I just finished "Life of Pi", a very nice an interesting book. It is a reminder of the power of symbolism and metaphors as a reflection of our human condition. This is what makes mythology so interesting and intriguing. Having said that I have some complaints about this book.Don't read the following if you haven't read the book! As I will spoil the ending:
First, it is sometimes a little bit cheesy. Second, the dumb down ending with the Japanese people explaining the relationship between stories is really bad. First it shows a very bad stereotype of Japanese people. Also, it reminds me of the ending of 2001 Space Odyssey vs. the ending of AI. Both influenced by the mind of Kubrick. One ending is one of the most fascinating endings in movies. The other ending is probably the worst dumb down ending in a science fiction movie. Both endings are probably the same, but the way they are related are totally different, and the same happens with Life of Pi. It was going great and then he explains a second story, which might have not been necessary had the author included enough clues in the first story. And then, not only that, but the Japanese correlation between the two stories is just the final straw! They do point out however about the mystery of the island and the teeth. So not all of it is lost. I would love to hear ideas as to what it represents.
Also I am a bit puzzled by the thesis of the book. Is the author trying to say that since we cannot prove that God exists, then we might as well live our lives believing it does just because is a better story? If that is the claim the it is a very bad argument for faith!
But anyways, I am happy I read this book. It is very entertaining and uplifting. I love stories with animals, and Pi's view of the world is very optimistic. I am also happy to report that Jean Pierre Jeunet is directing a movie version of this book.
I trust he will do justice and might even improve it (the way Kubrick improved Arthur C. Clark's work... eventhough they were done in parallel :-P).
6 comments:
TOTALLY.
The japanese explanation was baaaad.
but you got that in two pages after enjoying I dunno how many (or did you heard it on audiobook?) of really good, sometime very funny writing.
The Island was the thing that made the first story very hard to beliave, and yes, interesting that it was left without any obvious explanation.
For me it would be the clue to question and ponder about the first story, if the japanese didn't tell me.
I like Richard Parker...was his name right?
OH, and what is that argument about god? When is that imply? I totally missed it even in all the religous context.
I found this on wikipedia:
Richard Parker, the Bengal tiger that Piscine shares the boat with, was named after an Edgar Allan Poe character from The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1838). The book tells of four shipwrecked men who, after many days' privation, drew lots to decide who should be killed and eaten. The cabin boy, named Richard Parker, draws the short straw and is eaten. Tales of cannibalism by shipwrecked sailors were not uncommon in the 19th century, but oddly enough, 46 years after Poe's story was published, the very events Poe wrote about would happen in reality. Captain Dudley and three sailors were stranded in a skiff in the Pacific after the sinking of their yacht Mignonette on the way to Australia. They are forced to eat one of the party to survive, and feast on his body for 35 days — a sailor boy named Richard Parker! Yet another Richard Parker died when his ship, named the Francis Spaight, sank in January 1846. Ten years earlier, in December 1835, an earlier Francis Spaight was wrecked in the north Atlantic: some of the survivors of that wreck too were involved in cannibalism. As Yann Martel said "So many Richard Parkers had to mean something."
K, that is one name less to consider for my nephews :P
he he! Iw as going to say... remind me not to name anyone richard parker.
I am not sure where you drew the thesis about god but I have to say the book was very enjoyable. I havent seen AI, so i don't know what kind of ending you are talking about.
However for me (as I was telling Juan a while back ago) the most interesting part was how the mind works and how we are willing to accept the bad much more easily than the good and interesting. Why is it that it is quite ok to believe that man can be so harsh and inhumane while not being able to believe that animals can have just a little bit of humanity.
I don't like the fact that it is easier to believe in the second story than the first.
Yes yes, the world would be a much better place if story #1 was more believable...
I would twist fly's words to, HUMANS should have just a little bit of ANIMALITY... seriously I will always see animals are much more noble than avarage human.
Post a Comment