<p>Alright.......so I just finished the book today. Has anyone else read it? So did he just make up both of the stories or what?</p>
<p>I never finished it.
I hate that stupid book. I need to bonfire it. (Yes, I did just turn bonfire into a verb. Wanna make something of it?)
I see no spoiler. Maybe I didn't read far enough to catch it.
Oh never mind--I see it.</p>
<p>I read it.</p>
<p>He made up the story with the animals, which accounts for the majority of the novel; he used the animals to parallel for the actual events that occurred.</p>
<p>So when he told the other story (the one without animals), it was the truth? Or was he just making up something more believable since the two guys didn't believe the animal story? And if Pi was Richard Parker, then who was Pi (since Pi and Richard Parker were both on the lifeboat - but in the story w/o humans, Pi is supposed to represent the tiger, Richard Parker)?</p>
<p>Also, what was the significance of the journal entries that were like mid-way through the book? Remember he would be telling the story one chapter, and the diary entries of someone (who later turned out to be someone going to Pi's house) the next chapter?</p>
<p>The other story (sans animals) is the truth. It is how it actually happened. Pi confabulates the animal story because whimsical fantasy is easier to accept than harsh reality. Pi manifests Richard Parker to make the story more plausable; Richard Parker also serves to showcase the animalistic characteristics that dwell within Pi.</p>
<p>God I hated that book. One of like 10 books I haven't even gotten to page 50</p>
<p>Thanks Glucose, and everyone else for replying.</p>
<p>Overall, I thought the book was ok.</p>
<p>Next on my summer reading list: For Whom The Bell Tolls and The Natural</p>
<p>I have it somewhere but never read it.</p>