After watching Ken Robinson speak on creativity, and reaching the unexpected ending of Life of Pi, I couldn’t help but draw a parallel between the arguments both of these very different pieces were making. I believe that both, rather explicitly, make an argument for the importance of creativity in our society. Ken Robinson discusses the ways in which creativity can benefit our children, and in the long run, society at large. The creative process is an essential part of children discovering who they are as people, as they grow and become the members of society they are destined to be. How can we expect students to fully live this discovery process if we cut it short, most clearly by devaluing creative activities, such as dance, art and drama? Robinson argues that we are on a path to self-destruction if we do not revolutionize the educational system and drastically reevaluate our priorities. To him, it is nothing less than a matter or survival.
In Pi, Martel makes an argument for creativity as a survival strategy as well, as an escape from a harsh reality. He points out that it makes no difference to Mr. Okamoto which of the versions of reality he accepts. It does not matter to him whether Pi lives in his created world or the terrifying reality, but to Pi it may mean the difference between life and death. The same could be said for the children we encounter in schools; in the long run it makes no difference in our lives as educators what path our students chose to follow, but for them it is of the utmost importance. For many children, creative outlets such as art, writing, and drama allow them an escape from their everyday lives, if escape is what they need. Having a creative outlet is arguably one of the best coping strategies a child in a stressful situation can employ. As educators, we have a responsibility to support our students in their creativity as much as we can. It doesn’t matter if what students create approximates reality; the process of creating, of using ones talents and imagination, is extremely valuable, or as Robinson argues, essential to survival.
I think this is an excellent point, and something that I contemplated during class when the ending was being discussed. I recall many people not enjoying the ending, as far as to label it a cop-out. When I reached the ending, a wave of dissatisfaction too, swept over me, but as I lay awake in bed thinking about Pi’s journey and the possible interpretation of the ending I began to relish the fact that it was left for me to ultimately interpret. Seen this way, the events of the entire novel can be re-hashed in memory to rake it for signifiers to evidence a personalized perspective of the plot. Whether it was Richard Park, a hyena, zebra, and orangutan or whether it was merely Pi, his mother, a cook, and a sailor really provides two intriguing options. The tragedy of loss and horror of cannibalism surely are gruesome enough to have provided a half-interesting story without Pi’s imagination, but the inclusion of the imagination gives the story a ‘what if’ component. A relative example of this is modern sightings of ‘Jesus faces,’ ghost or alien sightings. I can personally relate to this phenomenon, as I know of a person whose opinion I trust that claims to his death, that an old trailer he occupied in a mining site is haunted. He tells of stories of slamming cupboards, floating household items, and the like. Though I do not personally believe in ghosts, having not seen one, the same element of ‘what if’ exists in Pi’s story. How is one to deal with an irrational ‘truth’ when it is only judged as irrational based on each’s experience of rational? I think too, it could be argued that the animal version of Pi’s story did in fact take place, and perhaps it’s a commentary on the tendency of humans to not believe in a story without hard supporting ‘facts.’ Maybe the trivial, yet very damaging disappearance of Charlie Parker means to demonstrate the irrationality behind human’s doubt in another human, based on insufficient ‘tangibles.’ If this can be believed, then an interesting reversal takes place in as the animal version of the story becomes the actuality and the human story given to Okamato, ironically, becomes the surrogate story: Okamoto is given a false ‘truth’ to serve his acceptance of reality, thereby protecting the reality of Pi’s experience. I think creativity in this way can help students to see that whatever ideas they pull from a text can be legit, should they amply support it.
I also thought the post on Heidegger and the experience of death on animals to be brilliant. It reminds me of another of Heidegger’s philosophies of death. He likens death to a huge black mountain that protrudes from a city center. As a child, one lives rurally, but always maintains visibility of the mountain, but ignores it as it resides in the distance. As one ages however, they become more cognizant of the black mountain, yet continue with their daily activities periodically glancing over their shoulder with increasing alarm. Eventually the person hits the base, and the summit represents old age, and so forth, until a person reaches the top, at which point death ensues. Applying this to Pi, is his journey then a similar reflection towards a fear? An insight?