In recent discussions of The Life of Pi, a controversial issue has been whether the story with the people or animals is true. On one hand, some argue that the story with the people is true. From this perspective, the story with the animals seems too far-fetched to be true in an otherwise realistic book. On the other hand, others argue that that the story with the animals is true. In the words of Pi, one of the view's main proponents, "If you stumble at mere believability, what are you living for? Isn't love hard to believe?" According to this view, Pi was completely truthful in his first version of the story, otherwise known as the one with animals. In sum, then, the issue is whether Pi was truthful with the first version of his story, or the more realistic, second version.
My own view is that neither story is completely correct. Though I concede that some animals or people got onto the lifeboat and eventually died, I still maintain that both stories are flawed. For example, a man as voracious as the cook simply could not live on a cargo ship with limited food to feed an entire crew and guests for the time it would take to cross an ocean, but he supposedly signed up for the journey anyway. As for the story with the animals, a moving carnivorous island is ludicrous. Although some might object that one story must be true, I would reply that Pi was dehydrated, exposed, and more than once came close to dying of starvation. It is completely possible that in his mind, the animal story was true, due to hallucinations caused by the starvation, dehydration, exposure, and loneliness. Pi could have remembered Richard Parker from the zoo and projected him onto the boat to stop some of his loneliness. The island full of food could have been a fantasy of unlimited food. The story with the people could have been invented to appease the investigators. This would mean that neither story was correct, but Pi had reason to tell both. The issue is important because it gives people an insight into humanity's psychology. It shows people where faith is put; in the story teller or in what we believe to be logic.
My own view is that neither story is completely correct. Though I concede that some animals or people got onto the lifeboat and eventually died, I still maintain that both stories are flawed. For example, a man as voracious as the cook simply could not live on a cargo ship with limited food to feed an entire crew and guests for the time it would take to cross an ocean, but he supposedly signed up for the journey anyway. As for the story with the animals, a moving carnivorous island is ludicrous. Although some might object that one story must be true, I would reply that Pi was dehydrated, exposed, and more than once came close to dying of starvation. It is completely possible that in his mind, the animal story was true, due to hallucinations caused by the starvation, dehydration, exposure, and loneliness. Pi could have remembered Richard Parker from the zoo and projected him onto the boat to stop some of his loneliness. The island full of food could have been a fantasy of unlimited food. The story with the people could have been invented to appease the investigators. This would mean that neither story was correct, but Pi had reason to tell both. The issue is important because it gives people an insight into humanity's psychology. It shows people where faith is put; in the story teller or in what we believe to be logic.