Yann Martel: ‘I hate the rich people of this world – of which I’m one, because of Life of Pi’ - The Canadian author on good writing advice from Martin Amis, his love for digging and getting rid of billionaires
The only bit of writing advice anyone needs is to stop using subtext, if you use it your a coward. /s
1
inquisitive_chariot9 hr ago
+1
One of the worst books I’ve ever read. “If there’s no difference whether something fantastical and supernatural happened, you should just believe that something fantastical and supernatural happened because life is more interesting that way.”
Anti-science garbage.
1
Charcole18 hr ago
+1
This is not the message of the book lol
1
quietsauce8 hr ago
+1
Thats not the message you got, but that is the message they embedded in your skull.
1
MeasurementNo07 hr ago
+1
No they didnt. The main character didnt want to face the horror of what they went through. They created a story to make it easier.
1
inquisitive_chariot6 hr ago
+1
Correct, they made it all up, and the book posits that that made-up story is just as valid as reality. That’s bullshit. There is one reality, and any validation of a reality without factual basis is an enablement of delusion.
1
-nukethemoon6 hr ago
+1
You have an axe and damnit you’re going to grind it.
1
MeasurementNo07 hr ago
+1
He went through severe trauma so he chose to create and believe a fantastic story than what really happened.
It isnt anti science. No idea where you got that.
1
inquisitive_chariot6 hr ago
+1
Because he makes his own reality in his head, and applies this reasoning to belief in god. Essentially, “if it makes you feel better, and there’s no harm, why not believe something that didn’t actually happen?”
1
MeasurementNo06 hr ago
+1
Why put quotes around something you made up?
Also how would that be anti science? Itd be anti religion if anything but that also isnt in the book
1
inquisitive_chariot6 hr ago
+1
I said “essentially”, and it’s to paraphrase the moral of the book. It’s anti science because it endorses the idea that you can make up, and live by, your own reality where it cannot be definitively proven otherwise if it makes you feel better. That’s bullshit.
We get one reality, and we administer psychiatric treatment to people who live in their own reality separate and apart from the real one.
The book condones things like the bible because, if you can’t prove it didn’t happen, why not believe in the fantastical stories that provide meaning in an otherwise desolate life? That is an anti-science and pro-religious mindset
1
noun_verbed6 hr ago
+1
I didn't even like it thay much, but that's a pretty un-generous reading of it.
You don't actually have to agree with Pi's proclamations, but he is living testament to the fact that we are imaginative creatures and the fantastical is meaningful in our lives. Imagined worlds are not 'real' in the sense they exist and can be touched, but they're real because we created them and derrive meaning from them. We live in our imaginations as well as the world.
This is a pretty fair assessment for a character in a made up story.
1
inquisitive_chariot6 hr ago
+1
But where our imaginations contradict reality, we are not entitled to live in our imagination instead. That is beyond unhealthy. This idea that we get to choose meaning in life by making up our own reality is complete bullshit.
Just because you imagine something doesn’t make it real. Sane adults constantly have to separate their imagination from reality. Crazy people interweave the two.
This could have been an AMAZING book by criticizing that human desire to create meaning at the expense of reality. Instead, it applauds and encourages it as just part of the human experience. That’s what makes it anti-science bullshit.
20 Comments