Life of Pi
I know this book review is 11 years overdue, but it's better late than never. Of course the reason for the tardiness, as any loyal reader of this site will tell you, is because I avoid popular fiction like the plague.
My first impression of this book and of this author is that it was pedantic, self-serving, snobby, flowery, and over-the-top in imagery. In retrospect, maybe it was purposeful to show the fictional author in that way. A writer (Yann Martel) playing a writer (unidentified) who's telling a story about an Indian man (Pi) is almost too confusing for me to handle. However, a quote at the end of the "author's note" won me over and I enjoyed the book pretty much from then on:
"If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams."
The only problem with that quote is that it's used also in the context of supporting the idea of God, which, to most Christians, is probably annoying.
Some of the book's highlights for me were the defense of zoos, the description of the sloth, how he dealt with those who made fun of his name, the explanation of how animals are able to perform in a circus, the incredulousness of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, a terrific explanation of fear, and last but not least, how the parts of the story that normally you would expect to be drawn out were handled with concise precision:
"The ship sank."
The book has some wonderful quotes, some of which had me laughing out loud (including the one just mentioned), and some that just made me think:
"What a terrible disease that must be if it could kill God in a man."
"To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."
"Memory is an ocean and he bobs on its surface."
"We are all born like Catholics, aren't we -- in limbo, without religion, until some figure introduces us to God? After that meeting the matter ends for most of us. If there is a change, it is usually for the lesser rather than for the greater; many people seem to lose God along life's way."
"First wonder goes deepest; wonder after that fits in the impression made by the first."
"It was all an excuse to keep our lethargy a little busy."
On Jesus: "You can keep your sweaty, chatty son to yourself."
"Islam is nothing but an easy sort of exercise."
And my ultimate favorite:
"Why can we throw a question further than we can pull in an answer?"
The "usual" negatives from all books were also present in this one, of course. My most hated commonality among all writers is to have the main character's vocation be a writer. I hate this aspect of writers beyond reason. I want to strangle this absurdity out of the possible repertoire of hero/heroine vocations available to writers. Any book that falls into this dreary, over-used path automatically gets an "F" in my grade book. The book could have easily been written simply from Pi's point of view and left out the whole intermediary author altogether. Pi could have been telling it to a grandchild, instead of the story being piously handed to us by a whiny writer.
The other commonality among writers is that they think their audience is stupid. They often throw out a clue early in a book that makes them feel smart and witty, but what this does is to circumvent a reader's ability to get things on their own. The writer feels he's building a mystery, but all he's doing is giving the punchline before the joke. In this case I'm referring to "Richard Parker." I can't be the only one who knew right away who Richard Parker was.
All that being said, the book produced conflicting emotions when I was done with it. Up until the point where the ship sank, it was one of my favorite books I've read in a long time; from the time the ship sank until he washed up on the shore in Mexico, I had difficulty staying awake and many times had to jump over descriptions or explanations just to get through it; and once he was in the hospital and talking to the shipping representatives, all I felt was confusion. Confusion about the story itself, and confusion about the author's intent.
On the surface, it appears the author's intent was to discuss God and to offer the viewpoint that it doesn't matter how you come to God, as long as you get there. Whatever religion you follow is irrelevant -- they're all equally "right," it seemed the author was trying to relay. Once I finished the book, however, I came to the conclusion that the author's opinion of God is that He's a figment of our imagination. A quote from earlier in the book came back to me after reading the final chapter:
"I can well imagine an atheist's last words: 'White, white! L-L-Love! My God!' -- and the deathbed leap of faith. Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try to explain the warm light bathing him by saying, 'Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain,' and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story."
Indeed, it seems, the only requirement to have God in your life according to the author is to have a good imagination, and this is a worthy endeavor.
If we revisit the original quote I listed...
"If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams."
...and read it within the context of the whole book, it seems to suggest Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha etc were all artists and we should support them simply on that notion.
Being non-religious myself, I welcomed the idea that religion be presented in a liberal, all-encompassing light. "Come to God however you will; just come." But I take offense at the suggestion that we should invent God just for the sake of entertainment or to put on a good show.
I would think all Christians would also take offense.
My first impression of this book and of this author is that it was pedantic, self-serving, snobby, flowery, and over-the-top in imagery. In retrospect, maybe it was purposeful to show the fictional author in that way. A writer (Yann Martel) playing a writer (unidentified) who's telling a story about an Indian man (Pi) is almost too confusing for me to handle. However, a quote at the end of the "author's note" won me over and I enjoyed the book pretty much from then on:
"If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams."
The only problem with that quote is that it's used also in the context of supporting the idea of God, which, to most Christians, is probably annoying.
Some of the book's highlights for me were the defense of zoos, the description of the sloth, how he dealt with those who made fun of his name, the explanation of how animals are able to perform in a circus, the incredulousness of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, a terrific explanation of fear, and last but not least, how the parts of the story that normally you would expect to be drawn out were handled with concise precision:
"The ship sank."
The book has some wonderful quotes, some of which had me laughing out loud (including the one just mentioned), and some that just made me think:
"What a terrible disease that must be if it could kill God in a man."
"To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."
"Memory is an ocean and he bobs on its surface."
"We are all born like Catholics, aren't we -- in limbo, without religion, until some figure introduces us to God? After that meeting the matter ends for most of us. If there is a change, it is usually for the lesser rather than for the greater; many people seem to lose God along life's way."
"First wonder goes deepest; wonder after that fits in the impression made by the first."
"It was all an excuse to keep our lethargy a little busy."
On Jesus: "You can keep your sweaty, chatty son to yourself."
"Islam is nothing but an easy sort of exercise."
And my ultimate favorite:
"Why can we throw a question further than we can pull in an answer?"
The "usual" negatives from all books were also present in this one, of course. My most hated commonality among all writers is to have the main character's vocation be a writer. I hate this aspect of writers beyond reason. I want to strangle this absurdity out of the possible repertoire of hero/heroine vocations available to writers. Any book that falls into this dreary, over-used path automatically gets an "F" in my grade book. The book could have easily been written simply from Pi's point of view and left out the whole intermediary author altogether. Pi could have been telling it to a grandchild, instead of the story being piously handed to us by a whiny writer.
The other commonality among writers is that they think their audience is stupid. They often throw out a clue early in a book that makes them feel smart and witty, but what this does is to circumvent a reader's ability to get things on their own. The writer feels he's building a mystery, but all he's doing is giving the punchline before the joke. In this case I'm referring to "Richard Parker." I can't be the only one who knew right away who Richard Parker was.
All that being said, the book produced conflicting emotions when I was done with it. Up until the point where the ship sank, it was one of my favorite books I've read in a long time; from the time the ship sank until he washed up on the shore in Mexico, I had difficulty staying awake and many times had to jump over descriptions or explanations just to get through it; and once he was in the hospital and talking to the shipping representatives, all I felt was confusion. Confusion about the story itself, and confusion about the author's intent.
On the surface, it appears the author's intent was to discuss God and to offer the viewpoint that it doesn't matter how you come to God, as long as you get there. Whatever religion you follow is irrelevant -- they're all equally "right," it seemed the author was trying to relay. Once I finished the book, however, I came to the conclusion that the author's opinion of God is that He's a figment of our imagination. A quote from earlier in the book came back to me after reading the final chapter:
"I can well imagine an atheist's last words: 'White, white! L-L-Love! My God!' -- and the deathbed leap of faith. Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try to explain the warm light bathing him by saying, 'Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain,' and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story."
Indeed, it seems, the only requirement to have God in your life according to the author is to have a good imagination, and this is a worthy endeavor.
If we revisit the original quote I listed...
"If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams."
...and read it within the context of the whole book, it seems to suggest Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha etc were all artists and we should support them simply on that notion.
Being non-religious myself, I welcomed the idea that religion be presented in a liberal, all-encompassing light. "Come to God however you will; just come." But I take offense at the suggestion that we should invent God just for the sake of entertainment or to put on a good show.
I would think all Christians would also take offense.
Post a Comment for "Life of Pi"