I enjoy wondering how and why Richard Parker does not kill Pi.
Through Pi thus far we have come to an understanding of animals that surpasses our, or at least my original thoughts pertaining to wildlife. Despite my naturalist aspirations, I'm obligated to admit that I am more often than not indifferent to zoos.
On the other end of the spectrum is Pi, who has such an extremely visceral connection with animals. His experiences, i.e. his upbringing at a zoo, have no doubt sculpted this predominant aspect of his personality. Because of his panoramic reservoir of experience and memory of the Pondicherry Zoo, it may be suggested that his understanding of animals is much truer than the average visitor's.
Now back to my initial muse: my contemplation of a Richard Parker's certain abstinence. Could it be that he, by some innate (or perhaps divine) intuition, recognizes Pi and his unusual pathos? In accordance with some dogma of tiger predation, he does not attack. One person might suggest in a benumbed fashion that this is simply because Richard Parker was probably fed a hefty meal before being loaded onto the ship. Because Bengal Tigers only eat maybe once every week or week and a half, he felt no inclination to kill at a moment when it wasn't necessary; Tigers are frugal.
I much prefer to extrapolate the idea of intuition in the animal- especially since Pi has taught us so much about the inner sanctum that is animal captivity. As a side note, Pi firmly believes and supports that animals are infinitely more content within the safe, dependable enclosures of zoos, as they are not endangered by the elements, food chain, droughts, poachers...the list goes on with almost quirky but articulate zeal.
Through Pi thus far we have come to an understanding of animals that surpasses our, or at least my original thoughts pertaining to wildlife. Despite my naturalist aspirations, I'm obligated to admit that I am more often than not indifferent to zoos.
On the other end of the spectrum is Pi, who has such an extremely visceral connection with animals. His experiences, i.e. his upbringing at a zoo, have no doubt sculpted this predominant aspect of his personality. Because of his panoramic reservoir of experience and memory of the Pondicherry Zoo, it may be suggested that his understanding of animals is much truer than the average visitor's.
Now back to my initial muse: my contemplation of a Richard Parker's certain abstinence. Could it be that he, by some innate (or perhaps divine) intuition, recognizes Pi and his unusual pathos? In accordance with some dogma of tiger predation, he does not attack. One person might suggest in a benumbed fashion that this is simply because Richard Parker was probably fed a hefty meal before being loaded onto the ship. Because Bengal Tigers only eat maybe once every week or week and a half, he felt no inclination to kill at a moment when it wasn't necessary; Tigers are frugal.
I much prefer to extrapolate the idea of intuition in the animal- especially since Pi has taught us so much about the inner sanctum that is animal captivity. As a side note, Pi firmly believes and supports that animals are infinitely more content within the safe, dependable enclosures of zoos, as they are not endangered by the elements, food chain, droughts, poachers...the list goes on with almost quirky but articulate zeal.
Anyway- wild feline intuition...
Could it be that Mr. Parker (and the animal kingdom in general) possesses an instinct for distinguishing a higher priority than the instinctual? Or is it simply because Richard is waiting to see who survives until the two of them, whoever the second party may be, are the only ones left. As Pi happens to be this second party, is it simply because Richard recognizes Pi as an Alpha, in the most primeval of senses?
I like to think that Pi's particular respect for and kinship with animals does him credit.
1 comment:
Hmmm, do you really think that an animal feels happier confined than in her natural habitat. If not, then how could Pi have this sixth sense for animals if he is sooooo grossly mistaken on such an important assumption?
Post a Comment