In recent discussions of Life of Pi, a controversial issue has been whether Pi’s story about
surviving a shipwreck with animals or surviving with other people is true. On the one hand, some
argue that Pi’s entire animal story true. From this perspective, one might say that Pi’s animal
story is true because of the fact that bananas float and because it’s the first story he remembers
and tells. Pi is only brought to retell the story, but with people, when the Japanese men ask for a
more believable tale. On the other hand, however, others argue that the story Pi tells where the
animals are instead humans is in fact the true one. In the words of Mr. Okamoto, one of the
views main proponents, “You don’t really expect us to believe you, do you?...These things don’t
exist.” According to this view, which may be considered ignorant under some circumstances,
Pi’s incredible story with the carnivorous island and Richard Parker is simply not possible.
Okamoto and Chiba then explain that the island is botanically impossible. In sum, then, the issue
is whether Pi’s tiger story or his human story is the truth.
My own view is that the second story Pi tells is true. Though I concede that the story with
the tiger and other animals is both more entertaining and portrays more definite personalities and
emotion, I still maintain that the animal figures were meant only as metaphors to explain the
reality of human nature mixing with animal instinct. For example, Pi uses descriptions of the
Bengal tiger’s personality and nature to relate it with other people and then to himself. He does
the same with all of the other animals—the orangutan, the hyena, and even the zebra. In other
words, the Bengal tiger, most of all, represents Pi’s internal conflict, coming to terms with his
animal instinct and learning to utilize it. Although some might object that the idea of an actual
tiger living alongside Pi for so long helps us to better understand the internal conflict, I would
reply that telling the story from that perspective only serves as an aid for readers who don’t
completely understand the relations between human and animal personalities. The author does
his best to explain these relations in Pi’s perspective so that the reader has the choice to believe
the story they find most plausible. The fact that he explains them with animals instead of ideas
and concepts does not make the animal story the true one. This issue is important because the
author leaves readers to believe whatever they like without any concrete proof of either story
being true.