Modern Language Studies
<DQQ0DUWHO V/LIHRI3LDQGWKH(YROXWLRQRIWKH6KLSZUHFN1DUUDWLYH
$XWKRU V -XQH'Z\HU
6RXUFH0RGHUQ/DQJXDJH6WXGLHV9RO1R )DOO SS
3XEOLVKHGE\0RGHUQ/DQJXDJH6WXGLHV
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/30039823
$FFHVVHG
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mls.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Modern Language Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern
Language Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
Yann
and
the
Martel's
the
Shipwreck
June
life
Evolution
of Pi
of
Narrative
Dwyer, Manhattan College
In 1975GeorgeLandowobservedthat"[r]omance,satire,and the
literatureof adventurehave alwaysrelied on the device of the
shipwreck to isolate a characterand place him in a new setting"(642). Influenced by the still-prevailingNew Criticism,
Landowpredictablystressed aestheticsand "timeless"themes in
his analysis.Forhim, as for so manywritersand critics,shipwreck
was a metaphor.Ratherthan an event in a real environment,it
reflected "the topos of the life-journey"(642). Of course, this
view still has validity,but for a criticlivingat the beginningof the
twenty-firstcenturyit is almostimpossibleto considershipwrecks
without also taking into consideration ecological concerns.
Shipwreckcan no longerbe simplyseen as a literarydevice. Like
the pastoral,which also allows charactersto test their mettle in
surroundingsremovedfromcivil society,the shipwrecknarrative
needs rethinking.'When we look at shipwreckwith ecologists'
eyes, the role of natureand,in particular,the relationship between humansand animals,becomes
increasinglysignificantas the survivorsemerge
from their sinkingships. The scene is the same,
but the elements in it have shifted.
YannMartel'sprizewinningnovel, Life of Pi
(2001) addressesthis shift. It providesa new paradigm,reversingthe trend towardhuman dominance over animalsthat develops in children'sliteratureinvolvingshipwreckand the alreadyestablished patternof human dominancein the shipwrecks of adult literaryhistory.In terms of children's literature,animalshave traditionallybeen
treatedas equals-friends, even-but as the readers and the protagonistsgrow older, the affinity
dwindles,and the dominanceof humanover nonhumananimalemerges. However,withLifeof Pi,
the dominationparadigmis replacedwith a more
ecologicallyacceptableone of respect. A similar
changemayalso be seen in termsof the historical
developmentof shipwrecknarrativesandPi. Here
an equallynew and satisfyingattitudehas evolved
from the considerationof animalsas servantsor
lesserincarnationsof humansto theirbeing treated as equals.Writerssuch as Marteland contemporary critics such as Nigel Rothfels, Randy
Malamud,and CaryWolfehave called into question both utilitarianand romantichistoricalattitudes towardsanimals,replacingthem with ideas
informedby the work of CharlesDarwin.2Pi can
be readas the twenty-firstcenturyconvergenceof
both developmentaland historicalshipwrecknarratives,a text where a young shipwreckedhuman
growsup-so to speak-and takeshis placein the
circleof nature,ratherthanat the top of the heap.
In order to elucidatethis evolution,I would
like to borrow a schematicput forth by Tzvetan
Todorovin The Conquestof America.3Although
Todorovuses it to explainrelationshipsbetween
humans, his structure may be extended to
10 ARTICLES
human/animalrelationsas well. Todorovsuggests
a triad of possibilities.In the first, the Other is
treatedas an object,a creaturewithoutsubjectivity and unworthyof empathy.A slaveor a beast of
burden would be such a creature.The second
but one
possibilitygrantsthe Othera subjectivity,
of inferiorquality.The more the so-calledinferior
individualaspires to be like the person who is
dominant,the greaterhis or her chanceof acceptance willbe. Thisis the colonialmodel,where colonized individualswin approvalaccordingto their
abilitiesto adapt to the ways of the colonizers.
This model reflectsmanyowner/petrelationships
as well.
The third possibility-Todorov's idealallowsthe Otherrespectandindividuality
equalto
thatof the observingself,no matterhow greatthe
differencesbetween the two maybe. He refersto
this state simplyas one of communication(177).
It is the model for partnershipsbetweenvastlydifferent individualsand encounters between distinctcultures.Whatwe arebeginningto see in the
environmentalmovement and in selected contemporaryliterarytexts is the emergence of this
third possibilityin relationshipsbetween human
and non-humananimals.Todorov'sword "communication"for the ideal level of relationshipis
not limited to a verbal give-and-takebetween
equals. Communication is possible between
human groups that do not speak the same language,justas it is possiblebetweenan animaland
a human.Anotherwayof understandingthe relationship of communication(and one that better
epitomizes a human/animalrelationship)is to
thinkof it as givingthe Otherequalconsideration;
it is acceptanceof the Other without imposing
change on him.
Before turning to Pi, I would like to apply
brieflythe Todorovcategoriesto the human/animal relationships in two modern children's
MODERN LANGUAGE STUDIES
books involving shipwreck and to two wellknown historical shipwreck narratives.I have
chosen these four examplesbecause I see them
as representative of the attitudes of the age
groups for whom they are targeted and of the
times in which they were written.
First, the children's books. Because shipwreck is so frighteninga phenomenon to children, it rarelyfiguresin children'spicturebooks.
(Children may sail off alone, as Max does in
MauriceSendak'sWherethe WildThingsAre, but
they are in control, ratherthan at the mercy of
nature.) One outstanding exception is William
Steig'snow classicpicturebook Amos and Boris
(1971), in which there are two quasi-shipwrecks.
Knowingthe terrorthat shipwreckcould instillin
a smallchild,Steigdistancesthe potentialtrauma
relationshipratherthan
by usingan animal/animal
a human/animalone. He understandsthat children will relateto the highlyanthropomorphized
animals without worrying about literallybeing
shipwreckedthemselves.In Steig'sstory,a mouse
namedAmossets off in a boathe hasbuiltwith his
own paws.One night,"overwhelmedby the beauty and mysteryof everything,"he accidentallyrolls
off and is left alone in the sea. Orso he thinks.He
is rescued by a fellow mammal,Boris the whale,
who serves as his lifeboat,transportinghim back
to his home in Africa.Duringthe voyage,the two
(who, of course, talk)become the "closestpossible friends."When they part,Amos, all gratitude,
promises to aid Boris, should he ever need his
rodent-friend'sassistance.This need arises many
yearslaterwhen, "duringone of the worststorms
of the century,HurricaneYetta,"Borisis beached
by a tidal wave. Amos discovershim and enlists
the servicesof two friendlyelephantswho rollhim
back into the water.The story reassureschildren
that althoughone part of nature (the winds and
the sea) can be harshand overwhelming,another
35.2
part(animals)can be theirgood friends.The comradely connection between mammals is made
explicitin Boris'smemorableresponse to Amos's
descriptionof himself as a mammal."Holyclam
and cuttlefish,"the whale responds,"I'ma mammal myself."The young humanmammalsreading
the storyfeel comfortedthat they,too, are members of this friendlyclub.
Because childrenso easily relate to animals,
one can assume that they will quickly imagine
themselvesas either Amos or Boris-that is, as a
human friend to a non-humananimal.In Totem
and Taboo,Freudnotes children'saffinityfor animals and suggests it is often greater than what
they feel for theirelders (127). MorerecentlyPaul
Shepardhas noted that by the end of puberty,
"we begin a lifelong work of differentiatingourselves from [animals].But this growsfroman earlier unbreakablefoundationof contiguity"(88).
Adultreadersquicklynotice that the two characters in Amos and Boris are not animalsat all but
thinly veiled representatives of humans: like
humans, they consciouslyaid one another;they
rememberincidentsfromthe past;and of course,
they converse and interact, building a lasting
friendship.But for children,there is no demarcation between themselves and animals,no "hardand-fastline between theirown natureand thatof
all other animals"(Freud127). Forthem there is
only "contiguity."
Parentsread and reread this book to their
children not only because of its wit but also
because of its emphasison friendship,its understandingof mutualaid, and its respect for differences. The two mammals inhabit different
spheres,differgreatlyin size, and exhibitdifferent
skills,yet they develop"adeep admirationforone
another."There is a brief period of adjustmentBoris dives once, forgettinghe has Amos on his
back.Andthere is some suspicionon Amos'spart:
11
'Areyou sure you're a mammal?"he asks. "You
smell more like a fish."But soon they are sharing
with one another their ambitionsand "deepest
secrets."Despite their bond as mammals,Steig
stronglyemphasizestheirdifferences,whichgenerate "curiosity"
on the partof Borisand "fascination"on the partof Amos.The point is that they
are interestedin one another'sdifferencesrather
than suspicious or judgmentalabout them. In a
very simple way,the mouse and the whale (and
the childwho has insertedhim or herselfinto the
narrative)wouldseem to be enactingthe communication level of the Todorovparadigm,treating
the Otheras an equaldespite differences.
However,this is not preciselywhatis happenin Amosand
ing, because the anthropomorphism
undermine
the
Boris serves to oversimplifyand
integrityof true animal-humancommunication.
Ultimately,the storyis not abouthow humanscan
respect animals' differentness;it is about how
humans representedas animals can respectone
another's differences.The animalsin Amos and
Boris are simplya useful medium to teach a lesson. A child's affinityfor animalsis not the same
thing as respect for their otherness. In fact, the
reverse is true: children identify with animals
ratherthan seeing them as different.So although
we may say that childrenside with animalsand
relate to their behaviorin difficultsituations,this
is not what Todorovmeans by communication.
The child-animalrelationship is an emotional
attachment rather than a respectful, rational
assessment. It calms young children's fears of
nature,which is all to the good, but it sets them
up for dominanceas they grow older.
If childrencontinueconsideringanimalsto be
like themselves and to be representatives of
benign natureinsteadof grantingthem theirotherness, then inevitablythey will note that the balance of powerrestswith themselves.Thisattitude
12 ARTICLES
carries over into shipwrecknarrativesfor older
childrenand teenagers.If there areveryfew shipwreck stories for veryyoung readers,the picture
changes radicallyfor pre-teen and teenage readers, fueled in part by their desire to assert their
growing abilities.4Many of these texts make
progress towardrealismbut tend to move from
anthropomorphismto anthropocentrism,privileging the know-howand the power of human
over non-humananimals.In these texts, the protagonistsare usuallysympatheticteenagersrather
thanadults,but theyarehumansneverthelessand
illustrative of the colonial relationship in
Todorov's paradigm. They enlist their animal
helpers to achieve their ambitions, which are
often thwarted or misunderstoodby the adult
world. The teenagerand animalwork as a team,
but clearlythe formeris the mastermindand the
latterthe willingaccomplice.
This is all neatlyillustratedin WalterFarley's
TheBlack Stallion (1941), which like Amos and
Boris tells a tale of shipwreckand mutual aid
between mammals.Butbecauseof the greaterage
and greaterassertivenessof the humanprotagonist (and of those who readabout him), the center of power has shifted considerably.The narrative joinsthe teenagedAlecRamsayand the horse
of the title in a lastingrelationship.Afterfreeing
the stallionfrom the sinkingship on which they
are both passengers,Alec is draggedby the Black
to a nearbyisland.Althoughthey are not immediate friends(andnever speakEnglishto one another), a bond grows between them. Before their
inevitablerescue,Aleclearnsto ridethe horseand
trainshim to come when he whistles.Of the stallion and the boy, the reader is told that "they
needed each other to survive"(26); nevertheless
while they areon the island,a hierarchydevelops.
There is friendship,but there is also ownership.
Alec notes (totally without self-consciousness)
MODERN LANGUAGE STUDIES
that "he had conqueredthis wild, unbrokenstallion with kindness"(30). Alecis good to his horse,
but he is also in charge.The story is a versionof
everyyoung teenager'sfantasy-control overwild
natureand throughit, the abilityto confoundthe
adult world. Here nature, showing fierce and
benignfacesas it did inAmosand Boris,mediates
between the teenagerand those adultswho seek
to controlhim. It does so firstby its powerto separatethe young man fromother humansthrough
storm and shipwreck,and then by producingan
affectionateanimalhelper.Togetherthey re-enter
adultcivilsociety empoweredby the relationship
they have built duringtheir shipwreckperiod on
the island.
Overand over againthe adultsallude to the
but they
Black's"wildness"and his "savageness,"
do not respectit; they respectAlec. Forthem, the
stallion's behavior evokes fear. As one sailor
observes,"it'salmostuncannythe way those two
get along-a wild beast like that, a killer,and yet
gentle as a kitten when the boy's around"(49).
Alec, too, seems less impressed by the Black's
wild naturethanby his willingnessto submitto a
teenage master.To his great satisfactionthe stallion comes "undercontrol"on the island.Weare
told, "Withthe days that followed,Alec'smastery
grewgreaterandgreater.He could do almostanything with him. The savagefuryof the unbroken
stalliondisappearedwhen he saw the boy" (32).
Thereis no questionaboutwho is in chargehere;
despite their "workingtogether"(27), once Alec
is able to ridethe Blacksuccessfully,the hierarchy
is clear:"Hefelt sure that from that day on, the
Blackwas his-his alone!"(30). AlthoughAlec is
nearlydrownedby the wild ocean, he is able to
control the wild stallion. The adults can only
watchand marvel.
Interestingly,(and probablywithoutany symbolic intentionon the part of the book's author)
35.2
Alec is returningfrom Indiawhere he has been
visiting his missionaryuncle when he is shipwrecked. The missionary,of course, is the great
exemplarof Todorov'ssecond level of relationship, a personwho grantsthe Othera subjectivity
but tries to modifyhis behaviorand beliefsrather
than respecting them. India in 1941 (when the
book was written)also evokes this colonialmindset. Alec's uncle comes across as a hardworking,
decent man, but if he is trying to convert the
Indiansto Christianity,
he is, like his nephewwith
the Black,proceedingon the assumptionthat he
should callthe shots. Both relationshipsassumea
colonialsuperiority.The book is willing(as are so
manybooks for teenagers)to upset one hierarchy,
that is, the one that says that adults know best.
But it retains another one, the one that says
humansshould dominateanimals.
This urge to dominateanimalsis a stapleof a
numberof shipwrecknarrativeswrittenfor adult
of Englishshipaudiencesas well.Thegrandfather
wrecknarrativesinvolvinganimals,DanielDefoe's
Robinson Crusoe (1719), reflects a utilitarian
Enlightenmentview of them.5The eponymous
hero spends twenty-sevenyearsshipwreckedon a
desert island in the eastern Caribbean Sea.
Althoughhe is in the companyof animals-two
cats and a dog make it to shore with him-they
are hardlyhis companions.He nevernamesthem
and actuallycomes to see the cats as verminafter
one successfullyinterbreedswith a wild cat. He
shoots their offspring.The dog, whom he does
not consider a fellow survivor,is instead catalogued with other lucky supplies that Crusoe is
ableto salvagefromthe wreck.The animalis cited
as a faithfulservantfor the sixteen years that he
survives on the island, performinguseful functions such as scaring away birds from a newly
planted field and catching a stray kid from the
island'sherd of wildgoats.Yet,on an islandwhere
13
Crusoeregularlymentionshis wantof society,the
dog is never studied, talked to affectionately,or
celebratedas a being with its own consciousness.
Crusoe'sattitudetowardanimalsreflectsthe biblicalAdam's:they are there for his use ratherthan
for companionshipor for observation.'And this
attitude,of course,is a primeexampleof the first
level of the Todorovparadigm.
The one animalthat Crusoe does name and
privilegesabove all others on the islandis a wild
parrot that he tames and, after years of labor,
teachesto speaka few sentences.Thisvaluationof
an animalthat can speak limitedEnglish(withlittle if any understanding)underlinesCrusoe'sattitude about the primacyof the human animal,
whose distinguishing attribute is speech. But
since the parrot cannot actually converse, his
wordsreflectthe protagonist'sview of himself.So
the bird becomes a crude mirrorof his master,
saying,"RobinCrusoe,RobinCrusoe,poor Robin
Crusoe,where are you Robin Crusoe?Whereare
you?Wherehaveyou been?"(104).Thisis as close
to an emotionalbond as we see between manand
animalin this shipwrecknarrative,but it is, at best,
a low-levelcolonialone.
When Crusoe finally encounters another
humanbeing on his island,the manwhomhe calls
Friday,the reader sees immediately that the
decent-heartedcannibalis not welcomed as an
equaleither,but insteadquicklyfallsinto the role
of servant.In gratitudefor his rescue from rival
cannibals,Fridaybecomes Crusoe's excessively
devoted retainer.In fact,to those carefullywatching animal relationships in the text, Friday's
behaviorresemblesnothing so much as that of a
pet dog. From fawning about Crusoe's feet to
fetchingwhateverhe is asked, Friday'sloyaltyis
positively canine. And, like a dog, his master
nameshim.It neveroccursto Crusoeto inquireof
his new chargethe nameby whichhe was former-
14 ARTICLES
ly called.Neitherdoes he considergivingFridaya
Christianname; he is called Fridaybecause he
appearedon a Friday.Such associativenomenclature againreflectsthe master-petassociationand
not the seriousbusinessof namingthatis the hallmarkof so manyhumancultures.'No creatureon
the island-man or beast-is Crusoe's equal;
Todorov'sthirdlevel of relationshipis farremoved
fromthis shipwreckenvironment.
It is no surprisethat an earlyeighteenth-century adult shipwreck narrative like Robinson
Crusoe would reflect the preoccupationsof the
day,figuringforth a utilitarianhierarchicsociety
with the Europeanwhite manat the top. Likewise,
it is no surprisethat SamuelColeridge'sTheRime
of theAncientMariner,publishedalmosta century later in 1798 (and revised in 1817), would
reflect a Romanticawe of natureand a lesson in
respect for animallife."The gradualshift toward
the considerationof animalsas sentient beings
whose care was the responsibilityof mankind
took place throughout the eighteenth century.
Accordingto KeithThomas:
It grewout of the (minority)Christiantraditionthatmanshouldtakecareof God's
creation.It was enhancedby the collapse
of the old view that the world existed
exclusivelyfor humanity;and it was consolidatedby a new emphasison sensation
and feelingas the truebasisfor a claimto
moralconsideration.(180)
Accordingly,
Coleridge'smarinersuffersgreata
South
Pole voyage for gratuitously
ly during
killing, rather than caring for a "harmless
Albatross"(1.405), who had become somethingof
a pet, daily visiting the ship "for food or play"
(11.73,89). The mariner'sshipmates, although
they do not harm the bird, are equallycallous.
Theyhave no genuine respector love of animals,
MODERN LANGUAGE STUDIES
as their temporizingbehaviorover the slayingof
the birdindicates:firstthey condemnthe mariner
for his act; then they change their mindswhen a
briskbreeze begins to blow; then they condemn
him again when they are becalmed.At this last
juncture,they force the marinerto wearthe dead
bird around his neck, but they are thinking of
their unfortunate fate rather than the bird's.
allbut the marinerdie of thirst,and he
Eventually,
is left alone on the sea. Releasecomes only when
he is able to observe and then appreciateGod's
livingcreatures.At the end of the poem's fourth
section, the marinerdetailsthis appreciationand
then expresses a love for the seemingly
insignificantsea snakes aroundhis wrecked and
aimlessship:
O happylivingthings!no tongue
Theirbeautymightdeclare:
A springof love gushed frommy heart,
AndI blessed them unaware.(286-89)
Once the marinercan see and love nature'screatures-even the lowliest and evil-associated
snakes-the albatrossfallsfromhis neck, and his
rescuebegins.
This work is probablythe first,and certainly
it is the best known of shipwrecknarrativesthat
begin to respect animalsas the Other.9Lackof
respect for them causes the mariner'sshipwreck,
and an appreciationof their right to live allows
him to re-enter society, where he compulsively
retells his story. He preaches, accordingto the
words of the poem's gloss, "loveand reverence
[for] all things that God made and loveth"
(opposite 11.614-17).Moralthough his sermons
may be, they still lack interest in the creatures.
Somewhat like a child, the mariner feels an
affinitywith them, but he does not understand
them-nor does he seek that knowledge. His
relationshiphas made progressover a child'ssim-
35.2
ple emotional attachmentto animalsin that his
has a moralcomponent, and it is certainlypreferable to Crusoe's utilitarianconstruction of animals. But he has no curiosityor cognitiveappreciationof them, and so he comes acrossmore as
a stewardof animalsthantheirequal.In imitating
God through loving "all things both great and
small"(1.619),he is putting himself, like God,
above them. And so the mariner remains in
Todorov'srealmof the colonial.
It remainsfor Martel'sLifeofPi to fullyrealize
the communicationstage of the Todorovmodel.
Life of Pi rewrites other shipwreck narratives
involvinganimalsby unsettlinganthropomorphic
and anthropocentricnorms of friendship and
dominance. It presents instead a Darwinian,or
more broadlyspeaking,an ecologicalstory line,
which means that the human protagonist has
emotional,moral,and intellectualinterestin the
animal in question. He manifests, in Paul
Shepard'swords, "curiosity,receptive courtesy,
gratitude,and respect for the power of animals"
(5). Resistanceto this kindof relationshipand this
kind of story is rooted not only in a lengthyliterarytradition;it is also engrainedin more thantwo
thousandyearsof Westernphilosophicaland religious tradition.Aristotleasserted in the Politics
that"Plantsexist for the sake of animalsandbrute
beasts for the sake of man"(qtd. in Singer206).
Overtwo millennialater,althoughmuch progress
had been made,Pope PiusIXstillrefusedto allow
the RoyalSocietyfor the Preventionof Crueltyto
Animalsto establisha presence in Rome,on the
grounds that "to do so would imply that human
beingshaveduties towardanimals"(qtd.in Singer
213-14).Wellawarethat tellinga shipwreckstory
from a Darwinian and ecological perspective
would be troublesometo those steeped in another tradition,Martelincorporatesand then interrogates these difficultiesin LifeofPi.
15
The novel is dividedinto three parts,the centerpieceof which is the ordealof Pi Patel,the sixteen-year-oldson of an Indianzookeeper,afterhis
Canada-bound
ship sinksin the Pacific,with many
of the zoo's animalsaboard.Pi initiallyfinds himself sharinga twenty-seven-foot-long
lifeboatwith
a badly wounded zebra, a hyena, an orangutan,
and a Bengal tiger named RichardParker.The
hyena killsand eats the zebraand the orangutan,
and is in turn consumed by the tiger. Initially
terrified,Pi is neverthelessintellectuallyprepared
for the unlikelyvoyagewith the lifeboat'sinhabitants because he has lived and worked at a zoo
where he has been well instructedby his father
about the ways of animalsand the ways of men.
He understandsthat animalsresist change and
assert territoriality.To assure respect for the
fierceness of wild animals,Pi's father makes his
eight-year-oldson witness one of the zoo's tigers
hungrilyattackingand killinga live goat. The grisly act makes the appropriateimpression.Pi survives on the lifeboat eight years later not only
because he has learned about animal behavior
fromhis zookeeperfatherbut also becausehe has
been instructedby him that the creatureto fear
most of all is "Animalusanthropomorphicus,the
animalas seen through human eyes." He is not
eaten by RichardParkerbecause he knows that
"ananimalis an animal,essentiallyand practically
removed from us." Pi notes that he learned this
lesson twice, "once with Father and once with
RichardParker"(31).
Once Pi and RichardParkerare alone at sea,
they do not make friends,and althoughthey do
help each other out, such aid is totally unconscious on Richard Parker's part. Pi provides
RichardParkerwith fish that he catches and with
freshwater,not so much out of kindnessfor the
animal as to ensure that he himself is not the
tiger'snext meal.He establisheshis own territory
pensates for his lack of power by using the techniques of animaltrainersto assure that Richard
Parkerconsidershim an alphatiger.The only time
duringthe entirevoyagethathe touches the tiger
is duringa particularly
difficultstretchwhen both
of them arenearstarvationandlosingtheirvision.
Pi notes in his diary:"Touchedhimfor first time
ever Tosee if dead" (240). When both are temporarilyblind, they meet another castaway,also
blinded,a Frenchmanwho mayhavebeen on the
crew of their ill-fatedship. Aftera dreamlikeand
wandering conversation about food, the
Frenchman(unawareof the tiger) attempts to
board their lifeboat in order to kill and eat Pi.
RichardParkerimmediatelyattacksand eats him,
not out of a desireto save his companion,but out
of sheer instinct,out of hunger.In this shipwreck
narrative,there is no split between raging and
friendlynature.There is just Darwiniannatureopen-endedand amoral.RichardParkeris as dangerous as the ocean.
The tiger'sname, the resultof a mix-up-he
was found by a hunternamed RichardParkerand
was supposed to be called Thirsty-serves as a
reminderof the equal footing he shareswith his
humanboatmate.Duringtheir227 daysat sea, Pi
notes their growing affinity,but it is not that
RichardParkeris becomingmore domesticatedin
the mannerof Alec Ramsay'sblack stallion.The
reverseis true:Piis becomingmore likea wildanimal. His sleep patternchanges;he is rarelydown
for more thanan hour at a time. He notes unhappily"howlow I hadsunk"andperceivesthat"Iate
like an animal,that this noisy,frantic,unchewing
wolfing-downof minewas exactlythe wayRichard
Parkerate"(225). At other times he simplygrants
with forthrightacceptancethe similarityof their
predicament:"Wewere two emaciatedmammals,
parchedand starving"(239).
Martel,to his credit, creates a protagonist
by urinating around the perimeters, and he com-
with Darwinian knowledge, but also with residual
16 MlARTICLES
MODERN LANGUAGE STUDIES
anthropomorphiclongings.1 It is important to
note here that there is little reason that the two
perspectives need be at odds. As Marian
Scholtmeijer points out, evolutionary theory
gives license to anthropomorphism simply
because it allowshumansa "feltaffinity"with animals along with "an appreciationof difference"
(89). Thisaffinitycanbe alongthe lines of the less
attractivephysicalbehaviorslike Pi'swolfish eating habitsthat develop at sea, but the bonds can
also show a healthy,emotional, life-savingside.
The fact that RichardParkerdoes not panic during the initialhours in the lifeboatcalmsPidown.
"Itis the ironyof this story,"he admits,"thatthe
one who scaredme witless to start with was the
very same who brought me peace, purpose, I
dare say even wholeness" (162). His sense of
companionshipwith the tiger also contributes
stronglyto Pi's mental health: 'A part of me did
not wantRichardParkerto die at all,because if he
died I would be left alone with despair,a foe even
more formidablethan a tiger.If I still had the will
to live, it was thanks to RichardParker.He kept
me from thinkingtoo much about my familyand
my tragiccircumstances.He pushed me to go on
living"(164). What is initiallystressed is not so
much Pi'ssense of companionshipas his need to
work;attendingto RichardParker'sneeds keeps
him extremelybusy.But the point comes when Pi
is simplygratefulto have anothersentient being
sharing his ordeal. When an oil tanker passes
them by without seeing them, Pi notes that
RichardParker"didnot see that it was salvation
barelymissed. He only saw that the alpha here,
this odd, unpredictabletiger [Pi himself], had
been very excited. He settled down to another
nap. His sole commenton the event was a cranky
meow."Pi'sbehavior,in contrastto the tiger's,is
a highly emotional expressionof affectionand a
promiseto save RichardParker,as RichardParker
has saved him:
35.2
"I love you!"The words burst out pure
and unfettered, infinite. The feeling
I do. I love you
flooded my chest. "Truly,
RichardParker.If I didn'thave you now,I
don't knowwhatI woulddo. I don'tthink
I would make it. No, I wouldn't.I would
die of hopelessness. Don't give up,
RichardParker,don't give up. I'llget you
to land, I promise,I promise!"(236)
Anthropomorphicas this outburstmaysound,we
have not re-enteredthe worldof Amosand Boris
or TheBlack Stallion because the affectiondoes
not need to be returned-and indeed, it is not.
Pi'swords expressa love of naturewithoutdominance and without exacting reciprocity.It is an
outburstof respect,appreciation,and affinity,and
as such, an apt exampleof Todorov'shighestlevel
of relationship.
Nevertheless,MartelpointedlyhighlightsPi's
wistfuldesire to havehad a more humanlysatisfying end to his relationshipwith RichardParker.As
their boat comes ashore in Mexico, Richard
Parkerjumps out and runs clumsily along the
beach. SaysPi:
I was certainhe would turn my way.He
would look at me. He would flattenhis
ears. He would growl.In some such way,
he would conclude our relationship.He
did nothing of the sort. He only looked
fixedly into the jungle. Then Richard
Parker,companionof my torment,awful,
fiercethingthatkeptme alive,movedforward and disappearedforever from my
life. (284-85)
Unlikehis humancompanion,RichardParkerfeels
no need for closure or for orderinghis experiences. Thisdifferencebetween him and Piis hard
for the latter to internalize.He weeps "because
RichardParkerhad left me so unceremoniously.
17
What a terrible thing it is to botch a farewell"
(285).
EdwardO.Wilsonhas suggestedthatthe evolution of complex intelligencein humans allows
us manyoptions, but it also createsa serious disorientation.He posits the developmentof the arts
as a way of orderingthis confusion (Carroll40).
Pi'sneed for closureas well as his desireto tell his
story and to frame it in an orderlyfashion reinforce this point. He explains:
zoology. His interest in these two disciplines
reflectshis desire to understandboth humanand
non-humananimalbehavior.The fact that he can
handle the two disparatedisciplinesnicely epitomizes Todorov's third level of relationships.
Humansand animalsare different;they need to
be studieddifferently;andyet thereis room in the
humanpsychefor theirequalconsideration.
Not everyone, however, has Pi's ability to
accept the Darwinianview of our relationships
with animals.11
TwoJapanese investigatorsfrom
I am a personwho believesin form,in the
the companythat owned Pi'sill-fatedship refuse
harmony of order. Where we can, we
to believehis unusualstory.Theythemselveshave
must give thingsa meaningfulshape. For
had a mishap-filledcar trip to reach Pi in the
example-I wonder-could you tell my
Mexicanhospital where he is recuperating,and
jumbled story in exactly one hundred
they freelylie about it: "Wehad a wonderfultrip.
chapters,not one more, not one less? [Pi,
It was a beautifuldrive,"they say (291). Rather
with the help of his narrator,has done
than telling the truth, they respond with the
this.] I'll tell you, that's one thing I hate
expected discourseof car drivesin foreigncounaboutmy nickname,the waythatnumber
tries. They expect the same predictabilityin Pi's
runs on forever.(285)
shipwrecknarrative,and when they are not treatPi then further demonstrateshis need to order ed to the familiarshipwreckcliches from books
his experienceby writingout the speech that he and movies,they assumePiis lying.Evenwhen Pi
wishes he had been able to deliver to Richard meets all their objections about what has really
Parker,complete with a recapitulationof the happenedto him by citingevidence,evincingreaevents, his thanksto his feline companionfor his sons, and even performingcertain demonstracompany,and some partingadviceabout the dan- tions, his credibilityis still in doubt.His interlocutors want traditional shipwreck discoursegers of Man.
When Pi warnsRichardParkerin his undeliv- Robinson Crusoe or the Ancient Mariner,not
ered speech to "Watchout for Man.He is not your Charles Darwin. Because they know nothing
friend,"he speaks as a Darwinian.But then he about animalbehavior,Pi sees that they cannot
"ButI hope you will accept his tale. "Soyou want anotherstory?"he
adds, anthropomorphically,
rememberme as a friend"(286). His statementis asksthem. "Iknowwhatyou want,"he continues.
less a contradictionthanan indicationof the split "Youwant a story that won't surpriseyou. That
in his own nature, and indeed one that all will confirmwhat you alreadyknow.That won't
Darwiniansmustfeel becauseof theirhumanity.Pi makeyou see higheror furtheror differently[....].
understands animals' differentness,but at the You want a story without animals"(302-3). He
same time he feels an affinitywith them. His story then proceeds to cook up a tale of murderand
reflectsthis duality,as does his choice as an adult cannibalismamong humans,rifewith acts of cruto pursue careers in both religious studies and elty,dominanceand submission,a kindof reverse
18 ARTICLES
MODERN LANGUAGE STUDIES
beast fable where human beings are substituted
for the actual animals in his real story. The
Japanese, however, think that Pi's original tale
was a beast fable. Says one, "Hisstories match."
The other replies,"Sothe Taiwanesesailoris the
zebra,his mother is the orang-utan,the cook is..
. the hyena-which means he's the tiger!"(311).
Once they think they have decoded the original
story as nothing more than the familiargenre of
the beast fable,they are satisfied.
When Pi says, "youwant a storywithout animals,"he means without animalsas they really
are; he meansanimalsas Darwinsees them andas
zookeeperslikehis fathersee them.He meansanimalsviewedon Todorov'sthirdlevel of communication. The two Japaneseinvestigatorsrepresent
tradition-bound audiences who have certain
expectationsfor shipwrecknarrativesand for animalbehavior,expectationsthatneed emendation.
They know shipwrecknarratives,and they know
beast fables,but they don't know beasts. In the
end, Pi makessome headwaywhen he gets them
to admitthatsince it makesno differenceto them
andthey"can'tprovethe questioneitherway,"that
the "betterstory"is "thestorywith animals"(317).
The phrase that the two Japanese use with
respect to Pi'stale is that it is "hardto believe,"a
concept which Pi seizes upon, assertingthat the
world is full of mysteriesthat are hardto believe.
"Loveis hardto believe, ask any lover,"he points
out. "Lifeis hardto believe,ask anyscientist.God
is hard to believe, ask any believer.Whatis your
problem with hard to believe?"(297). When Pi
gets the twoJapaneseto concede that a new kind
of shipwrecknarrative,a "storywith animals,"is a
"betterstory"than the traditionalfare, he is not
simplyprivilegingnew ideasoverseemingcertainty.He is suggestingthatopenness is more enriching to humanbeings than entombingthemselves
in what they think they absolutelyknow. He is
35.2
pointingout not only the usefulnessbut also the
appealin otherness.AsTodorovobservesnearthe
end of The Conquestof America, the encounter
between two cultures should be "a dialogue in
which no one has the last word,in which neither
voice is reduced to the status of a simple object,
and in whichwe gainadvantagefromour externality to the other"(250).
Lifeof Pi shows the possibilityof this kind of
dialogue between human and animal cultures,
and it suggests at the same time thatboth Pi and
RichardParkerhave gained an advantagefrom
their externalityto one another. But still today
many in the intellectualmedia fail to appreciate
these possibilities,as a recentNew YorkTimesarticle abouta youngkeeperof the BronxZoo'stigers
demonstrates.Althoughthe zoo respectsthe animals'otherness in a positivefashionby stressing
that they experience "protected contact" with
humans, the Times reporterassumes a colonial
tone reminiscentof one of the astoundedadults
fromTheBlack Stallion as he writeshis story.He
accentuatesthe smallness (5'6") of the featured
keeper,JamieViezbicke,in contrastto the elevenfoot span of the tigersand playsup her youth by
noting her "apple-redcheeks"and "blondponytail."And yet she bravescontact with the tigers,
her "secret"being that she feels "tenderness"for
them. Shadesof Alecand the Black!
AlthoughViezbickemakesclearthat "there's
alwaysa barrierbetween these largeanimalsand
us," the reporter seems more interested in noting her courage,while at the same time minimizing the tigers' fierceness in her presence by
likeningthem to domestic cats. His articlebegins
with the observation,"Deep down, a tiger, even
a Siberiantiger,must be a pussycat.How else to
explainthe fearlessnessJamieViezbickeclaimsto
feel as she tends her tigers at the Bronx Zoo?"
(BergerB2). Fearlessness?Her tigers?Pussycats?
19
Todorov'scommunicationlevel that the zoo so
clearlyseeks to develop is reduced here to pet
ownership by the Times reporter's blinkered
observation. Rather than despair, the environmental critic needs to remember that the very
long traditionof treatinganimalsas slavesor lesser humanswill need time to change.Atleast with
Lifeof Pi, it has begun.
Notes
1Pastoral,
The entire
too, is now being looked at ecologically.
Spring2003issue of GreenLetterswas devotedto it. See also
whereGlenLovenotesthat"Literary
Nature,"
"Revaluing
pastoral
traditionally
posits a naturalworld,a green world,to which
in searchof the lessonsof simwithdraw
urbanites
sophisticated
which
nature
can
teach."
Lovesuggeststhatthe tradionly
plicity
tionalpastoralmodeis reflectiveof "anthropomorphic
assumptions"that are in "direneed of reassessment"
(231).I would
extendthisobservation
to shipwreck
narratives.
Animals(Bloomington:
U
ed., Representing
2 See NigelRothfels,
eredanearlierexemplarof theshipwreck
narrative
aniinvolving
mals becauseof the presenceof Caliban.However,the First
Folio'scast of charactersdescribesCalibanas "a savageand
deformedslave."Furthermore,
his abilityto speakand his perceivedsexualmenacetowardMiranda
addto the evidencethat
he shouldbe readas a degradedhuman,or-more in keeping
withthe time in whichShakespeare
waswriting-a dangerous
colonialsubject.I wouldliketo thankmycolleague,Shakespeare
scholarMarkTaylor,
forhisinsighton thismatter.
AnimalLiber6 See "Man's
Dominion,"
chapter5 of PeterSinger's
ation,fora concisehistoryof Westernattitudestowardanimals.
SKeithThomasstipulatesthree conditionsthat constitutethe
owner-petrelationship:
pets areallowedin the house;theyare
givennames;theyarenevereaten(112-15).
agreewithJamesMcKusick,
thatthe poem maybe readas "a
of
parable ecologicaltransgression"
(385).PaulFry,inhisessayon
the biographical
andhistorical
contextsof the poemin the Bedford/St.Martin'sCaseStudieseditionof the AncientMariner,
of interpretive
frameworks"
alludesto "thediversity
(21)forthe
thatwhetherthepoemis readasa Chrispoem.Iwouldmaintain
tianallegoryor as alludingto the violenthistorythroughwhich
stillallowwhatRaiColeridgewas living,these interpretations
mondaModianocallsa "healingethos"(215)in the blessingof
naturallife.
8I
of Indiana
P,2002)andSavagesand Beasts:TheBirthoftheModZoo
JohnsHopkinsUP,2002);RandyMalamud,
(Baltimore:
ern
PoeticAnimalsand AnimalSouls(NewYork:Palgrave,
2003);
and ReadingZoos:Representations
of Animalsand Captivity
(NewYork:NewYorkUP,1998);andCaryWolfe,ed.,Zoontolo9Anotherfamousseastoryinvolving
Melville's
U of Minnesota
animals,
Moby-Dick
gies:TheQuestionof theAnimal(Minneapolis:
P,
come
to
readers'
minds
Formy purposes,it
here.
(1851),may
2003) andAnimalRites:AmericanCulture,the Discourseof
does not qualifyas a shipwreck
narrative
animals,since
involving
Species,and PosthumanistTheory(Chicago:U of ChicagoP,
with
the
ends
the
wreck
of
the
There
is no poststory
Pequod.
2003).
interaction
with
animals
we
that
see.
Nevertheless,
shipwreck
3Thisis laidout in detailin a subsectionof chapterthreeof The
one must note Ishmael'sscientificinterestin whales(see, for
Colonialism,and
Conquestof America called "Enslavement,
example,chapters32,74-6,86,88, 103-5)aswellashisrespectfor
Communication"
(168-82).
them (chapters4, 45), makinghim an avatarof late twentieth4See forexample,JohannWyss'sSwissFamilyRobinson,Captain
and earlytwenty-first
consideration
for the
centuryDarwinian
MastermanReady, and more recentlyMarguerite
Marryat's
animalsubject.ElizabethSchultznotes that IshmaelcontemHenry'sMistyof Chincoteague,
HilaryHyand'sTheWreckof the
plates"allwhalesin objectiveandscientificaswellasin historical,
and
LastAdventure.I
Mrs.Chippy's
Ethie, CarolineAlexander's
andliterary
termsandsimultaneously
cultural,
acceptsthem[...]
wouldliketo thankProfessor
KateCapshaw
Smithforalertingme
"(99).
as an 'everlasting
terraincognita'
to theseandmanyothershipwreck
foryoungreaders.
narratives
10
Pi'saffinityandrespectforanimalsalsostemsfromhisreligious
Some
that
The
considbe
mightsuggest
Shakespeare's Tempest
5
beliefs(inparticular
hisHinduupbringing).
Hepraysforthesoul
20 ARTICLES
MODERN LANGUAGE STUDIES
of thedyingzebrain thelifeboat(120)aswellas forthefirstfish
he catchesandkills,an actnecessitatedby his need to survive,
and
of peacefulvegetarianism"
butmadedifficult
byhis"lifetime
hisbeliefthat"[a]llsentientlifeis sacred"(183).
herethatI,liketheJapanese,ammaking
11I needto acknowledge
a choiceas to whichversionof Pi'sstoryto believe.Pi'sshipis a metafiction,
a storyaboutstories,complicatwrecknarrative
narratoldby an unnamedfirst-person
ed by a framenarrative
tor.A casecanbe madeforthe moretraditional
readingof Pi's
I
animals.
When
without
taughtthisnovel
shipwreck-thestory
two
in an Animalsand Literature
of
class,
my students,Mike
tookoppositesidesandbothargued
ScollinsandSandyMarano,
that the classwas dividedon whatto finally
so convincingly
believe.Thenovelthustestifiesnot onlyto the powerof stories
butalsoto the multiplewaysof receivingthem.
WorksCited
Berger,
Joseph.'Atthe Zoo,GoodFencesMakeHealthyNeighbors,"New YorkTimes18March2003:B2.
andLiterary
Environment,
Carroll,
RepresenJoseph."Organism,
tation."
ISLE9.2 (2002):27-46.
35.2
ings of TheRime of theAncient Mariner."TheRime of the
Ancient Mariner. Ed. PaulFry.New York:Bedford/St.Martin's, 1999.
Schultz,Elizabeth."Melville'sEnvironmentalVisionin MobyDick." ISLE7.1 (2000): 97-113.
Scholtmeijer,Marian.Animal Victimsin Modern Fiction. Toronto: U of TorontoP,1993.
Sendak,Maurice.Wherethe WildThingsAre. New York:HarperCollins, 1963.
Shepard,Paul.TheOthers:How Animals Made UsHuman.
Washington:IslandP,1996.
Singer,Peter.Animal Liberation.New York:New YorkReviewof
Books, 1975.
Steig, William.Amos and Boris. 1971. New York:Puffin,1977.
(Unpaged).
Thomas, Keith.Man and the Natural World.Oxford:OxfordUP,
1983.
Todorov,Tzvetan.TheConquestofAmerica: TheQuestion of the
Other.New York:Harper,1984.
SamuelTaylor.
TheRimeof theAncientMariner.Ed.
Coleridge,
PaulFry.NewYork:Bedford/St.
1999.
Martin's,
Defoe,Daniel.RobinsonCrusoe.1719.NewYork:Norton,1975.
TheBlackStallion.1941.NewYork:Random
Walter.
Farley,
2002.
House,
Freud,Sigmund.Totemand Taboo.1913.NewYork:Norton,
1950.
Worldof ShipGeorge."'Swimor Drown':Carlyle's
Landow,
and
Stranded
Studiesin Engwrecks,Castaways,
Voyagers."
lishLiterature15.4(1975):641-55.
Nature:Toward
anEcological
Criticism."
Love,GlenA."Revaluing
TheEcocriticism
Reader.Ed.CheryllGlotfelty
andHarold
Fromm.Athens:U of Georgia 1995.225-40.
P,
Yann.LifeofPi. NewYork:Harcourt,
2001.
Martel,
andthe Economyof Nature."
StudMcKusick,
James."Coleridge
ies in Romanticism
35 (1996):375-92.
Read"Sameness
of Difference?
Historicist
Modiano,Raimonda.
21