How did Pi survive? By learning to live with a tiger, or learning to kill a cannibalistic cook? That is the question.
Pi's questions -- Which is the better story? Which do you prefer? -- throw us off. Any answer to these questions are pointless, except to show the bent of the reader's mind. I'm more interested in the author's mind.
Answering Pi's questions does, however, seem to be the task he wants us to undertake. In his not-to-be-missed essay, "How I Wrote Life of Pi", Yann Martel reveals that his theme is "that reality is a story and we can choose our story."
To me that exercise is less interesting than contemplating the one "fact" we know: Pi survived longer than any other castaway. Was it survival of the fittest? Or was it part miracle, part human domination of nature? Is it an evolutionary tale, or a tale of biblical dominion?
Strangely, the tale without animals is more about natural selection than the one with animals. It's more brutal and hopeless. Man is just another animal. There is more evil in it -- the French cook kills for no reason -- without an explanation for evil. In fact, could that be the point of the book, that evolution has no explanation for evil (or for good)?
This is why descriptions of the book can be so oxymoronic. Life of Pi is a book of terrible beauty. It is both horrifying and delightful.
And this is why the story with animals is better, and the one I prefer. Could it also be why it's the one that sparks the imagination most, inspiring such stunning visual depictions? I hear they're making a movie.
Illustrations: http://education.theage.com.au/cmspage.php?intid=136&intversion=268; http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2011/06/02/hobbit-news-triggers-release-date-shift-for-life-of-pi/; http://thesefleetingmoments.deviantart.com/#/d1sokfl. Find more by Googling "Life of Pi."
No comments:
Post a Comment