Find a negative review of Life of Pi (the novel OR film; or, the critique could involve Moacyr Scliar or Beatrice & Virgil) to (dis)agree with in 300+ words. Name the reviewer, summarize the review's main points (at least three), then assert yourself.
W.11-12.1 Write arguments to support claims
in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and
relevant and sufficient evidence.
- W.11-12.1a Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the
significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or
opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences
claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
- W.11-12.1b Develop claim(s) and
counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant evidence
for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a
manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level, concerns, values,
and possible biases.
- W.11-12.1c Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to
link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the
relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence,
and between claim(s) and counterclaims.
- W.11-12.1d Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while
attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they
are writing.
- W.11-12.1e Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from
and supports the argument presented.
W.11-12.2b Develop the topic thoroughly by selecting the most significant
and relevant facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations,
or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge
of the topic.
W.11-12.2c Use appropriate and varied transitions and syntax to link the
major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships
among complex ideas and concepts.
W.11-12.2d Use precise language, domain-specific vocabulary, and
techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity
of the topic.
W.11-12.2e Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while
attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they
are writing.
W.11-12.2f Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from
and supports the information or explanation presented (e.g., articulating
implications or the significance of the topic).
W.11-12.4 Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
76 comments:
Story 2,
I read anonymous from Amazon reviews. The review simply states the overall plot of the novel and the events that occur, and then leads into the actual criticism portion. The responder states how the novel was supposed to make him believe in God, and did not have faith by the end of the book. With the words in the text, the possibility of him not even finishing the novel arrives at the front door of shame. How does one judge a book or story without listening/reading all of it—to receive the full affect? Apparently the book became hyped-up for nothing. The responder also claims the book to just simply be boring. The dullness of being on a boat in the middle of an ocean for 227 days arouses no satisfaction. The responder may have also not known that a tiger remained on the boat at all times during this lengthy time frame. To survive on a very small and ridiculous sized “home” with a tiger for almost a full year, I doubt anyone would take this challenge voluntarily. The responder also explains his outlook on atheism. Atheists apparently believe in “obvious” logic and mind over matter type material, therefore, proving themselves to be better than non-believers. The talk revolved highly around a “leap of faith” statement, and how non-such occurrences would really occur if placed in the situation. All seems too set up to turn a non-believer into a believer. I disagree. How would one know that events like such would not happen right before their eyes? They have never been in such a position before. If they would gladly step into a boat with a massive tiger and set sail blindly for 227 days and come back alive, then maybe a point may slightly be made. Until then, these nutty criticisms should not be put up for people to read.
Marso 1
I read a review titled “First Degree Nonsense Peddled by Second Rate Author” from amazon.com’s review section by an anonymous citizen of the United Kingdom. The most intriguing part of the critique is that in the last paragraph—the reviewer actually recommends reading the novel! Throughout the few paragraph that the critic, clearly a well-educated and well-read man, writes, are spent briefly overviewing the plot of the novel, including the introduction, expedition, and rescue. The reviewer claims that Martel has plagiarized from a few different sources. Next, he analyzes the Martel’s lack of ability to expound upon simply introducing three religions. Finally, he claims that Martel lacks in his storytelling ability, especially when it comes to his protagonist, Pi Patel who he says “characterisation is hollow and about as developed as Java man.”
I would strongly argue against the fact that Martel has plagiarized. First, he spent many years researching for his book, if he had wanted to intentionally write a duplicated book, he would never have invested so much time and money into Life of Pi. Also, part of Martel’s research included reading on survival stories and since many have similar elements, distinguishing becomes blurry. Finally, thousands of stories relaying similar themes have been published in the past couple centuries. Creating a one-hundred percent original plot would be next to impossible. When talking about Martel’s religious angle in the novel, the analyst claims “his premises are based on the nursery-rhyme philosophy.” The reviewer does not appreciate the fact that the reader is left with both the option for so much interpretation and a misconstrued belief about truth. The writer, more than likely an atheist, says he prefers to seek only truth in what he believes and thinks accepting without seeing is an unnecessary luxury. In my opinion, believing without concrete evidence shows extreme vulnerability and subsequent critical thinking to the highest level, something we should strive to attain. I lose some respect for the critic when he claims Pi is hollow and poorly developed. I think Pi is one of the most developed characters I have ever read about. When read deeper than simply an animal story, Pi becomes infinitely layered, a swirl of chaos. Obviously, this reviewer is confused in his overall reaction to the book, though, because to read something purely to be disappointed—as he claims a reader will be—lacks purpose. He fails to realize the book has forced him to think critically and challenge him, a function of fiction.
Shroll 2
Just silly. That is precisely how Cath Murphy litreactor.com sums up how she feels about Life of Pi. Her review is called “Your Favorite Book Sucks: Life of Pi”. This article is simply cynical—a slam review if you will. Cath Murphy is hungrily dishing up comments of a devil’s advocate; she is not inspired or emotionally evoked by the novel, but rather is irritated with Pi’s seemingly omniscient knowledge of zoology, Islam, Hinduism, and the calmness and level of maturity with which a sixteen-year-old boy deals with the horrors of becoming a castaway. While I am emotionally evoked by the novel, I too became irritated with the fact that Pi appears to be incredibly rational and accept his flaws and shortcomings almost impeccably, while most others who—if happened to become shipwrecked with an adult Bengal tiger—would promptly and irrationally (or possibly, rationally) freak out. Pi no doubt had difficulty in believing his own circumstances after the sinking of Tsitsum, yet he seems to be quick to bluntness and realizing reality… but what was his reality? The question parallels that from the wise owl about how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop… the world will never know. I believe we are better off not knowing, that human nature’s curiosity will eventually “kill the cat” by discovering information never meant for our minds to discover. Yann Martel is obviously, covertly relaying the message of acceptance through his novel. It is not a necessity that the human mind understand where life came from or what it is like to die; the only necessity we have before us is to love endlessly as we have seen PI love God. Love brings acceptance. Now, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying we as humans should settle, but should rather appreciate the beauty of innocence. This world is beautiful because of what we do not understand, not necessarily because of what is already understood.
Van Ede, 5
Through some searching, I came upon a slightly raw but honest criticism composed by a farmer named Scott Sauchuk. Although Mr. Sauchuk believes Life of Pi to be a "good" book, he states he does not understand why many deem the novel to be "great". Mr. Suachuk remains unimpressed by the book due to many unanswered questions, a rather boring survival story , and a too simple of message to an incredibly long novel.
I agree and disagree with Mr. Sauchuk on several points. My curiosity overwhelming me, I too wish some questions pertaining to the basic plot of the novel to be answered. What happened to characters such as Mr. and Mr. Kumar? How did the animals on the ship get out of their cages? However, I also believe that Mr. Martel (the studious and detailed writer that he is) would have included any answer or minor detail to add the novel as long as it did not interrupt the main theme or the smooth flow of the story. For instance, to reveal how the animals escaped their cages might point out that the animal story is correct, thus eliminating the reader's choice and destroying the novel's purpose.
In reference to Mr. Sauchuk's criticism of a boring survival story, I must wholeheartedly disagree. Compared to other survival stories I have read (Robinson Crusoe, The Hatchet) I find Life of Pi to be equally if not more exciting, especially with the added aspects of delirium and fantasy. Even more so, I find a carnivorous, meerkat-inhabited island to be immensely engaging. The only section of the novel I found to be slightly boring was the exposition, which is unfortunately the case of most works of literature.
Finally, I am unable to view the message of Life of Pi as representing anything remotely simple. A choice between faith in something more and logic in conjunction with probability is something millions, including myself, struggle with on a daily basis. The "lengthy story" described by Mr. Sauchuk is absolutely necessary in engaging our hopes and optimism to be truly tested by logic. A shorter, less captivating story would be far easier to disprove, not doing the many philosophies of religion justice.
No creation is perfect. Perhaps, Mr. Suachuk's comments carry many valid points; he simply may not struggle between religion and strict scientific theory as many others do. In any case, Mr. Sauchuk is respectably entitled to his own opinion as all readers of the novel are entitled to their choice in which story to believe. However, one can still disagree.
Larson pd 5
One negative review I have found was by David Egan on Amazon. His review was very critical and made many comments about the book. Egan thought the writing was sloppy and weighed down by effort. He also comments that he felt disengaged from the characters and the plot. I could not disagree anymore! Out of the three books we have read, I felt more connected with Life of Pi. Throughout the book, I felt and imagined myself in the boat with Pi and Richard Parker. I do not understand how Egan felt disengaged! Egan also criticizes Martel’s use of clichés. These mere thought almost angers me. The clichés used in Life of Pi helped me connect to the book. I would not enjoy the book as much if Martel took out all of the clichés. Egan mentions that the most egregious moment in the book is when Martel promises the readers that this story will make them believe in God. Egan thinks it is inappropriate for a writer to drop this line in the beginning unless for certain it will be fulfilled. I think this comment is unbelievable! This story definitely made me believe in God a little more—how could it not? Even if Egan did not believe in God after this story, what proof does he have that the rest of the world agreed with him? The last comment that Egan made that actually upset me was that Martel is trying too hard to be loved and that his writing shows it. This is a strong criticism that has no proof behind it. Through this book, I never once thought Martel’s goal was to be loved by everyone. In my mind, Martel’s goal was not please everyone—but to create an illuminating and awe-inspiring story about a young boy and his 277 day journey across the ocean.
Cain, 2
I read a negative review about Life of Pi that was written by a man named David Egan and with frank honestly I must say that I am appalled at his review and genuinely offended. Egan goes on for a good three pages about how Yann Martel’s writing was lazy (trying to seem more intelligent than he really is) and that the book is poorly written. Egan claims Martel to be unreliable and dishonest is his writing as well as offers harsh criticism saying, “I suspect Martel is trying much too hard to make his writing flashy. He tends to rely on short, abrupt sentences, far too many of which begin with conjunctions.” And again “In the end, this novel is too much about the writing of Martel and not enough about the life of Pi.”
Words cannot describe how disappointed I am with this review. Life of Pi is by far one of the most exquisite novels I have ever read. Martel is a literary genius and has crafted a wonderful masterpiece. Egan’s critiques and distaste for the novel are most definitely a result of a lack of appreciation. Declaring that this novel is too much about Martel’s writing and not enough about Pi’s life is a strong indication that whoever this David Egan is, he clearly has no sense of what makes an intriguing novel. Anyone who reads Martel’s book is missing out on so much if they take the words at a simple face value. Martel writes in such a way that makes one’s mind wander and contemplate what more is there to life? I am fully convinced that David Egan is an uneducated and unreliable literary critic though he should not be considered a literary critic at all. One of Egan’s last points was that Martel wrote early in the book that this story would make a person believe in God and yet Egan feels as though Martel never delivered that. I don’t know what story Egan was reading but since reading Life of Pi I can honestly say that my faith is a little bit stronger. Without Pi’s unwavering dedication to loving God, I firmly believe that he would never have survived and if that isn’t enough to convince someone to have a little faith, I don’t know what is.
Pham 7
Browsing amazon.com’s reviews of Life of Pi, I noticed a review whose title was “Awful, just awful.” Intrigued, I began reading the review. Interestingly enough, a wide majority of raters found the review helpful. The author of the article was under the pen name “GameMaker.” He stated that he did not understand the appeal of the novel, feeling it was too preachy and that Martel only used the beginning as an opportunity to preach religion. In addition, he describes the boat adventure as “botched imho.” His problem with the novel is that he feels Martel writes and writes and then abruptly ends the novel—being anti-climactic and preachy.
Within some aspects, I agree with “GameMaster.” The book is very much a philosophy lesson. However, the novel is meant to be a story that makes you believe in God. Martel is not imposing his views upon us, rather he is showing us a plausible, unconventional way of thinking. This should be applauded. The novel could be thrilling and packed with action but would lose its undertones of morality and acceptance. I admit, the novel is very pious and religiously-based. Yet it cannot be bound by this. Books like Martel’s bestseller allow more than entertainment but lessons in public morality and personal philosophy. Martel explains the reasoning of human nature and the fallacies of human thought. Life of Pi was not only concretely fascinating but philosophically fascinating as well.
On his criticism of the boat adventure, I feel it is not “botched imho”—“imho” meaning “in my honest opinion.” Pi’s journey of survival reveals to us the will of human life, natural wonders and asymptotal conjugations. This novel forces the reader to realize that all things are possible. Survival is possible and giving up is simply not an option. As the cliché goes, we must “live to tell the tale.” Otherwise, how can society discover new ways of thinking? Pi’s adventure makes us contemplate things we never thought possible. It provokes debate that leads to understanding and that is exactly what a brilliant novel vies to do.
In accordance of GameMaster’s assertation that Martel abruptly ended the novel, I would have to agree. Howbeit, I realize that Martel did it for good reason. Again, he does not want to force his views upon the reader and so ends it in such a way that we are able to decide which story to believe. In addition, we are able to create our own ending. We are able to branch ideas from Martel’s conjured creativity. This novel makes us think with its abrupt ending. It leaves us unsatisfied and I believe that was Martel’s intention. Martel has created a novel that will receive criticism, praise and debate even in decades to come.
Myrlie 2
Throughout my search of negative reviews of Life of Pi I was highly amused. Most of the reviews I read did not explain why the novel was disliked, but simply included a comment such as, “This book is so boring.” After some digging, I came across Tana Shah’s one star review on amazon.com. Tana went more in depth than the other critics, but not by much. In her review entitled “Overrated Hype!” Tana writes that Yann Martel’s style of writing is laborious. I do not necessarily agree with her, however, during the extensive section on religion it was hard to keep my eyes open. The rest of the novel that I have read so far has been greatly entertaining. The pages have practically been turning themselves and I find Life of Pi hard to put down. Tana Shah also believes that the novel is highly unlikely. That is one point that I believe every reader will agree to. I find the carnivorous island to be by far the most out of this world, but by making it so unbelievable I find it more interesting. Tana fails to mention anything remotely strange within the novel. Instead, she writes that the thought of naming a son Piscine Molitor Patel is simply unimaginable. I find Pi’s name unusual, but I do not know of many Indian names. Parents have always giving strange and interesting names to their young. According to Tana, Life of Pi left a bad taste in her mouth. Because of the putrid writing style or the life like descriptions, I do not know. I do admit that I found myself involuntarily frowning during some remarkable descriptions by Yann Martel. Tana Shah goes on to say that in order to win the Booker prize one must write about gruesome events. I strongly disagree. In order to have a good insightful novel one must explore the unexplored.
I had a hard time telling if all of the negative reviews I read were serious or if the critic was just trying to be sarcastic.
Coyle 2
The review I read was written by David Egan, philosophy lecturer at Oxford University. His review of Life of Pi was bitterly carping and critical. He states that Life of Pi does little to actually tell a story; instead it is used as a way of showing off Yann Martel’s writing. He first talked about how he first read the book after hearing many good reviews from friends, but was quite disappointed when he decided to delve into the novel himself. He mentions how Martel overuses techniques and does so sloppily, such as placing sentences that seem factual but are indeed plausibly false. He gave the example quoting “"[L]ike all younger brothers, I would suffer from following in the footsteps of a popular older sibling" (p. 23).” Stating that not all older siblings are popular, in fact, often times they are not popular at all. Egan then goes on to quibble about Martel’s overuse of short sentences, stating that it takes away the effectiveness of the literary device, making his writing seem sloppy, and his use of clichés and other puns. Lastly, He describes his distaste for the dramatic character openings, such as when Orange Juice is first introduced, niggling that the reader only discovers who the “she” mentioned in the first sentence is an orangutan after reading on for nearly half a page. The critic also railed on the fact that the author’s note said that the story would “make you believe in God” (pg. viii), it hardly makes an effort to do so. Egan clearly believes that Martel is a writer who tries too hard. He makes his writing flashy just to attempt to get people to love him. While Egan does have a few good points, overall, I disagree with him. I did not find Life of Pi to be sloppily written. I believe that there were times when the clichés seemed a little much, and the use of small sentences made some parts feel a little sloppy, but for the most part it was very cohesive and entertaining to read. I believe that Egan was wrong when he said that the novel doesn’t try very hard to make you believe in God. I personally think that the novel does make you believe that there is a God because, while it doesn’t explicitly state it, many of the occurrences are far too miraculous to not have any sort of otherworldly interference. I firmly believe that Martel did a fantastic job of demonstrating his writing ability, but did not portray it in such a way that it took away from the story itself.
Breitzman 1
I chose to read a mostly negative review written by Pacze Moj (I am unsure if this is the person’s screen name or real name) on the website blogcritics.org. The author of the article begins the review by stating their opinion and then goes on to describe what it is they liked and disliked about the novel Life of Pi. The author’s first main point is that they found the book to be overrated by its adorers. The reviewer admits that he/she liked Life of Pi, but there were a few major aspects of the novel that he/she disliked. The reviewer also did not quite understand all of the hype surrounding the novel and did not really understand how and why it was so popular either (due to the upcoming reasons). The reviewer’s second point discusses what they believe is Life of Pi’s main flaw: its plot. Pacze Moj feels that Life of Pi lacks a solid storyline and that the idea behind it is bizarre. This person feels as though Yann Martel ran out of material to work with in the middle of the story due to his plot “choices” and that is why, he/she believes, the part of the novel where Pi (the only developed character in Pacze’s opinion) is stranded on the lifeboat drags on so long. Pacze Moj thinks most of the events that occur on the lifeboat/island are just filler to make the novel appear more complex, with the best parts being the Author’s Note/beginning and the ending portion where Pi tells the two stories. The third point the reviewer makes discusses Martel’s writing style. This person admits that Martel is a talented writer with a great imagination, but takes some issue with the way he tells Pi’s story. The reviewer feels that sometimes Martel writes simply to create stand-out literature rather than a likable story. Pacze thinks that some areas of the novel are too wordy and “self-important”—he/she thinks the novel is at its best when Martel goes for simplicity rather than substance. I agree with certain parts of this review, but there are others with which I disagree. I do agree with some points Pacze makes regarding the plot of Life of Pi. I will admit that at first I was not particularly stoked to read the novel, as the concept of a boy being stuck on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger struck me as odd and kind of dull. I could see how the premise of Life of Pi would turn some people away from reading the book. However, I feel that once you begin reading and become aware of the parallels between the human and animal stories, the novel becomes infinitely more interesting. While I do agree that the novel does begin to grow kind of lengthy before Pi is discovered by the locals, I do not necessarily think these parts could be categorized as “filler.” I think they are all essential to the message that Yann Martel wanted to convey and are vital to understanding Pi’s struggle and journey. Lastly, I feel that the wordiness Pacze Moj describes IS Yann Martel’s writing style. I think he is an author who is very gifted in terms of eloquence and uses this to paint a picture with words rather than just blandly describing scenarios. Therefore, I mostly disagree with this statement. I liked how Pacze Moj was still fair in the review and acknowledged the novel’s strong points while also critiquing. Overall, however, I disagree with the majority of the statements made by this reviewer.
Rist 2
While searching for a negative review about Life of Pi, I came across amazon.com. I scanned through a few reviews and came to one titled “I’m sorry, what was the point again?” by Tabbyclaw. He begins his review by stating that other reviewers said the gore was excessive and he agrees but there are many more terrible parts to the novel than that. He goes on to say that all of the explaining of the zoo was pointless and lengthy. Bored, he would have stopped reading immediately if it was not for the excellent reviews he had read. This cynical critic believes the tone was bland and hard for him to keep paying attention. Then he continues to say that he understands it is boring to be in a lifeboat for 227 days. What he does not understand is why Martel wrote the book just as boring as it seems to be. “The island highlights the book’s greatest failure.” I could not believe this critic! Towards the end of his review, he concludes that the end is the worst part, leaving readers angry and confused because they did not read the book to learn that nothing is as real as we think it is.
After reading this review I was appalled. How could this man say those things? First, the gore is needed to express the carnivorous side of the animals. Second, everything about the zoo is needed. Pi learns about animals and compares them to humans, just like in the end. He could not train a tiger if he knew nothing about them. Third, the tone of this book is never bland! In fact, this novel kept my attention the entire time I was reading. Also, Martel explains Pi’s survival in the lifeboat and the tactics he learns to stay alive. He’s on a boat in the Pacific with a tiger; it might be useful to learn how he can survive 227 days like that! The one thing I disagree with the most is Tabbyclaw’s ideas about the island. Even though the island chapter was lengthy, I read through it as if it were two pages! The island was so different from anything I had experienced before; I was intrigued. The ending was even better! Leaving the reader with the choice of what to believe is a unique approach. Tabbyclaw needs to reevaluate his opinions because I would recommend Life of Pi to anyone!
Logan Johnke Pd. 5
While looking for a negative book review for Life of Pi I came across a customer review that was written on Amazon.com by David Egan. First off however, I would like to express my thoughts on how hard it was to find a negative review that had more than a couple sentences explaining more than, “Sucks” or “Disappointing”. I had to search at least four different phrases in Google search and YouTube before I found a review that had been written by a seemingly competent critic.
David Egan, the man who wrote the review seemed to be a well-educated man. In his review he pointed out excerpts in the book that could be interpreted as counteractive to each other. However, he did not seem to have a big problem with the plot or themes behind the novel. His biggest concern in my opinion seemed to be that the novel was sloppily put together and that Yann Martel had tried way to hard to make a memorable novel. If you would like to read the review for yourself the link is http://www.amazon.com/review/R36B8DPZ5HKUB5.
I disagree with the writings of David however. While he did have a small point with some of his statements the things he said were to nit-picky. He refers to pg. 288 when Pi is describing the turtle shield, “The shield was heavier than I would have liked, but do soldiers ever get to choose their ordnance?”. The only thing David has to say is that “Yes, soldiers do choose”. If that's the worst “mistake” that he can find than I think Martel has done a great job with this novel. Also when he says that Martel tries to hard to make a great novel I cannot help but think that any author that expects to make a novel worth reading must put everything he has into it. Anything less will only result in a loss of money and time in the author's part.
Koehn pd.7
Ryan Gilbey from NewStatesmen.com wrote a negative film review on the recent movie portrayal of the novel Life of Pi. Gilbey’s interpretation summed up to, “An extravagantly decorated cake of a film with nothing inside but the wisdom of a fortune cookie.” His first major point is that that movie begins with immense suspense and drama with the sinking ship, but then viewers are left to an anticlimactic finish with most of the movie containing Pi’s survival with a tiger on a lifeboat. I find myself agreeing with this point Ryan Gilbey makes. Opposed to the book, the movie does not hold the strong religious journey that is weaved into the book. The novel also does a better job of understanding Pi as a person, not just a boy who is surviving on a lifeboat. The second point the critic makes is of the poor technology, CGI (computer generated images), used in the film. I may not be savvy in film making images or technology, but as an average movie-goer I felt the special effects and imaging to be phenomenal. Compared to Avatar, I think Life of Pi ranked just as spectacular if not better. The colors and chaotic scenes were expertly crafted along with Richard Parker. I believe Hollywood did a tremendous job portraying the unique inventions of Yann Martel’s masterpiece. The last argument Gilbey presents is he does not believe the movie made him believe in God like Pi promised it would in the first few minutes of the film. I am pulled both ways with this argument on the account that I read the novel first and felt the story could make someone believe in God. The film did focus on Pi’s survival the most, but what is one to expect from a PG rated film? Can children think so critically? I think not. The intricacies of Martel’s faith based story may be impossible to reveal in a mere 90-120 minutes opposed to a 300 page novel. Also the film could also not be received well or popular by the public. The most important fact to remember is Hollywood makes films to sell and profit from, not to please the author or literary junkies. Overall, I disagree that the film was an extravagantly decorated cake with nothing inside but the wisdom of a fortune cookie. The intellect and spectacle was still there, however, refined slightly to better accommodate the audience and the nature film making business.
Miller 5
In this book and movie review written by Vince Mancini the book is praised mostly, but the movie is criticized. His only negative remark about the book was that the beginning was very “been there done that”; meaning that the child clashes with parents bit has been so overused. His other remark about the book was that it was “catnip for every baby boomer in yoga class, the perfect complement to the soccer-mom regimen of acupuncture”. I was not sure on what he meant from this, but it seemed negative based on his tone. The one part he did not enjoy in the book was his favorite part in the movie. Mancini said that Ang Lee did a great job at capturing daily life in India.
Now for the movie negatives, and trust me, he had a few. Mancini’s main problem was with the CGI. He made the comment that once there was a small mistake in the animation it took you away from the main goal of the novel and made it noticeably fake so you could not reenter the story with conviction. He also did not approve of how the third part of the novel was treated so unceremoniously. By this he meant that the human story was just as vivid in the novel as the animal story, but in the movie it was treated as an afterthought, thus losing some very important religious aspects. His final complaint was more for comic relief, saying “Oh, and more meerkats. You can never have too many meerkats. A dearth of meerkats is what ruined ‘The Reader’.” Now I have never read nor seen ‘The Reader’ but I assume this was meant to entertain.
Overall I agree with Mancini. The beginning of the novel was my least favorite, but was made exponentially better in the movie. I also agree that the CGI was a bit obvious at points and did knock you out of the story; but I do not believe it necessary to get real tigers and just hire extra Indian boys in case some are eaten as Mancini suggests.
K. Peterson 7
I found an article on Life of Pi the webpage Your Favorite Book Sucks. Cath Murphy, the writer of this article, explains why Life of Pi is a silly and nonadult book. One of his main points is that this novel lacks insight. Cath recognizes this fact with the explanation of Pi’s undecisiveness in religion. Mr. Murphy says tha t this book did not inspirte the reader to further their thoughts. I disagree strongly. Life of Pi is filled with insightful questions that Yann wants us to try and figure out for ourselves. The biggest question is which story really happened which still has me wondering. He also says “Life of Pi fails on that emotional level” which is the level of challenging the reader to care for Pi. I would strongly disagree. Throughout the whole book my heart went out to this young boy who lost his entire family in a ship wreck and had to learn how to survive by himself in the middle of the ocean and completely alone. Another point Mr. Murphy makes is the Pi is a fake. Supposedly, Pi acts like he knows a lot about animals, zoos and religion which Cath thinks is made up and childish. Yann Martel did a lot of research before he wrote his novel and I can see that througout his novel. I found that I learnt a lot about animals that I did not know and I did not have to pick up a nonfiction book. I got the priviliage to read a wonderful story and learn new information. I was personally inspired by Pi’s eagerness to live and trust God. I do not agree with his three different religons but still acknowledge his persistance. Throughout the novel I was forced to think more and open my mind to new ideas. I was brought to a whole new world in the ocean without leaving South Dakota. Cath Murphy is a negative feedback writer who I believe just tries to find the bad in every book even if it is wonderful. I did not trust or agree with his statements.
Beckman 1
The review I found was by a man named Jonathan Kim. Jonathan Kim’s review was over the movie, he states that as a whole he loved the visual effects that Ang Lee used throughout his film but was not impressed with the overall focus of the movie. He says in the very beginning that he is an atheist who has not found anything in life to make him believe that God exists and so took the challenge that Life of Pi is a story that will make you believe in God. The story, he says, did not make him believe in God; in fact it only made him more confident in his previous beliefs. He argues that this story does not make you believe in God, science more accurately accounts for the beautifully amazing elements Pi encounters while out at sea, and that this story does not address religious questions at all but rather leaves you with more than before. “Life of Pi strikes me as a story that does not prove the existence of God,” says Kim, “but actually argues the exact opposite”. With Jonathan Kim I would have to disagree, maybe it’s because I grew up in a Christian household where we go to church and believe in God but I feel there are certain things throughout Pi’s story that cannot be explained by science. Maybe he needs to read the novel and not just judge it based off of the movie because there are certain elements that the movie lacks. For instance, all of the times Pi was extremely near death and probably should have died but then he comes upon something that saves his life and gives him that little bit of strength to hold on—when the rat appears out of nowhere on the lifeboat after all of the other animals except Richard Parker have been killed. The island, I feel cannot truly be explained by science at least not to my knowledge…though I’m no scientist. One area I will agree with Kim on though is that there are some areas of religion that just do not add up through the story with Pi being a Hindu, Christian, and Muslim. Those three together do conflict immensely, especially Christian and Muslim. That fact is acknowledged in the book but I feel it is never really resolved, he just takes it as ‘I know they don’t match up but it’s what I believe’. Not what I believe but it adds certain intriguing aspects to the story to make it different. Memorable.
Tew 2
So the review I found was a video of a man named Rick Kennedy. He starts out the review by saying he is on his way to the movie and he heard it was pretty decent. After he goes to the movie he comes back and states that he walked out of the theater because it was so terrible. His reasoning for why the movie was terrible was that animals got hurt and it wasn’t family friendly. “Disturbing,” was a term that he brought up multiple times.
My analysis was that this man didn’t even give the movie a chance. He sat down, saw something he did not want to see, and left, which is a typical response from most people. This bothered me though. He did not even see the plot yet. Why does he even think that it needs to be family friendly? This movie was never meant for children. Children can still learn from it, but that was not the audience it was looking for. It is there for people who have sharp minds. It is there for those who love to interpret things and who want to see something new. I could not see anything that was disturbing about the movie. A few animals kill each other sure, but in horror movies people kill each other. Which is worse? It never even shows the cannibalism or a man killing a man. They only mention them in the human story, which has no scenes except where Pi explains it. I doubt he even got that far. The man even went so far as to call it F-ed up. He only saw the beginning. Even if there was a part that was soo terrible, it would be closer to the end. Animals eat each other ever day. It is how they survive. There is nothing disturbing about it.
Woodward 5
The negative review that I read was that of Gamemaker’s on Amazon.com. The source of the reviewer’s disappointment is that he or she did not understand the point of the novel. According to the reviewer, Life of Pi was chalked full of “preachy lectures” about religion and as a whole, “extremely anti-climatic.” When reading the sections of the book that extensively covered religion, I found that I was beginning to understand Pi better. By learning some things about the three religion’s backgrounds, it was easier to comprehend Pi’s individual views on each. If not for the basic facts about the religions, I would not have understood the conversation between the imam, brahma, and priest. In addition, I was pleasantly surprised when I learned these bits of information, as I had expected a stereotypical fiction book where facts are rare. Gamemaker also describes that the boat adventure was excessively long and lazily ended. I can agree that the amount of pages Martel spent on describing Pi’s situation on the boat was more than needed, and the book began to wear on at some points. However, the description of Pi’s activities gave me better insight to what he actually went through. Also, whenever the book would slow down, Martel would throw in something that was completely unexpected—or would have been had I not already know the course of the book from watching the film. Just as Pi was giving up hope and preparing for death, the lifeboat runs ashore on an island where only one other human has ever been. The last complaint of Gamemaker’s review involved him or her criticizing Martel for having a character in his story emphasize the importance of storytelling. I took the last part of the book in a mainly light-minded, humorous manner, which could account for why I do not feel the same. The importance of stories and storytelling is, in my opinion, the real point of Life of Pi, and the last few pages were crucial to the reader understanding that.
Herrick 5
I found a few reviews of the movie Life of Pi. The first review I found was on the rotten tomatoes site. They said that the morals of the story didn't come through while the film’s extensive metaphors are belatedly rammed down your throat like a get out of jail free card. When I read the book, I saw things and understood more things. The movie did not portray these things quite as nicely. It was harder to understand, because there was only so much they could put in a movie. This brings me to the next critic. They said it’s a slow-moving fable, which enough story and substance to make for one amazing IMAX short. Instead the material is stretched beyond its limits into a long repetitive movie. I almost agree with this one as well. While watching this movie, most of it was when Pi was stranded on the water. I found it got long and repetitive. The book does not make it seem like it is that long. There is only so much you can show in a movie while the book can go into so many other places. I found a critic who said that the movie would have been good if the book was more than empty calories. Personally, any book is empty calories, unless you look into it. You must explore the book, and analyze. Some stories do not have in your face morals. This book makes you think about things you may not have if you haven’t read this. This person must have been oblivious to the fact that a young boy survived out at sea for almost a year, with or without a tiger on a boat and fought to live with everything he had, even at the point of death. If that isn't a story with calories, what is?
VandeBerg 5
I read the review of David Egan on amazon.com. I am certain that our entire class would disagree with him. A main point of his was that Yann Martel's writing just was not good. He states that Martel is just trying to hard to be loved and it is hurting his writing. I disagree with this. He also states that because of the way Martel writes that the book is more about Martel's writing than about the actual life of Pi. I think Martel's writing is very captivating and quite unique. He is able to make a fiction book almost seem possible. Egan also states that Martel makes a play on cliches. He states that Martel wants these quotes to be cute, but instead come across as cop-outs because the novel is markedly short on truly captivating descriptions. I think everything that Yann Martel was describing came across very well and gave me a full picture into what I was reading. Egan also asserts that, at the beginning of the book, a character states that the story "will make you believe in God". Egan says that you cannot drop a line like that at the beginning of the book unless you can come close to fulfilling it. This book does not come close, and it hardly even seems to make the effort. Again, I disagree with these remarks. I am not saying that this book changed my feeling on religious views, I have always been tolerant, and I know where my religious relationships lie; however, I do believe that the book has many religious implications throughout the novel. Overall, I think this David Egan needs to do some more research before he makes such propostorous remarks.
Hallstrom 1
I found a review that I disagree, and agree with. This review is on News Blaze and was written by Prairie Miller. She stated how the moral of this story was that religious faith has no reason. This is one thing in her review that I disagreed with. I don’t feel like it was the moral of the story because religious faith can take you somewhere you would never imagine. I think because Pi was so interested in finding a religion that it almost indicates what faith can do. Understanding that it wasn’t religion itself bringing him to yearn for it, once he found his faith he never let it go. Throughout his whole journey he always brought up God and how God seemed to be with him at all times. On another note, something in this review I do agree with was her take on Richard Parker. I see where she’s coming from when talking about how hungry Richard Parker had to be yet he was never hungry enough, or clever enough, to devour Pi. The last thing about this review that caught my attention was her take on the telling of the tale itself. Prairie thought the narration was monotone and annoying. Although I thought at times the story was very dull and boring, I thought the overall narration of the story kept me going because Pi added many details. I enjoyed how he’d go on and tell us about his childhood, or dreams he was having, or even how strange Richard Parker was acting. When it came to giving the novel stars, she only gave it 2. I definitely wouldn’t rate Life of Pi as my top favorite book, but I would give it more than 2 stars because the techniques Yann Martel uses are interesting and I thought overall, this book was very well written and at most times, enjoyable to read.
Stephens 1
The review I found was on Blogspot.com by the username: meganm922. Megan hated the ending of Life of Pi for a couple reasons. The main reason was that Martel left the actual story up for us to decide, but there was also a quote that irked her. Her logic is as follows: “First of all, any story you tell with energy and descriptions and effort and wonder will be the better story. When you spend 2 pages telling the real story with NONE of these, of course it's not the better story. Had you, however, spent all 300 something pages telling the TRUE story WITH descriptions and wonder and effort, it would have been just as good if not better than the story with the animals. Survival stories that are true are amazing and interesting to lots of people. That the author has the audacity to try and say otherwise bothers me so much. How dare you try and tell people that truth has no beauty, that truth is not the better story? How dare you advocate that! As a lover of fiction, I have no qualms with made up stories, but not like this.” While I understand what she is saying, I do not agree. She feels like she wasted her time reading the book to find out that it was all a lie. I can see how that could be very frustrating. What she isn’t doing is looking into Pi Patel’s eyes as I have. Obviously Pi told the animal story because the human story was too painful. I would rather tell people that I was on a boat with animals than have to imagine holding my mother’s bloody dismembered head in my hands. Maybe Pi didn’t want that level of sympathy. Or maybe it just hurt really bad to have to relive that. I think Martel is a genius. I don’t care what Megan says. One of her other points was she didn’t like when Pi said, “And so it goes with God.” after the men told him that the animal story was the better story. She said, “If he's saying that we are all here (that being the end result) and religion gives us the story of how we got here and science gives us another, we should pick the better story, I have a problem with that. We should believe in God because it's more interesting than any other options? That's offensive to believers in God. I don't think people should ever walk around believing something or telling a story about something knowing it's not the truth and parading it around as such because it SOUNDS better.” I do agree with her on this. If that is the true meaning of Pi’s words, I also take offense.
Steffen 5
In a review, written by David Egan, bad writing is bad writing now matter how you look at it. He believes that Yann Martel is certainly trying too hard to be loved, to the point that it’s hurting his writing. Perhaps the most egregious moment to Egan occurs in the "author's note" at the beginning, where one of the characters tells us that the story that follows "will make you believe in God". The narrator replies, "that's a tall order," and he's right according to David. He thinks you can't drop a line like that in the introduction to your book unless you're pretty sure you can come close to fulfilling it. “This book doesn't come close, and it hardly even seems to make the effort. I find that insulting in a book that shows evidence of effort to a fault, but only in the direction of wowing us with jazzy writing.” I just don’t understand how some people think sometimes. This novel is significantly overflowing with effort! I can’t imagine that it’s easy writing two stories in one novel and not get lost in either one of them at the same time. Another conflicting point made by Egan suggests that this novel is too much about the writing of Martel and not enough about the life of Pi. He concludes that abrupt sentences, abrupt paragraphs, sentences beginning with conjunctions, dramatic chapter openings, and the like can all indeed be effective devices. “The trouble in this book is that Martel uses them so frequently that they cease to have any effect at all, except perhaps to serve as a constant reminder of the writer behind the writing, thus distracting us from the writing itself.” I definitely do not agree. Yann Martel uses these abrupt paragraphs, sentences and such for a reason. Everything is written for a reason! This critic obviously missed that fact. It’s astonishing how David and I can read the same pages, the same chapters of the same novel and leave with completely different opinions.
Backer 1
I, like some others I have noticed, came across a highly critical review entitled “Writing Wrongs” written by David Egan. In the review, Egan is relentless in his bashing of Yann Martel’s writing style. To him, Martel’s style comes across as sloppy and careless—undeserving of the numerous praises he has received for the novel. Egan shares that he feels it is essential to tell the truth when writing, especially when composing a work of fiction. He gives us an example of when Martel fails to grasp this concept by citing a quote found on page 178 in the novel—“I must say a word about fear.” After, Egan questions, “must you, or do you just feel that it would fit nicely into the narrative at this point?” Clearly overlooking Martel’s true intentions with the quote, Egan mainly comes across as being cynical.
An even harsher criticism was made on the author’s note, however. In the author’s note, the characters claim that the story they share will make one believe in God. Instead of taking the exchange as a cue that this was going to be a story regarding strong faith, Egan only acknowledged it as yet another target of harsh criticism. He states that if you are bold enough to make such a statement in your introduction, that you better be able to fulfill it. Egan shares that the novel did not even come close to doing so. He even adds that the novel does not even seem to make an effort. Although the novel may not be a life changing story, I do feel that the novel drives one to be more open-minded and less restricted on their beliefs. The novel encourages readers to choose the story that they would rather believe. Most people feel inclined to believe the animal story, even though it seems impossible, because the images are much more tasteful than the ones involved in the human story. Martel unravels that human story basically relates to any story concerning a God. We find stories with God much more appealing than ones without. In this way, the story indirectly urges us to believe in God.
Egan also expounds on how he feels that Martel is trying too hard to be loved by his readers. He feels that the story and Martel’s use of vivid imagery are just a way to please those reading. I completely disagree. Martel includes very graphic imagery in the novel that I would rather have bypassed. There were numerous descriptions that I did not find remotely pleasing to imagine. Martel had to know that descriptions of a hyena eating a zebra or a boy attempting to eat tiger poop were probably not going to draw applause from most readers. I am sure he yearned for people to enjoy his novel (any author would) but most of the time the author’s main goal is to get a point across with their work.
Arrowsmith 5
I want to first off start by saying that it was incredibly difficult to find a negative review for any reason other than the claims of plagiarism against Yann Martel, or just the simple “it was boring.” I did however come across a review on amazon.com called Moist Yeasty Fallaciousness and written by the penname “M. Maritz” that made me detest every word that “M. Maritz” typed. They start off by criticizing the ending in that it negates everything that has happened prior. The reviewer then questions Martel’s knowledge of religions and calls Martel’s descriptions “airbrushed versions.” They also bash Martel for having the reader choose between the animal and the human story.
First it is clearly obvious that Martel did extensive research on Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity by his in-depth descriptions of them. Yes, Martel may only be scratching the surface of each religion, but in no way are his descriptions “airbrushed versions,” had Martel added any more background the reading would have become tedious and hard to read for a reader whose main goal is not to master the three religions. M. Maritz is wrong again in his/her criticism of Martel giving the reader two options to choose from. M. Maritz states “any reasonably able thinker would see that there are really numerous other choices to make, not just the two the author would like us to choose from.” In my opinion it is pretty clear that only two options are even possible to believe, either the better story (animal), or the dry yeastless factuality of the real story (human). M. Maritz also claims that Life of Pi falls victim to the same mistake that all stories with twist endings do. I disagree, yes the ending changes the story completely, but it does not negate the entire book. In my mind M. Maritz is a charlatan and could not be any more wrong in his critique of Life of Pi and Yann Martel.
Ullom 7
“No one- fictive nor real- would likely take Pi’s tale of shipwreck seriously, so it loses any allegorical power.” Dan Schneider said this in a negative review about the novel Life of Pi. While reading through this review, I find Mr. Schneider to be a close-minded man. He does not believe there to be much symbolism. With this I must disagree. The book has symbolism within every chapter—including the number of chapters. A major symbol that I find interesting is the color orange. I talked about this point in our forum with the streaks and spokespeople, and I will repeat the concept now. Throughout the novel, the color orange represents survival and hope. At the end of part one in the italics, the author emphasizes the ORANGE cat. This is basically telling the reader that even though the story is tragic, there is a happy ending. Mr. Schneider also says, “The reason for this obscenely long excursion is to try to give to addle-minded (or pinheaded- again, choose your poison) readers a sense that they are reading something of depth, having to do with religion, and faith.” This book does have a lot of religion, I will give him that, but there is so much more than that. It is also about survival and the will to survive. Pi has to do much more than just pray and believe to survive. He turns animalistic. His savagery almost contradicts Mr. Schneider’s claim. Lastly, Mr. Schneider says, “The interesting thing, though, is that Martel, through Pi, claims that the reason he made up the long unbelievable tale is that it’s a much better story, and presumably far better written.” No. Dan Schneider is refusing to open up his mind to the possibility of both stories. Pi does tell the human story because it is more believable but that does not mean it is the truth. Yann Martel wrote this with the intent on having the reader choose which ending they prefer. Dan Schneider only sees one side of this. I truly feel sorry for him.
Gallo 2
I read a review written by a Blogger named Paul Noonan, an attorney in Chicago, Illinois, or so he claims on his Blog Profile. The first point he emphasizes is that Martel included published the book with phrases such as “this book will ‘make you believe in God” solely to garner more attention/readers. Secondly, Mr. Noonan—likely a logical man based on his interests in politics, reading, economics, and science—criticizes Martel for crafting three hundred pages of nonsense followed by a brief, accurate account (the human story). Mr. Noonan also shares my deep dislike for the island. He also calls the novel an allegorical fable with no lesson and says the discussion guide was a clever way to add length to the novel without requiring Mr. Martel to work any harder. He notes, “Reading it was akin to eating tiger feces.”
Mr. Noonan clearly dislikes the novel. Some of his criticism seems refreshingly accurate, however. For example, our instructor noted in class that Martel did, in fact, likely include three religions in his novel to appeal to as vast an audience as possible. Therefore, Mr. Noonan’s view of the bold assertion of deity profession is likely accurate (see first paragraph). The part where I would have to disagree with Mr. Noonan is when he asserts that the whole novel is a time-wasting lie building up to the blatantly true story presented in the last twenty or so pages. It is obvious to most other critics/readers that the purpose of the novel is to stimulate the reader’s mind and provoke them to consider which of the two stories they prefer. I do not, therefore, believe that Martel clearly indicates in the novel that the human story is the truly accurate one. I am sorry that Mr. Noonan does not have enough time in his busy life to enjoy the three hundred pages of literary excellence that Martel has crafted. I would have to agree with him that the island is utter nonsense (biological evidence forthcoming), but his direct comparison between reading this work and eating tiger feces is utterly senseless. (He obviously has no idea what it is like to eat tiger poop.)
Hensley 5
David Egan’s analysis of Life of Pi, was quite entertaining to read for all intents and purposes, does not understand the novel at all. Continuously Mr. Egan calls Yann Martel a sloppy writer. All though everyone is entitled to their opinion, David Egan’s are dead wrong. This is due to his lack of willingness to dissect the book and get to its true deeper meaning.
For instance on several occasions David describes Yann Martel a sloppy writer for using short one sentence paragraphs. What he fails to comprehend is that everything within this novel is intentional and has a meaning and purpose behind it. I truly believe that Yann Martel would not simply put any sentence into his wonderful novel with a strong reasoning behind it furthermore any reader can deduct endless possibilities of meanings from this novel just as the number pi is continuous forever.
David Egan even has the audacity to challenge Yann Martel’s writing capability with inadequate evidence and conclusions to challenge his sentences. For instance, “’The shield was heavier than I would have liked, but do soldiers ever get to choose their ordnance?’ (p. 228: yes, sometimes they do.)”, the sentence stated by Yann Martel does not apply to every circumstance but does apply to the majority so David Egan’s statement is mute.
David Egan is very closed minded and unwilling to dig deeper into the novel. By analyzing his analysis of Life of Pi, I can deduct that David Egan only read the novel literally and only took the novel as a story to entertain rather than teach, but he tries to cover up this by stating the book did not make him believe in god. The book did not make him believe in god simply on the basis that he did not deduct from the novel its true purpose of informing the public.
Over all I found Mr. Egan’s analysis of Life of Pi very entertaining and provided me with the opportunity to laugh on a Thursday night. After reading an analysis like this one, a person begins to lose faith in humanity. Thankfully most intelligent people understand and appreciate works of art like Life of Pi.
Dawn 2
There are people in the world that are lucky enough to possess the ability to see the beauty in everything. There are those who are open-minded and understanding. There are also people in the world that are smart enough to analyze films and novels more critically than others. Then there are critics. Whether it be by print or film, critics look at the surface of a story and come to immediate—and often incorrect—conclusions. Nick Schager of the Village Voice is a film critic. He also happens to be a film critic that is carping on one of the best novels/films ever created—Life of Pi. Schager describes the film as ‘A stacked-deck theological inquiry filtered through a Titanic-by-way-of-Slumdog Millionaire narrative, Life of Pi manages occasional spiritual wonder through its 3-D visuals but otherwise sinks like a stone.” WHAT? WAS HE VIEWING A DIFFERENT MOVIE THAN I DID? Schager later states that “…the story’s relentless articulation of its thematic aims proves a buzz kill.” AGAIN I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HE WAS WATCHING, BUT I FOUND THE THEMATIC ELEMENTS THROUGHOUT BOTH THE FILM AND NOVEL PROVED TO BE GREAT ADDITIONS TO THE STORY GIVING THE VIEWER/READER AN AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TO DELVE DEEPER INTO THE PLOT. Another point that this critic tries to express is that “…in order to satisfy their bureaucratic perspectives, he concocts a tamer version of events. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? CONCOCTS? I DO NOT KNOW HOW ANY ONE ELSE VIEWED THE MOVIE, BUT WHEN I SAW IT—EVEN BEFORE I HAD READ THE NOVEL—IT WAS EASY TO SEE BOTH VERSIONS OF PI’S JOURNEY. One of the last points that Schager writes is, “Through its melodramatic, underlined-meaningful final conversations between Pi and the Writer, the film spoon-feeds rather than enlightens. THIS MOVIE IS DEFINITELY THOUGHT PROVOKING—JUST ASK EVERY COMPOSITION STUDENT THAT ATTENDED OUR HUHOT DISCUSSION—AND SPOON-FEED IS DEFINITELY NOT A WORD I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN TO DESCRIBE THIS BRILLIANT NOVEL/FILM. I THINK IT WOULD BE SAFE TO SAY THAT SOME CRITICS DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DIVE DEEPER THAN THE SURFACE IN THE VAST EXPANSE A NOVEL ENCOMPASSES.
(AS A SIDE NOTE, I DO AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT ANG LEE MADE THE FILM AESTHETICALLY PLEASING.)
Tripp 7
When searching for a negative review of Yann Martel’s book Life of Pi or of the movie, I came across a few “rotten tomato” reviews. One that I found interesting was written by a man named Felix Vasquez Jr. While his review was not very lengthy and some things I did not agree with, I found one thing in particular that I found very interesting. Mr. Vasquez wrote this review to say that he found the movie to be “brilliantly directed and incredibly beautiful” but his overall review was that this movie is just a “condescending religious sermon that dismisses atheism, and endorses that blind faith, and denial as a positive character trait.” Even though I do not agree with every point that Mr. Vasquez makes, I do agree with the statement he made about the story that Pi told to the two Japanese investigators at the end. He stated that the revised story was merely a “grim, violent, and dumbed down account of survival.” He also stated that “he feeds an atheistic story to the authorities too narrow minded to open themselves to the possibility that Pi was given a spiritual quest of his life, and survived with a better understanding of the world.” This comment really struck me because I had been thinking earlier about why he even decided to give them another story. He was not forced to “make up” (whichever story you believe) another story just to please the two men. The way he worded this by saying “…too narrow minded to open themselves to the possibility that Pi was given a spiritual quest of his life…” made me agree with him. While he could have been perfectly find with them not finding his first story plausible, he felt the need to show his readers and viewers how truly narrow minded those men were. By doing so, it forces more people to contemplate which story they want to believe.
Scholten 2
David Egan's review on Amazon.com was about the only meaningful and educated review I could find about Life of Pi. Other reviews I found just summarized the book in a completely condescending way with no good reasons to criticize the book. David Egan seems like an educated man who supports his claims with examples from the text. I found his review to be the best. David Egan's first point about the book was that Martel's writing was "sloppy and weighed down by effort." He goes on to say that he felt disengaged from the characters and plot. I would have to disagree with Egan on this point. Throughout most of the novel, I would place myself in Pi's position in order to see through my own eyes. I would try to understand just how alone, frightened, and hopeless Pi felt being with Richard Parker lost at sea for 227 days. I would try to connect myself emotionally with each character in the book. Egan's second point was Martel's sloppy writing style with continuous use of short, abrupt sentences with many starting with conjunctions. Egan criticizes Martel for introducing new elements of the story but failing to recognize the character involved in them. For example, chapter 42 opens with, "She came floating on an island of bananas in a halo of light, as lovely as the Virgin Mary," but we don't find out who "she" is until further into the chapter. I feel that this point is one of Egan's weakest. He's carping about the small details and not looking at the whole book's artistic style. Martel's use of clichés bothered Egan. I found the clichés a tad humorous. A little laugh every now and then was a good thing while reading this depressing (for the most part) story. After Pi witnessed the lightning bolt strike a few feet away from him, he was "thunderstruck." How funny and ironic! I greatly appreciated the clichés in helping create a lighter tone in various parts. The final point of Egan's struck me as the most insulting to Martel. Egan states that in order to claim the story as one that "will make you believe in God", you have to come closing to fulfilling it. Egan feels that the novel doesn't even come close and that it "hardly even seems to make the effort." I disagree. I believe Martel succeeded. Reading Life of Pi has caused me to have more faith in God. From what I understood about the book, choosing the second story, the one with the humans, would mean to chose a world that was made harsh by the cold, hard truth and the savageness of human nature. However, if you chose to believe Pi's original story, you accept a world made beautiful and meaningful by God. As readers, we want to believe Pi's first story, the better story, because it shows us that a world with God is more bearable, if not more wonderful.
Hanzel 7
After browsing through many poor reviews on Yann Martel’s novel, Life of Pi, I found a short expression of opinion to be extremely powerful. Because the review is very short, I feel it shows how little time and effort the reviewer was willing to put into her review. This review was written by Colleen on amazon.com’s customer review section. Colleen provided two simple sentences and one fragment to show readers how she felt about the novel. First, Colleen wrote about how the book was not uplifting to her, next she said it is “just gory and sad”. Finally, Colleen said that she waited for the novel to become interesting and intriguing but it never happened for her.
I disagree with Colleen’s criticisms because she could easily be satisfied by Yann Martel’s novel if she would analyze the novel through a different lens. Parts of the novel are not uplifting but the overall themes of the novel provide a very uplifting atmosphere for the readers. Pi survived in the Pacific Ocean alone for 227 days- this should be inspirational to Colleen. I, to an extent, side with Colleen when she says the novel is “just gory and sad” but the novel only contains a few chapters filled with this gore. Looking past the gore and sadness can provide a much deeper story that I feel she missed while reading the worthy novel. Because Colleen did not find the novel intriguing, I think she only read what was on the pages of the novel and did not think about the meanings of Martel’s work. Life of Pi should be intriguing to any readers purely for the fact that it allows the reader to choose their own story. Yann Martel’s novel should be receiving praise from all its readers.
Rollag 5
The negative critique I found was by a man named Christopher. He split the book into two stories not the two in the book but the two ways one can read the book. The one side is the entertainment side and in this he had no major issues he stated that the book was entertain as a survival story of a kid on a boat. The majority of his issues were with the spiritual side of the book. He felt that when Martel included a religious moment or inclination it was often weak and tacky. He says that the worst part of the book is when all three religious leaders meet pi because it was overkill in his eyes almost like Martel was trying too hard. I would have to agree with Christopher on his analyst of the survival stories entertainment value but when it comes to his ideas on the religious side I must respectfully disagree. What Christopher failed to recognize with the three religions idea was that Martel included that not to be blatantly religious but to point out to the reader that we as people often focus on the differences and should adopt Pi’s view of seeing the similarities. In regards to his views of the religious elements being weak he also misunderstood the meaning behind them. They are not included to say that religion will save you but they are there to show that everyone must believe in something or they will find they have little or no reason to continue and would follow through with Pi’s original suicide plans. Martel does not push any one religion he even goes so far as to create a character who believes only in pure science, but he still believes in something. It is quite obvious from his review that Mr. Christopher believes in the human story but I hope that this literary work made him at least question that choice.
Lippert 7
As I scrolled through Amazon’s review section for Life of Pi, a review titled “Moist Yeasty Fallaciousness” by one M. Maritz caught my eye. The main points Maritz did not like in Martel’s novel was his surprise ending, his portrayal of God, and Martel’s two options of either believing in god or not. Maritz believes that leaving the audience the choice in the end of the story is foolish of Martel. He believes that the reading population is too mature to ever believe one possibility of the story and thus Martel’s intended effect is lost. On this point I do not agree, I think the option of choosing for themselves allows the reader to become more invested in the story. The two possible options forces the reader to think in depth about the occurrences in the novel, examining deeper than one would have without the option in the end. I also believe it can bring a sense of satisfaction to a reader, allowing them to choose the option they are happier with and thus allowing the novel to unfold the way they think it should. Now, I am not too overly religious and I do not get too uptight when it comes to people interpreting and questioning God, but I must agree slightly with Maritz’s second point. I felt that Martel’s message seemed to be a belief in God is good because it makes for a better story. I fell that faith in anything should be based on more concrete ideals than just what makes a better story; an individual’s faith should bring a sense of comfort and assurance to the believer, helping them endure the difficulties in life and make the world seem to be a little more brighter. Someone’s belief might bring more excitement to their story but this should only be a side effect, not the premise for the belief. I view the last point of this reviewer seemed to be just a little nitpicky. Maritz did not like Martel’s two options in the beginning of the book and believes more options exist. Yes, I am sure there are more options than just believing in God or not but in the premise of this story those options are irrelevant. Martel intended to show us the power faith can have in an individual not present the reader with options to choose from. I believe Maritz was simply running out of ideas in the end and turned to this just to do more complaining, I do not agree with this last observation in Maritz’s review. Martel’s novel has been met by both praise and hate, but I can honestly say I might have a few good words for this story of struggle, survival, endurance, a boy, a tiger, a lot of meerkats and a lot of faith.
Westcott, 5
Reviewer Willie Waffle feels that the idea of Pi accepting three different religions is ridiculous. He does not think the movie made people believe in God, but in the devil. Only the devil is capable of putting a person through the monstrosities Pi faces, and therefore is more so connected than God. Waffle says he began rooting for the tiger to eat Pi, because it would add some action to the movie. He also thinks that the director Ang Lee and writer David Magee ruined the ending, and made the entire movie worthless. “The only way to truly enjoy Life of Pi is to bring a pumpkin pie with you to the movie theatre.” Will Waffle starts his review with this remark, and later claims that the movie was a good place to escape from the holiday madness and take a nap. Waffle’s final criticism of the movie Life of Pi is that is too similar to the movie Castaway starring Tom Hanks. Willie sees Life of Pi as Castaway in reverse, with Pi being Hank’s character, and Richard Parker being a “less charismatic and compelling” Wilson. Overall, Waffle gave Life of Pi a rating of one out of four. I disagree with his first point about God and Satan. I think that the reader is introduced to God and is expected to lean more towards believing in the Christian God, especially in the movie. I feel the ending of the movie was a little bit of a letdown, even more notably after finishing the novel. I do, however, disagree with his allusion to Castaway. I felt the plot of the entire novel and movie was very original. Castaway had a completely different story line, with a man getting lost at sea. Life of Pi is a novel about a boy fighting his id, and bringing out his superego.
Bakke 7
The review that I read was an extremely negative review about Life of Pi from hackwriters.com by Dan Schneider who thinks Life of Pi is just not a good book. Mr. Schneider spoke of how wasteful modern literature has become and that Life of Pi is a perfect example of this—too much is written to make the story meaningful/good. He said that There is really only part of a story at the beginning and part of a story and the end. All that would need to be added is something to connect and there is a kind of okay short story. Mr. Schneider also thought that the book was trying to be more than it really could be. According to Mr. Schneider, since the book was not meant to be an action, sci-fi, or romance book, it must be an allegory with fictional elements, and that is not accomplished. Apparently Yann Martel does not have the skills (i.e. humor) to pull off an allegory. Mr. Schneider says that the symbolism is awkward and the ending was obvious from hundreds of pages away. Mr. Schneider also believes that the book leave the reader with no sense of payoff or reward. He feels that everything that was written was leading up to a great big nothing. I might have been convinced by Mr. Schneider had he written more convincingly. Even though the article is a negative one, I did not find the necessity for how much disrespect was put in toward both Yann Martel and his readers. The article was also not very convincing because it was a very long stream of opinions and not much “facts”. I wanted to be shown where the short comings were. This article seemed to me like it was saying, “I’M REALLY LONG AND I’M SMART AND THAT MEAN YOU CAN TRUST ME WITHOUT QUESTION—I PROMISE!”
Bender 7
Jonathan Kim wrote a somewhat negative article over the film version of Life of Pi. He focused primarily around the story’s inability to make him believe in God. We shortly find out that Mr. Kim has been an atheist his entire life. The three major points he brought up were the contradictions of the three religions, the terrible things that happen to Pi and his family regardless of his religious zeal and innocence, and the total lack of God or any tangible act of his throughout the film. Along with these points he states his belief that evolution is a better explanation for the amazing things in nature that Pi encounters. I agree completely that neither the novel nor the film ever proves the existence of a God. If anything I think the novel calls the existence of a true God into question. The idea of embracing three religions at one time is endorsing no singular religion. This is relativism where nothing is true and nothing is false. Truth is simply relative to what any individual believes and what will help them most in achieving happiness or enlightenment. The novel clearly shows the total disbelief in the idea of a singular physical creator we will one day meet. This is most clearly shown to me at the end of chapter twenty two on page sixty four where agnostics are said to be lacking imagination and missing the better story. Another problem with an existing god in the novel is Pi’s worship of three religions. He cannot possibly believe in the existence of a God if he is willing to then worship to religions incredibly contradictory to the God his story supposedly proves. As best I can tell the only thing consistently worshiped and believed in throughout the novel is happiness. All that matters in the end is his continued life and the future hope of happiness. If anything the novel disparages all religion and endorse relativism and hedonism.
N. Peterson 7
I read the negative review of Life of Pi by David Egan on amazon.com. Egan’s review was extremely critical and I strongly disagree with him. He thought the book was poorly written, sloppy, and weighed down with effort. He also found the mood of the story pretentious and felt disengaged from the characters and the plot. While reading this novel I felt notably connected with the characters and in the story. I imagined myself being on the lifeboat with Pi and Richard Parker, and I do not understand how anyone could feel disengaged. Egan also goes on to criticize Martel’s sentence and paragraph structure saying his writing style distracts the reader from the writing itself. I disagree; I really enjoyed Martel’s writing style. It was different, which kept me interested, it flowed together amiably, and it was fast and easy to read. Another point Egan carps on is Martel’s use of clichés. In my opinion, the clichés really helped me understand what Martel was trying to describe and the points he was trying to portray. Although I felt quite appalled while reading Egan’s whole review, one particular point really upset me. Egan stated that Yann Martel is certainly trying much too hard to be loved, to the point that it hurts his writing. I truly believe that Martel writes for his reader’s illumination, enjoyment, and inspiration. Nowhere in the novel is there anything that leads to this outlandish allegation or proof of the accusation being true. In an interview I watched for the previous blog task Martel stated that it is his book that is famous, not him. I think Martel has a noticeably humble personality, so I really don’t understand how Egan came to the conclusion he did. It was rather difficult to find a negative review about Yann Martel and Life of Pi, which shows how good of a writer Martel really is and how incredible his novel turned out to be.
N. Peterson 7
I read the negative review of Life of Pi by David Egan on amazon.com. Egan’s review was extremely critical and I strongly disagree with him. He thought the book was poorly written, sloppy, and weighed down with effort. He also found the mood of the story pretentious and felt disengaged from the characters and the plot. While reading this novel I felt notably connected with the characters and in the story. I imagined myself being on the lifeboat with Pi and Richard Parker, and I do not understand how anyone could feel disengaged. Egan also goes on to criticize Martel’s sentence and paragraph structure saying his writing style distracts the reader from the writing itself. I disagree; I really enjoyed Martel’s writing style. It was different, which kept me interested, it flowed together amiably, and it was fast and easy to read. Another point Egan carps on is Martel’s use of clichés. In my opinion, the clichés really helped me understand what Martel was trying to describe and the points he was trying to portray. Although I felt quite appalled while reading Egan’s whole review, one particular point really upset me. Egan stated that Yann Martel is certainly trying much too hard to be loved, to the point that it hurts his writing. I truly believe that Martel writes for his reader’s illumination, enjoyment, and inspiration. Nowhere in the novel is there anything that leads to this outlandish allegation or proof of the accusation being true. In an interview I watched for the previous blog task Martel stated that it is his book that is famous, not him. I think Martel has a noticeably humble personality, so I really don’t understand how Egan came to the conclusion he did. It was rather difficult to find a negative review about Yann Martel and Life of Pi, which shows how good of a writer Martel really is and how incredible his novel turned out to be.
Albertson 5
In the opinion of D. Cloyce Smith, Life of Pi is an enjoyable, original (though many disagree) survivor story with theological themes that are worth contemplating, but fall short of excellence. He supports his claim with four primary arguments. First, he says the choice that the ending presents does not connect with reality, because believers can choose from hundreds of possible stories. Secondly, Mr. Smith states, “if we believed in every story because it was better or prettier, many of us would still believe in Santa Claus”. Shran, another reviewer, would add that Martel says there is no such thing as truth, so you might as well create your own reality where you can escape from the abject faces of life. Mr. Smith’s third point is that as the author, Martel has the ability to manipulate—or possibly interpellate—the reader into finding a conclusion. If the book had ended with Pi committed to an asylum, Smith says, babbling his story to his caretakers, we would have a different view of “the better story”. Martel never convinces the reader why it is important to choose at all, Mr. Smith says, other than to not be like the agnostics that Martel bashes. According to Shran, Martel also offends the faithful because “he trivialized Got into a ‘nice story’”, and he does not suggest we should believe in any god, but rather, the stories about those gods instead.
Undoubtedly I agree Life of Pi is an enthralling story of survival, which also educated me about religion and zoology, and made me more than “contemplate” its theological themes. In response to Mr. Smith’s first point, I partially agree and say the choice that Martel presents is not fair. Pi is presented with many stories, to which he accepts all. The reader is presented with two, and must pick one. One could argue that Pi only really chooses God as one story, and that the second story is for atheists, who Pi does not agree with. That being true, in order to accept the animal story one must also agree with Pi’s unifying ideology. Regarding the second point, I do not think that Martel was trying to say that a person can believe in whatever reality they create. Pi pointed out that both stories do not explain the sinking of the Tsimtsum and do explain how he survived. Metaphorically this means that any reality is true that reasonably explains the great questions of life; believing in Santa explains nothing. I agree that Martel manipulates the reader’s choice, but in Mr. Smith’s third point I think he takes it too far. Indeed we are enticed to believe the animal story for many reasons. It is the story that is told to us; the one that we almost “grow up with”. It is the story that our sources of information—the Japanese men, the author, and Pi—all believe in. To believe in the human story is to feel cheated by the book; to feel like we wasted our time reading the animal story. The Japanese men, who disagree with Pi initially, are rude, impatient, shallow, and generally unappealing characters that we do not want to associate with. If Pi was sent to an asylum, as Smith suggests, that would entirely change the tone and undermine the novel. The theme of any book would change after such a big change to the plot. Finally, I do think that Martel is harsh with agnostics. However, I cannot see how one could believe in the stories about God, but not believe in God himself. For this reason I did not find that Martel belittled God. To sum up my feelings, I say that I exceedingly enjoyed Life of Pi. So much that I chose it as the book to recommend to my aunt Rita and I am practically forcing my parents to see the movie. The novel entertained me, challenged me, and changed me. Well done, Yann Martel.
Forster 2
“The impression you take from Life of Pi is that of an extravagantly decorated cake with nothing inside but the wisdom of a fortune cookie.”
This is how Ryan Gibley rounds out his negative statements on the file Life of Pi. His negative yet clever review may be found on newstatesman.com and is bluntly entitled “The Life of Pi-a review”. Though Gibley respects and acknowledges Ang Lee’s (the director) previous projects and achievements in the entertainments industry, he has clearly reached a position of dislike after viewing Life of Pi. A main point of Gibley’s critique is centered on the use of CGI and 3D technology by Lee and his crew. He mentions that the animals “suffer” at certain angles and that the 3D affect was often “nice” or “eerie”, yet the glasses dulled the tones of the colors, botching the cinematography. Gibley goes on to discuss another aspect of the film, the fact that Pi says his story will make a man believe in God. Instead, the critic deems the “twist” at the end of the story as more of a mild kink that provides a new definition of the anti-climax. (Harsh, right?)
Though I tend to agree more with Gibley’s points than the opposite, I would like to ask this man one question: have you read the book? Without assuming an answer to this question, I will simply commentate on his comments. I agree wholeheartedly with Gibley’s criticism of the CGI, along with Michael Crichton’s wisdom. I am all for advancements in cinematic technology, but I believe the tech-work as a whole must become flawlessly perfect along with the advancements of imaging and portrayal of seemingly impossible creatures to tame and train, like Richard Parker. After my initial viewing of Lee’s film, I thought to myself—why? Why could this movie mean so much? How will we study this for weeks? Therefore, if Gibley has not invested time into Martel’s original work of art, I see where he is coming from and “sort of” agree, if you will. I believe the film does a fantastic job of portraying the plotline and events of the book. However, I am now certain that there is a peculiar magic that rises from Martel’s pages. His concoction of symbolism and literary devices alike is one that simply cannot be portrayed on the screen. Through and through, I will be a strong advocate of books. They are irreplaceable. Though I love movies, they are different—all art varies in its strengths and weaknesses.
Kunkel, 2
I read an Amazon Review by David Egan. I disagree with every word he writes in his horrendous review. He claims that the language is sloppy and poorly written. I believe Yann Martel is a true artist and that is work is that of a genius. He goes on to say that the sentence structure can be too short and it sound absurd. I completely disagree. I think that Martel mixed it up so that he can keep the interest of the reader-- I know for sure it kept mine! The varying in chapter length also kept me interested. Chapter ninety seven is a mere two words long after all! Pi is not supposed to be a completely sane narrator! After being on a life boat for nearly a year with a giant tiger, little to no food or water, and the sun beating down on your skin burning you to a crisp would you be very sane?!? I think not!
Mr. Egan also claims that Martel apologizes several times within the novel for his "medicore writing style". The part on page one hundred and twenty three about Orange Juice floating up to the boat on an enormous pile of bananas is the number one apology, as told by Mr. Egan. He claims "Martel is adding in a normal character to add to all of the madness and sloppiness of this novel. By comparing her to the Virgin Mary, Martel believes he is creating a character more relatable, which is not at all true." I do not believe Martel put Orange Juice in the story at all to add a "normal" character. Orange Juice is there to A: Represent his mother and B: to show Pi's innocence. He is still very young and naiive. He longs for a mother and Orange Juice, while a simple orang-utan, is the kind and gentle soul that Pi strives to be with and hopes one day to have again.
The part of the article that I think I found most irritating was that about the author's note. He rants and raves about how awful it is and how it does not succeed in making him believe in God. I personally thought this book may have brought me closer to God. As you saw in our feat today, seeing is not always believing, as I pointed out to a certain someone who is convinced that an island such as the one in the novel can never be possible because no one has ever seen anything like it. God walked on water! He fed thousands with a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread! He spared Noah and two of every animal over the world! He created the whole darn world and no one saw it! Who is to say that an island such as that cannot be real? Who is to say that just because we cannot see something it simply CAN NOT be real?!?! I have been taught from a young age that there is a God out there in the universe who loves me for me, sinning and all. He will watch over everything I do. He watches those around me. He loves me as though I am his child. He sent his only son to this earth to die for me and the sins of others. I pray to him each night. I love him with my whole heart. Yet, I have never seen this great and powerful God. You should not have to see something in order to believe it, as this man claims.
Mr. Egan claims this story is unrealistic and the likeliness of it happening in nature is slim to none. Well, you are darn right it is! However, as written in the wonderful song from my all time favorite musical, "Seussical the Musical," ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. Just because you have not seen it, does it make it any less real? Pi believes in three religions! How incredible is that?! Pi helped me to believe in the God that I know and love so much more than I ever expected to. I truly loved this novel and everything in it. I am so glad I have read it and I will recommend it to everyone I meet. As for Mr. Egan-- you hate fun and this book was simply not meant for you. Maybe you should try reading something a little less amazing and complex as the work of art that is "Life of Pi."
Redford 7
In the review I read, Cath Murphy discusses why she feels that Life of Pi isn’t as good as people make it out to be. One reason as to why she believes this is because she thought the book was all around silly. She thought all of the aspects such as the tiger talking and a carnivorous island just made the book seem silly. However, it could very well be considered original ideas and creative ways of making people think about various things in different ways. These various elements that Martel so creatively inserted into his book sparks interest in most audience members that read the book and helps give a subtle break from other gruesome events that he describes so vividly. Murphy also talks about how she doesn’t think that this book should qualify as adult fiction. To her, it is very juvenile. She believes adult fiction should relate more to adult matters and problems. One could point out that Life of Pi addresses very important matters such as religion. Religion is one of the most important topics out there. Nearly every single person has been affected by religion one way or another. It is ignorant to say that religion isn’t an adult matter. Even if one doesn’t believe in God, there is a strong possibility that they still end up thinking about religion in some way. Another thing that Murphy doesn’t like about the novel is that she didn’t find Pi to be a relatable character. She found it hard to stay interested in the plight of the main character. I feel like Pi isn’t necessarily a character that you have to be able to fully relate to in order to appreciate everything that he witnesses. For example, the excellent descriptive wording allows nearly anyone to feel for Pi. Overall, I feel like the aspects she points out aren’t very valid points. Though she has every right to voice her opinion and feel the way she does, I think that her review was more negative than necessary.
Poppenga 1
As I sieved through various reviews on Yann Martel’s novel, Life of Pi, there were not many negative feedbacks concerning the book as a whole which proves to me just how magnificent of a writer Martel is. After digging and searching, low and behold I came upon one by David Egan, a customer review on Amazon.com. Egan described the novel as “poorly written” and “bad writing is bad writing no matter how you look at it”. His main arguments against the book: 1. he perceived the writing as sloppy and weighed down by effort; 2. he found the whimsical mood of the story pretentious, and 3. felt disengaged from the characters and the plot. Egan also explains how the book is sloppy all around. Some examples he feels as sloppy and I quote: "’I must say a word about fear’ (p. 178: must you, or do you just feel it would fit nicely into the narrative at this point?) ‘Like all younger brothers, I would suffer from following in the footsteps of a popular older sibling’ (p. 23: not all younger brothers have popular older siblings: sometimes older siblings are unpopular.) ‘The shield was heavier than I would have liked, but do soldiers ever get to choose their ordnance?’ (p. 228: yes, sometimes they do.) There are also numerous instances where the narrator uses the second person to explain life in the middle of the ocean aboard a lifeboat shared with a Royal Bengal tiger. He is describing fantastically unique experiences: they are not something "you" find yourself doing.” I feel like all of Egan’s points are very vague and is 100% not true. I myself enjoy Martel’s style of writing; like we talked about in today’s forum (Chase brought it up) on parts where Martel is about to tell something important he says it very short and to the point. For example, chapter 37 begins with the sentence “The ship sank.” Martel sums up traumatic events that happen to Pi in a mere three words. I find this very unique about the style of writing, which I do revel in. I don’t understand how he feels “disengaged from the characters and the plot? There are two characters on the boat: Pi and Richard Parker. The plot is simple: a boy and a tiger (as the animal story goes) are stranded survivors of a shipwreck on the Pacific Ocean. I feel that the people who do not like the book are ones that don’t like to think outside of the box and dig into the book a little further to find symbolism. I completely disagree with David Egan’s obtuse review on Life of Pi.
Callahan 7
The review I found was found on barnesandnoble.com by an anonymous user. This person gave the book one star, and titled the review "Boring, Ruderless, What Else is There to Say?". It should probably be noted that "rudderless" and several other words were misspelled throughout his/her review. Despite the fact that a ship sinks, Pi is stuck on a life boat with four animals/humans, an unheard of island is explored, and Pi survives to reveal a huge plot twist at the end of the novel, this self-acclaimed "aficionado of literature" believes the book is the worst book he/she has ever read because "nothing happens". The subsequent paragraphs are then filled with bombastic language and complaints focused on the attempt of consumption of tiger excrements, a floating island of algae, and a tiger who is more interesting than the main character. The novel is said to be "overrated" and the plot a "desultory search for nothing". He/she believed the book would have been better had Pi reflect on how the experience affected him internally. To finish, the individual wrote: "I don't know which book is worse; this one, or "The Kite Runner," but in both cases, be prepared to take a trip through cornsville."
I obviously do not agree with this person. How the book can be called boring and poorly written, I do not understand. I admire the artful sentences and poetic phrases Yann Martel has woven into the book almost more than I enjoy the unpredictable plot. I believe the poster of the review did not like the book because he/she failed to recognize the symbols and clever details intentionally hidden throughout the novel. The book is meant to be dug at, not simply "read". I also disagree with the opinion that Pi's take on the experience is never shown; I believe the two stories work together to show his feelings. The animal version could be his feelings of guilt and horror towards what Pi had done, or the human story could be a way to show his disdain for those who refuse to believe the improbable. I think that if this reviewer had taken the time to look at the book in depth as we have, he/she wouldn't feel so negative towards the work. But, the reviewer doesn't like Kite Runner either, so maybe he/she is actually crazy and there is no hope.
Voigt 7
I read a review of The Life of Pi. This particular review (which happens to be quite negative) was compiled and composed by a man named David Egan. As I browsed through his thoughts on the novel, I discovered that some points he makes are valid while others I find quite the opposite. Nevertheless, in researching reviews I am reminded that interpretation is shaped largely by opinion and critiques are sometimes difficult to take in because in reality, elements of a story are neither right nor wrong, but perceived differently for everyone.
One of Egan’s initial points, I would stand to defend. He discusses his disappointment in the novel was initially because it had been built up to him to be overly fantastic before he read it independently. I feel very similarly about the novel. Of course, I enjoyed it, but I feel that I would have found more enjoyment and excitement had I not expected so much of it before even opening it.
Although I agree with the above aspect of Egan’s critique, I would have to disagree strongly with several of his next statements. Egan states, that from his view, Martel overused a writer’s ability to use fragments or short, concise paragraphs as well as an overuse of clichés. Egan felt such techniques were overused and distract from the story itself. I disagree. I believe that such snippets help the story to flow more readily for the reader. It assists the novel in becoming a flying page turner thus making it a book that nearly everyone would enjoy.
Finally, Egan feels negatively about how Martel opens the novel. Martel begins the novel expressing that he has a story to be shared that would make anyone believe in God. Egan goes on to explain in his critique that it is never a good idea to begin a story in such a manner with a promise or a goal that may be difficult to reach or accomplish. If Martel successfully completed this goal is up to interpretation by the reader, but I would agree that it is perhaps not a wise way to begin a novel. You never want to set up an opportunity for disappointment, but rather should allow the audience to happen upon awe of the writing and the story on their own.
Larson 1
The review I read was authored by Cath Murphy, and found on http://litreactor.com. In this severely cynical review of Life of Pi Murphy declares its shortfalls are rampant. Martel lacks subtlety, and blunders around with clumsy attempts at mathematical symbolism. His claim—that this story will make you believe in God—is never fulfilled, too grandiose, and downright silly. Pi, she finds annoyingly full of himself. The magical realism that fills much of the story (talking animals, carnivorous islands) doesn’t sit well with Murphy, who lost her taste for this genre when she stopped believing in fairies. To all of these accusations I have a few responses. On the subject of magical realism, I would assert that if you find the subject quite distasteful, your predisposition will taint the flavor of a novel before you even begin devouring it! Murphy was bound and determined to dislike this story, so her criticisms must be taken with a grain of salt. Next I address Martel’s lack of subtlety. To this claim I say of course there are some obvious mathematical parallels, if all the symbols were so deeply embedded within the text, the average reader would never find them! They would then miss completely all undertones and deeper thinking opportunities. Martel includes these loud, blatant references to give the reader an eye for the symbols much quieter, which tiptoe through the text. Where her distaste for Pi came from, I am not so sure. While I was never driven to tears by his plight, I never found him irritating per say. Murphy contends that Pi is rather patronizing in his descriptions of spiritual events, animal training, and zoology. I do believe Murphy was never raised in a zoo. I also believe she has never trained a large, ferocious animal. After completing these tasks, she too would probably be able to share her knowledge with a sure tongue. Until then, I take her opinions on that matter to be very influential. Finally, the subject of spirituality. I do not think (and this is my own personal opinion) Martel ever intended this novel to be the new Bible, Koran, or any other spiritual text. This is not a book written to convert the masses. Murphy took the quote “This story will make you believe in God” with the assumption that at some point while reading this novel she would—whether she liked it or not—suddenly be overcome by the truth of the universe, and believe. This is a weighty task to put on any script, when the eyes that are reading it are largely responsible for the information sent to the brain. Already adulterated with her distastes for the story, characters, and even genre, how could anyone have a spiritual epiphany with so many obstacles?
Rise pd 2
At first I had much difficulty finding bad reviews; all the articles comprised were complements—visually stunnng! Bla bla bla, lots of good things said about the movie! Then I found a critique saying “Life of Pi contained the wisdom of a fortune cookie.” Many people were offended by the religion—“you can’t mix religions! It’s like mixing fire gasoline and electricity.” Another compared Pi’s journey to Noah’s ark, but spelling “ark”, “arch” “Martel is a bitter man and this was a jab at God”
As I continued to read the negative review I started wondering how they could all be so dense; thinking the movie was about having no god and believing in all gods—that Martel was trying to persuade and interpellate us into Pi’s ways. That is just about the most opposite goal Martel had (I believe) Martel was explaining in a different kind of way that any religion should be okay—pick what you want and learn to be more accepting. “Life is a story” it is up for the interpretation of the person. (Page 305-ish) Each person has their own thoughts/opinions/feelings that influence their outlook on life. Are people naturally savage? Do we hide our tiger until need be? What do we choose to believe when we know realistically it CANNOT happen?
Like I said in a previous blog—about my mom—the novel is only as good as the reader is willing to make it. Martel gave us all the tools we need to understand, questions and create a greater depth of understanding about ourselves and others as a whole, but we have to be willing to think and research the novel as well. Most of the critiques I found were the superficial readers voicing their thoughts. “My wife and I walked out.” Those are the kinds of people who start wars and negative organizations in our world—the people who won’t take 127 minutes to understand something they do not like.
Once I was done reading the novel, I re-thought the question I had thought of for Martel “when will you allow your children to read the novel?” The novel did turn out to be pretty nasty and detailed… It would be interesting to see. I then wondered what he would teach his children for religion. Parents typically want better for their children and might allow themselves to settle on the religion he or she was born with—in Martel’s case, Christianity—but what would he allow his children to do?
Kim, Jonathan. "ReThink Review: Life of Pi -- Of Gods and Tigers." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Nov. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.
Svartoien Pd 7
I tried to keep an open mind. Honest, I did. Regardless of how much I enjoyed Yann Martel's writing style and insights, I was determined to hear another reader out. I have got to work on my resistance stamina... Within the first three sentences, my mouth was open with shock and my mind went into Code Red Shutdown mode. How could David Egan on Amazon.com claim the Life of Pi as "poorly written"? I took a double take glance at the book review title to ensure we had indeed read the same novel. Had Egan said the plot is lacking—fine. A tiger is absurd and implausible? Okay. But poorly written? Hold the phone right there! Of all aspects encompassed in this novel, how it is written deserves the most praise. Nevertheless, I read on, if only to slap down every shot this critic would take. Eagan felt "the writing was sloppy and weighed down by effort." Clearly, David Egan has never read Miss Brill (the epitome of weighed down with effort and excruciating detail). This critic mistook insight and wisdom for trying too hard. Rookie mistake. Egan also found the" whimsical mood of the sorry pretentious." When I think of the word whimsical, I think of unicorns and rainbows and Disney princesses and flutes playing while birds sing. What doesn't come to mind is an Indian boy stuck on a lifeboat with a tiger in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. But maybe that's just me. Again, the reviewer mistook wisdom for pretention. His repetition of this opinion simply demonstrates his desperation to find legitimate flaws with the novel. Egan's final point included his detachment from the characters and the plot. Sounds like a personal problem. Just because David Egan of Amazon.com possesses a miniscule mind capable of ridicule but not imagination, does not be default make the author at fault.
Work Cited
Eagan, David. "Customer Review." Rev. of Life of Pi. Weblog post. Amazon.com. Amazon.com, 21 Dec. 2003. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.
Wilde 7
I was particularly intrigued by the comments an individual entitled “Second Rate Author” posted on Amazon Life of Pi reviews. This author chose to rate the novel with 1/5 stars despite the fact that he recommends reading the novel to conclude his post. This individual overtly stated to begin his post that he was going to “focally lambaste the message” Martel tries to express in Life of Pi. Interestingly, I strongly agree with the majority of this individual’s comments. However, I enjoy Life of Pi for the same reasons that he despises the novel. Second Rate Author interprets the novel in a similar way that I do. The beginning of the novel tells the reader that the story will deliver belief in God. Throughout the novel, we are informed that God does NOT exist, but it is “far sweeter” to believe he does. I strongly agree with this understanding. Much of the animal story in Life of Pi is far too fantastical to resemble the slightest bit of truth. Although one could argue that Martel portrays events that COULD potentially occur, they are highly unlikely. I believe that Martel is expressing his belief that there is great certainty that a supernatural god does not exist. However, theists and atheists alike can certainly agree that religion and belief in God tend to constitute a more fulfilling life (for some.) Second Rate Author states “I prefer to seek the truth, regardless of the feelings it may generate.” Unfortunately, this individual does not embrace the novel, as he should. Second Rate Author also uses words such as “condescending” and “patronizing” to describe Martel’s work. I believe that Martel’s tone throughout the novel was of great knowledge and thereby necessary. We, as readers, needed to be convinced that the author was an expert in both religious studies and zoology. How could we view the novel with any merit otherwise? Lastly, Second Rate Author makes clear that Life of Pi contained a “plagiarised” (actually spelt plagiarized… some scholar) plot. As Mr. C has expressed in class, Martel did not plagiarize anything, but rather used one broad aspect of a fellow author’s writing. To conclude Second Rate Author’s post, he explains how reading Life of Pi will leave anyone with a “feeling of being lectured by a bona fide anti-intellectual.” HA. Second Rate Author thinks world-famous Yann Martel is a “bona fide anti-intellectual.” Oh, the irony.
Lenz 7
In searching for negative of review of Life of Pi, I noticed that a majority of them criticized the religious aspect of the book. The intellectual criticism that I chose to do this essay on is no different. The composition that I chose was a review of Yann Martel’s book that was selling on Amazon. The name of the author is M. Maritz. This excerpt states that he is from Australia. The first statement that this person writes is “let me start by admitting that I loathe Martel’s positivity, it comes across as a lithium induced bounciness that only just hides a humidly desperate yearning for significance.” I strongly disagree with this statement. I believe that as a fiction writer, Martel needed to have enthusiasm in order to keep his readers interested. There is a reason that fiction is more popular that the biographical novels. The author of this review also goes on to say that he understands the theme of the book is so that “we can decide what to believe and thus create our own reality.” We decided as a class that this, indeed remains Martel’s reasoning behind the book. The second part of the critic’s I disagree with, however. The second part states “Fair enough, if one can stay five years old.” I disagree with this statement because I still enjoy leaving the mindset of the real world through a good book and “creating my own reality” every once in a while and I am 18 years old. The third major point that this person makes regarding Life of Pi was that it “lies closer to the Da Vinci Code than concisely elegant fables like Old Man and The Sea or Animal Farm.” Although I have read none of these books, many of my peers have read animal in their Honors English class a previous year so I have heard about the plot line. I did research and found out that The Da Vinci Code was an extremely religious novel and was based on events in Christian history. To me, The Da Vinci Code seems drier and less of a story that Life of Pi. I have not heard of any high school English class analyzing The Da Vinci Code, but I have heard of classes looking deeper into the stories of the other two novels mention. This critic made many points, mostly about the religious aspects of the book that made me believe he was an atheist, and I did not agree much of this review at all.
Petersen 7
Dan Schneider wrote a negative review of Life of Pi. He goes off on Martel tries to do something different than most fiction but ends up failing. Schneider talks about how the Author's note sets a reader up for more than the book lets on. Schneider also compares the book to Moby-Dick throughout the whole article. This author also talks about how Martel ripped of his book from Max And The Cats. First of all, I find Schneider lacking a lot of imagination and facts. The point he tries to make about the Max And The Cats ordeal is unreliable and unnecessary. Schneider actually admits in the article that he has never read Max And The Cats but proceeds to accuse Martel of ripping the plot off this book. It is unprofessional to accuse someone of something when you have no facts or research behind the accusation. I also find it ironic that Schneider asks why Martel never writes why Pi is tossed by the sailors into the lifeboat with the animals. I feel as this author skimmed over the book because Pi is not tossed into the lifeboat with the zebra and orangutan. The zebra jumps in after and the orangutan floats by on a bundle of bananas. At least Schneider got the part right that the hyena was already in the boat. Martel also has said multiple times in interview that he wants the readers to interpret the book for themselves. Apparently Schneider lacks imagination and needs every fact given to him; I question what kind of books this man reads. I also disagree with Schneider's point of how Martel adds too much detail. Detail is important in this book. Most of the readers reading this book have never been stuck on a boat with a tiger or even seen half the things mentioned in this book. We all need the details to help us understand what is going on; otherwise we might think that Richard Parker acts like a house cat catching shade underneath the tarpaulin.
Heisel 2
Much to my dismay, I was very difficult to find negative reviews of this novel—Martel must have created something rather special here. On Metacritic.com, their was 37 positive reviews, 7 mixed reviews, and 0 negative. Upon further research, of the few negative reviews I found, most complained that the movie was not able to effectively portray the book’s brilliance—not about the book’s flaws.
Although I was unable to find a reliable negative review, I was able to find one that cautioned parents on the aspects of religion and authority displayed in the novel. It was from focusonthefamily.com, and it harped on the destructive behaviors that could be emulated by young readers of the novel. It is against how the novel claims that the Christian religion has flaws. Life of Pi doesn’t demote religion in general, but seems to give a “take what you like” option, which, according to this review, is wrong. The review also complains that Pi follows his own conscience, rather than the teachings of his parents or his religious leaders. On the contrary, the authority is presented respectfully and the review concurs with that approach. It also warns about the profanity (piss, hell, damn) and the references to genitals. It also touches on the negative influences of Pi getting “stoned” off the sea-water rag. The article also did not like the preference to homosexual acceptance that the book presented. For these reasons, the review did not condemn the novel, but rather cautioned parents on letting younger children read it.
I, for the most part, agree with this review. Young children should not be reading this novel. Whether you agree with the message or not, the novel is much to complex and thought provoking for a younger person to fully understand it. Without being able to interpret the story, the message is pointless. As far as using the novel to entertain the children, it has too many social faux pas and would culture-shock kids. I enjoy this website’s focus on good parenting. It is able to warn, but not prohibit, in a very respectful way.
Tibke 1
The article I chose to read was off amazon.com, written by David Egan. His main points of conflict he found Life of Pi are that he feels the writing is missing some important aspect, he also feels like he was disengaged from the characters and the plot and finally he thought overall the wringing was sloppy and weighed down by effort. First off it may only seem like Yann Martel is missing stuff because he does not want to waste his reader’s time with unneeded detail. I love how he just jumps into his chapters. Like in chapter 92; his first sentence is, “I made an exceptional botanical discovery.” Mr. Martel does not tiptoe around the main point; he throws the main idea at you and leaves you wondering what will happen next. Second, how cans someone read this novel without engaging themselves with the characters? I mean in our class Allie talked about a dream she had about this where she was in Pi’s place holding her mother’s head. Throughout the whole chapter 90, as a reader with no background of the book, you would get lost in the dialog of Pi and the Frenchman. Yann Martel deliberately takes out who says who to allow the reader to figure out what is going on, and allow them to believe what they thought was actually happening. And finally I for one do not understand how someone could think of him as a sloppy writer. Mr. Egan states in his article “[Yann Martel] is describing fantastically unique experiences: they are not something ‘you’ find yourself doing.” This is a bad example in my opinion because Yann Martel brings about circumstances in his writing that “could” happen, not what “does” happen. He stretches the unbelievable to its absolute limit but leaves you with enough pieces to hold onto the thought of this happening in the real world. Overall I believe the person in this critique was looking for a book that did not require as much thought or insight, which led him to put this comments in his customer review.
Boerhave 7
“Might be a good movie to see stoned—or maybe it’s just one that makes you feel as though you already are stoned”.
This was one of the very first things mentioned in a review written by Dana Stevens posted on Slate.com. I must say, it was extremely difficult to find a negative review of Life of Pi. This movie received a “fresh” score of 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty good considering how harsh or unfair the site may be. Dana starts of about how Life of Pi is a movie that sets its viewers mentally adrift in the way of not being able to understand what is going on; like being stoned. I disagree completely. I saw Life of Pi shortly after it had been released in theaters and I understood the storyline. Nothing seemed hazy; I was honestly in awe with all of the amazing effects and imagery as well as the storyline. I hadn’t read the book before I had seen the movie either, which may make a difference to some people. I am pretty certain that Dana had not read the book before because she harshly states how the switching from the flashback to adult Pi telling the story is “a stiff frame-story setup”. Also towards the end of Life of Pi when Pi is talking to the two Japanese men, Dana mentions, “The ending’s pious dullness is enough to make you wish you were back on that lifeboat…” This proves to me that she doesn’t understand the meanings of what Martel is trying to get across at the end by having that specific part there. “For Life of Pi’s theology is as gauzy as its images are sharp.” I don’t understand how anyone who either read or saw Life of Pi could come up with this statement. Theology is the study of religious truth or the study of divine things or simply the study of God. Gauzy is referring to thin or transparent. So to word Dana’s statement better, she believes that Martel’s theology is hardly there which as we all know is more visible than anything in this novel. Martel is not only a firm believer in Christ, but mastered his research and study of Hinduism and Islam for this novel. Yann Martel is an intelligent and inspiring author and Ang Lee is a fantastic director and I believe they both did a phenomenal job.
Nifong 1
I was really struggling to find a negative review about Life of Pi. The reviews that I found seemed to be uplifting about the novel and the movie. So I logged on to YouTube to see if there were any videos about reviews. I stumbled across this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJznFo7UnI&list=PL5rt3MjqsgsRXzJXiX_w3Ej3khEIoxWci. This guy is clearly an amateur critic first of all. He also has a Southern accent. He’s not a professional critic by the way. He goes to see the movie and he comes out of the theater with half of the movie left. He immediately begins to complain about how messed up the movie is and how it “sucked” and no one should go to see it. He talks about the gruesome events of animals dying and the gore that comes along with death. I feel like this is a natural human instinct to find gore distasteful. Humans like peaceful stories about animals living in peace and harmony with other animals. The guy repeatedly speaks of how the movie is so messed up. I find this interesting. A lot of elements in Life of Pi are very relevant. Animals do kill each other. People do kill each other. Why was he so disturbed? People shun these truths. Bad things do indeed happen. This man is a prime example of how naïve people wish to be in their daily lives. Turning your face away from something gory doesn’t make it less real. Even if you aren’t watching, it’s still happening. You may be able to leave a movie theater or turn off a movie but real life can’t be paused, muted, or shut off. I think that’s why movies with happy undertones attract people—because we want something happy to believe in. People use movies as an escape and when the movie becomes too close to reality we are immediately turned off.
Andrew Weidenbach 1
The review I found was written by Cath Murphy on a website called litreactor.com. She entitled the column Your Favorite Book Sucks: Life of Pi. Right off the bat she begins with the “This book will make you believe in God.” She then begins to expand on how this was a big claim to come from Yann Martel and commenced suggesting the Bible. I feel she is wrong. If one actually immerses themselves into the suffering Pi must endure throughout the book. One will at least slightly begin to believe in God. She then exclaims how the best word to describe Life of Pi is silly. She talks about how as an adult she really doesn’t care about fiction like floating carnivorous islands and talking animals. Instead as an adult she feels fiction for her is finding new ways to explore her adult concerns about sex, death, and vampires. She should probably go read Twilight. I feel she couldn’t be more wrong about fiction. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I am assuming most humans probably would like to read a book that has new and intriguing ideas. Life of Pi possesses those qualities by having an impossible but possible aspect littered throughout the book. I myself and probably many others appreciate new ideas of carnivorous islands over vampires. Lastly she talks about how books should engage readers on an emotional level by offering them characters to identify with and care about. She said that Life of Pi fails on that emotional level... Wrong. I myself and probably other fellow classmates would agree that Pi is easily relatable. In my opinion we all have suffered in some manner. It may not be 227 days lost in the Pacific Ocean with a Bengal Tiger, but its suffering none the less. I also found myself caring very deeply for Richard Parker. Especially knowing that everyone has an inner tiger to contend with daily. I found Cath Murphy’s review to be very disturbing and find myself wondering what she even classifies as a good book. Then I realized I would probably need counseling after reading it.
Rogen5
The review I discovered was written on Amazon.com by “GameMaker.” (I saw the ¬_Hunger Games_ reference and decided to give it a shot.) This Portland native said that the novel starts “REALLY long and preachy”, and that Martel is trying to lecture over religion. The writer stated that the ending was abrupt and was done “lazily” as if Yan Martel got bored and wanted to finish the novel. The unimaginative writer continued saying that the ending was just as bad as the beginning, and it was “easily one of the worst fiction books I’ve ever read.” This writer clearly did not see the undertones of the novel that we discussed in class. I could see how without reading the GIVEN discussion questions in the back of the book, the book would seem “anti-climactic,” but clearly the Portlander did not wish to see past black in white. Also the writer did not wish to care about the back story of the protagonist. No wonder the middle of the plot was dry for our westerner. The gripe about the ending was understandable for me, but because I wanted the book to keep going. I wanted more Richard Parker, more action, and more trials. Yet, the ending needed to be the way it was otherwise Richard Parker leaving Pi without notice gives no weight to his exit. The complaint about the beginning and the end confused me. If you did not like the beginning the ending should be awesome and the same should be for the other way around. The writing styles are totally different along with the characters. But I suppose Portland is allowed to have her opinion.
My quest for a negative review did not come easy. Then I stumbled upon Amazon.com and found the reviews there. I clicked on the single star reviews and started reading. I must have gotten through seven or ten reviews when it hit me. All of these reviews (so far) were written by people with such disrespect for faith—not just Hinduism or Islam or Christianity but having any faith at all. But looking past all their “disappointments”, I found some light. A majority of these agnostics/atheists said the story did not make you believe in God. This is my favorite part though—they read it because they were looking for God. They picked up the book and said, “We’ll see if this makes me a ‘believer’.” Hopefully they find what they’re looking for. I found the whole ordeal extremely ironic that these people who defy religion, decide to read a book that reveals religion, and then complain how it did not lead them to faith. They want to believe, but will not let themselves. Hopefully they find what they are looking for.
Rasmussen pd.5
While looking for a negative review on Life of Pi, I came across a review of the film. The review was given by “Get Serious” on Amazon.com. He openly states that he/she hates the film for the terrible storyline and the terrible editing. He says that the French cook should have had more screen time and should have been crossed with a tiger instead of a hyena. Clearly this person doesn’t realize what we have come to realize. This person is very short sighted in his or her film viewing expertise. They go on to say that the plot was dumb because it was just a kid on a boat with a couple animals that he tries to outwit. I don’t even think that they realize what the tiger represents. They clearly didn’t understand the end of the movie because they were so wrapped up in the animal side of the story. The reviewer wanted more closure that they got. They said that they felt as if the producers left the story on the floor in the editing room. This kind of angers me because it is giving this amazing novel a one star review. When people go through and look at reviews, they will find this and if they don’t know any better, they will believe this ignorant person. I believe that they have the right to say whatever they would like but to me it isn’t right for a person with such a lack of insight to give the common people a review such as this. A particular quote stood out to me as particularly irritating. “to make this film actually work AND use the animal analogy, the producers should have cross-edited the homicidal cook with the tiger”. This statement clearly means that the reviewer doesn’t get the idea of an ID or a super ego. For that matter they don’t get symbolism.
Clemenson 2
I read David Egan’s review of the novel Life of Pi for amazon.com. I strongly disagree with every negative statement Egan made. He stated that Yann Martel’s writing is sloppy and he uses too many clichés. He also says that Martel has too many short sentences and they have lost their pungency because of his overuse. I believe that the use of his short sentences draws the attention of his readers. Especially the sentence in chapter 97, since the entire chapter only contains two words. Egan says that Yann Martel introduces new parts of the story suddenly and then pulls back to explains. His example is in chapter 42, "She came floating on an island of bananas in a halo of light, as lovely as the Virgin Mary" (p. 123). After half a page, the reader finally discovers that “she” is an orangutan. The detailed description of Orange Juice would have been less meaningful if Yann Martel simply introduced her. I enjoy the abrupt sentences because they catch my attention more than long sentences. The mystery of who “she” keeps readers interested. I like that Yann Martel almost always states what each chapter will contain in the beginning sentences. Egan did not appreciate that the author’s note said that this was a story that could make you believe in God. He obviously missed the idea of the animal story relating to religion and faith. Faith is believing without seeing which would be the reasoning for believing the animal story. Egan does not like when Pi speaks in second person to describe how to survive in the middle of an ocean with a Bengal tiger. Hopefully none of the readers will have to endure the same trials as Pi, but his lessons can still be applicable to our lives. The critique obviously does not understand how to find the deeper meaning of stories and appreciate an art.
Pederson 7
When searching for a source to find a negative review, I found a low-starred review that people classified as helpful on shelfari.com. The author was under the pen name “RRP” and he titled his review “A Series of Disappointments.” Unlike some other reviews I glanced at, this person is actually able to write with correct spelling and grammar. This reader expected an exciting tale of adventure and survival with a dash of philosophy. However, he found this not to be the case, and highlighted the disappointments he found within the tale.
His first disappointment pertains to the childhood of Pi. This reviewer insists that Pi simply skims the deep truths of each religion, and he is indecisive on which religion is meant for him. While I agree that Pi is indecisive on what religion to pick, I do not think that this is a bad thing. Pi simply accepts all teachings as lessons meant to better understand the God all religions encompass. I disagree that Pi only sees the surface of religion. Pi thinks critically of every religion to get a better understanding of them. For example, when he accepts Christianity, he wonders why an all powerful God would sacrifice his Son to save mortals from sin, and learns that love is a key part in the Christian faith. Also, I find that Pi understands the similarity between all religions, and that it is a terrible idea to alienate one another for the small differences in what we believe.
The reviewer’s second disappointment is that he believes the author made the animal story seem totally unrealistic and implausible. Also, the reviewer finds that the story is developed in a long and boring fashion with no clear direction. I find this statement somewhat true. During many parts of Pi’s experience on the boat, I wondered why he kept talking for several pages on how Pi would catch fish, then kill the fish, then catch some other fish and kill them also, and then feed them to Richard Parker. Reading these passages, I would constantly wonder if Yann Martel was simply filling in some pages of Pi’s misfortune, or if there is a larger meaning to it all.
RRP’s last disappointment is that the author becomes “preachy” to the reader after Pi suggests the “better written (it is compact, taught and pacy)…better version of the shipwreck story”. The reviewer also detests that Yann Martel suggests that his fanciful allegory is the better story since it has God in it. I am confused by this reviewer’s statement. After Pi tells the “human” story, there is only one reference to religion, simply saying that Pi turned to God and survived. The “animal” story allows Pi to shift evil off of himself and onto Richard Parker. Meanwhile, the more realistic “human” version shows that Pi transitions into an animal-like state: killing and eating his own kind. However, I wonder where the meerkat plays into the human story. When the Japanese men question this, they simply dismiss it. Perhaps this is just Yann Martel’s plan to add more ambiguity to the novel, and encourage the reader to form their own opinion.
Waldera 5
I read a review written by David Egan on amazon.com. Among his numerous comments (it was slightly lengthy) one of his main points was that the writing was done “sloppily and weighed down by effort”. He backs his argument by stating the mood was given in a pretentious and whimsical matter. He also goes on to say that he felt disengaged from the characters. I strongly disagree with Mr. Egan on his first point. I feel that the book is written neatly and was very well thought out. Yann Martel gives amazing descriptions! Everything from the description of the rocking sea to the majestic noises Richard Parker makes is crafted perfectly. He goes on to his next point of how Martel is trying too hard to make his writing flashy, that he “tends to rely on short, abrupt sentences…often introduces new story elements by dropping them in suddenly”. He brings up a specific: “She came floating on an island of bananas in a halo of light, as lovely as the Virgin Mary,” (p. 123), and he states that not until a page and a half later does he revile that it is and orangutan. Another point that is easily arguable. If someone was telling you a story of how they fell off their bike and ended up in the hospital, would you not be more intrigued by their story if they started with “I ended up in the hospital last weekend” rather than “I was riding my bike the other day and fell”? Simply little additions like Martel has added throughout the book add suspense and keep the reader interested. It is simply a feat to tell a story about a man on a life raft in the middle of the ocean and not make it boring! Martel has done more; he has made it riveting! Toward the end of Mr. Egan’s review he also adds that Martel uses too many clichés. He includes examples of fish “flopping about like a fish out of water" (p. 200), that when eating, the tiger "took the lion's share" (p. 249). I believe they are cleverly placed! If Pi was described as flopping about like a fish out of water I could see how that could be slapdash, however, he uses them in precisely the right manner and cleverly to create humor. I believe Life of Pi to be brilliant piece of work and respectfully, yet strongly, disagree with what Mr. David Egan has wrote.
Bauer 2
The negative review I found about the movie Life of Pi is written by Olly Richard. He says “Life Of Pi exists on the bleeding edge of technology and every penny of its budget is on screen, yet it isn’t a film from which you’re likely to take memories of a single money shot or sequence.” I have not seen the film yet but I know for sure that the novel is not the way Mr. Richard explains the film. The novel spreads its “budget” evenly across all one hundred chapters and you can most definitely can and will take multiple memories from throughout the novel. Mr. Richard also says “there’s too many things going on to separate isolated moments.” Once again I disagree completely with him. Yes, there is multiple things going on at once during the novel but all of it is always important and is always more than what it says. Mr. Richard just needs to either read or reread the novel with a more critical lens. The last point Olley Richard makes is “It’s throwing out questions, not pretending to have the answers.” Once again I absolutely disagree. The novel is indeed throwing out many questions but there is no correct answer to them. They are all questions to make you search within your own heart, mind, and soul for the answers. The questions are about faith religion, faith, and even life itself and its possibilities. Your own opinion is the right answer. This novel is deepest most thoughtful novel I believe we have read so far. The fact that it has two stories in one along with all the inner-conflicts—not only within Pi but also with the reader—creates the more thought in my mind than any other piece novel or film.
Guthmiller 2
The negative review I found comes from the website Amazon.com with David Egan as the author. He wrote this review on December 21, 2003. The perception of the book has likely changed since then. Like many of its readers, the reviewer had heard many great things about the book and decided to journey through it. Unlike many readers however, the reviewer immediately found the novel “pretentious” and he felt “disengaged from the characters and the plot”. He calls the writing sloppy and claims the use of short abrupt sentences and chapters negatively affects the novel. Even going so far to say that chapter 42—the one that describes the orangutan/mother floating in on an “island of bananas” and appearing “as lovely as the Virgin Mary”—is an example of Yann Martel’s poor writing style. It’s truly unfortunate that the reviewer fails to grasp the beauty and the attention to detail Yann Martel has infused the novel with. It’s obvious after reading his review that he doesn’t understand that the value of the novel isn’t necessarily in the concrete story but in the allegory that is instead created with it. There is no question in the reviewers mind about whether the story is one about animals or a far more sinister story. There is no question because he doesn’t have the understanding about the novel that we do; he doesn’t even know there is a question about it. He reads what is written, not thinking and connecting what it actually means—a skill that makes reading literature extremely fulfilling. The comments calling the story “pretentious” are ironic because his review seemed overblown and pretentious to me. He name drops other Canadian others to improve his credibility and comes off as pompous the whole time. I honestly hope he gives _The Life of Pi_ another chance; he has read it a different way than I have, so he is unable to appreciate like I do.
Etrheim 5
Yann Martel’s novel, Life of Pi, is adored by the majority of its readers. However, David Egan was not one of them. His review was over the book version of Life of Pi—not the film. Egan did not like Martel’s writing at all. He believes that it is essential and necessary to tell the truth in writing—especially in fiction. If you believe the human story, you were “lied” to for the majority of the novel. This critic did not enjoy Mr. Martel’s usage of short paragraphs consisting of fragments also. Finally Mr. Egan was disappointed from the “author’s note”. In the “author’s note”, one of the characters in the story said that this story will make you believe in God. This is a very bold statement and Egan did not think that it was even close to being done. His views of religion did not change after reading this book. I am proud to say that I completely disagree with David Egan. I do not believe that fictional stories have to be true. Whatever produces the best story is what the story should be. The primary reason for fiction is to entertain the reader. The animal story is a much more entertaining story than the human story. On another note, I enjoyed Martel’s usage of short fragmented sentences. I thought that they were used at ideal locations of the book. The fragments created much needed emphasis and were in no way elementary as Egan described them. Finally, in my opinion, Life of Pi does an outstanding job of making readers believe in some God. Even though this is a fictional story, many readers feel that it actually happened. If this story was real, it would be extremely difficult to survive on a lifeboat for 227 days—tiger or no tiger. Surviving this long in the Pacific Ocean would make me believe that there is someone above watching over me. As I have stated before, I respectfully disagree with David Egan.
Andersen
Period 2
I read an article on Amazon written by David Egan. He believes that Yann Martel’s work is sloppy and poorly written. Egan goes on to explain how he tries to make his work “flashy” by adding short sentences and later describing them. It also came up that Martel likes to “play clichés” to much, such as: flopping around like a fish out of water (pg. 200) when the fish was flopping in the boat. He says that in the beginning, the authors note, it says this will make you believe in God, and that was a far stretch for him and he does not think something that powerful should be written unless it can truly fulfill that potential. Says Egan, “some authors try too hard to be hated while others try too hard to be loved,” he thinks that Martel tries too hard to be loved. I would disagree with Egan that Martel’s work is written sloppy. I think he did an amazing job with the detail and allowing us to think and connect things on our own without being abruptly blunt. I would agree that Martel did use quite a few short sentences, although, I think they still had their purpose. Clichés were used wisely in my opinion. Martel placed everything very strategically and therefore I do not think that they were over used. I agree that an author should not put something in a novel about the story that says it will make you believe in God unless it can fully fulfill that, but I do not think any novel can fulfill that, it is all in the perspective of the reader. I do not think this story makes you believe in God, I think it was a wonderfully written story that makes you think about what is possible and what is not, but it does not make me believe, or not believe in God. As for Martel trying too hard, I would disagree. I think that his book just came out at the right time and was read by the right critics and audience. This was not his first, nor his last book so I do not believe that he was using it as an element to be loved. I think that was by chance.
Peltier 5
I found a negative review on Amazon.com that was given by David Egan. Throughout this review, he bashed rather harshly on Martel’s writing style. He says, “I thought the writing was sloppy and weighed down by effort, I found the whimsical mood of the story pretentious, and I felt disengaged from the characters and the plot” (Egan). He continually shares how sloppy of a writer he sees Martel to be. Later in the review, he goes on to say that Martel wrote too many clichés into the story. Egan believes that an author who pays so much attention to detail should not “copout” and instead should explain in more vivid detail. One of Egan’s last key points was that he heard from a friend that there are two different types of Canadian writers, “the ones who try really hard to be hated and the ones who try really hard to be loved” (Egan). Egan goes on to say how he personally believes that Martel focuses too much attention on himself and what readers will think instead of pouring himself more into the novel.
To an extent I agree with David Egan’s review. I understand that Martel may have used a few too many clichés throughout the book and maybe he was trying to be the author that was loved, but I do not agree with Egan when he said Martel’s writing style is sloppy. First of all, everyone has a different writing style and not every author will be loved by every person. Martel entered so many amazing little details to the novel. For instance, when we talked about the number 250663 in Chapter 96 and how it was Martel’s birthday that was so clever! Personally, I just do not think Egan took the time to dig deeper into the writing.
As far as Martel maybe having a few too many clichés or that he is trying to be a “loved by all” author, I would agree with that statement. Martel is such an intelligent man; I guarantee he could have added more detail to certain parts of the book instead of writing simple clichés. Secondly, last week as I watched a video interview about Martel, he explained how his first book was not liked by anyone so he decided to make something much better. I think that statement right there proves that to Martel, maybe he does just want to be a loved author…but is that so bad?
Rusten 5
Googling -bad reviews: Life of Pi- I came upon one of the most offending reviews I have ever read. The writing of this eyesore is a man named David Egan., writing the review on amazon.com. I read his anger and hate of the book and my first thought was wow, he obviously doesn’t understand how complex and simplistic the book is at the same time! He states that the book is sloppy and poorly written. EXCUSE ME. Martel wrote this novel so intelligently and thoughtfully that at the end you’re like, what? He makes you think and be sympathetic towards the characters. He makes you wonder and contemplate religion and life. Egan also claims Martel is trying to hard to make his writing flashy, by relying on short sentences. As I understand it, that is an accepted writing style and many other authors use it. Egan also comments on Martel’s use of clichés saying that they are “cop outs”. I enjoyed the clichés, I felt that they brought familiar into the unknown making me relate more to the character. Overall I am appalled at this man. Maybe he needs to go into an Intro to lit. class to fully understand the greatness of this novel, because he is just wrong with life. Egan just nit-picks at little parts but doesn’t dig deep. We (our class) dig so hard that we found that Martel cleverly snuck his birthday into the book and I’m sure MOST people don’t even catch it. That’s how awesome Martel and his novel is. Who knows there could be other secrets hidden and it takes us readers to analyze and uncover them. Whomever this David Egan is should defiantly be brought into the light and reread this marvelous book with the hindsight he now has.
Berndt 1
Trevor submitted a two star review on good reads.com saying he was annoyed with several things in the book. Trevor seems to dislike order, symbolism and religion. He stated that he was so annoyed by the detail Martel puts into simple tasks, he started to pray the boat would sink and the tiger would get him. He also said he would have accepted God sitting him so the story would come to an abrupt end. Well, if Trevor disliked this book so much why didn’t he just stop reading? I thought Life of Pi was a spectacular novel and reading every page wanted me to read more. Trevor also found the symbolism and order of the novel annoying. Pi was left of the boat for 227 days and he told his story in 100 chapters. Pi was named after a pool and there are two interpretations of Pi’s journey. Trevor doesn’t appreciate symbolism or the fat that Yann Martel spent 10 years researching and writing this book to perfection. Symbolism made me want to dig more into the book. Trevor obviously does not respect religion because he slams religions in several ways where people refer to Buddhists as dirty, filthy atheists, and believes that is why the Japanese are treated with such contempt at the end of the book. Later in his post he says that he believes the tiger is god. “Angry, jealous, vicious, hard to appease, arbitrary and something that takes up lots of time when you have better things to do – sounds like God to me.” I disagree with his comment, because not only am I Christian, but I believe that Richard Parker is indeed Pi Patel. Pi used Richard parker as a way to remove himself from the harmful things he did on the life boat, and help him believe that what he had done was not indeed Pi Patel.
Volk 5
In David Egan’s review of Life of Pi, he is very critical of Yann Martel’s writing style, saying that it is sloppy and too whimsical. I disagree with this point because I believe that this is how Yann Martel wanted the book to be written. David is critical of the first 30 pages this way, but that was Martel’s point. He wanted to come across as whimsical and light spirited because that is how Pi felt at the start of the novel. Although he was struggling with religious controversies, Pi was living a great life and the dream life for a young teenage boy. I think that Martel did a great job of showing this through his writing style. Another point that David Egan makes is that Martel uses too many clichés. This may be true to an extent, but I fell that his use of clichés was brilliant. Cliché’s are frowned upon in most cases, especially in our classroom, but are they always bad? Sometimes they are the best way to illustrate the picture of what is actually happening. Martel could have probably thought of some other ways to stir images into the reader’s mind, but as a reader I could clearly depict in my mind what was actually happening throughout the book due to Martel’s superbly placed clichés. Lastly, David Egan states that the book is too much about Martel’s writing and not enough about the story. In previous studying for blog tasks I have realized that this has to be done. Martel’s first book did not do very well and I think that it was important the Yann Martel “redeemed” himself. Even in doing so I thought that he told the story very well. A novel cannot receive such success if the story is not told well. Life of Pi told a tremendous story and Matel’s brilliance shines throughout.
Wehrkamp 5
I studied through a book review constructed by Dan Schneider on Hackwriters.com. At first I was in awe toward the fact of how he called Yan Martel’s Life of Pi a failure to literature, and no surprise because of how Martel’s previous two novels had failed. Although he showed a great deal of intellectual providence about this novel, except for when it came to his depiction toward the parallels and contradictions between the animal and the human stories that Pi tells. Schneider talked about the parallels of how Pi was Richard Parker, Orange Juice was Pi’s mother, the zebra was the sailor, and the hyena was the French cook; explaining contradictions he depicted throughout this novel was his failed attempt. He critiqued that in Pi’s blindness when he was talking to Richard Parker—who was really the Frenchman –he was really talking to himself, and he said he had killed a man and a woman before. Schneider’s understanding is that if Pi was Richard Parker, then Pi only mad up the story to cover up his crimes of killing his mother and the cook, and he diligently slanders Yan Martel about his contradiction of the stories. I chuckled and thought, how could someone appear to know so much, know so little? If you read closely you would realize during Pi’s blind conversations with the French stranded man at sea was really he talking to the French sailor (not Richard Parker). Reading closely you would also understand Pi has mad the Bengal tiger story as a cushion to the gruesome and cruel reality of the tragic events that took place on the boat while in the sea. You see we create false realities daily in our minds and never realize it, but most call it fantasy. Pi was not covering up his crimes by making up the story of Richard Parker, and if Schneider would have analyzes Life of Pi closely he would have understood that fact.
Kirkus 2
In a review by Cath Murphy on litreactor.com, she holds the opinion that the statement that this book will make you believe in God is a big stretch. I agree with this opinion. Not being a particularly religious person myself, I do not see any difference in my religious beliefs after reading Life of Pi. It is a great story, however, and I do understand the various religious parallels in the book. The part of the novel that did reach out to me more than the religious aspect was the depiction of human nature. Personally, I do not care much for people; we destroy, kill, pollute, and waste. Our Ids tell us not to care, and to do these things regardless of the effects they have on animals, nature, and the Earth in general. The symbolism of a tiger as Pi’s Id very effectively portrayed the need to keep our Ids in check, and what it is like if we fail to do this. Another aspect of Murphy’s review, which I do not agree with, is that the “magical realism” used in this book (carnivorous islands, talking tigers, blind sailors, etc.) is suitable only for children, not adults. First of all, this makes me question whether Murphy actually read the book or just skimmed it. Anyone who read the book would know that a) Richard Parker never actually talked, and b) it was Pi who was blind, not a sailor. I don’t know if she means the zebra sailor or the Frenchman, neither of which was blind. The fact that she sees this as a book only for children either shows she did not read the book thoroughly, or that she is too obtuse to see beyond the literal meanings of the words. It seems she completely discarded the human story as even being remotely possible. I can see how a dimwitted person would think that the human story was the one invented by Pi to appease the Japanese investigators, because he only told it after they didn’t believe the animal story. They might not pick up on the fact that the human story is the one that happened, and Pi fabricated the animal story to hide some of the horrific things he did to survive. The last opinion of Cath Murphy in her awful review is that Life of Pi fails on an emotional level. She finds Pi irritating because he believes zoos are good for animals and because he “speaks with pompous authority on many subjects.” I disagree with the statement about Pi being pompous. I think he simply says what he knows about things he knows a lot about. He doesn’t seem to try to make himself sound smarter than he is; he is just telling the author what he needs to know for the story. As far as Life of Pi failing on an emotional level, I couldn’t disagree more. The strongest emotion I felt in the story was when Pi opened the “fruit” and found the human tooth. To me, it was actually scary. I can’t imagine what Pi felt, and I completely agree with his decision to leave the island. Overall, my admiration of this novel is reinforced by this review, because the person disagreeing with me comes off as an ignorant critic who skimmed the book and gave a great novel a bad review to gain attention. Anyone who titles their review “Your Favorite Book Sucks: Life of Pi” seems like an unintellectual person to begin with.
I spent way too long on this and went past midnight. Oops.
Andrews1
The negative review I have chosen was a review written by a man who seems to be in love with his own writing and doesn't want to look past his own to recognize anyone else's. This critic is Dan Schneider from hackwriters.com which I find very suiting for the author of this review. He was completely disrespectful of the fans, Martel, and of modern literature. First of all he thinks Life of Pi would be better if it was a novella or a short story. What a terrible idea this is! Honestly, the book needed every word, page, paragraph, and chapter. Even the chapter that contained only two words contained so much worth. Condensing the tale would just lessen the impact and make this beautiful novel dense. He then goes on to make the ridiculous claim that the novel only achieved its wild praise, because of how different it was. He does add that it was noble of Martel to do so, but it doesn't help that he adds that Martel was just setting himself for failure. What this man saw as failure, I saw as success. The chances Martel took in Life Of Pi very well could have very well set him up for failure. They didn't. Instead of crashing and burning, the novel came out without a single scratch. I do agree with the author of this negative review that it was noble. It wasn't noble because of failure. Instead, it helped prove to us that we should always be testing our limits and trying new things. One of the ways Martel apparently set himself up for failure, was the very first entry included in the novel: The
Author's Note. He states that the Author's Note helps prove how Martel is setting his standards to high by including the tagline, "This story will make you believe in God." The author says that by saying this the audience will just be left disappointed. I must add that the only way they could be disappointed is if this story didn't fulfill that line. It, however, did. He then goes on to demean the audience by stating that no one-real or fiction- could possibly believe Pi's story. He also states that he knew the twist ending a 100 pages before the end. I think this just proves that our negative review thinks that he's just more clever that he actually is. To be quite clear with this so called critic this story is much more than twilight zone ripoff. It's much more than a failing story of adventure. It's adventure defined, makes you question everything, and it's beautifully written. What else could you want?
Collin Livingston Pd.5
A negative review of Yann Martel’s novel Life of Pi I found particularly stimulating to my senses was one written by a David Egan. I found his response particularly agreeable yet ultimately unimaginative. Initially Mr. Egan says that he immediately felt disengaged from the characters and plot of the story. Clearly anyone with some type of sense could identify this immediately. Martel made a character from India who believes in three religions, studies two topics in school that seemingly clash in principal, gets lost at sea with animals for 227 days, and ultimately lives through it all. Yes, I agree and would say I felt disengaged from the plot and characters as well initially. Never before have had I experienced any of the characteristics of Martel’s main character Pi Patel, but I do not believe such makes a novel terrible. Martel certainly wanted to present to his audience a scenario that has never happened yet before, something that would truly provoke our senses. After his opening statement, Mr. Egan talks about Martel’s writing tools throughout the story, and goes on to say,”… he indicates a general sloppiness of style that pervades the book. I suspect Martel is trying much too hard to make his writing flashy.” Not only do I think this does not attribute to the overall review of I hardly agree with this statement and find it completely ignorant. In my blog task for February 21st, I watched a YouTube video in which Mr. Martel was very humble; in fact he’s been completely humble about everything that has happened to him throughout the rising fame of his novel Life of Pi. Mr. Egan thinks there are two types of Canadian writers, ones who try too hard to be loved and those who try hard to be hated – none of which I believe Martel qualifies as. Finally, Mr. Egan says that you must write the truth when trying to create any type of story let alone a fictional story. He says that not doing so results in sloppiness and ultimately the failure of captivating an audience. For example, Pi says, "The shield was heavier than I would have liked, but do soldiers ever get to choose their ordnance?" Mr. Egan says that yes, soldiers are allowed to select their ordinance, but I believe his statement is beside the fact. My interpretation of this is that, in Pi’s given scenario, is that no; indeed you can’t choose your ordinance. Mr. Egan goes on to say,” He is describing fantastically unique experiences: they are not something "you" find yourself doing.” Well I hate to be the one to say “duh”, but yes: duh. The story is entirely fictional; it doesn’t necessarily have to be something you do daily or hear about often – that’s the compelling part of a fictional story. Overall, I do not agree with such statements of such a reader. I hardly find Mr. Egan a literary detective and do find him, ultimately, a hardcore realist. The statements of a person who solely relies on the reality of the world on a book that is very fictional at heart prove to be very wrong in my eyes.
Minihan 7
After endless searching to find a negative review, I found several on christiananswers.net. I found the first review quite interesting, therefore I could not stop myself from reading the rest. When I finished reading the sixth entry, I noticed they were all very similar. The responders were Des, Jeremy, Claudius, Roy, Chris, and Steve. All of the men were between the ages of 38 and 67. Being of this older age, I think that is why most of the men “Very Offended”. I am going to zero in on Claudius’ review. He was afraid that young adults or children might watch the convincing movie and be lead to think that it is alright for a person to choose whatever god fits the situation that they’re in at the current moment. He talked about Rabi R. Maharaj, the author of “Death of a Guru”. This man was formerly a Hindu, but after a life-changing experience Rabi R. Maharaj converted to Christianity. He state: “It has the potential of keeping people in the darkness of the lies they believe. It seems like such a “nice” story, and if a false premise of religion had not been so prominent in it—it would have been ok.” This is why the movie, Life of Pi, is said to be so offensive. I agree with the guy, because I do not want people seeing Pi believe in many different religions, and having things turn out in the end. This does not happen. I wish everyone could see the Truth. Knowing the Truth and living the Truth helps with worldly problems, and gives eternal life! Another comment that was mentioned was how some of these people were warning others, so they would not go and spend money on movie tickets, supporting the film. I believe with another man, that some movies try to take away what Jesus did for us. I have not seen the movie yet, but I hope people are not that easily persuaded by a movie that they go and change their whole lifestyle. I feel like the couple that walked out was over-reacting a bit…
Grapevine 7
While looking for a negative review on Life of Pi, I found one in particular that stood out to me. It was an anonymous review on the Barnes and Nobles website, and in that review, the person said that the book was horrible because the ending was too vague. Clearly, they did not get the point of the novel. The person said that the book was poorly written, and that the vague ending does not make them want to recommend the book to anyone. I do not think this person was very educated in literature, and they perhaps did not realize that this book is an experimental novel, one that can have varying chapter lengths, a book that makes you think. Life of Pi's vagueness is exactly one of the reasons I love it so much. I love thinking more about the book, and how this book could probably be discussed forever, and yet you would still not be able to come up with the coreect ending. It is vague, and it is experimental, yet it is brilliant. I disagree with this reviewer, and I think that they need to look at things with an open mind, and do some more thinking. After all, novels that don't require you to think are not that much fun.
Post a Comment