Talk:Life of Pi

If I make this page (taken from the to-do list) will someone just immediately be slapping a mission tag on it and nominating it for deletion?--talk 13:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't. Тy Bother me 13:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How does it fit with the mission? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea. But it's on the to-do list!--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 20:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * NOMA, agnostic bashing, wishful thinking, etc. Will probably become a blockbuster film and Obama thinks it's a proof of God. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Guess I better read it again. So the kid, Piscine, is a spiritual questioner, and visits some pastoral advisors before his fanstastic voyage. Enh. If there is a God in the story, it is the deity of Futurama: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
 * I'm probably wrong about all that. Go nuts with it, if it floats your boat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How to make this missional
Somebody who's read the book more recently than I (it's been a good 10 years) needs to write just one sentence about how Pi is trying to break down religious orthodoxy, and use that to introduce the long quote. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou&#39;reAGod (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been a while here as well. Since AD mentioned it, the book has come off my shelf and onto the nightstand. I'm not so sure that Pi is trying to break anything down; So far I see it as healthy questioning and acceptance. Not sure if the acceptance is prompted by mystical experience, desire for a sense of community, or what. Through the later parts there runs an undercurrent of the ways an organic mind's wetware can deal with extreme adversity. ("...that measure of madness that moves life in strange but saving ways." [p. 85]) In surreal realms, rationality sometimes falls short. (That last bit may be my own extrapolation, not taken from any particular passage in the book.)


 * For now, I am content to say that any book about a kid named after an irrational ratio (never mind the swimming pool) is close enough to the RW mission for SPOV purposes, where S may stand for a number of things including seriousness, but definitely not solemnity. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read the book before, and I loved it even though I'm an atheist. I never thought that it was hostile towards me as a reader. I read it as one individual's process of questioning religion and coming to a different conclusion, not as an attack against atheism or agnosticism in general. Wykked Wytch (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Problem of Pi
Since when do we decide what does and doesn't constitute somebody's religion? A Catholic's conception of Christianity would wildly differ from that of a Pentecostal's. So right now, this article's premise is "his religious outlook doesn't fit into my cookie cutter." This isn't just incorrect, either. It's off-mission.-- "Shut up, Brx." 10:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * what he said! not that it's off mission, but that the article's author is seeing his version of religion, not pi's.[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * so i gutted a lot of the "problem of pi" section, cause it makes assumptions about religion that are not as practiced by individuals in that religion. If one wants to argue that to be a *propper* xian, jew, muslim or hindu according to a particular sect of those religions, that's fine, but there are xians that denounce the trinity (many, acutally, since it's never even mentioned in the bible), there are muslims who see god as more than one thing while at the same time, one thing (sufi, if you look at their writings on the divinity of angles), etc.  Still not sure why we have movie reviews, anywho...[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  00:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Mission again
On mission? Probably not. Also an orphan&mdash; the only incoming links are from the template. I'm willing to see this article disappear. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why I added the template. The tangential "believe in the magical because reality is too appalling" theme as being mission-related is as substantial as claims for the inclusion of Dara O'Briain. Генгис silverbrain.png 03:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * some author writes up his opinion of religion as a novel. So? Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 10:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly call that theme tangential. Maybe it is in the book, but again, I've only seen the movie. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The real problem of Pi
Isn't the real problem with the movie (never read the book) that the moral seems to be "Forget the truth, just make up whatever story you find the most interesting or comforting"? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't how I read it. I thought it was more like "in the absence of evidence either way, wisdom lies with the optimist."  Which is a moral I quite like.  But it's definitely open to interpretation.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]  00:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nebby, have you read Thomas King's  The Truth about Stories? It might help you think about that moral in a more positive way. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 00:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, but it sounds like a trivial conclusion from what we know about the nature of memory and cultural transmission. I'm already on board with the idea that there is no "capital-T Truth" and the line between fiction and reality is often blurry. But the moral of the story, as I wrote it above at least, is taking this idea too far. It's vulgar relativism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you haven't read the book, and I haven't seen the movie, this isn't really a conversation two smart guys should be having. Moreover, I am not a prolific reader of literature or literary theory. I'm a historian and my work is very empirically rooted. You're an anthropologist, am I correct? LofP kind of reminded me of Ethnographic Sorcery by Harry West, and not just because they both deal with large felines to one extent or another. The stories that people tell to make sense of difficult realities matter on their own terms. West "knows", on one level, that people don't turn into lions at night. But he also doesn't try to debunk the idea that they do, because that's not what the stories he's dealing with are really about. Pi is a mere child thrust into an absolute horror show; Richard Parker is the story he tells to make sense of something that can never make sense. I don't see the vulgar relativism there. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 22:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The ending of the film gives the writer character the choice between believing the "fantastical" story and the "realistic" story. The implication there is that the writer, and by extension the audience, will choose the former. In other words, believe whatever you find to be the most interesting or comforting. Also, NB: I am not an anthropologist, my background is in cog sci with my recent work incorporating anthropology. IOW, an aspiring cognitive anthropologist or anthropological cognitive scientist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Mission...yet again
Really off mission and kinda pointless. Acei9 00:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not cry if it was iced. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 00:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that it's been eviscerated and is largely a plot summary, it's pretty pointless. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Drop the Bomb? I agree. Its really just a small plot write up with a bit of pointless criticism at the end. --Revolverman (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bye bye. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)