Part Three - Life of Pi

WOAH.

Not only did I get caught up in reading the book as if Pi was real. I got caught up thinking that the story with the animals was true! I didn't see the change in stories coming at all. The book never tells which story is true, but I think it's safe to assume that the one without humans is the accurate story. I make this assumption with the thought that, we humans like to "sugar coat" things, make this seem better than they really are. Pi changed his story as a way to cope with the tragedy I think. At the same time... part of the stories don't match up. Pi trains Richard Parker  in the version with animals. If Richard Parker symbolizes Pi for the story without animals, who does Pi symbolize in the story. If Pi is Richard Parker, there needs to be someone who is Pi. Was that just an added character? A figment of his imagination maybe? Someone to keep him company? That's the only mismatch I see, but that doesn't necessarily mean the story without animals isn't the real story. I think the way the author wrote the book was very thoughtful. It points out how savage we are in nature although we hate to admit it. When worst comes to worst, thats what happens. The story sounds a bit extreme, with the cook butchering the sailor and all, but I can see how the desperation could cause a person to do something so horrible. Now, I don't know if I would be able to do that, but I can see how someone else would. After all, the first level on the Hierarchy of Needs is Survival. People will do whatever it takes to save themselves. It's sad to think that Pi would have to witness all the events first hand and its mind boggling to think of what he must've been thinking. He grew up around animals, he understood them and he understood how dangerous they were in the wild. Altering the story from humans to animals is probably the only way he could accept what had happened. I think the story with the humans is right, but I could see the animal story being true as well.