Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Thoughts on 'Pi' (part 1)
In my mind, Life of Pi generated one of the better Page Turners discussions of late, despite there being only four of us present. As I am yet to finish the novel, I will hold my comments until I complete the experience (nearly there!), but I am very keen to record the thoughts of those who couldn't make the meeting, yet felt compelled to write their thoughts down. If anyone else has thoughts, please either post or send to me for posting!
Helen
What did I think? I think I got some of the point of the book. To start with I should mark the spot at which I stopped believing the "story" which was when he got off the lifeboat onto the floating island of seaweed and it was so big that it had palm trees growing on it. At that point I thought to myself...well now he is clearly hallucinating/dreaming. Which brings me to what I think is the point of the book at the end - how we all have different belief systems based on our experience/information/knowledge collected over a lifetime. I'm sure other readers will have stopped believing at a different point from me.
That's all well and good - and I did already know this (anyone who has done the Forum will know about filters) but I don't think I got much more out of it than that.
The other idea, that a story is more or less believable if it is more or less pallatable seems obvious - but I found the less nice story he told more believeable, is that the way everyone else felt?
With all the religion at the start, I'm guessing there is supposed to be some revelation about this at the end and I got nothing?!!Was it just trying to say that all religions have stories that are just metaphors and should not be interpreted as fact..or that the reason we have different religions is that people develop with different filters and need to find "their" explanation?
Really disappointed to miss this discussion as I was hoping this would reveal something for me.
Nat
I really enjoyed reading 'Life of Pi'. This was an interesting and well written book with quite a twist at the end.
I found the beginning of the book a bit drawn out and spent about the beginning quarter wondering when the story was going to start. I also found that the religious discussion over done and generally difficult to relate to. I found the interludes with the author injecting himself into the story confusing and detracting, particularly in the beginning.
The survival part of the story was riveting and, although I was under no illusions that it was true, was very well told. The imagery in the story was particularly well done. Some of my favourites:
Chapter 3: "deep pleasure of doing a stroke with increasing ease and speed, over and over, till hypnosis practically, the water turning from molten lead to liquid light" (I like this one because I'm a swimmer...)
Chapter 4: "it was a huge zoo... Now it's so small it fits in my head"
Chapter 25: "For evil in the open is but evil from within that has been let out. The main battlefield for good is not the open ground of the public arena but the small clearing of each heart."
Chapter 61: "I was sixteen years old, a harmless boy, bookish and religious" Actually, on reflection, I think this quote wins the irony award.
Chapter 82: "I ate like an animal, that this noisy, frantic, unchewing wolfing-down of mine was exactly the way Richard Parker ate."
Chapter 92: "... strength and comfort seemed to be physically pouring into my system through my eyes."
Chapter 92: "I felt even my soul had been corroded by salt"
In the face of such beautiful phrasing, the whole overt religious mentions are coarse, unnecessary and I felt detracted from the story. I even thought in the early part of the book that he was kind of cynical about organised religion, viewing it as a competition between who had the better story. But maybe that was the point? That organised religion gets in the way of communing with G-d?
The humour was pretty good too and I guess important in such a sad story:
Chapter 3: "The porters... were... friendly in an ill-tempered way"
Chapter 34: "the paperwork involved in trading a shrew weighs more than an elephant, that the paperwork involved in trading an elephant weighs more than a whale, and that you must never try to trade a whale, never."
Chapter ??: "The only reason I didn't stand up and beat it [the hyena] off the lifeboat with a stick was lack of strength and a stick..."
Chapter 77: "I was at the mercy of turtle meat for smiles"
The part where he is waiting at the zoo for Mr Kumar and meets the other Mr Kumar is really very funny and extremely cleverly written, so you don't know throughout the entire exchange which one is speaking.
This is the sort of story that once you reach the end makes you want to go back to the beginning and read it again with different eyes. Magnificent choice.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Currently Reading . . .

We are now reading Life of Pi, by Yann Martel, selected by Erin.
Wikipedia describes it as 'a factual adventure novel'.
Fantastic Fiction says: Life of Pi is a tale of disaster at sea. Both a boys' own adventure (for grown-ups) and a meditation on faith and the value of religious metaphor, it was one of the most extraordinary and original novels of 2002.
Hmmm. Get reading folks, because this one looks to be interesting!!
NOTE: Meeting is Wednesday 31 March, owing to Easter.
Labels:
booker prize,
currently reading,
fiction,
india,
religion
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Currently reading
Friday, November 21, 2008
November: The God Delusion (1)
It was an interesting read from a number of perspectives. I grew up attending our local Uniting Church and so I guess one might say I am a Christian. However, I have not really been to church since then (the odd wedding and funeral aside) and would be inclined to say that I am probably agnostic. In this regard, one might think that I would concur with Dawkins arguments - as potentially one of the choir - but throughout the book, I was continually finding ways to negate his arguments.
Does this mean that I am actually more religious than I thought? Or was it just that the way he expressed his arguments were in a way bating for a response? Indeed Dawkins' writing style struck me as arrogant and patronising, which did nothing to endear me to him. This also gave me the impression that he was no better (and potentially worse?) than the people he was referring to in the book. I also watched the BBC documentary that is based on 'The God Delusion', and one pastor even made such a comment after having been railroaded by Dawkins. This is the first of such books that I have read, so I have nothing to compare it to, but I can say that I was put off a lot by the tone.
In terms of what he was saying in his arguments, for the most part I agree. I recall even when I was attending church that I would often question (to myself) statements from the bible or the minister's sermon, and I think this played a big part in me moving away from religion. In my mind, evolution seems more rational, and that alone is enough to raise doubts about the presence of God. However, I believe that Dawkins fails to realise that not everyone thinks alike. Not everyone reasons in the same way, not everyone applies the same logic, and this results in a difference of opinion, whether it be of God and religion or another subject. Even when both sides present rational, logical arguments, sometimes one just has to agree to disagree.
OK, so I know that the 'facts' are in his favour here, and I do agree that there often seems to be more harm than good coming from religion, but there is a small part of me that thinks that the God idea is somewhat romantic (but not the fire and brimstone God). I used to have a similar fascination with ghosts in general - I just like the thought that there is more to life than what we have on earth. And I so like the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun. Being reduced to a statistic (as Dawkins kindly showed) is not romantic at all.
But something I was also wondering is if there is no God, would people find something/someone else to worship? I see how some people fixate on celebrities (singers, actors) and to some extent politicians and wonder if these are alternative idols. In such cases, the worship is often limited (until the person is no longer famous, or someone else comes along) but are we just looking for a hero (role model?) of sorts? In this regard, I do think that religion goes beyond the bible, and feel that in order to understand why people believe in God, we need to know why we worship idols.
Does this mean that I am actually more religious than I thought? Or was it just that the way he expressed his arguments were in a way bating for a response? Indeed Dawkins' writing style struck me as arrogant and patronising, which did nothing to endear me to him. This also gave me the impression that he was no better (and potentially worse?) than the people he was referring to in the book. I also watched the BBC documentary that is based on 'The God Delusion', and one pastor even made such a comment after having been railroaded by Dawkins. This is the first of such books that I have read, so I have nothing to compare it to, but I can say that I was put off a lot by the tone.
In terms of what he was saying in his arguments, for the most part I agree. I recall even when I was attending church that I would often question (to myself) statements from the bible or the minister's sermon, and I think this played a big part in me moving away from religion. In my mind, evolution seems more rational, and that alone is enough to raise doubts about the presence of God. However, I believe that Dawkins fails to realise that not everyone thinks alike. Not everyone reasons in the same way, not everyone applies the same logic, and this results in a difference of opinion, whether it be of God and religion or another subject. Even when both sides present rational, logical arguments, sometimes one just has to agree to disagree.
OK, so I know that the 'facts' are in his favour here, and I do agree that there often seems to be more harm than good coming from religion, but there is a small part of me that thinks that the God idea is somewhat romantic (but not the fire and brimstone God). I used to have a similar fascination with ghosts in general - I just like the thought that there is more to life than what we have on earth. And I so like the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun. Being reduced to a statistic (as Dawkins kindly showed) is not romantic at all.
But something I was also wondering is if there is no God, would people find something/someone else to worship? I see how some people fixate on celebrities (singers, actors) and to some extent politicians and wonder if these are alternative idols. In such cases, the worship is often limited (until the person is no longer famous, or someone else comes along) but are we just looking for a hero (role model?) of sorts? In this regard, I do think that religion goes beyond the bible, and feel that in order to understand why people believe in God, we need to know why we worship idols.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

