Despite being an inch or so away from getting egulfed by the exam period, I have decided to finish the book I've been reading for the last month or so.

Despite the first 80 pages of waffle, the book got really interesting...

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

What I find confusing about the end, when he is pushed by the interviewer in regards to the authencity of the story Pi tells another, much more gruesome and what seems to be more fitting story - which fits exactly with the animal story that is told throughout the book? Which story is true, did he create the tiger identity - Parker in as an alternative character that was responsible for the death of the French chef who was in turn metaphorised by the Hyena.. I am confused. I find the animal story a much more interesting aspect rather than the gruesome alternative, that does - admittedly fits into place, which of the two stories do you think is the actual one?

The story presents one of the roles of religion. The final (and grousome) part is the true one, however religious people make up reality, when actual reality is too overwhelming, in order to be able to cope and move on. In my opinion the author failed to make a pro-religion argument (as he intended), as essentially the book shows how religious people justify attrocities they commit.

I think the latter is more pessimstic and dark - although can be related as more realistic, I personally am getting an irking that it's actually the latter that is the more correct account, tiger being the metaphor for Pi's savage alternative - the way he tamed it near the end and the way that it unleashed when the orangutan was killed by the hyena - in which case depicts the killing of his mother by the chef, after which he himself kills the hyena - chef. Therefore only him and his savage nature left on that boat by themselves.

Bingo!

Oh my god I just realized. Orangutan gets beheaded by the Hyena too after hitting it, the comparison of how females are smaller than a full grown adult males etc and the account of how Hyena kills the zebra - it's exact. First steals the leg then when zebra dies swims in it' s innards, it all fits, smartly done by the author.

Too bad the author advocates for deluision.

The stories are parallell explainations. Two different possible stories for what have happened. The book doesn't point to either one being true or false. Pi himself goes out of his way to present the 'realistic' story as an alternative that is easier for the interegators to accept.

The point of the book is not to decide which story is true and which one is not really. Neither is it a defence for religious delusion as someone else says in this thread. The point of the book is basically what thew author says, if you look for the realistic and 'true' in everything you miss the better story.

I think anyone can agree that the story about the animals is more compelling than the grim and realistic account of the mad chef and the wild supressed nature of Pi. So when the author says that the book is a story that will make you want to believe in God, this is what he alludes to. You want the story of the tiger to be true, because it is a much better story. Applying this to other aspects of life the message of the book basically says that if you only focusing on 'facts', 'scientific explanantion' and such presise explanations of things you will miss the better story.

I think the book is great, and accomplishes it's goal in wanting you to believe the story of Richard Parker.

But the book is a defence of religious dellusion. As you yourself stated it makes you want to believe the false story (it's obvious that the first story is false), because it sounds better. This in itself is promoting delusion. You use words like "realistic" and "true" as if they were some dirty words.  The only story that matters is the true one, not the made-up one (which is made up by someone, it doesn't exist otherwise, and anyone can come up with an outrageous story).

  The author also (unwillingly) presents the dangers of such delusions: the ability to commit an attrocicty, without having to suffer any consiquences for it.

Admittedly I do love the story of Richard Parker considerably more, but the way author leaves the ending, showing essentially a fork towards two completely opposite spectrums, in terms of likeability I like the first one more, but I am leaning towards the latter as a more plausible story, but that's just me and my pessimism in the world I guess.

Or maybe you're just a person capable of handling the truth.