Life of Pi Part 3, Chapter 99 Quotes
Life of Pi Part 3, Chapter 99 Quotes
How we cite the quotes:
Citations follow this format: (Part.Chapter.Paragraph)
Mr. Okamoto: "But for the purposes of our investigation, we would like to know what really happened.
[Pi:] "What really happened?"
[Mr. Okamoto:] "Yes."
[Pi:] "So you want another story?"
[Mr. Okamoto:] "Uhh...no. We would like to know what really happened."
[Pi:] "Doesn't the telling of something always become a story?"
[Mr. Okamoto:] "Uhh...perhaps in English. In Japanese a story would have an element of invention in it. We don't want any invention. We want the 'straight facts,' as you say in English."
[Pi:] "Isn't telling about something – using words, English or Japanese – already an invention? Isn't just looking upon this world already something of an invention?
[Mr. Okamoto:] "Uhh..."
[Pi:] "The world isn't just the way it is. It is how we understand it, no? And in understanding something, we bring something to it, no? Doesn't that make life a story?" (3.99.205-14)
Pi makes a claim here that no matter how we present the events of our lives, we're always telling a story. That there's no such thing as "just the facts." And when we present "just the facts," we're actually telling a version of events (also known as a story). Do you agree? Can one version be more truthful than another? And what does it mean, in this situation, to be truthful?
Quote 2
"I know what you want. You want a story that won't surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won't make you see higher or further or differently. You want a flat story. An immobile story. You want dry, yeastless factuality." (3.99.224)
The Japanese investigators don't believe Pi's story. However, Pi responds in a surprising way: factuality only confirms what we already know. A story, however, makes us "see higher or further or differently." Notice also the adjectives "dry" and "yeastless" (3.99.224). A good story, according to Pi, expands and rises like bread. Sounds like a valuable commodity given that our narrator barely survived starvation.
[Pi:] "So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?"
Mr. Okamoto: "That's an interesting question..."
Mr. Chiba: "The story with animals."
Mr. Okamoto: "Yes. The story with the animals is the better story."
Pi Patel: "Thank you. And so it goes with God." (3.99.429-33)
Whoa. Mr. Pi Patel moves pretty quick here. Pi has said plenty already about how we interpret reality anyway and how we might as well choose the better story. But Pi – our clever sampler of world religions – takes it a step further. He argues a world with God makes a better story than a world without God. In cases where we have no definite proof, Pi says the best fiction is the best reality. Is Pi pulling a fancy trick? Or does he have a point?