<p>“Life of Pi” has been on my to-read list for a long time. Finally picked it up this week because D and H want to go see the movie, and I wanted to have read the book first.</p>
<p>I feel like there must be some key part of this book that I am not getting. Maybe it was a tiger, maybe it was the cook . . . Is that really all there is?</p>
<p>I read the book a couple of years ago and hated it. I don’t like last-minute switches of reality. I don’t like ambiguity.</p>
<p>I know the book is considered brilliant.</p>
<p>According to my youngest daughter, you are now missing the time it took you to read the book.</p>
<p>Seriously, she has it on her list of least liked books ever.</p>
<p>You need to read the ending again. The issue is: maybe it was a tiger, maybe it was Pi’s own inherent wild beast that came out when needed in an extreme circumstance and led him to kill the murderous cook. And the tale is how he lives with that and explains it to himself.</p>
<p>If you didn’t like the book, skip the movie, which is quite faithful to the book.</p>
<p>^^ That’s exactly what I didn’t like, ambiguity, shifts of reality. I have no intention of suffering through the movie.</p>
<p>I’m dying to see Les Mis.</p>
<p>I had looked forward to the movie while wondering how any production of the book could be done well. DD1 and I loved the book and the movie ( because the movie followed the book ). DH enjoyed the movie until the ending and then was thoroughly confused. Based on reactions of other attendees at the theatre, I felt that only those who had read the book enjoyed the movie.</p>
<p>NYMomof 2, I too am counting down the days until I can see Les Mis : )</p>
<p>Re the movie. I was surprised how many young families were in the audience. The kids bored easily!</p>
<p>I vaguely remember being unable to read the book. Thought I would see the movie… now pausing to reconsider. Of course, we did watch John Carter last night (DVD) which was deservedly panned.</p>
<p><strong><em>SPOILER</em></strong></p>
<p>I can’t tell you how many people I’ve told that “Life of Pi” contains the three most memorable lines I’ve ever read. Did you really not get it? The “And so it is with God” line? Pi has told two versions of what happened–one much more interesting and one somewhat mundane, and asks the insurance people which they’d rather believe. They say the one with the animals. “And so it is with God.” This is why someone would choose to believe in God–because it makes a more interesting story. It was a kick-in-the-gut moment in the book <em>and</em> the movie.</p>
<p>I thought the movie was brilliant because it actually managed to capture that. The only one of my kids who has <em>not</em> read the book saw the movie and thought it was maybe the best movie he’s ever seen. </p>
<p>I agree the book had an early section that was tedious to get through, but man what a pay-off.</p>
<p>I am glad to know I am not the only person who doesn’t get this book.</p>
<p>I do see that Pi could be making the cook into the tiger (and transforming the rest of the details) to make his experience more psychologically bearable. The problem is that that is just so unrealistic–our defense mechanisms are not that powerful. People go through all sorts of horrible experiences yet remember what happened. Only a psychotic person would think that a human being is a tiger. </p>
<p>Also, I see that choosing to believe in the tiger would make life more interesting. But analogizing to belief in God doesn’t work for me either. I think Pascal did it better, although believing in God because it is the better bet doesn’t seem like really believing.</p>
<p>I thought it was a beautiful piece of writing, and the ending was shocker for me. I read it with no idea of what it was like. I thought it would be a math book of sorts. I like the way the author wrote so continued on with it. I do believe that it is a book that is harmed by knowing the ending.</p>
<p>
No. Again, Pi is the tiger, not the cook. The mother is the orangutan, the young sailor with the broken leg is the zebra, and the cook is the hyena. Ultimately, the tiger disposes of the hyena, as Pi disposes of the cook. His increasing understanding of Richard Parker’s nature throughout the book is his understanding of his own nature–of how a gentle vegetarian could kill a fellow human under the right circumstances. And the book asks us to consider the stories we tell ourselves, the way we view our world though our own unique prism, in order to make sense of life and death. </p>
<p>This is really a book the merits re-reading in light of the revelations at the end.</p>
<p>The tiger was real.</p>
<p>myLB, I do get the book. I still don’t like it.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, I agree that the writing was beautiful.</p>
<p>MyLB’s and MommaJ’s interpretation is the correct one I believe. The whole tiger story was the way Pi explained the meaning of the incredible events to himself. The tiger is the portion of Pi that is on the one hand incredibly strong and determined to overcome all and survive, and on the other hand is also his previously-dormant savage side that is capable of killing another human (the cook/hyena). And he asks which is the better story: the Pi/cook/mother/sailor descending into savagery and murder in a lifeboat, or the Pi-tiger/hyena/orangutan/zebra magical tale?</p>
<p>And the way the story is supposed to make one believe on God, or at least to understand the purpose of religion, is by asking “Which version is the better story?” So when pondering the meaning of life or of the universe, which interpretation makes a better story - the version of universe that involves nothing more than endless, banal meaninglessness or the version that involves a magical and loving god?</p>
<p>I absolutely loved the book and look forward to seeing the movie. I love it when a writer can draw me in and then suddenly make me see things completely differently…</p>
<p>Another example was the ending of Ender’s Game. Or the Giver…</p>
<p>I think the interesting thing here is that so many readers are ready to say, “Ah, wow, didn’t see that coming”, but are kinda happy to say, “okay, it was all allegory. i kinda feel better with that. That’s more comfortable, less disturbing.” This, I think, was the theme of the book.</p>
<p>The tiger was real.</p>
<p>So if Pi is the tiger, who killed the mother?</p>
<p>^^The evil hyena (the cook) killed both the zebra-sailor and the orangutan-mother. It was seeing his mother killed that provoked Pi-tiger to attack and kill the hyena-cook.</p>
<p>It’s a bit too easy to just say that Pi “is” the tiger. He might be, and he provides that as an option for the interviewers. But the tiger might be real. And that’s how it is with God as well. It’s up to the reader to decide which story is “true,” or perhaps to decide that he can’t decide.<br>
(Spoiler alert)–the movie shows the version of the movie with the tiger, and simply has Pi tell the other version. I think it’s interesting that the tiger in the movie is mostly a special effect…</p>
<p>The best line, in my opinion, is when Pi tells the interviewers that Richard Parker is hiding where they’ll never find him.</p>