Yann Martel's novel "Life of Pi" focuses on the experiences of a young Indian man being lost at sea at going through incredible events while at sea. There is much controversy with regard to the central character in the book, as it seems strange that he chooses to provide the world with a story that little to no people would believe to be real. When coming across stories involving castaways experiencing unreal episodes during their voyage across the sea, most people would be inclined to associate them with hallucinations owed to the fact that these people are in a very poor condition and have trouble distinguishing between real life and fantasy. Piscine Molitor Patel, also known as Pi, describes his life in the first two parts of the novel and most readers are likely to sympathize with the protagonist as they become better acquainted with his experiences. The character is certainly intriguing and manages to get readers to actually want to believe that such a story would be real.

Although it initially seems sad that Pi's interviewers are reluctant to accept his story as being real, this concept is important because it allows the central character to bring forward an existential idea. He emphasizes the fact that any story is subjective because it is told from an individual's point-of-view. The respective person can have a different understanding of a situation when compared to how someone else might see that situation. This means that it would be absurd to contradict a person's account of a certain event, as could actually be how the respective individual saw it.

What is especially intriguing about Pi's initial story is the fact that he makes sure to bring arguments to support it. Things like the floating bananas and the meerkat bones demonstrate that at least parts of Pi's story are real. Even with this, Mr. Okamoto and Mr. Chiba are reluctant to accept Pi's story and insist that he actually tells them what happened on the boat. This can be considered a perfectly natural reaction to hearing a story that is in disagreement with social norms. Most people would agree that such happenings are impossible and that it would be absurd for someone to even want to learn more about the story given the information they were presented with. To a certain degree this contributes to emphasizing society's tendency to refute every idea that does not have a precedent. Humans are inherently suspicious and tend to be convinced that one should refute every idea he or she comes across as long as there is not enough information to confirm it.

Pi is a young man who experienced a traumatizing event and who is obviously suffering as the recounts the happenings that he has been through. He is well aware that there is little to nothing that he can do in order to prove that he was, in fact, living with animals as a castaway for several days without being harmed by them. Even with this he decides to go through with telling people the story in hope they will accept it. He knows that he does not have to prove anything to anyone, taking into account that the most important thing for him already happened -- he is safe.

The second story that Pi provides his interviewers with seems to be much more realistic. However, the plain savageness present in it is enough to horrify even the strongest people. It thus seems even more disturbing that such events would be witnessed by a boy struggling for his life. As absurd as the animal story seems, the one involving actual humans appears to contradict everything that society has been built on. Okamoto himself accepts the story involving animals once he becomes acquainted with the one with humans. "To base his report on the story without animals would mean, also, that Okamoto readily accepts that the thin veneer of humanity crumbles into animalistic behavior when placed outside of society (leading in this case to murder and cannibalism). Okamoto, like the author, prefers the story with animals to the dehumanizing and spiritually void alternative." (The Gale Group)

Pi's decision to provide his interviewers with the story involving animals can also be due to him wanting to protect the rest of the world of the harsh reality of life. He already experienced the horrible nature of man and knows that there is nothing he can do to remove the trauma altogether. This means that he is probably aware of the effect of...

Okamoto eventually agrees to this idea and has no alternative but to agree to the story involving animals.
The two men interviewing Pi highlight one of the biggest flaws in the story and an element that could actually prove that the story is real: the presence of Richard Parker in areas close to the place where the boat landed. To this Pi replies by claiming that wild animals can integrate the social order easier than someone might be inclined to think. He actually emphasizes the fact that a wild animal could be present in a city without anyone even noticing this. Considering this idea, it is likely that Pi intends to use it as a reference to his second story -- wanting to prove that mankind has a very limited understanding of its capabilities in desperate conditions.

When telling his second story Pi no longer goes into detail and provides a quick summary of events as he presents each of the characters involved. This can also be interpreted as an attempt from the young man to refrain from having to remember everything that happened on the boat while at sea. The two interviewers are horrified with the second story in spite of the fact that it seems much more realistic. Their horror goes as far as to prevent them from actually acknowledging the second story.

Pi's decision to tell the second story can be seen as the result of his interviewers' influence on him -- these people insisted that the first story cannot possibly be real and thus come to have a stronger influence on how Pi's recounts his experience. It is basically as if Okamoto and Chiba become a part of the story themselves by becoming storytellers.

There is no doubt that Pi suffers greatly through both stories, considering the psychological and physical traumas that he gets in the process. However, the second story is different because it not only provides information about Pi's experience, as it also provides information about mankind in general. This story makes it possible for listeners to acknowledge the animalistic nature of human beings when they confront desperate situations. In this case Pi acknowledged the fact that his only option would be to become ferocious himself and was unhesitant about doing it.

Pi is the only one who actually knows what happened during the time he spent as a castaway. This means that the interviewers, the book's author, and readers themselves are provided with the power to choose which story they want to accept as true. The first story is certainly very sad, but it pales in comparison to the second one. The latter presents people with an account that they cannot possibly accept because of its horrific nature.

It is certainly difficult to determine whether Pi chose to tell the first story because it was a defense mechanism that his subconscious came up with in order to protect him from the severe traumas that would emerge or if it is actually Pi that created the story in order to prevent other people from being traumatized as a consequence of learning about the events. If the second part is true this means that Pi puts across great intelligence by wanting to prevent others from being affected by his experience. He is the only one who actually knew the effect that such a story would have on a person and chose to refrain from telling it.

It is certainly intriguing to observe how calm Pi is when telling the second story. This might be interpreted as proof that he was able to overcome the pain he went through, especially taking into account the obvious pain that most people would display if they were in the same situation as Pi. The young man's coping mechanism appears to be very effective, to the point where he has the power to even prevent others from being negatively affected as a result of learning more about the story.

While Pi never says for sure which version of the experience is the true one, most readers are likely to agree that the second one is true. Readers are basically provided with the opportunity to choose whether the world is perfect or whether it is as they expected it to be. Choosing the first story can actually be seen as an attempt to run away from one's responsibilities (certainly, when seen from the perspective of someone who did not actually live through…