So far the book as started of very interesting for me. I think it is unique to see someone who studies both religion and zoology. It shows that Pi admires intellectualism and that’s one of the reason he likes scientists and Canada; it’s filled with intellectuals. I found the restaurant scene a little confusing. He started eating with his hands but and the water said he must be fresh of the boat. I’m not exactly sure what the joke was referencing to. Was it his long boat journey? Was Pi offended because of this? I’m happy to keep reading because the plot seems unique.
After reading the first 50 pages there has been a large focus of Pi’s interest in zoology. This has manifested in the courses he’s taken at university, the fact that he worked as a zookeeper as a child, but most importantly his own philosophical views of zoo animals. He views zoo animals just as free as if they were in the wild and that they are possibly even more advantaged. Pi compares the mentality of animals to the mentality of humans by asking, “Would you rather be put at the Ritz with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor or be homeless without a soul to care for you?” (23). This leads me to believe that Pi is also concerned with ethics and is thinking about what is right or wrong in life regarding humans and animals. The part when Mr. Kumar said he was an atheist and criticized religion calling it “darkness” made Pi feel uncomfortable as he viewed religion as “light”. At the same time he didn’t take what Mr. Kumar said for granted and even said that he ended up relating best to agnostics since they believe but have doubts. I think this reveals an important aspect of Pi’s character, showing that he’s overall pretty open-minded but he’s not a sightless believer, as he takes logical reasoning into consideration. Knowing that he’s going to be stuck on a boat with a tiger for a long period of time I think this attitude will be crucial.
I have just started reading Life of Pi and I am already interested. The main character starts off by talking about the misconception people have about zoos. They believe that they take away animals freedom, Pi say's they provided animals with a new since of security. What was really interesting was when he said the same mistake applies to religion. That made me realize that the whole talk about the zoo was a metaphor for a growing misconception about religion. That its main goal in life it to take away freedom, while really it can provided security. This made me think about how in the past I have been a critic or religion. About how I sometimes felt its purpose was to tell you how to think and feel. I now realize that for some people, what it does is make them feel as if they are part of something bigger. And that's not necessary a bad thing.
Sam, I agree with you’re realization about religion. At times it can seem that religion represses an individual. However, as you said, religion can actually make someone feel that they are part of something larger. This unity would in fact do the opposite; it would open up a person’s soul and make them feel as though they’re part of something greater, giving that individual a sense of freedom. This brings me to my main idea about the last section of the reading. Pi has basically become a religious person. What’s interesting is that Pi considers himself a Muslim, Christian, and a Hindu. When his priest and Imam confront him, Pi justifies his multi-religious decision by simply saying he has a “Love for God” (p. 87). I think this shows that Pi has a genuine appreciation for religion and feels he’s part of something greater. His parents, considering themselves a modern Indian family, think that his new devotion to religion is silly. I can understand their perspective; all of a sudden their Son is acting differently and wants a prayer rug. Without a doubt this sounds silly to them. But I can also understand Pi’s perspective, which is Sam’s idea that perhaps Pi feels that he’s part of something greater. This would explain why Pi wants to be part of all three religions, understanding that there are connections between all of them that unite the good and keep out the evil.
I found the part ware Pi started taking on several religoins very interesting. Because despite what the hole man might say I can't find a reason he couldn't. Except for their vairious descriptions of how the wold was crated and the afterlife works they are for the most part the same. All respected religoins cantain th basic princeples. Be kind, be forgiving, and be genourous. But what was most interesting was a quote from Gandi "all religoins are eally". It made me think of a book I read called Sea of Trolls. In this book you have two people one of chritain faith, the other of anchient norse belief. Both look into the gates of hell and see what they expect to see. One sees the fire abiss and Lucifer climing out. The other sees the black wolf whose destine to eat the sun at the end of time. Both this seen and the quote from Gandi bring up the question about whether in some casses if it is possible for more then one religoin to be right.
The last reading was very apprehensive. I was somewhat confused by the disorder of the plot as it began with Pi already in the lifeboat, but then went back to part where he was still on the main cruise ship. I realize now that this literary technique was purposely used to bring up an element of anxiety for the reader. As I continued reading I was quite distressed by the actions of the hyena. It simply began acting barbarically as it killed the other creatures on board, including the orangutan and the zebra. Personally, it was almost impossible to read through the pages and witness the zebra’s suffering as the hyena chewed up its guts. I had a similar feeling while reading one of Tim Obrien’s war stories where the baby bull was shot multiple times by one of the soldiers. It was sympathetic feeling towards the bull as well as a perplexing one on my own behalf; essentially, what made it so confusing was how the animals were still alive after being hurt for long periods of time. I think that the situations of the bull and hyena actually symbolize an element of natural selection that universally occurs within our world. Basically, the stronger beings or creatures hurt the weaker ones. However, as atrocious as these actions may seem, they are simply using a method for survival. It just so happens that creatures, including humans, exaggerate these actions situations during desperate times.
At this point in The Life of Pi he has jsut lost his family and is stranded on a boat with a tiger liable to eat him if he doesn't tame it. Thes are the situations in books that I always love becaue it's when the charecter demonstrates what makes him them specail. If I had just lost my family and were in this possition I would be rackt with greaf and fear. I dout I would have been able to do all that PI did. Find the supplies, make the raft, and realise that the only way to servive would be to taim the tiger. But some how Pi keeps his whits and thinks up the plan. That is really what makes book charecters specail. It is possible to think up the solution and solve the puzzles when you are the reader. When you don't have to deal with the pain, fear and greaf. But book charecters manage to thik up the solutions not matter what solution they are in. Which is really what makes thme the larger than life charecters. Not what ever powers they have.(Computer at home was on the fritz that is why this was late).
In the msot reasent section I read Pi describes how it felt to kill an animal for the first time. For him someone who has been a peace loving vegitarian all his life it meant a lot. But he had to do it if he wanted to servive. I think this raises and interesting question about morality. True in this case it might not seem so big, but then what if it wasn't just a fish but a person he had to kill then the question gets more complicated. It might be easy to call people hartless killers at the start but if you look a little more into it may not be all it seems. This isn't me justicifying all the murders that happen, I'm just trying to say there isn't allways one right answer. Something the postmodernist movement would very much agree with.
Sam, I understand what you’re saying about Pi’s emotions about killing another animal. Of course, Pi has seemed like someone who has not killed a fly, but when you’re desperate, I think the tide turns. What surprised me was that he, perhaps indirectly, killed the rat when he tossed it to Richard Parker. When Pi says “climbed to the top of my head, where I felt its little claws clamping down on my scalp, holding on for dear life” (192), I saw a strong connection between the rat and Pi, both literally and figuratively. The rat and Pi were both weaker creatures, and somehow them suddenly finding each other made me think they can create companionship amongst themselves. However, when Pi decides to toss him to Richard Parker, I felt a little ashamed of Pi. I thought that their newly formed acquaintance might foster some hope, or it would at least make them feel more comfortable as they know they weren’t alone in the situation. So when Pi decides to toss him to the tiger his action struck me as betrayal to the rat. Nonetheless, I can’t blame Pi because he was acting out of fear and desperation, and as cruel as this may seem I feel I might have acted the same way. I think that I could compare this situation to the Marx’s theory. The behavior and lifestyle of the bourgeoisie was like Pi’s as they oppressed weaker individuals. Yet, it seems only innate, especially during critical situations.
I have come across tow intreasting line in Life of Pi. Both of which show the mental strain that the ordeal puts on Pi. One of which is when he clames that if some whales hadn't been killed by whaling ships they would have gotten him help. Another is when he pust a message in a bottle thiking it will reach a ship he has resently past. The message says to look for his family(which he knows is dead) in Cannada. It is amazing how such an inteligent and resourseful person like Pi can be reduced to such a state of madness. It makes me think about the saying every one sees what they want to see. Pi believes that the whales and message can help him so he does. The thing is this plays out in real life two. People no matter how bad the things they do try to find a way to justefy them. It's why Nazi's and KKK members work so hard to dehumanize non-whites. It makes them feel like it's alright to do what they want.
What stands out to me the most about Pi’s journey is his transformation, both his physical one and emotional one. The physical is pretty obvious; his clothes become torn, he becomes very weak, and his body starts to digest itself. However, I think his emotional transformation is much more interesting. Pi’s emotions and his behavior have positive aspects and negative ones. On one hand he becomes a survivor: he learns how to fish and how to tame a tiger. But on the other hand Pi also becomes a complete savage. He came on to the boat as a vegetarian, one who would not dare to hurt any creature, and turned into someone who would stab sea turtles and cut off their shells with a knife. He can’t be blamed for eating fish and turtles, as it was the only way of feeding the Richard Parker and himself. However, his mental state got to a pretty extreme level (and maybe even reached insanity) from being hungry and alone for such a long period of time. Pi began putting in his mouth anything he was able to find, whether it was eating raw fish and crabs that were still alive or once attempting to eat Richard Parker’s feces. He is filled with joy when he finds out that, “a fresh-tasting fluid could be sucked out not only from the eyes of larger fish but also from their vertebrae” (268). It’s scary to image what the desire to survive does to a person.
I found the resolution of the book somewhat ambiguous. When Pi has to tell his story to the men from the boat company, they find his story very difficult to believe since it involves a human coping with a tiger on a lifeboat and coming across an island full of algae in the middle of the Pacific. He therefore decides to tell another version of the story without any animals, one that had an aggressive cook who amputated the foot of a sailor and killed his mother. This was clearly a more factual version of the story, yet one that symbolized the hyena and the zebra. After hearing it, the men both had trouble leaning towards one story or the other, and I also began feeling ambivalent, at which I realized this was the whole point the author was trying to create. As Pi asks the men, “‘Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?” (398), I myself begin leaning towards the one with the animals. Yet the idea here isn’t to choose the right story, it’s to go with something you’re not fully sure is true, whether it’s more factual or fictional. He wants people to realize that many things in life are difficult to comprehend, and many people use science, religion, or both to explain them. Ultimately, he is urging people to rest their faith in something, and go with it even if they’re not sure, rather than remaining ambivalent.
Friends of Pi, This blog was a pure pleasure to read -- every post has a clear focus and shows that you are digging deep, grappling with the huge, visceral issues of humanity, being, and purpose that Martel poses. Even though you are a group of two, the sense of a community of thought and care here is strong. Great work!
So far the book as started of very interesting for me. I think it is unique to see someone who studies both religion and zoology. It shows that Pi admires intellectualism and that’s one of the reason he likes scientists and Canada; it’s filled with intellectuals. I found the restaurant scene a little confusing. He started eating with his hands but and the water said he must be fresh of the boat. I’m not exactly sure what the joke was referencing to. Was it his long boat journey? Was Pi offended because of this? I’m happy to keep reading because the plot seems unique.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first 50 pages there has been a large focus of Pi’s interest in zoology. This has manifested in the courses he’s taken at university, the fact that he worked as a zookeeper as a child, but most importantly his own philosophical views of zoo animals. He views zoo animals just as free as if they were in the wild and that they are possibly even more advantaged.
ReplyDeletePi compares the mentality of animals to the mentality of humans by asking, “Would you rather be put at the Ritz with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor or be homeless without a soul to care for you?” (23). This leads me to believe that Pi is also concerned with ethics and is thinking about what is right or wrong in life regarding humans and animals. The part when Mr. Kumar said he was an atheist and criticized religion calling it “darkness” made Pi feel uncomfortable as he viewed religion as “light”. At the same time he didn’t take what Mr. Kumar said for granted and even said that he ended up relating best to agnostics since they believe but have doubts. I think this reveals an important aspect of Pi’s character, showing that he’s overall pretty open-minded but he’s not a sightless believer, as he takes logical reasoning into consideration. Knowing that he’s going to be stuck on a boat with a tiger for a long period of time I think this attitude will be crucial.
I have just started reading Life of Pi and I am already interested. The main character starts off by talking about the misconception people have about zoos. They believe that they take away animals freedom, Pi say's they provided animals with a new since of security. What was really interesting was when he said the same mistake applies to religion. That made me realize that the whole talk about the zoo was a metaphor for a growing misconception about religion. That its main goal in life it to take away freedom, while really it can provided security. This made me think about how in the past I have been a critic or religion. About how I sometimes felt its purpose was to tell you how to think and feel. I now realize that for some people, what it does is make them feel as if they are part of something bigger. And that's not necessary a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteSam, I agree with you’re realization about religion. At times it can seem that religion represses an individual. However, as you said, religion can actually make someone feel that they are part of something larger. This unity would in fact do the opposite; it would open up a person’s soul and make them feel as though they’re part of something greater, giving that individual a sense of freedom.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to my main idea about the last section of the reading. Pi has basically become a religious person. What’s interesting is that Pi considers himself a Muslim, Christian, and a Hindu. When his priest and Imam confront him, Pi justifies his multi-religious decision by simply saying he has a “Love for God” (p. 87). I think this shows that Pi has a genuine appreciation for religion and feels he’s part of something greater. His parents, considering themselves a modern Indian family, think that his new devotion to religion is silly. I can understand their perspective; all of a sudden their Son is acting differently and wants a prayer rug. Without a doubt this sounds silly to them. But I can also understand Pi’s perspective, which is Sam’s idea that perhaps Pi feels that he’s part of something greater. This would explain why Pi wants to be part of all three religions, understanding that there are connections between all of them that unite the good and keep out the evil.
I found the part ware Pi started taking on several religoins very interesting. Because despite what the hole man might say I can't find a reason he couldn't. Except for their vairious descriptions of how the wold was crated and the afterlife works they are for the most part the same. All respected religoins cantain th basic princeples. Be kind, be forgiving, and be genourous. But what was most interesting was a quote from Gandi "all religoins are eally". It made me think of a book I read called Sea of Trolls. In this book you have two people one of chritain faith, the other of anchient norse belief. Both look into the gates of hell and see what they expect to see. One sees the fire abiss and Lucifer climing out. The other sees the black wolf whose destine to eat the sun at the end of time. Both this seen and the quote from Gandi bring up the question about whether in some casses if it is possible for more then one religoin to be right.
ReplyDeleteThe last reading was very apprehensive. I was somewhat confused by the disorder of the plot as it began with Pi already in the lifeboat, but then went back to part where he was still on the main cruise ship. I realize now that this literary technique was purposely used to bring up an element of anxiety for the reader.
ReplyDeleteAs I continued reading I was quite distressed by the actions of the hyena. It simply began acting barbarically as it killed the other creatures on board, including the orangutan and the zebra. Personally, it was almost impossible to read through the pages and witness the zebra’s suffering as the hyena chewed up its guts. I had a similar feeling while reading one of Tim Obrien’s war stories where the baby bull was shot multiple times by one of the soldiers. It was sympathetic feeling towards the bull as well as a perplexing one on my own behalf; essentially, what made it so confusing was how the animals were still alive after being hurt for long periods of time. I think that the situations of the bull and hyena actually symbolize an element of natural selection that universally occurs within our world. Basically, the stronger beings or creatures hurt the weaker ones. However, as atrocious as these actions may seem, they are simply using a method for survival. It just so happens that creatures, including humans, exaggerate these actions situations during desperate times.
At this point in The Life of Pi he has jsut lost his family and is stranded on a boat with a tiger liable to eat him if he doesn't tame it. Thes are the situations in books that I always love becaue it's when the charecter demonstrates what makes him them specail. If I had just lost my family and were in this possition I would be rackt with greaf and fear. I dout I would have been able to do all that PI did. Find the supplies, make the raft, and realise that the only way to servive would be to taim the tiger. But some how Pi keeps his whits and thinks up the plan. That is really what makes book charecters specail. It is possible to think up the solution and solve the puzzles when you are the reader. When you don't have to deal with the pain, fear and greaf. But book charecters manage to thik up the solutions not matter what solution they are in. Which is really what makes thme the larger than life charecters. Not what ever powers they have.(Computer at home was on the fritz that is why this was late).
ReplyDeleteIn the msot reasent section I read Pi describes how it felt to kill an animal for the first time. For him someone who has been a peace loving vegitarian all his life it meant a lot. But he had to do it if he wanted to servive. I think this raises and interesting question about morality. True in this case it might not seem so big, but then what if it wasn't just a fish but a person he had to kill then the question gets more complicated. It might be easy to call people hartless killers at the start but if you look a little more into it may not be all it seems. This isn't me justicifying all the murders that happen, I'm just trying to say there isn't allways one right answer. Something the postmodernist movement would very much agree with.
ReplyDeleteSam, I understand what you’re saying about Pi’s emotions about killing another animal. Of course, Pi has seemed like someone who has not killed a fly, but when you’re desperate, I think the tide turns. What surprised me was that he, perhaps indirectly, killed the rat when he tossed it to Richard Parker. When Pi says “climbed to the top of my head, where I felt its little claws clamping down on my scalp, holding on for dear life” (192), I saw a strong connection between the rat and Pi, both literally and figuratively. The rat and Pi were both weaker creatures, and somehow them suddenly finding each other made me think they can create companionship amongst themselves. However, when Pi decides to toss him to Richard Parker, I felt a little ashamed of Pi. I thought that their newly formed acquaintance might foster some hope, or it would at least make them feel more comfortable as they know they weren’t alone in the situation. So when Pi decides to toss him to the tiger his action struck me as betrayal to the rat. Nonetheless, I can’t blame Pi because he was acting out of fear and desperation, and as cruel as this may seem I feel I might have acted the same way.
ReplyDeleteI think that I could compare this situation to the Marx’s theory. The behavior and lifestyle of the bourgeoisie was like Pi’s as they oppressed weaker individuals. Yet, it seems only innate, especially during critical situations.
I have come across tow intreasting line in Life of Pi. Both of which show the mental strain that the ordeal puts on Pi. One of which is when he clames that if some whales hadn't been killed by whaling ships they would have gotten him help. Another is when he pust a message in a bottle thiking it will reach a ship he has resently past. The message says to look for his family(which he knows is dead) in Cannada. It is amazing how such an inteligent and resourseful person like Pi can be reduced to such a state of madness. It makes me think about the saying every one sees what they want to see. Pi believes that the whales and message can help him so he does. The thing is this plays out in real life two. People no matter how bad the things they do try to find a way to justefy them. It's why Nazi's and KKK members work so hard to dehumanize non-whites. It makes them feel like it's alright to do what they want.
ReplyDeleteWhat stands out to me the most about Pi’s journey is his transformation, both his physical one and emotional one. The physical is pretty obvious; his clothes become torn, he becomes very weak, and his body starts to digest itself. However, I think his emotional transformation is much more interesting. Pi’s emotions and his behavior have positive aspects and negative ones. On one hand he becomes a survivor: he learns how to fish and how to tame a tiger. But on the other hand Pi also becomes a complete savage. He came on to the boat as a vegetarian, one who would not dare to hurt any creature, and turned into someone who would stab sea turtles and cut off their shells with a knife. He can’t be blamed for eating fish and turtles, as it was the only way of feeding the Richard Parker and himself. However, his mental state got to a pretty extreme level (and maybe even reached insanity) from being hungry and alone for such a long period of time. Pi began putting in his mouth anything he was able to find, whether it was eating raw fish and crabs that were still alive or once attempting to eat Richard Parker’s feces. He is filled with joy when he finds out that, “a fresh-tasting fluid could be sucked out not only from the eyes of larger fish but also from their vertebrae” (268). It’s scary to image what the desire to survive does to a person.
ReplyDeleteI found the resolution of the book somewhat ambiguous. When Pi has to tell his story to the men from the boat company, they find his story very difficult to believe since it involves a human coping with a tiger on a lifeboat and coming across an island full of algae in the middle of the Pacific. He therefore decides to tell another version of the story without any animals, one that had an aggressive cook who amputated the foot of a sailor and killed his mother. This was clearly a more factual version of the story, yet one that symbolized the hyena and the zebra. After hearing it, the men both had trouble leaning towards one story or the other, and I also began feeling ambivalent, at which I realized this was the whole point the author was trying to create. As Pi asks the men, “‘Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?” (398), I myself begin leaning towards the one with the animals. Yet the idea here isn’t to choose the right story, it’s to go with something you’re not fully sure is true, whether it’s more factual or fictional. He wants people to realize that many things in life are difficult to comprehend, and many people use science, religion, or both to explain them. Ultimately, he is urging people to rest their faith in something, and go with it even if they’re not sure, rather than remaining ambivalent.
ReplyDeleteFriends of Pi,
ReplyDeleteThis blog was a pure pleasure to read -- every post has a clear focus and shows that you are digging deep, grappling with the huge, visceral issues of humanity, being, and purpose that Martel poses. Even though you are a group of two, the sense of a community of thought and care here is strong.
Great work!