The Life of Pi increasingly develops descriptiveness regarding animals, nature, and human connectivity to the parts of a seemingly whole universal interaction. Subsequently, the novel takes a shift from animals to human characterization. But does it? It seems that as the view point and descriptions alter, one is melting into the other – into a realized description of human qualities akin to animalistic behaviour and tendencies. For example, the discussion regarding territoriality and the unsettling reality of animal and human desire for enclosure, (a defined space for residing and expecting particular, constant conditions). Similarly, the language becomes more descriptive towards human animal-like behaviour. For example, when Piscine Patel is called, “Pissing Patel,” we are given an allusion to the snake-like sound of hissing. I am not sure how well students could pick up on this imagery but I think that if it was brought to their attention they would understand the metaphors. Perhaps you could have students discuss personifications of animals they themselves have already thought about in order to get them comparing and contrasting human and animal qualities. This could prepare them for thinking about larger social, political, and economical issues in a framework of larger discourse.
In addition to this discussion on imagery…these are my lesson plan ideas on imagery posted as pdf at this website: http://www.lerc.educ.ubc.ca/fac/dobson/courses/lled449/imagery-pi.pdf
I loved reading “Life of Pie” and would definitely teach it in a classroom. There was so much material to wade through. But I initially had a problem with it. While reading the first section, before Pie’s adventure on the boat, I kept asking myself if there was enough hear to interest students. I felt that it would be a challenge to get through the first section of the novel with a class since not much happens. It really reminded of an episode of Seinfeld. It was a section about nothing. I was worried if we would lose a part of the class even before we got to the whirlwind allegoric boat section. I was discussing this with a fellow student who suggested skipping the first section since both sections can standalone. I personally would feel torn to do this since this is a novel and not a book of short stories. I had the idea of possibly teaching the book in two sections. Breaking down some of the questions the first section asks and doing them like a play. For example cast the roles of the Hindu, Catholic and Muslim Religious leader as well as Pie himself and discuss the similarities and differences as well the question Pie asks, Why can’t he practice multiple religions? Make the first section more interactive may hold the students attention in order to get to the main allegory in the second part of the novel.
I really liked Katie’s observation of humans and animals melting into one. Martel clearly depicts Pi’s humanity at the beginning of his journey on the life boat, but then shifts in representing him more like a savage or an animal. Pi’s humanity is represented most clearly to me when he has a difficult time killing his first fish. His “human” side is sensitive to animals and he views all life as sacred. He says that “such sentimentalism may seem ridiculous considering what [he] had witnessed in the last days, but those were the deeds of others, of predatory animals” (202). Here, Pi explicitly separates himself from the animals on the life boat and shows that he has maintained his respect for life. He weeps when he kills the fish, and regrets that he has now become “a killer” (203). I think that this section would be a good starting point for a free-write or a class discussion because the students could negotiate the concept of acceptable violence. Is it okay to kill an animal if one is starving to death? Why or why not? In a previous psychology class, my professor asked my class, “is it okay to kill a mosquito? A spider? A rat? A cat? A dog? Aren’t they all animals? Where is the line?” Our class began by admitting that we had all killed mosquitoes, but that it was morally wrong to kill a cat or a dog. While this is definitely an unpleasant and even morbid topic, it might help the students identify with Pi’s experience and delve deeper into the psychological aspects of the novel.
As the story progresses, Pi becomes more animalistic. He muses that “a person can get used to anything, even to killing” and Martel follows with a gruesome description of Pi bludgeoning a dorado to death (205). Later on he takes to drinking turtle blood, and makes a chopped-up mixture of heart, lungs, liver, flesh, and cleaned-out intestines that he calls a “finger-licking thali” (236). At the end of the novel, we find out that Pi and Richard Parker are one in the same, just as human and animal have melted into one through Pi’s behaviour on the lifeboat. Pi’s second version of his travels crystallizes the human-animal connection; however, Martel has seemingly been setting us up for it throughout the novel as Pi descends more and more into apparent savagery.
This issue unearths a lot of interesting ideas for class discussions. Are we all just animals who consciously repress our savage instincts? Have we simply been socialized to behave “properly” but still have dark and primal sides to us that could come out in desperate situations like Pi’s? Psychology is definitely involved in this novel through Pi’s belief that the island is a “play of the mind” (285), and his training of Richard Parker with the whistle (an example of classical conditioning). Is it possible to link the novel to other psychological theories through a discussion of Pi’s animalistic behaviour? Just as we were talking in class about linking mountain literature to different disciplines, I think that there is an opportunity for inter-disciplinary study with the Life of Pi as well.