The life of Pi.. short review: good in the beginning, good philosophy and exoticism, bad ending with a sudden jump from reality to fantasy that looks like it was put together too hastily. A book that promises a lot, but leaves you with a tinge of disappointment that either the book is bad or you failed to understand it somewhere.

Life of Pi was well written precisely because it accomplished what the writer was trying to capture: a fantastical tale told with a realistic twist. I left Life of Pi feeling quite charmed and earnestly believing that it was a true story. I disagree that his elavated rhetoric and tone is aged or archaic. I felt that he truly captured that sense of politeness, that sense of formality and calm that encompasses much of South Asian culture. My father was an army officer, my uncles are army officers (I cannot resist and must also tell you all that my uncle was just promoted to brigadier generalship) and I have always marvelled at the decorum, the peace and gentility that many people of this upper-class group exhibit. Even when doing cruel things. Life of Pi very much was a snapshot of a man who has seen the passing of an era, the change of culture and yet holds onto history and his tale by being so curiously polite when relating all. The book served mutliple purposes for me: I could explain philosophy to my younger sister, to my friends and I could quote/be inspired by it in many a paper. No wonder it's a penguin classic. Those guys really know how to pick 'em.

Not disappointing in the least.

Cuaron also directed "A Little Princess". It was a very well done adaption. His artistry really shines through in his work.
I thought Shyamalan was really well equipped for the movie. He's from Pondicherry, his style is very well adapted for the novel's tone and I would love to see him diversify his talents into another genre. In technical terms, his movies are great for their unique angles in shots, his deliberate understating of the score or special effects (when watching the sixth sense, it's great to realize that he rarely uses special effects, the score is prefect for the story in that it is completely absent in many scenes or very understated). I am a fan of his technical ability and I can see where he draws his inspiration from (Hitchcock, among others). The fodder for his stories is a completely different concern (porcupines? please). It's a pity he won't be doing this film.
As for Cuaron, he's another one of my favorite directors becaase of his indellible flourish. He is a true artist where color and adaption are concerned. I just hope he doesn't try too much to keave that mark on this movie, it may overpower the delicate narration that Martel captured so well.

completely odd and unrelated fact: martel means hammer. Historically, the military strategist Charles Martel was the genuis behind defending Europe from the "muslim hoardes". Without that guy, Europe would be full of "Moslems".

Ok, this is horribly OT, but what the heck...

Manpriya said:
>Without that guy, Europe would be full of "Moslems".

er, it actually already is. I should know. I live here (Brussels). It partly explains the 2 thumbs-down vote for the EU Constitution (France, Netherlands)..

Kal Penn looks great with the shaggy hair!

too bad shyamalan isnt doing it, i would love to see his take on it

on a side note, how do you pronounce shyamalan? i think shee-a-mall-en but tv says shamalawn

I've been told sh-YAW-muh-lawn... but that doesn't mean it's right ;)

On the other hand, I found Namesake to be terribly boring. I dont even particularly like her ideas that much. Anyway, this was a suprise to me, because I usually like the books that win the booker prize. Oh well.

The perfect way to describe the namesake would be Harlequin Romance. The main character of Gogol, let alone the secondary characters isn't even fleshed out he has no purpose except to fuck and think about his relationships sometimes and that's it. But its perfect material for Mira Nair this stuff's right up her alley. This one's prolly gonna get a Grand Prix too. AND "they" are going to laud it as that quintessential "crossover" film that everyone in Bollywood has been so hoping for.
One last thing. Shyamalan was never supposed to direct the thing only write the script. He probably had a few drafts done he's pretty good with dialogue but I think he left when he realized he probably couldn't come up with a better surprise ending than the one in the book.

After being told "Life of Pi" would completely change my life, I was terribly disappointed when it didn't live up to the hype. I mentally filed it with the similarly over-hyped "Celestine Prophecy" and "Stranger in a Strange Land".

I just cared more about the fate of Richard Parker than that of Pi.

Give me Rohinton Mistry any day.

The perfect way to describe the namesake would be Harlequin Romance. The main character of Gogol, let alone the secondary characters isn't even fleshed out he has no purpose except to fuck and think about his relationships sometimes and that's it.

Are you a literary critic? Because you have me amazed.

I usually like the books that win the booker prize.

agreed. 'the god of small things' is the worst book i made myself read! 'life of pi', on the other hand, was genius!

Arundhati Roy can write, and I've seen that talent in her essays, but her Booker winning book is among the worst books I've ever read.

I rather preferred GoST to her essays. What specifically did you dislike?

i loved GoST; i've never read her essays, but i'm inclined to swagger that arundhati can write, just based on that. she fleshed out my parental memories of backwater bliss better than they or their photographs ever could.

while i found interpreter of maladies annoying, bland and utterly put-down-able, jhumpa totally redeemed herself and almost post-justified her hype with namesake. reading namesake left me dreaming about its characters, weeping for gogol's betrayal at the hands of moushoumi and generally haunted by the story for weeks after putting it down. harlequin romance? doubtful.

i thought life of pi was a massive disappointment. it would've been a complete waste of my time if not for the "now i can say i've read it" factor. oy, talk about undeserved hype. like metallica, that book had no effect on me.

I dont even know what 'Harlequin Romance' means.

After reading the disses from DesiDancer and ANNA I am never going to read Life of Pi now. I spit on that book.

Haha.. For every book mentioned here (GoST, Namesake, Pi) there are the lovers and haters.. About GoST.. I come from Kerala too, but I have lived there, so the backwater exoticism portrayed there was totally lost on me. It's a matter of perspective, so let me explain. Let's say that you live in America and you see one of those Bollywood movies where they show the glamorized 'American Life' that makes you go "sheesh, that's so hackneyed".. that's how I felt when I read Ms. Roy's exoticized version of Kerala. It feels like it's been written for outsiders with every little detail played up, and if the exotica doesn't work it's charm on you, there's very little left in her story. Her descriptive abilities are great, which is probably reflected in her essays, but that doesn't help her tell a good tale.

Of course, it's just my opinion. I'm biased by my own perspective.

Punjabi Boy : Before spitting, the one redeeming thing I found in God of Small Things was the love scene near the end of the book. It's a naughy bit, quite descriptive, an inter-caste cross-communal escapade. It's the only part of the book I have actually read, the rest of it had weird formatting and too many italicized words, which gave me a migraine.

On topic, it's so cool to see the Namesake pics of Howrah Station -- despite having been to Calcutta so many times, I have yet to visit this huge, teeming train station.

Shyamalan was never supposed to direct the thing only write the script.

This article from 2003 says different:

... M. Night Shyamalan will begin work on a film adaptation of the book, "The Life of Pi," to which he will adapt the screenplay and direct.

timepass

Yeah I know I reckon God of Small Things is a good book, especially the final scene...very poignant and powerful and brilliantly written...although what Anil says about it from his Keralan (Keralite?) perspective is really interesting, thanks for sharing that Anil by the way, enjoyed reading your post.

I was referring to Life of Pi, which I have been thinking of reading for a while, but I wont bother now.

I reckon it would be a shame if Arundhati Roy never writes another novel.

... how do you pronounce shyamalan? i think shee-a-mall-en but tv says shamalawn.

If you're looking to American TV to pronounce desi names correctly, you're in a heap o' trouble, A-naaan-thin :)

GoST was a stylistic triumph of post-colonial literature and magical realism. Roy comes from an inherited style created and expounded by Desai (Clear Light of Day) and Rushdie. She combined both the realism and social commentary of Desai and the artistic approach of Rusdhie to explain the politics and culture of a region so important to modern India. She effectively told a causi-autobiographical tale while revealing and discussing a culture unique in India. The whole book is like a spoken monologue. Read those italicized words out loud (in a tone that reflects their meaning) and you'll see Roy's poetic artistry. Her essays on politics are well researched, circumspect opinions on the events shaping our world today. Her "An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire" is a compilation of her essays and speeches. I heard one of her speeches in Seattle. She is erudite, poised and astute. Definitely a figure very much needed on the global stage today. She also stated that she will not be writing any novels again too soon, she wants to focus on activism. I love the figure she portrays herself to be, from GoST to her activism.

As for Life of Pi, I tried not to pay attention to the hype. I did not read any book reviews and started the novel with little or no information about the plot or the author. I find it is best to empty oneself of prior opinions on a novel or work as much as possible precisely because one can be disappointed and not enjoy the work for what it is and not what it is percieved to be by others. I recommend the novel as an engaging read. It's allegorical and the fun of Martel is fleshing out the symbols with which he operates to convey his main thematic concerns. In other words, read it next to the pool. It's an easy read and enjoyable. It's complex enough to analyze but simple enough to just simply enjoy.

Lahiri is great because I can really see how she was influenced by Meenakshi Mukherjee and how her she succesfully writes about the South Asian diaspora with the reservation of a narrator of realism in an empathetic tone. Very Emelia Pardo Bazan of her (basque realist who wrote "las medias rojas"). Interpreter of Maladies is incredible for that reason, Lahiri is employing realism to convey those symptoms of disconnect and the 'dead space' of Mukherjee where many South Asians find themselves in this country. The Namesake is a continuation of this approach and is hardly as shallow or meaningless as a "Harlequin Romance". The Namesake is another link in this continuation of Post-colonial literature.

GoST was a stylistic triumph of post-colonial literature and magical realism

Where is the magic realism in GOST? There isnt any.

Lahiri is great because I can really see how she was influenced by Meenakshi Mukherjee

Do you mean Bharati Mukherjee?

The whole book is like a spoken monologue.

How can it be a spoken monologue when it is written in the third person?

Read those italicized words out loud (in a tone that reflects their meaning) and you'll see Roy's poetic artistry.

Arent the italicised words in Malayallam? How does the tone in which the word is read affect its meaning? Its meaning is its meaning, regardless of the way it is read.

She effectively told a causi-autobiographical tale

Do you meanquasi-autobiographical?

And what the hell does 'Harlequin Romance' mean?

And what the hell does 'Harlequin Romance' mean?

Do they not have Google over yonder?

Oh I see. Over here its called Mills & Boon.

I personally didnt think GoST was all that great. I mean,I agree Roy has a real gift for picturisation, I loved the way she described the landscape and the people and the customs and everything - vivid imagery. Read it 6-7 years ago, but phrases like "silver ropes of rain ploughing up the earth like gunfire" still sticks in mind. Yup, Im Mal too, grew up on the banks of river Meenachil, where the narrative takes place. Was amazed at how accurate the lady's portrayals were. But having said that, I have to say I didnt get past the first half of the book. I agree with Anil - once the exotic Kerala imagery and the funky wordplay lose their charm, then its not much of a hook.

BTW, anyone else think it strange it didnt get made into a film, after all that hype? I mean, I still remember the cover story in India Today when the book released - sounded like the biggest sensation since Herr Gutenberg printed what-was-that off his new press.

And yeah, if ther's an ward for dog-naming, the lady deserves it. "Kuttappan" and "Patti", beautiful. (yeah, that was in the IndToday article too. Talk about hype.)

silver ropes of rain ploughing up the earth like gunfire

Thats brilliant writing. I say it again, it will be a real shame if she never writes fiction again.

What I liked about GoST was her "voice". It is quite unique.

Her stylistic approach is most definitely taken from the magical realism employed by Rusdhie and Carlos Fuentes. How the hell do you know what the Bar Nowl was thinking, eh? Or how serious is Rahel when she says that Sophie Mol did a cartwheel in her casket? Rahel is being completely serious when the events of her experience are related, even with seemingly unnatural occurences. Roy employs this stylistic approach in order to convey the child's point of view (remember?) She does so effectively, in my humble opinion.

Many of the words that are italicized are Malyali and many are just phonetic spelling of words (where my feeling that the the spoken monologue by an omniscient narrator comes in). Pappachi? Say that out loud. Bar Nowl. That's spoken, my friend. Many of the words that are italicized are also used in tone and inflection. Of course it is written in the third person but the real effect of Roy's writing is in how she tells the story in tone and "voice". Last time I checked, voices are best heard. I really do recommend reading parts out loud because it is like a spoken narration. I used 'monologue' because it seems that there is only one person telling the tale seamlessly.
I did mean Bharati. I was trying to remember. I did mean quasi (I guess no one got my reference there, oh well).

Thanks for the corrections. Next time I should use spell check.

I guess I hoped the substance of what I was saying would be discussed, not the small mistakes I made. I guess this is where editing comes in. It's a blog, not a dissertation, ok?

Life of Pi was amazing. That being said it isn't for everyone. Never take someone's reading recommendations with anything more than a grain of salt. People's reading tastes are as unique as their fingerprints. I for example will rarely read fiction steeped in reality. I have never read a single novel by an Indian author. Shocking huh? I enjoy Tharoor but only his non-fiction. Some people read to wallow in life, while others read to escape it. Life of Pi beyond all else is the careful study of an animal (including man). How it eats, thinks, sleeps, and kills. It is also a book about the beauty of a solitary mind. Others reading my take may be wondering if they read the same book as me. That's why books rock. They are like coded messages and only specific people will have the right decoder rings.

Magic realism as defined by The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory (487):
“This term was coined by Franz Roh…he was concerned with the characteristics and tendencies discernible in the work of certain German painters of the period especially the nueu Sachlichkeit artists of Munich. Their work was marked by the images of figures and objects depicted in a somewhat surrealistic manner. The themes and subjects were often imaginary, somewhat outlandish and fantastic and with a certain dream-like quality…Some of the characteristic features of this kind of fiction are the mingling and juxtaposition of the realistic and the fantastic or bizarre, skillful shifts in time, convoluted and even labyrinthine narratives and plots, miscellaneous use of dreams, myths and fairy stories, expressionistic and even surrealist description, arcane erudition, the element of surprise or abrupt shock, the horrific and the inexplicable. It is seldom easy to define this genre…”

“Images of figures and objects depicted in a somewhat surrealistic manner”:
Sophie Mol’s funeral.
“Sophie Mol was led to Mammachi. Mammachi pushed her dark glasses up into her hair. They looked up like slanting cat’s eyes at the moldy bison head. The moldy bison said, “No. Absolutely Not.” In moldy Bisonese”
Can you imagine the bison’s head assuming an English puff’s accent? I can. Read it out loud.

“Skillful shifts in time”:
Roy often moves skillfully between the childhood/past to the current/adulthood in this novel

“Expressionistic and even surrealist description”:
Rahel and Estha are Siamese-soul twins, remember?
“As she spoke, the Waiting Melody that hung over her like a shimmering temple elephant’s umbrella crumbled and gently fell about like dust” (164).

“Arcane erudition”
Need I say more about Roy’s style in GoST?

“The element of surprise or abrupt shock”
The death of Sophie mol, the death of Velutha written in two, harrowing pages, Estha sent away. Abrupt and shocking enough?

“ The horrific and the inexplicable”:
The manner in which justice was carried out: “Screams died in them and floated up, like dead fish. Cowering on the floor, rocking between dread and disbelief, they realized that the man being beaten was Velutha…The sober, steady brutality, the economy of it all.
They were opening a bottle.
Or shutting a tap,
Cracking an egg to make an omelette”
(292).

(All quotes of GoST taken from the 1997 Random House hardback edition)

Booyah?

Punjabi Boy, not everyone is friggen Anurag Kashyap.

Nooks nah kadh, okay? I doubt we need a grammatician/spelling expert on this blog. Btw Abhi, you needed a comma in that last post.

I'm just saying that people should be nicer to each other. It's a forum, not a battlefield.

Her stylistic approach is most definitely taken from the magical realism employed by Rusdhie and Carlos Fuentes. How the hell do you know what the Bar Nowl was thinking, eh?

That is the rumination and working of a childs innocent mind. The whole point is that they imagine what a barn owl is thinking. It has nothing to do with magic realism. It is to do with the imagination of the children taking an image and imagining. When the bison head speaks, it is how Sophie as a child looks at the world and twists things and makes them come alive. It is actually an interior thing, telling you about a childs psychology. Reading that in a literalist way obscures its meaning. The whole point is to describe how the children process and interpret the world. If you miss that you miss their interior life.

where my feeling that the the spoken monologue by an omniscient narrator comes in

A spoken monologue is not the same thing as the story telling of an unseen narrator.

Thanks for the corrections.

You're welcome.

Who is Anurag Kashyap?

What have I said thats not nice? I thought we were having a literary discussion. I am being extremely nice and literary.

Who is Anurag Kashyap?

'ANURAG KASHYAP'

Oh I see. Well, I wasnt being pedantic, I was asking genuine questions. Perhaps there is a writer called Meenaxshi Mukherjee whom I have not heard of, and perhaps causi-autobiographical is related to the word 'causative' and has a different meaning from quasi-autobigraphical. Thats why I asked. Nothing to do with spelling.

They are like coded messages and only specific people will have the right decoder rings.

I like to think that the message can be unlocked by more than one form of decoding ;)

Regardless of how I found the story, Martel has an amazing ability for description. I had a truly visceral reaction to the scene where the zebra is devoured, among others. Powerful.

I think Abhi's comment on 'Life of Pi' was the closest to how I felt about it - it was beautiful, amazing. That being said, here's a quick question for all those who felt it was a hard read or a disappointment - did you miss the revelation in the last few pages? There's a reason they asked Shyamalan to do this movie...

And btw, Shyamalan is pronounced "SHAH-ma-len"

That being said, here's a quick question for all those who felt it was a hard read or a disappointment - did you miss the revelation in the last few pages?

uh, no. i didn't miss it.

i'm not in the habit of getting through 95% of a book and then not reading the rest. who is?? i didn't think it was a "hard read" at all btw, i was in the "what a disappointment" camp.

Life of Pi would've been a better read if it werent' for all the over-the-top hype. if it had been a book i stumbled upon myself in a bookstore, i'm sure i'd be less caustic about it...but when i'm told over and over again that a book is going to "change my life" and three years later, i can't remember a single memorable line, well, that justifies "disappointing". like a previous commenter, i also will randomly remember lines from GoST. to each their own. abhi has his decoder ring (very cute way to put it) and i have mine.

For shame Anna, you weren't hip enough to pick up the book BEFORE it became the biggest thing after Diet Coke?
:)

for all those who felt it was a hard read or a disappointment - did you miss the revelation in the last few pages

I was disappointed, for sure, but I think calling LoP a hard read is a gross overstatement. Like Anna, I got to the end and likewise, I didn't miss the "revelation". I just didn't feel the earth move, upon said revelation; it didn't speak to me or stir my guts. It was minorly thought-provoking, yes, but like I said before, I think I was more invested in Richard Parker than in Pi.

I think Anna said it best, "like metallica, that book had no effect on me."

Ooh

Whats the revelation at the end? Tell me so I dont have to read it.

I had a truly visceral reaction to the scene where the zebra is devoured, among others. Powerful.

A Zebra gets eaten? This sounds amazing. This is what gets me hooked, zebra's being cooked. Or is it eaten alive?

Zebra's are just horses in pyjamas, I have no sympathy for them.

As Anna mentioned, the part of the book that really sets you up for disappointment is the blurb on the back that tells you that it's gonna change your life. With all those expectations, I would have been surprised if the book didn't disappoint!

I am sorry to bring my beer to this champagne party but did anyone read 'Five point someone'??.....I did the last time I wuz back in des and mann,the nostalgia of college days that it provoked totally blew me away.......studying in college in Delhi in the 90's was the closest my life is ever gonna get to 'magical realism'.......shit man,everything we did after that HAD to be either too oridnary or too contrived.....

For shame Anna, you weren't hip enough to pick up the book BEFORE it became the biggest thing after Diet Coke?

sigh. anyone who worries about being hip (and picking up books in a timely, hip manner) definitely isn't, IMO. :) it's funny that we just linked to him...amar is the one who bought me Life of Pi, as a thank you present. the truth is, i probably wouldn't have read it at ALL if he hadn't given it to me; it just didn't appeal, so i kept on passing it byyyy. he kept calling to ask me what i thought of it, so i made sure i got through it. like abhi, he adored the book and was sure i would, too. i was sad that i had to disappoint him with my disappointment.

hype doesn't have to ruin the fun of a fad; i ignored the da vinci code for well over a year, until a few months after a good friend gave it to me as a birthday gift. it was still an entertaining, ridiculously easy, slightly thought-provoking few hours. shit, i remember more of THAT than Life of Pi. the tale of one piscene molitor patel seems even sadder, when framed that way.

But whats the twist in the tail? Please tell me or else I wont be able to sleep.

But whats the twist in the tail? Please tell me or else I wont be able to sleep.

While we are on the subject of books, has anyone read 'Shantaram'?

Shyamalan is pronounced Shya-Muh-Luhn. The "L" is retroflex just as the N in KrishNa is.

But whats the twist in the tail?

Is that pun directed at the supporting hero of our book? ;)

No honestly, no pun, but whats the twist in the tail? I mean, I am intruiged and I want to know.

I'll hit you off-list. I'll get beaten with shoes if I spill it here...

Alright! You got my number?

if it's the email address you posted on the other thread, yeah

Amazingly I think this is the first time I can find myself agreeing with Anna. I thought God of small things was fantastic. The language, imagery, and structure was phenomenal. I can only assume the people that said GOST was wack, and Life of Pi was awesome was trying unsuccesfully to be funny.

"'the god of small things' is the worst book i made myself read! 'life of pi', on the other hand, was genius!"

! whose been hittin the crack pipe ?

But thankfully all is well in the world when I realized that Anna dreamed of Namesake characters. I couldnt imagine reading a more boring book, except maybe Red Pony. This book was the embodiment of banal to me.

agreeing with Anna is just stupid, i concur. ;)

namesake may be boring to you (i personally think that adjective should be reserved for her collection of short stories) but Dave Barry makes me want to stab my eyes out with hot forks of displeasure. to each their own, then? :D

does anyone know what the hell happened to vikram chandra? imo, his second book "love and longing in bombay" still sets the standard in english language contemporary desi lit. but the brother seems to have gone into deep hibernation. wassup?

does anyone know what the hell happened to vikram chandra?

You know, you could just ask him. I met Vikram Chandra on his first book tour, in Seattle 10 years ago. Both the book of short stories and Red Earth and Pouring Rain were fantasic. Chandra was a software consultant by day, yet he writes in a way which even Rushdie says he envies.

This bio says,

He co-wrote an Indian Feature Film, Mission Kashmir, released in 2000, and currently teaches Creative Writing at George Washington University.

He worked on Mission Kashmir with Suketu Mehta. SAJA says he's working on a new novel. I doubt we've heard the last of him, he just doesn't seem to enjoy PR. He's neither pulpy nor prolific, but he's worth the wait.

Vikram Chandra gave a talk a couple months ago at Berkeley. Apparently the English department is looking to hire someone for a fiction writer position. They screened Mission Kashmir and then had an interesting Q & A session, mostly discussing the screenwriting/moviemaking process. I don't remember all that well, but I think he said that at the moment he was working on his personal writing, and had no immediate plans to do another movie. (I could be making that up, though.) Don't know what happened with the job search, though.

A software consultant, and a writer ? Forget Pavitr Prabhakar I found my new indian superhero.

Does a zebra really get eaten?

I found out Vikram just finished his third novel - hopefully it will be out this year?