the surface."
"First wonder goes deepest; wonder after that fits in the impression made by the first."
"The main battlefield for good is not the open ground of the public arena but the small clearing of each heart."

“In both stories the ship sinks, my entire family dies, and I suffer.”

“Yes, that’s true.”

“So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can’t prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?”

“That’s an interesting question?”

“The story with animals.”

“Yes. The story with animals is the better story.”

“Thank you. And so it goes with God.”

Piscine Molitor "Pi" Patel grows up in Pondicherry, India, deeply interested in religion and spending a great deal of time at the zoo operated by his father. In the mid-1970s, during a time of political unrest, his family decides to sell the zoo and the animals and move to Canada. One week into the journey, the boat sinks and Pi is stranded on a 100 sq ft lifeboat with a hyena, an injured zebra, an orangutan, and a 450-pound adult Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. We know that Pi survives for the next seven months until he is rescued, but how?

The structure of Life of Pi reminded me quite a bit of  Robinson Crusoe. There’s some opening set-up, then the primary portion where the main character is alone and fighting for survival, closing with a final sequence telling of the main character’s return to civilization. Like  Robinson Crusoe, that middle portion of the novel is a catalog of trials, and tales of hardship survived. Some of it is really interesting, full of imagination and magical realism, and some gets a bit tedious. I found the opening chapters, when we learn of Pi’s exploration of different religions, and the strange connections he makes between animals and people, to be more interesting.

Entering the final pages, I was honestly planning to give Life of Pi two stars. I didn’t care much for the story, and only even read the novel because it seemed the best choice to satisfy the Pop Sugar Reading Challenge task to read “a book with a tiger on the cover or ‘tiger’ in the title.” But I really liked the book’s ending, when Pi’s fantastical story of survival is met with skepticism by the world he returns to. It was a surprisingly powerful ending that hit me hard in my own deep well of cynicism. So while this novel heavy on magical realism wasn’t really my cup of tea, I’d still recommend giving it a try. It’s really popular for a reason. Recommended.

1000.000/5
this really beautiful and amazing journey
I felt myself with pi and the Tiger in the sea , I'm absolutely happy because I read it .

2004 review: I've always remembered this book leaving a deep lasting impact on me; appearing from the start to be one thing, and being by the end something completely different! My naïve younger self labelled this as a horror read, which I understand - but this a lot more than that.

Yann Martel's expert and peerless mix of fact and fiction, and of adventure and magical realism, is a joy to behold. Ultimately this book has one of those ideas, that some readers may struggle with - that only you can decide what really happened on Pi's journey, but it works really well for me. One of my must-read top 100 books. My stuck-up younger self only gave this an 8 out 12, but I'm sure a re-read will right this wrong one day.
[image error]

After finishing Life of Pi, I've finally cleared up a lot of the confusion I had after watching the movie, and I have an even greater admiration for Yann Martel. Not only did he tell a fantastic story, but his writing is also exceptional. I found it hard to put the book down.

I've noticed that many readers spend a lot of time debating the truth or falsehood of the first and second stories. However, I think the first third of the book is worth savoring more. I feel like almost every detail in the beginning is significant and directly relates to Pi's thoughts, feelings, and experiences during his time adrift at sea.

Pi has a unique and fascinating background: the son of a zookeeper, he is a devout believer in Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. His father ran a colorful zoo in Pondicherry, a former French colony in India. Pi spent most of his after - school hours learning about animals, and this experience not only shaped his childhood memories but also influenced his worldview.

What had the greatest impact on Pi's worldview, however, was religion - not just 1, but 3. This is why he pursued dual degrees in zoology and theology at the University of Toronto. And through his studies of the three - toed sloth and the 16th - century Kabbalists, a branch of Judaism, he developed a deeper understanding of the boundaries between science and religion.

As Pi reminisced about his childhood in India, he often drew parallels between the plight of animals in zoos and people's prejudices against religion. Pi believed that prejudices against zoos and religion stem from the same root: the human - centric view that humans are the center of the universe. I found this comparison particularly insightful.

Pi mentioned that he'd heard just as many misconceptions about zoos as about religious beliefs. Well - meaning but ignorant people often assume that animals can only be truly happy living in the wild because the wild represents freedom. Similarly, those who oppose religion argue that if there's a God, humans must live by God's rules, just like animals in zoos, losing their freedom.

But is freedom really what people imagine it to be? At least in Pi's view, we have a misconception about zoos. A comfortable house meets our basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter, and a well-equipped zoo does the same for animals. In the past, people didn't live in apartments; they were nomads. They herded large flocks of sheep and had to travel far and wide to gather food.

Today, with advanced civilization, a 100 - square - meter apartment can meet all our basic needs. So, what about animals? Take a lion, for example. It needs a large territory, but this territory isn't for the lion's "freedom"; it's for "survival." In the wild, food is scarce, and water is hard to come by, which is why animals need seemingly vast expanses of land. So, if humans can live comfortably in houses, why can't animals live comfortably in well - equipped zoos?

You might wonder why animals escape from zoos if they're truly happy there. Pi explained that it's not about seeking freedom but about escaping something that makes them uneasy. The novel's description is so convincing that I won't spoil it for you. In short, the descriptions of zoos in the book lay the groundwork for Pi's eventual peaceful coexistence with Richard Parker.

Do science and religion contradict each other, or do they each have their own domains? Science is undoubtedly useful. The experience of Pi's zoology teacher, the staunch atheist Mr. Satisg Kumar, is a case in point. Originally a devout Muslim, Kumar lost his faith in God after contracting polio and failing to recover despite his prayers. It was Western medicine that ultimately saved him. From then on, he abandoned his belief in God and turned to science.

Coincidentally, Pi's Muslim teacher also shared the same name: Satisg Kumar. This coincidence might have further confused Pi about the relationship between science and religion. On the surface, Mr. Kumar's polio was cured by Western medicine, not religion, suggesting that science is the truth and religion is mere superstition. Perhaps Pi had similar doubts. However, he later came to understand the relationship between religion and science. A prime example is his choice of the name "Pi" for himself. Pi is an irrational number, 3.141592653..., and the sequence of digits after the decimal point goes on infinitely. This drives many mathematicians crazy, but it became a "refuge" for Pi. It made him realize that science cannot explain everything; otherwise, there would be no irrational numbers like Pi.

Later in the novel, when confronted by Japanese officials, Pi made a profound statement comparing the love of science and faith: ”I applied my reason at every moment. Reason is excellent for getting food, clothing, and shelter. Reason is the very best tool kit. Nothing beats reason for keeping tiger away. But be excessive reasonable and you risk throwing out the universe with the bathwater."

Pi survived 227 days on the Pacific Ocean. He certainly wouldn't have lasted that long relying solely on faith. Science taught him how to calculate the proper ratio of food and water, how to fish and catch turtles, and the survival guide's scientific knowledge prevented him from making many mistakes. His knowledge of animal taming also allowed him to eventually coexist peacefully with the tiger, Richard Parker.

Therefore, religion and science do not contradict each other; rather, they have their own domains. Pi's name exemplifies this: some numbers, like Pi, transcend the boundaries of human understanding, proving that science cannot explain everything. In life, there are even more things that science cannot account for. This is where the power of religious faith comes into play.

After the Tsimtsum sank, Pi found himself clinging to a lifeboat, suspended over the vast Pacific Ocean, alone and insignificant. A tiger was in front of him, a storm raged behind, and sharks lurked below. If Pi had sought answers from reason at that moment, he would have given up and jumped into the sea. He would have drowned before being devoured by sharks or tiger. Reason cannot conquer fear or doubt.

At that moment, religion, God, and faith were the only things that could give Pi strength. The 3 religions he believed in played a significant role in his survival. The first few chapters of the book lay a detailed foundation for this, which the author Martel himself described as the core of the entire book.

What is the meaning of religion? Pi himself gradually discovered this. It was because he recognized both the unity and diversity among the religions that he stubbornly adhered to all 3.

Hinduism was the first religion Pi encountered. From Hinduism, he discovered the first function of religion: it's a filter for reality, a benchmark for interpreting the world. In Pi's own words, The universe makes sense to me through Hindu eyes." Hinduism allowed Pi to understand the world rather than merely seeing it. Therefore, in later chapters, he could find beauty in the endless ocean and sky, he could tell countless fishing stories, he could write unique insights in his diary, and he could perceive and describe the floating island he saw.

Pi contrasted his feelings when he was on the Tsimtsum and when he was on the lifeboat. He said that the Tsimtsum was moving so fast that he mistakenly thought there was nothing else in the sea besides whales and dolphins. But when he drifted slowly on the lifeboat, he discovered oysters, seaweed, crabs, and other wonders. If Pi hadn't been a Hindu, perhaps the world he saw would have been as colorless as the sea he saw on the Tsimtsum. (Perhaps this is why Ang Lee's film went to great lengths to capture the beauty of the ocean.)

Later, during a chance encounter, Pi met Father Martin and was introduced to Christianity. Jesus Christ completely overturned Pi's understanding of God. How could God be like a human, not only preaching and teaching but also being brutally killed? Pi had countless questions about Jesus, but ultimately, all the questions were answered by one word: Love, that was Father Martin's answer. The priest's patience and kindness taught Pi the greatness of love, the power of love, and gave him inner peace.

So, when Pi was struggling to survive at sea, he remembered Jesus' teachings: Love your enemies. If he is hungry, give him something to eat. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. That's how Pi treated Richard Parker. Not only did he feed him fish, but he also shared his fresh water. At the same time, he also felt Jesus' love for him at sea. The most obvious examples were the swordfish that accidentally jumped onto the boat at the beginning, the school of flying fish that seemed to "fall from the sky" later, and the constant presence of turtles.

The last religion Pi encountered was Islam, which is perhaps the most misunderstood religion. After meeting his Islamic teacher, Kumar, Pi said, ”I challenge anyone to understand Islam, its spirit, and not to love it. It is a beautiful religion of brotherhood and devotion."For Pi, Islam taught him how to relate to God, how to draw closer to God, and how to struggle against the evil within himself.  

In chapters 23 to 25, there's a highlight: a scene where the elders of the 3 religions accidentally meet Pi at the same time. This part is written very beautifully and should not be missed.

In conclusion, the 3 seemingly contradictory religions gradually became more harmonious in Pi's eyes. They all helped Pi to better understand the world and himself. From then on, Pi no longer viewed different religions as separate entities but as a unified whole. Once, after listening to Kumar's explanation, Pi returned home. The roads, the sea, the trees, the air, and the sun, which had previously been unrelated to Pi, suddenly began to speak to him in the same language. He felt calm and peaceful.

Without science and without religion, Pi would not have survived.

The Japanese officials traveled a long way to meet Pi, only to hear an incredible story. Even so, after repeated questioning and doubt, they eventually chose to believe the first story. When they said they believed the first story, Pi responded, So it goes with God."

Why did Pi say that? Because the first story incorporated the teachings of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam, while the second story did not. More importantly, in the first story, although Pi didn't know where he was going, he firmly believed he would be saved. He didn't want to die on a floating island rich in material possessions but spiritually impoverished. However, in the second story, it was said, ”If you don't know where you want to go, it doesn't matter where you turn."

Admittedly, this sounds hard to believe, but Pi challenged us by asking:

”Love is hard to believe, ask any lover."
"Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist."
"God is hard to believe, ask any believer."

So, after finishing the story, it's time for you to start thinking. Religion or science, believe it or not?

Your choice.

4.6 / 5 stars

Richard Parker Is Unforgettable

Very rarely does a character stay with you for life. But this story is one that I will carry with me.

Life of Pi starts in India with a boy named Piscine Molitor Patel, also known by his nickname Pi. His family historically has operated a zoo but decides to relocate to Canada. Things don’t go quite as expected when the ship carrying them to Canada sinks.

Pi spends 227 days searching for land with a tiger named Richard Parker.

Parallels to Real Life

Did you know that Jose Salvador Alvarenga was adrift for 438 days at sea? He went fishing off the coast of Mexico on November 17, 2012. After drifting for more than a year, he spotted Marshall Islands and swam to shore.

Deep Questions

There were some really interesting questions that are raised in the Life of Pi:

What gets you up in the morning? What wakes you up out of your bed and inspires you to put one foot in front of the other, to make this existence meaningful and worthwhile? What is your tiger?

Why are the stories that we tell ourselves important?

Book Versus Movie

As someone who has both read the book and viewed the movie, I would recommend reading the book before watching the movie. However, both are excellent, and I really enjoyed the vibrant, rich colors in the movie.

Overall, an unforgettable book that will always make me think twice before boarding a boat. Now, I just need to find a cat to adopt and name him Richard Parker…….

2025 Reading Schedule
JantA Town Like Alice
FebtBirdsong
MartCaptain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
AprtWar and Peace
MaytThe Woman in White
JuntAtonement
JultThe Shadow of the Wind
AugtJude the Obscure
SeptUlysses
OcttVanity Fair
NovtA Fine Balance
DectGerminal

Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Insta My Bookstore at Pango

Richard Parker: A True life incident and a major spoiler:



In the summer of 1884, four English sailors were stranded at sea in a small lifeboat in the South Atlantic, over a thousand miles from land. Their ship, the Mignonette, had gone down in a storm, and they had escaped to the lifeboat, with only two cans of preserved turnips and no fresh water. Thomas Dudley was the captain, Edwin Stephens was the first mate, and Edmund Brooks was a sailor—“all men of excellent character,” according to newspaper accounts.

The fourth member of the crew was the cabin boy, Richard Parker, age seventeen. He was an orphan, on his first long voyage at sea. He had signed up against the advice of his friends, “in the hopefulness of youthful ambition,” thinking the journey would make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be.

From the lifeboat, the four stranded sailors watched the horizon, hoping a ship might pass and rescue them. For the first three days, they ate small rations of turnips. On the fourth day, they caught a turtle. They subsisted on the turtle and the remaining turnips for the next few days. And then for eight days, they ate nothing.

By now Parker, the cabin boy, was lying in the corner of the lifeboat. He had drunk seawater, against the advice of the others, and become ill. He appeared to be dying. On the nineteenth day of their ordeal, Dudley, the captain, suggested drawing lots to determine who would die so that the others might live. But Brooks refused, and no lots were drawn.

The next day came, and still no ship was in sight. Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze and motioned to Stephens that Parker had to be killed. Dudley offered a prayer, told the boy his time had come, and then killed him with a penknife, stabbing him in the jugular vein. Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share in the gruesome bounty. For four days, the three men fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy.

And then help came. Dudley describes their rescue in his diary, with staggering euphemism: “On the 24th day, as we were having our breakfast,” a ship appeared at last. The three survivors were picked up. Upon their return to England, they were arrested and tried. Brooks turned state’s witness. Dudley and Stephens went to trial. They freely confessed that they had killed and eaten Parker. They claimed they had done so out of necessity.

حياة باي

ربما مزاجي مائي هذه الأيام، لا أدري !! ولكن هذه هي الرواية الثانية التي أقرؤها ويكون لها علاقة بالبحر – بعد (العجوز والبحر) لهيمنغواي -، وها قد حصلت قبل أيام على رواية جاك لندن (ذئب البحار)، ونفسي تحدثني بقراءة (موبي ديك) لميلفل لأجعل الختام بحجم محيط.

لدي ذلك الميل إلى البحر، رغم أني صحراوي، ولد ونشأ ويعيش في صحراء تغطيها قشرة حضارة، الله وحده يعلم كم ستدوم، هذا الميل إلى البحر يجعلني استمتع بالكتب التي تدور أحداثها في البحر، ويجعلني أشاهد الأفلام التي تدور في السفن أو الغواصات، ويجعل لدي حلما ً أتمنى أن أحققه يوما ً ما، وهو أن أقوم برحلة بحرية طويلة، على عبارة بحجم مدينة أفقها البحر.

لهذا استمتعت كثيرا ً بهذه الرواية التي حصدت جائزة المان بوكر لسنة 2002 م، مؤلفها كندي اسمه (يان مارتل)، يحدثنا مارتل في توطئته للكتاب، عن ظروف ولادة هذه الرواية، بادئا ً بفشل روايته الثانية التي أصدرها سنة 1996 م، حيث يقرر أن يكتب رواية جديدة تدور أحداثها في البرتغال، ولكن بعيدا ً في الهند، حيث يؤمل أن جوا ً تحيطه فيه مزارع الشاي، وتلال يغلفها الضباب، وزعيق قردة، سيدفعه إلى الكتابة، ولكن روايته تموت هناك، وحيث لم يبق لديه ما يفعله يتنقل في الهند حتى يصل إلى بونديتشيري، هناك يلتقي برجل عجوز في مقهى، يخبره بقصة يزعم أنها ستجعله يؤمن بالله، وهذه هي القصة التي بين يدينا، هذه التوطئة تجعلنا نظن أن الرواية حقيقية وأن أحداثها قد وقعت بالفعل، وخاصة أن مارتل يقدم الشكر في نهاية التوطئة لشخوص الرواية وكأنهم حقيقيون، ولكن بقليل من البحث نكتشف أن أحداث الرواية غير حقيقية، بل إن القصة مقتبسة من رواية أخرى لكاتب برازيلي يدعى مواكير سكليار – يشكره مارتل في توطئته أيضا ً "من أجل شرارة الحياة التي أمدني بها"-، رواية سكليار (ماكس والقطط)، عن يهودي ألماني يعبر المحيط الأطلسي في قارب ومعه فهد، صدرت في 1981 م، وقد كاد سكليار يرفع قضية على مارتل بسبب هذا، لولا أنه تجاوز الأمر بعدما تحدث معه، على أي حال لنترك هذا كله ولنتحدث عن أحداث الرواية.

تنبيه: ما سيأتي قد يكشف شيئا ً من أحداث الرواية.

بطل الرواية فتى هندي اسمه (بيسين موليتور باتل)، سمي على بركة سباحة فرنسية، ولأن زملاء المدرسة يمكنهم أن يسخروا من الإنسان حتى يخرج من جلده، تحول اسم (بيسين) إلى (بيسينغ) والتي تعني بالإنجليزية (التبول)، فقام بيسين في حركة جريئة بتغيير اسمه إلى (باي)، الرمز الرياضي الذي يعبر عن النسبة بين محيط الدائرة وقطرها، وبالفعل تخلص من اسمه الرسمي، وصار بعيدا ً عن أحواض السباحة والبول.

يعيش باي في بونديتشيري، المستعمرة القديمة لفرنسا في جنوب الهند، حيث يدير والده حديقة حيوان ضخمة، يمتد الجزء الأول من الرواية ليغطي كل ما يتعلق بحديقة الحيوان هذه، أنواع الحيوانات، صفاتها، بل كيف تدار حديقة حيوان، وكيف يتم التعامل مع الحيوانات وترويضها، كما يغطي الجزء الحياة الروحية لباي والذي يضيف إلى ديانته الهندوسية كلا ً من المسيحية والإسلام، فهو يتنقل بين المعبد والكنيسة والمسجد، ويقيم صلوات كل ديانة مقتنعا ً بأنه أقرب إلى الله هكذا.

يبدأ جزء الرواية الثاني الأطول، عندما تتولى أنديرا غاندي رئاسة الوزارة في الهند، وتقبض بيد من حديد على البلد، ولأن والدي باي يكرهانها ويكرهان سياستها يقرران الهجرة إلى كندا، العام هو 1977 م، بيعت حيوانات الحديقة وشحن جزء منها في السفينة اليابانية (تسومتسوم) التي غادرت وعلى متنها العائلة الهندية، الأبوين وباي مع أخيه الأكبر رافي، ولكن السفينة تغرق بسرعة رهيبة، ويجد باي نفسه وحيدا ً في قارب نجاة، ليس وحيدا ً تماما ً للأسف، فالقارب الصغير يحمل معه أيضا ً حمار وحش مكسور القدم، سعلاة – في النص الأصلي هي إنسان الغاب (الأورانجوتان)-، ضبع، وريتشارد باركر، وباركر هذا ليس جنتلمانا ً إنجليزيا ً كما قد يوحي الاسم، لا ! بل هو نمر بنغالي ضخم، أي مأزق هذا !!! إنه المأزق الذي يصنع القصة، كيف يمكن أن تنجو ومعك نمر بنغالي يمكن أن يفترسك في أي لحظة؟ تسوء الحال سريعا ً، يقتل الضبع حمار الوحش، ومن ثم السعلاة، ثم يقتل النمر الذي كان قد التزم الهدوء للثلاثة الأيام الأولى - ربما بفعل مخدر ما أو دوار البحر – الضبع.

تبدأ بعد هذا أيام باي البحرية والتي ستمتد 227 يوما ً، يتعلم كيف ينجو مستخدما ً مئونة القارب المخصصة للطوارئ، صائدا ً السمك والسلاحف، مقطرا ً مياه البحر، أو جامعا ً مياه المطر، ومروضا ً النمر بحيث يصبح هو باي في نظر النمر (حيوان ألفا)، أي الحيوان الأعلى منزلة في القارب، فهو من يوفر الطعام والماء، وهو من يحول القارب إلى حديقة حيوان مصغرة، تضمه هو والنمر، وعلى النمر أن يتعلم عدم مهاجمته أو الاقتراب من مناطقه التي يعلمها باي بالبول كما تفعل الحيوانات – بيسينغ !! لم يكن زملاء المدرسة مخطئين إذن -.

في هذا التيه البحري الذي يدوم أكثر من سبعة أشهر، يحدث أمران غريبان يضفيان على الرواية بعدا ً تأويليا ً، الأول هو التقاء باي في لحظات يقترب فيها من الموت، حتى أن عينيه تفقدان إبصارهما، يلتقي بقارب آخر عليه رجل فرنسي أعمى هو الآخر، هذا اللقاء الغريب والحوار الذي يدور بينهما ينتهي بالفرنسي مأكولا ً بأنياب ريتشارد باركر، هذا اللقاء المستحيل يبدو لنا وكأنه هذيان مر به صاحبنا في لحظات يأسه تلك قبل أن يعود له بصره، الأمر الآخر هو جزيرة من الطحالب يحط عليها ويجدها مسكونة بحيوانات الميركات، مئات الآلاف منها، يعيش عليها لأيام قبل أن يكتشف أنها آكلة للبشر فيغادرها، وأخيرا ً يحط به قاربه على شاطئ المكسيك، فيختفي ريتشارد باركر فيما ينقذ الناس باي ويحملونه إلى المستشفى.

يبدأ الجزء الثالث بزيارة سيدين يابانيين من وزارة النقل اليابانية، جاءا للتحقيق في حادثة غرق السفينة، يروي لهما باي حكايته فلا يصدقانه، ويحاولان الضغط عليه للحصول على معلومات أكثر، فيخبرهما بقصة أخرى، في هذه القصة لا توجد حيوانات، حيث ينجو فيها مع والدته وطباخ فرنسي وبحار صيني مكسور القدم، يقتل الطباخ البحار الصيني ويستخدم لحمه كطعم، بل ويأكل جزء منه، ثم يقتل الأم بعدما يتعارك معها، قبل أن يقتله باي الذي استسلم له الطباخ بشكل عجيب، بهذا يكون باي هو ريتشارد باركر، يسأل باي اليابانيين أي القصتين أفضل؟ التي بحيوانات أو التي بدون حيوانات؟ فيقولان التي بحيوانات، عندها يقول باي عبارة غامضة: وكذلك الأمر مع الله.

انتهت الرواية مخلفة المتعة والرغبة في التأويل، وقد قرأت تأويلات متعددة للرواية ممن أحبوها أو ممن كرهوها، وأرى أن التأويل أحيانا ً يعقد الفكرة بالافتراضات التي يبثها هنا وهناك.

هناك قصتان لنجاة باي، القصة الأولى هي القصة الأفضل، التي يصارع فيها باي للبقاء، وينجح في ترويض نمر بنغالي، ولكن يصعب تصديقها، بينما القصة الثانية يسهل تصديقها، ولكنها حمام دموي، يظهر فيه البشر وقد انحطوا إلى مرتبة دنيا، يقتلون ويأكلون فيها بعضهم.

يمكن لأي قارئ أن يختار إحدى القصتين، ويعتبرها هي القصة الحقيقية، أي عليه أن يختار ما بين الأفضل، أو الأصدق، أي ما يريده أو ما يمكنه أن يصدقه.

كيف تجعل القصة القارئ يؤمن بالله؟ يلجأ بعض من حاولوا تأويل الرواية إلى فكرة أن باي نجا لأنه كان مؤمن في القصة الأولى، أي أنهم يتبنون القصة الأولى، أي القصة الصعبة التصديق، ومن ثم يرون أن نجاة باي المستحيلة كانت تحتاج إلى إيمان وعناية إلهية، ولكن هذا التفسير فيه ثغرات هائلة، حيث نحتاج إلى تفسير قصة الرجل الفرنسي الأعمى الذي التقى به باي في عرض المحيط، الأمر الآخر لقد عشنا مع باي أحداث القصة الأولى بكل تفاصيلها، ورأينا كيف تصرف، وكيف صارت نجاته منطقية، لأنه روض النمر، صنع لنفسه طوفا ً، اصطاد السمك والسلاحف، إلى آخر ما قام به لتأمين حياته، كما أن للقصة الثانية بعدها ديني، فباي يقول في نهاية القصة الثانية "دخلت في عزلة طويلة، اتجهت إلى الله، نجوت"، نحن لا نعرف ما الذي فعله لينقذ نفسه في القصة الثانية، لقد قتل الطباخ، صحيح ولكن كيف نجى بعد ذلك، لا نعرف، وباي يقول أنه "اتجه إلى الله" ونجى، فالعناية الإلهية مضمنة في هذه النسخة من القصة أيضا ً.

ما توصلت إليه هو، لدينا قصتان تبدو إحداهما أفضل وتبدو الأخرى أقرب للتصديق، ولكننا لا نستطيع الجزم بأي منهما التي حدثت، ولكن القصة الأفضل هي أفضل لأننا نعرف تفاصيلها، ولأنه يتجلى فيها معنى وقيمة إنسانية، وكذلك الأمر مع الله، حسب فكرة الرواية، أي أن كل قصة نسمعها في هذه الدنيا، كل قصة مبهرة، يمكن أن تروى بصيغتين، صيغة تكون العناية الإلهية موجودة فيها، وصيغة أخرى ملحدة، الصيغة الملحدة قد تبدو علمية ومعتمدة على العقل فقط، ولكن الصيغة المؤمنة هي الصيغة الأفضل، لأنها صيغة غير جافة، غير محصورة بالعقل، ولهذا يقول باي عندما يحاصره السيد أوكاموتو بعدم تصديقه "الحب يصعب تصديقه، اسأل أي عاشق. الحياة يصعب تصديقها، اسأل أي عالم. الله يصعب تصديقه، اسأل أي مؤمن".

ولكن هذا يجعل الرواية تعاني من مشكلة لم يتم حلها، وهي وجود إشارة إلى العناية الإلهية في النسخة الثانية من القصة، هذا غير المغزى الغريب !! أي جعل الإيمان مرتكز على الذوق، على القصة التي تعجبنا، التي نشعر بأنها تؤثر بنا، ومن يفكر بهذه الطريقة إنما يخدع نفسه.

في النهاية، القارئ الذي سيقرأ الرواية من دون تأويلات سيستمتع بها، وكذا من سيحاول تأويلها، فالرواية مفتوحة لأكثر من قراءة وتأويل.

Life full of dangers… The heroic and exotic adventures… Are those adventures truly heroic?
Life of Pi is about the origin and nature of lying – in a hypocritical society heroic lies are preferable to the bitter truth.
A romantic and cloudless childhood…

To me, it was paradise on earth. I have nothing but the fondest memories of growing up in a zoo. I lived the life of a prince. What maharaja’s son had such vast, luxuriant grounds to play about? What palace had such a menagerie? My alarm clock during my childhood was a pride of lions.

Then one day a hero must embark on the fateful voyage…

In the near distance I saw trees. I did not react. I was certain it was an illusion that a few blinks would make disappear.
The trees remained. In fact, they grew to be a forest. They were part of a low-lying island. I pushed myself up. I continued to disbelieve my eyes. But it was a thrill to be deluded in such a high-quality way. The trees were beautiful. They were like none I had ever seen before. They had a pale bark, and equally distributed branches that carried an amazing profusion of leaves. These leaves were brilliantly green, a green so bright and emerald that, next to it, vegetation during the monsoons was drab olive.

One may lie beautifully for hours while it takes just few brief moments to tell the sorrowful truth.

’ Life is a peephole, a single tiny entry onto a vastness.’

We have all heard the phrase ‘you can’t judge a book by it’s cover.’ While this is a good life lesson, especially when taken as a metaphor that extends beyond books and into people, places, foods, etc., sometimes the cover of a novel is very telling of what lies within. Yann Martel’s Life of Pi wears it’s heart on it’s sleeve. A quick glance at the cover shows the overzealous stamp of ‘Winner of the Man Booker Prize’, INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER, the indication that, yes, this is ‘A Novel’, and an image that both depicts the major plot point of the novel, thus spoiling the surprise of who Richard Parker really is. All this praise lauded upon the cover is instantly telling that this is a novel that has reached a wide audience, and is most likely aimed towards wide critical acclaim. That is all fine, and bravo to Mr. Martel for being able to leave his mark on the bestseller list, something I can only imagine in my wildest of wildest dreams, but sometimes when reaching for a large audience you have to elbow out a small percentage of readers. I am that small percentage that was elbowed out by Martel’s attempt to make an accessible novel that will touch the reader on a spiritual level. This is a difficult novel to review as, firstly, I did enjoy reading the book. I gave in to reading this book that I have been purposely avoiding after reading the excellent review from mi Hermana. I had a lot of fun discussing this book with her, texting her my shocks and suprises in the plot, and discussing the book in several threads with fellow Goodreaders. As anyone can see with a quick glance at the overall ratings, this book seems to really strike a chord in many readers, yet also brings a large crowd of dissenters. While I did extract a good deal of pleasure from the novel, it just didn’t sit well with me at the same time. In all fairness to the novel, and to my usual reading list, I have to dissect this book with the same views of novels that I would any other. This begs the question as to ‘why do we read?’, and this reason differs from person to person much like each persons meaning of life – a theme explored in Pi. Life of Pi was a pleasurable read that suffered from a heavy-handed serving of morality. While Martel delivers one charming phrase after the next with a graceful flow, he would have greatly benefited from a touch of subtlety.

All to often, Martel would draw conclusions for the reader. A prime example occurs in the first few pages when Pi’s science teacher visits the Zoo (a zoo that he does not hold back from explaining how it serves as a metaphor for humanity), and calls out the name of well-known scientists whose studies pertain to the activities of the animals he is currently viewing. Martel spoils the moment by explaining that Mr. Kumar liked to prove to himself ‘that everything was order’. It felt as if Martel didn’t believe his readers could connect the dot. Even more obscure ideas are spoiled in such a manner. When a rain of flying fish saves Pi and Richard Parker from certain hunger, he thanks Vishnu saying ‘once you saved the world by taking the form of a fish. Now you have saved me by taking the form of a fish’. While I would not have made this connection, it ruins that ‘ah-ha!’ moment for those that do. It is that special moment of understanding an allusion in literature that keeps me reading a wide variety of texts, and it seems insulting to have someone to make connections without giving you an opportunity. Even at the very end, in his shocking twist of an ending (I must profess this novel has an incredible conclusion), the two Chinese men literally draw the connections for you saying something to the effect of ‘oh, this is this and that means that…’. This all seems to be Martel’s way of making sure his message gets heard, and is able to reach everyone. It is a noble goal, and it gets people who do not typically read to like and enjoy a book, so I cannot necessarily knock him for it as that was his goal, but this is all to my chagrin.

‘It's important in life to conclude things properly,’ Pi explains, ‘only then can you let go. Otherwise you are left with words you should have said but never did, and your heart is heavy with remorse’. The question now is, does Martel conclude things properly? I personally loved the conclusion to this book. He successfully pulls the rug out from under the reader and exposes the real message behind the book. Without spoiling anything, this novel makes a good statement on the powers of storytelling with both a fun plot device and well crafted statements such as ‘that's what fiction is about, isn't it, the selective transforming of reality? The twisting of it to bring out its essence?’ Had he left it at that, it would have been wonderful and allowed for mass interpretability and the reader could have easily connected it to spirituality. However, Martel forces the connection to religion down the reader’s throat. The whole beginning section of the novel, which details Pi’s exploration of various religions, seems irrelevant for the majority the novel. Occasionally he will pray or include some stunning statements on the beauty of life and the grace of God/gods, but it seems to have been only there to make sure you were looking for the religious metaphors in the plot and comes across as Martel with a death grip on the readers head, jerking it back and forth shouting ‘look here! Notice that! Remember what we talked about!?’ While much of the focus on spirituality was well done, it was far too heavy-handed and led to a rather narrow interpretation on the ending.

My major concern is that Martel only gave us what he thought the reader would want, making quotes such as ‘ I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently,’ seem like he wasn’t being as ironic with the ending as he hoped it would be. While the conclusion comes out as ‘bet you didn’t see that coming’, it really doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been said before. The novel is heralded as being an affirmation of faith, and that’s exactly what it is, an affirmation. It isn’t going to challenge your beliefs, although he does an excellent job allowing different religious figures to challenge the differences in belief of one another even if it is the same concepts anyone would learn in a 100 level humanities course; it isn’t going to convert any readers to a life of devotion; it only provides a blanket and a comfort to those that already believe. Which, once again, is not a bad thing, if that is what you are looking for. It reminded me of something a professor once told me in a World Religions course. He described church as something that, and this is his opinion, is a crutch for those who needed it. He compared the obligation to attend to telling a girlfriend you only hang out with them because you feel you have to and are obligated to. While his opinion is a bit harsh and easily offensive, what he was really trying to say is you should believe because you want to, not because you have to. Martel makes it seem like you have to believe in these things, and I see why that makes this book hard to swallow for someone who doesn’t. Once again, in hopes to reassure and reach a large audience, Martel rudely elbows out the remainder. However, I really feel uncomfortable discussing beliefs on the open seas of the internet, and I really hope nothing said here offends you as that is not my intention. Please understand I am only speaking in relevance to my thoughts on a book, not on religion. The insistence of Martel to wrap a cool concept with spirituality is a major reason why it is so difficult to talk about this book. It is hard to separate the two ideas, but I’m doing my best to keep this focused on the literary aspects. I’m getting too self-conscious! The whole point here is that a lot of what Martel says has been said before, better, and with more willingness to evoke a change in the reader.

All that said, there is a lot that I truly enjoyed about this book. If you push all the aforementioned details aside, this was a wild ride. This made me want to visit zoos and hug a tiger. Look how cute this tiger is:  Tell me you don’t want to hug that! I really enjoyed the wealth of zoological knowledge Martel bestows upon the reader, and his insistence on seeming ‘realistic’ with his animals. After reading this book, you will know why you should never, ever try to hug a tiger or take a wild animal for granted. He makes an interesting point how we force cute cuddly animal toys on children and make them think they are some domestic pet. While this is used as an excellent point that humans are the villain, which is easily slotted into the religious issues as an explanation that it isn’t religion that causes violence but the people abusing the rhetoric, it does seem ironically opposed to his final statement of how religion glosses over the grimy, difficult to handle details of life and makes it easier to handle. Are cute cuddly animal toys then religion? This novel is a very positive message to the world, and anything promoting peace and harmony can’t be all that bad. I enjoyed statements such as ‘ If there's only one nation in the sky, shouldn't all passports be valid for it?’, which is an important idea considering the violence that takes place around the world. I also enjoyed how the animal story is also chock full of scientific facts and details, which fuses the idea of religion and science together instead of showing them as opposites. Thre were some symbolism, the ones he left untainted by a forced explanation, that really struck me. The tiger itself is open for many views, either as God, Pi, or life itself - something we must face and tame lest it destroy us. However, could it be the killer inside us all, an urge and animalistic force we must keep in check in order to exist in a civilized society? In a way, I felt that the ending could almost be an attack on religion, showing it as nothing more than a pretty way of viewing a world as ugly as our own. I felt that the tarpauline served as a similar symbol. It was a feeling of security, something to stand on, but underneath was the violent truth of a deadly tiger. Perhaps it was our personal sense of security which is actually just thin and flimsy. When Martel doesn't slap us with his meaning, it is quite good.

I was simply not the intended audience for this novel. However, Martel has a positive message that he wanted to reach a wide audience in hopes to spread peace to a world badly in need of it, so I cannot be too harsh on him. He achieved his goals for the novel, but his novel did not reach my goals for literature. Still, this was a fun read and I would recommend it. Just ask yourself, ‘why read?’ and if the cons of this review outweigh the pros, then this novel is not for you. But if you desire something that will entertain, broaden your horizons of spirituality if you don’t know much about various religions, or reaffirm your faith, well look no further.
3.5/5

‘ Life is so beautiful that death has fallen in love with it, a jealous possessive love that grabs at what it can.’

Here's more tigers. Because you deserve them:

Life of Pi was actually a really heart-warming, thought provoking read and it also gave me an excuse to re-watch the movie, so it’s a win all around!

What I liked
•tMartel’s prose is lovely.
•tPi was an excellent main character.
•tI adored the part of the book surrounding Pi’s life in India.
•tSome parts of it were very witty (The Fig Tree story made me laugh)
•tSeveral anecdotes seeped in about Pi, or other characters were fun to read about.
•tUpbeat read.
•tIt’s about a boy in a boat with a tiger – what’s not to love!
•tIt felt a bit like a fantasy.

What I didn’t like
•tSome parts of it dragged on a little, suffering from too much description.
•tEnded up being too preachy at the times
•tIt felt like a fantasy 2.0 – The message of this book is up to interpretation, but I do think it looks down on atheists in favour of religion. That they're either lost in the wonders of the world or stuck in the cold, hard facts of life. I say I’ll vouch for either – that I stick to reality but am open to possibilities out there that remain unexplained. I can say I really enjoyed this book, but as far as the message goes, it wasn’t necessarily an eye-openers.

I would recommend, but I enjoyed it more as a fun story than a musing on religion and life.