Kurtz and the Magistrate: Related by Distance

Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians have two similar characters. Although these characters are portrayed in different lights, the two of them share a significant amount of resemblance. One of them is a man of the company, an agent gone rogue who quests for ivory like no one else ever has. He becomes obsessed with his cause that he loses touch with reality and his European roots, preferring a life in the heart of Africa. The other is a man of the Empire, but not a man for the Empire. He plays the role of Magistrate in a far-off town on the frontier of the Empire, but as the story progresses we being to see that he does not believe in the Empire he has served for almost thirty years. He becomes obsessed with finding an answer to his question, as well as a meaning and purpose for his life. Both men are complex characters who are difficult to fully understand and comprehend.

Even though Conrad’s Mr. Kurtz and Coetzee’s Magistrate are in similar situations as men with a position of power in a remote part of the world, they evoked strikingly dissimilar emotions in me. I see Mr. Kurtz as a greedy man who will do anything for the betterment of his ivory output. However, there are brief moments where Kurtz is sympathetically viewed as a good man who was twisted by the “heart of darkness” that is the wilderness in Africa. On the other hand I see the Magistrate as a caring man who thinks about more than just himself. The Magistrate is a compassionate character who takes pity on the prisoners, respects history, and puts what is morally righteous over his own personal gain. In my mind the two characters are in similar situations, but have strikingly different personalities.

Kerr explains the similarities and difference between the two characters in his article and explores how they “went wrong.” But upon finishing both books I believe the biggest difference is the way in which the characters are portrayed to the reader. The Magistrate is the narrator of Waiting for the Barbarians, so naturally the reader connects to, empathizes with, relates to, and understands him. Conversely, Kurtz is seen through the eyes of the, as Kerr puts it, “prosaic, pedestrian reporter” of Marlow. The way Marlow portrays Kurtz there is emotion felt by the reader, in my case one of tragedy; but it is not nearly as strong as the extreme emotions I felt for the Magistrate. Kurtz and the Magistrate are two characters that share many common themes, but are portrayed and interpreted by very different means.

a c0nFuSed OLd mAn

Waiting for the Barbarians is told in the first-person narrative. Its content is in chronological order. It reveals almost all of the narrator's thoughts. How much simpler can it get?

A lot.

The story is told by an old man who doesn't know what he's looking for. Repeatedly in the story the old man searches for physical objects and well as ideas that may bring him a sense of clarity and purpose. But they almost always seem to elude him. Or rather he doesn't understand what little he finds. The old man is too confused about his own sense of purpose to comprehend himself.

He lives on the frontier of an Empire he doesn't believe in. He "protects" the Empire from barbarians he doesn't even find barbaric. Talk about mixed messages.

He finds great pleasure in unearthing artifacts from the past. The barbarian ruins near the town fascinate him. So much so that he even pays money out of his own pocket to those who will search the site for him. The 256 pieces of wood he finds make no sense to him. The number is "perfect," as both a square and a very common multiple. It seems so perfect, like the Empire, but he can't make out the meaning of it. His fascination of the past is apparent, but why is he fascinated so?

Another example of his purposelessness is when he goes hunting early one morning. The old man feels alive again with "all the strength and swiftness of [his] manhood." (38) He encounters a ram during his hunting trip, but pauses before he shoots it. He doesn't understand why his pulse doesn't quicken and why the hunt is "robbed of its savour." Before he knows it the ram has run off and he is left "trudg[ing] on purposelessly for an hour before [he] turn[s] back" home. (39)

But the number one example of his confusion is the semi-blind native girl he keeps in his room. In an ritualistic fashion, he rubs her with oil each night as he massages her. They sometimes talk, but usually he is lost in his own mind, enraptured in an almost stupor-like state. Although the thought sometimes comes to mind, he never "enters her." What does he do this nightly routine for? He doesn't understand why at all, and my bet is she understands even less. And then why does he go on a quest to return her?

This man has no idea what he's looking for, much less what he wants. He speaks of his enjoyment of the quiet aspects of life, his hobbies and recreations. But then he goes searching for trouble when the Empire enters the town. By broaching the subject of barbarians with the new lieutenant and truly answering what he believes the barbarians want, the old man goes searching for trouble. He searches for trouble by fostering his relationship with the native girl. And walks right into trouble when goes into the barbarian land.

What a crazy, confused old man. But I guess that makes the story.

(509)

Hegel's African vs. Darwin's Homo Sapien

The African Character:
Hegel

-it is hard to judge the Africans because in reference to "white" ideals they are totally different

-must lay aside all reverence and morality, in a sense all human feeling, to comprehend the African

RELIGION:
-requires the conception of a "Higher Power," which makes man feeler humbler and weaker
-Hegel argues that blacks, in their "magic and sorcery," attempt to control Nature and disregard the notion of a Higher Power

IMMORALITY:
-Negroes act in contempt of humanity
-"Tyranny is not regarded as wrong" and "cannibalism is quite customary and proper"

SLAVERY:
-Hegel says slavery with Europeans or Americans is not nearly as bad as life in Africa
-men are a Thing...parents sell children...children sell parents...whoever has the first opportunity
-polygamy is common among negroes, leading to no family unit (and any remaining family is sold into slavery)

POLITICAL CONSTITUTION:
-there exist no universal "spiritual laws" (guiding morals)
-Hegel says a despotic ruler must lead since it is the only way to control a rampid "sensuous barbarism"
-Roles in negro government:
KING- leads with despotic power
CHIEFTAINS- counsel that guides King. King must gain the chieftains respect and consent
EXECUTIONER- kills whomever the King wishes, until the Negroes depose the King and have him executed

DISPOSITION:
-Hegel says Negro easily go into frenzied states
- "Destruction is the consequence of their excitement"
-after the King's death riots and mass groups of Negroes ritualistically kill each other, "authorities hurry to proclaim a new governor, simply to put a stop to the massacre."
- they have no regard for human life


In conclusion Hegel says the only link between Europeans and Africans is slavery, since all other aspects of "humanity" are lost on the Negroes. He states the slavery benefits the savages because it humanizes them. Hegel offers the idea to leave Africa and never return again. He says that historically and developmentally the area is insignificant and useless.


On the Races of Man
Darwin

-says that there exist two different anthropological standpoints, all human races are one species (monogenist) or human races are different species (polygenist)
-Darwin explores the vagueness of the term "species" and how it couldn't be differentiable since there was not just a single interpretation of the word.
-says that bodies and minds of certain races are different, but have remarkably similar "little traits of character"

SIMILARITY EXISTS:
-men of all races, tastes, dispositions, and habits share certain aspects
-all have ways of painting, tattooing, piercing, or decorating themselves
-all have a common set of inarticulate sounds and accompanying facial movements to express certain emotions
-strikingly dissimilar to monkeys who have very different sounds and expressions compared to another species of monkey
-human races all over the world independently bury their dead. perhaps shows a common thought process of symbolic thinking?

DIFFERENCES:
-differences in skin color and odor exist, but are due to acquired traits from geographic separation
-the common ancestor changed a little in each geographic region, but only on some minor levels including body stature and certain traits that proved more successful in their environments


Language plays an important role. The universal ability to use language is a key that shows the connection of species since it would not have emerged, or evolved, on multiple occasions.

jstor article: "A Rhetoric for Benjy"

Benjy’s section of the novel is different. It is not only different from the rest of the novel but also different from anything else I have ever read. What makes the section so intriguing and thought-provoking is Benjy’s cognitive handicap. His descriptions and observations are presented in a manner that requires deep thought for true comprehension. His limited grammar and vocabulary, along with his inability to grasp cause-and-effect relationships, make the reader have to figure out what is happening. Benjy gives the basic details and framework, while the reader must figure out the context and situation. The narration requires an involved reading process.

In his essay “A Rhetoric for Benjy,” L. Moffitt Cecil looks at Faulkner’s writing process for Benjy’s narration. Cecil explains how writing in the first person narrative is difficult for any author, but writing in the first person for a character like Benjy would be a formidable task. By comparing it to Mark Twain’s job of speaking through Huck Finn, Cecil shows how writing for a mute idiot would be immensely more difficult. Huck is intelligent, trustful, [and] charmingly loquacious.” On the other hand, Benjy’s scattered thoughts and dumbness—inability to speak—severly limit what Faulkner can do with Benjy’s language, but not Benjy’s section. The fact that Faulkner overcomes the obstacles created by having Benjy as a narrator while still creating and developing a plot is impressive.

Language poses a problem for Faulkner in producing Benjy’s section. Beyond Benjy’s limited vocabulary, his sentence structure is restricted. Cecil explores the different sentence structures that Faulkner “allows” Benjy to use. Many sentences are restricted to solely the noun-verb-modifier format. This and other language barriers pose a problem in giving the reader necessary information. To overcome this obstacle, Faulkner often employs Benjy’s remarkable observational skills. Even though he usually does not comprehend their meanings, Benjy is able to reliably relay quotations to the reader. The lack of punctuation around these quotes serves as a reminder of Benjy’s handicap. Cecil also points out that reader is constantly aware of Benjy’s handicap throughout the section, not just because of quotes. Due to blatant grammatical errors and general confusion, Faulkner ensures that the reader is always in Benjy’s mind. Faulkner’s extraordinary use of Benjy as a narrator draws the reader’s attention due to the necessary involvedness for comprehension.

Benjy’s innocence about cause-and-effect relationships even creates many comical moments throughout the section. For instance when Benjy burns his hand it “keeps going towards [his] mouth,” almost as if it had a mind of its own. My personal favorite part of the section occurs when Benjy is drunk. His mental handicap combines with his intoxication to produce some truly hilarious explanations. In the barn he attempts to support himself on a box when all of the sudden the box “jumped away and hit [him] in the face.” The reader understands that Benjy misplaced his hand and fell onto the box, but Benjy’s explanation is quite amusing.

Faulkner took on a mighty challenge by using Benjy as a narrator. And he succeeded. Benjy’s unique narration is what makes the section so special.

Washed by the Blood of the Lamb

Rev. Shegog's sermon is vital to the last part of the novel. The stark difference between his small, meek appearance and his thunderous, oratorical genius are quite obvious. But it is the message of his sermon that intrigues me.

Faulkner focuses a significant part of the smallest fourth "chapter" on Shegog's sermon regarding the Blood of the Lamb. "Ricklickshun" of the Blood of the Lamb is to remember Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. In old times lambs were often sacraficed to God, but for the sins of all humanity a man was sacrificed. Jesus's sacrifice for all mankind is "de Blood of de Lamb" that Shegog refers to.

By recalling the blood spilt by Jesus, (or "de Lamb") Sehgog says that one is able to repent their sins and start anew.

Life and death. The cyclical process of human nature. Those that are down will eventually turn up again. All three realte to when Jesus rose from the dead. These are the themes of Shegog's sermon.

And also those of the Compson family.

Immediately after Shegog's sermon Faulkner describes Benjy (the fourth section always calls him Ben, but I like Benjy). Benjy is sitting upright and rapt in attention after Shegog's oration. I believe Faulkner draws this focus on Benjy to show the parallels between the sermon and the Compson family.

The Compson family sacrificed Caddy. She was the innocent one. All depended on her, but she eventually cracked and "died." Her promiscuity along with her exile from the family represent the sacrificial "death" that Caddy gave to the family. The rebirth of Caddy, not in a literal sense, is when Quentin runs away. It is the turning point, the end of the downfall for the Compson family.

Shegog's sermon was hard but fun to read because of its rhetoric, language, and spelling. But why would Faulkner put such emphasis on it? What, if not representing the Compson family, could the sermon be about?

Quentin's Virginity Issues

What drives Quentin's obsession with the virginity of himself and Caddy? His thoughts always wind back to something related to Caddy's promiscuity or marriage. Father tells him that the only reason Quentin is upset with Caddy's pregnancy is that Quentin himself is still a virgin. Father then explains that virginity is just a concept invented by men. How does this affect Quentin's view of the meaning and idea behind the word "virginity?"

Short Story Half-Blog

Out of all the short stories I have read there is one that intrigues my mind the most. “The Monkey’s Paw” by W.W. Jacobs is a captivating story that intertwines elements of horror and suspense. I like it because it has good language and good dialogue. Also, the plot is full of interesting sequences and actions. The inner thoughts of the sergeant-major, the older man, and the wife are all shown well through good descriptions and dialogue. But most captivating is how the monkey’s paw affects the mindset of those three characters. Those who have made a wish with the paw understand how horrible it truly is, while the old woman has no idea the horror it can create.

The story brings up an interesting idea on human curiosity. In my paper I plan to explore how the paw shows the fallibility of curiosity. Both in talking about the paw and using it, the man gets bettered by curiosity. Also when the story ends with the knocks on the door the reader can help but anticipate that Herbert is at the door. The opening of the door and the fact that Herbert isn’t there makes the reader curious as to why the older man wished his son dead so soon after wishing him alive.

There is also a deeper meaning that is mentioned by the sergeant-major when he speaks of his travels to India. The sergeant-major has a belief fate should never be tampered with. The experience that he has had with the monkey’s paw makes him very somber when he shares his knowledge about it. While he explains, the reader can’t help but be curious as to what he wished for? How did he end up after his three wishes with the monkey’s paw? These are all topics I plan to extrapolate upon in my essay.

But I don't want to narrow down too much. As time permits this week, I will continue reading as many short stories as possible. Just in case one of then catches my attention and thoughts.

Too Bad

There comes a time in young people’s lives when they reach a realization. A moment comes when they recognize that they are not invincible and they come to understand that there are consequences for their actions. This idea is brilliantly shown in T. Corgahessan Boyle’s short story “Greasy Lake” through the development of the three boys, especially the narrator who remains unnamed throughout the story. As the three boys go through the episodes of that night on Greasy Lake, they experience truly horrible events. And even though “[they] were bad,” the three boys were utterly unprepared for the physical and emotional turmoil that they went through that night. The boys believe themselves to be bad characters during a time “when it was good to be bad.” As the story of that night on Greasy Lake progress, we see how the boys romanticize being bad and view it as the cool thing to do; however, when a dangerous situation actually confronts these “dangerous characters,” they are not prepared to handle it.
The attitudes of the three boys are made clear in the first few paragraphs of the story. An understanding of how the narrator and his friends view themselves is summed up through witty descriptions and jokes. For instance, the narrator said that Digby “wore a gold star in his right ear.” This piece of jewelry represents Digby’s rebellion towards society since his parents and other authority figures most likely do not want him wearing an earring. Also the witty comment that Digby “allowed his father to pay his tuition at Cornell” shows the boys’ over-inflated egos. Jeff is considering quitting school to live as a “painter/musician/head-shop proprietor.” This life that Jeff is considering is the epitome of what the dangerous characters during the time would do. The narrator respects Digby and Jeff because they were “expert in the social graces.” They could come up with quick and witty sneers, drive cars fast, roll the best joints, dance like it was nobody’s business, wear mirror shades any and everywhere, and “trade ‘man’s with the best of them.” The narrator’s utmost respect for his friends is due to the fact that they represent what it meant, in the boys’ minds, to be cool. Boyle puts it best when he says, “in short, they were bad.”
The night of the incident on Greasy Lake is the third night of summer vacation. The boys have been driving around town all night, been in every club and bar, and created mischief wherever they could. This description seems to fit the ideal way in which the boys want to be seen. But following this description is a striking comment by the narrator, in which he explains that the boys have been “looking for something [they] never found.” Even more interesting is once the boys reach Greasy Lake the narrator says that, “whatever it was we were looking for, we weren’t about to find it at Greasy Lake.” This comment shows that the boys do not even know what they are looking for. They are three young men caught up in the act of being “bad” when they don’t even know what it is they want. Is it possible that the boys really are not as dangerous as they want to come off as? The boys are putting on act because they romanticize the idea of being bad.
The incidents that night give the boys a glimpse of what it means to truly be a dangerous character. While fighting the car freak with the tire iron the narrator explains the background story of his tire iron. He goes on about how he kept a tire iron under the driver’s seat because “bad characters always keep tire irons under the driver’s seat.” He then explains how he has not been in a fight since the sixth grade and how he had only “touched the tire iron twice before, to change tires.” These comments show that the narrator is not really as bad as he believes himself to be. Although in the heat of the moment he does hit the car freak with the tire iron, and soon after the boys attempt to rape the fox, once alone and hiding in the lake the narrator looks back at what has happened and says to himself, “I was nineteen, a mere child, an infant, and here in the space of five minutes I’d struck down one greasy character and blundered into the waterlogged carcass of a second.” This quote is immensely important since it shows how the narrator is not prepared or desirous of the nitty-gritty parts of being a “dangerous character.” All three of them are scared and horrified at what has happened. The narrator is especially shaken since he is the one who found Al’s body in the lake. During the incidents of that night, the boys realize what the consequences of “being bad” are.
An interesting reoccurring quote can sum up the realization and change the boys undergo during the incident. The second paragraph of the story gives a description of Greasy Lake. In it the narrator glorifies how the lake is the place to be for bad and dangerous characters. He explains how people “drink beer, smoke pot, and howl at the stars.” The paragraph ends with the quote “this was nature.” Once dawn comes the narrator gives a description of the aftermath of the scene around him. His shell-shocked tone embraces the fact of how shaken he is by what happened that night. The paragraph ends with a familiar three-word sentence that shows the 180-degree turn the narrator has taken, “this was nature.”


Do you think the boys “party”/”hangout” anymore?

Do you think the narrator ever told Digby and Jeff about the body?

Can't Fix It

A depressing truth is subtly shown in "Teenage Wasteland." One that makes you frown, cringe, and sigh, all at the same time. It's sad because you know it's unpreventable. That bad thing or situation that can't be stopped, fixed, or remedied. You can see it happening before your eyes, but nothing you do can make a difference. Try as hard as you might, in the end your efforts meant nothing. There are some problems that we cannot fix.

But shouldn't that fact that you did everything you could make you feel better? You gave it your best shot, and now you long for that reassurance that since your best efforts couldn't mend the problem that it was impossible to fix. It was simply out of your hands.

No, we can't accept that. We tried our hardest and still failed. That can't be. From a young age we are always taught that "you can achieve anything if you put your mind to it." As we look back at the situation, much as Daisy did with respect to Donny, we try to find where we went wrong. When did the path I took break off from the road towards my goal?

Unfortunately, the road towards the goal is sometimes never there. We've been following a faulty map covered in images of false hope. One that shows the distinct possibility of success, when in reality that route doesn't -- and never did -- exist. It's hard to accept that some things are out of our hands.

Daisy has trouble coming to terms with what happened to Donny. But she tried it all. The relaxed, laid-back parent. The strict, homework-checking, ultra-involved parent. The counselor. The change of schools. But none of it worked. Turning Donny around was just not in the cards.

We believe that failure has a cause, a root that made it come about. Ironically this mindset has an opposing view on good things that occur. Luck happens. You don't always need a reason for something good that happens. But failure, failure doesn't just happen. We inherently feel a need place blame on someone or something, be that ourselves or not.

What it comes down to is that we can't control everything.

"Teenage Wasteland" not only shows the troubles and perils of adolescence but it also shows a pessimistic view on life. It represents the downtrodden idea that we can't make a difference. Not always, at least. Sometimes things go our way, and other times they don't. Not everything is under our control. Knowing this gives life has an aspect of spontaneity that keeps us on our toes.

So maybe hold the phone on the pessimism...this spontaneity is what keeps our lives interesting. Knowing that not everything is in our power, but rather that anything can happen makes life worth living. You have to put up a fight.

The daily gamble of risk vs. reward is constantly played. You can't control everything in your life. So cherish those things you can control; and understand that there are things you can't. Losing a son would be impossible to forget, so Daisy shouldn't. Through a self-metabolizing process, Daisy should turn her guilt and anguish into motivation. Motivation for things that she can control. What she can do is cherish what she still has in her daughter.

So maybe that's the beauty found in "Teenage Wasteland's" seemingly negative over-arching message. Control what you can.

(564)

The Great Escape

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card-
Its story is fascinating. Its characters are fascinating. It made me wonder about how people are motivated.

Life of Pi by Yann Martel-
Nuts ideas about how people deal with remorse (Nuts used in an awesome way). Got me thinking.

Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling-
Basically, just made me want to be a wizard. Got my imagination going.

Huck Finn by Mark Twain-
Showed me how to relax and lay back even in the midst of stress and chaos. Helped me get through the hectic parts of junior year.

All 14 or so books of the Redwall series by -
These books are more fun than a barrel o' monkeys. Plots that make it impossible to put the book down are the essence of my love here.

Eragon series by Stephen Paolini-
Made my imagination go for the trip of a lifetime. The plot sweeps you away and you can't help but want to go on an adventure.



I've noticed that the most books are on my list due to their amazing plots and stories. What's even more interesting is that the few books that look as though they've "made a lasting impression" on me were both read recently.

This shows something important.

Books that I remember reading a long time ago are memorable due almost purely to plot. Especially the case in fictional plots that involve fantastic adventures. Maybe I read these novels as escapist literature? Is it possible that I read not to make a lasting change in my life, but rather to take a break or an "escape" from my everyday life.

I read to travel to magical lands with dragons and demons, and fight alongside elves as spells soar through the air. I read to get away from frustrations, problems, angers, and dilemmas. Reading it seems, at least for me, is a method of getting away from troubles.

Now that I think of it, I could gleam examples from characters in these books on how to help solve my problems in everyday life. But why would I want to do that? Why would I ruin something that serves so well as an escape by tainting it through connection to the problems I am running from? The escape is something I cherish. It is sacred because it is the one thing that can't be affected by anything else. If I try and use the escape to my advantage I may lose it forever. It may get sucked into my everyday life and then its primary function is gone.

But reading doesn't always have to be an escape. Sometimes you can just enjoy it for itself. Sometimes.

Summer Reading n stuff.

I read four books this summer. Nothing to be proud of. But I believe I got my reading quota accomplished during the summer by reading most editions of Newsweek cover to cover, as well as numerous online news articles from CNN, MSNBC, etc. I love reading news instead of watching it. Watching it makes me feel as if what goes on is being explained to me. I feel apathetic and juvenile for letting someone else dictate the news to me. On the other hand, reading the news myself makes me feel as though I, myself, am investigating and putting effort into understanding what goes on in the world. I just feel more accomplished when I read the news instead of watching it.

The opposite is true with entertainment. I feel the complete opposite way in regards to entertainment. For my ultimate entertainment satisfaction I enjoy films and TV shows over novels. I live for the plot and story of a book, not the descriptive language and flowery sentences. I don't want to put my mental effort into imagining the scene and setting of book. I would much rather focus my brainpower on character development and plot-building sequences.

I've noticed that most of my sentences in the previous paragraph begin with "I." That is because my entertainment experience belongs to me. In MY opinion one facial expression on film can never be truly captured in words. So much more personality can be expressed through acting than through words. Being a people-person may have something to do with my love of watching a truly good actor portray a character. When it comes to entertainment I prefer the simplicity of a camera shot over the beauty of a well-crafted paragraph.

But I digress..........I've always wanted to say that :) I re-read the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince just before the movie came out. I read Shadow of the Hegemon by Orson Scott Card. It is part of the Ender's Game series and I highly recommend it to any and everybody. I then read Pride and Prejudice as well as Life of Pi. I enjoyed both very much. One I believe was written for entertainment, while the other was written as more of a intellectual thought-provoker. I assume if you have read both then you know which is which.

While reading Life of Pi by Yann Martel I found the novel quite different from many others and simply just plain fascinating. The beginning chapters of the book include anecdotal stories and observations of Pi while he is still living in India. The long drawn-out messages of some chapters are juxtaposed by the short, plain to the point one-paragraph chapters right after them. Difference in style kept it interesting and fun. Plus the survival story fascinated me. Surviving for that long on a lifeboat with a tiger aboard? I would have never believed it possible at first, but the impeccable detail of the story brought out my most utter amazement.

To me the story seemed completely believable up until the island of vegetation. That part really pissed me off. It took away all the creditability that I had built up for the novel. It almost immediately sprouted the seed of doubt that had just been planted in my head. But I trudged on through this "island" that angered me so.

When Richard Parker and Pi landed in Mexico I was sad to see Richard Parker run away so quickly. I questioned why it happened at first. But I soon brushed doubt away when realizing how long the tiger had been sea bound. Then, interestingly, Pi goes on for a full paragraph about how he wished for a proper goodbye between himself and Richard Parker. This departure of Richard Parker is very important later on.

The interview with the Japanese men = huge book-changer!

I actually laughed out loud when the Japanese men questioned Pi's story with the animals. You fools, his story is so descriptive, so backed up, so amazing yet so belivable. How could you not believe it? Then Pi began his story with the humans. At first I thought Pi was just trying to humor the Japs with this ridiculous idea that his mother was aboard the lifeboat....but then connections began to come into being. I realized that what I had so solidly believed was a lie, a falsified story, at best a loose extended metaphor. The ground I was standing upon had fallen out from underneath me and the enormity of the book hit me with one sentence. "Thank you. And so it goes with God."

His story became his excuse for what he believed to be the largest sin of his life. His remorse for what his endeavors made him do. The tiger was a part of him brought out after his mother's death that enabled him to survive; however ungodly and disgusting that part of him was, it is the only reason he survived. He survived by living with this inner-animal that scared him so, but gave him the will to live. But upon landing at shore, that part of him left forever and ran off into the jungle never to be seen again. The story with the animals was created so that Pi could live with what he had done.

But that stupid island....what was that all about?