Apologia: Truth, Fact, and Metaphor

“Metaphor is poetry plus, not factuality minus.”

~Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time

The point of interpretive fiction is to represent or give light to an aspect (or several aspects) of our human condition, our reality. In her instructional novel Bird by Bird, Ann Lamott tells us that it is the responsibility of the writer to tell the truth by any and every means necessary. Yann Martel’s Life of Pi demonstrates that the use of symbolism or metaphor is one of the most effective means of conveying truth(s) in Western society. “In terms of its roots, ‘metaphor’ means ‘to carry with’, and what metaphor carries or bears is resonances or associations of meaning. The point is not to believe in a metaphor, but to see in light of it.” (Borg, pp.41) One of the most important aspects of metaphor in literature of any kind is that because it is used to illustrate truths in our realities, the metaphor itself is true regardless of its factuality.

Truth is the most provocative, most confounding, and most daunting of all abstract concepts. For all its intangibility, it teases, torments, and mocks reality like a cat plays with a squealing mouse before disembowelling it. The notion of our realities being compared to a doomed rodent is most distressing, especially when we have nothing to fight back with- in fact it’s terrifying. We have, however, developed a highly intricate way of rationalizing this phobia: by doing just that, rationalizing; measuring, quantifying, formulating. At the turn of the seventeenth century, science became the weapon of choice, proven fact its ammunition. To this day, we fight back with equal signs. “With modern science came a new epistemology: unlike people of earlier eras, we know something to be true today through experimentation and verification.” (Borg, pp. 15)

And there you have it- the most contrived equation of all time: Fact = Truth.

Long before Pi is cast out at sea, he goes through a period of time which may be described as self-discovery. It is an amazing journey in and of itself in which he brings together and reconciles two polarized schools of thought. The first is represented by a Mr. Kumar- a biology teacher for whom the above equation will not only settle all problems arising from inexplicable occurrences in nature, but also leaves him at peace with his surroundings. “When Mr. Kumar visited the zoo, it was to take the pulse of the universe, and his stethoscopic mind always confirmed to him that everything was in order, that everything was order. He left the zoo feeling scientifically refreshed.” (Pi, pp. 28) “Religion is darkness” (pp. 29) he says, obviously thinking that the metaphorized stories of a divine ‘God’ are a waste of time and thought when increasing numbers of phenomena may be so satisfyingly explained through scientific inquiry. Mr. Kumar fights with equal signs. Nevertheless he leaves lasting impact on Pi, challenging his budding faith.

The second dimension of Pi is his discovery of faith through three religious sects that are conventionally considered to be very different from one another: Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam. Marcus Borg would refer to the recognition and understanding of different faith bases as ‘religious pluralism’. He says that religious pluralism is a characteristic unique to the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, being directly related to Western multiculturalism. Because of this modern concept, “many of us find the exclusivistic claims of the Christian tradition impossible to accept.” (Borg, pp.14) For Pi, however, his deeply personal experiences in faith fortified with an active appreciation for the useful applications of scientific reasoning leave him fully equipped to cope with the trials ahead.

I speak now, of course, of Pi’s voyage across the Pacific. He loses his entire family and is left alone on a lifeboat with Richard Parker the Bengal tiger, a zebra, orang-utan, and a hyena. Eventually it is just Pi and Richard Parker left on the lifeboat. Naturally Pi is in a state of profound despair, and nearly drowns (metaphorically speaking) in a sea of futility and hopelessness.

“Am I allowed no explanation? Am I to suffer hell without any account from heaven? In that case, what is the purpose of reason Richard Parker? Is it no more than to shine at practicalities-the getting of food, clothing and shelter? Why can’t reason give greater answers?” (Pi, pp.98)

And yet, despite the horror of his situation, despite the overwhelming isolation and desolation, he reaches out to his faith, a blazing internal fire that feeds him from the inside-out. “I would have given up- if a voice hadn’t made itself heard in my heart.” (Pi, pp.148) Reason cannot give greater answers and yet Pi does not give up. However, Life of Pi is not the story of a miracle, that is, survival on faith alone. No, Pi knows that even in devotion to faith he cannot expect a divine rescue. “To look out with idle hope is tantamount to dreaming one’s life away.” (Pi, pp.186) God gave humans the ability to reason did he not? Once Pi listens to that inner voice proclaiming his own deep faith in life, he studiously applies all scientific knowledge made available to him through his upbringing in a zoo and the survivor’s manual aboard the lifeboat.

Thus, the reader watches the co-operative powers of human-employed faith and reason as they keep Pi alive. These powers are put to the test when the two Japanese officials ask to here Pi’s tale in order to discover any information regarding the sinking of the ship Pi was on, and how Pi survived for so long. Pi recounts his tale to them as the reader has heard it. Unfortunately for them, the two men find it impossible to believe such a story to be true because Pi cannot produce any factual evidence. Once again, fact is advocated as truth’s equal. “They apply rational criteria to the tale, but Martel [through Pi] shows these criteria to be insufficient.” (Keren, pp.8) "When one literalizes metaphor...the result is nonsense." (Borg, pp.47) The following is an excerpt from Pi's conversation with the two investigators:

Pi: "Love is hard to believe, ask any lover. Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist. God is hard to believe, ask any believer. What is your problem with hard to believe?

Investigator: "We’re just being reasonable."

Pi: "So am I! I applied reason at every moment. Reason is excellent for getting food, clothing and shelter. Reason is the very best tool kit. Nothing beats reason for keeping tigers away. But be excessively reasonable and you risk throwing out the universe with the bathwater. "

(Pi, pp. 330-331)

Through Pi, Martel is telling us that there is so much more to be understood than is scientifically quantifiable. But neither does he wish us to compartmentalize truth and fact for our own good. Pi’s survival heralds the realization that scientific inquiry is meaningless without a deeply rooted faith in life itself; that life in every way has a purpose and a place. But Life of Pi is not a call to religion either. In fact Pi says near the very beginning says that it is not atheists who bother him, but agnostics, such as the investigators he confers with much later: “To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.” (Pi, pp.31) The key to any life philosophy is a sense of moving forward.

Even if Pi’s story is all metaphor and no fact, it does not and cannot mean that it’s not true.

Like a ball carries potential energy, so does metaphor carry all the latent meaning in the world. The importance of metaphor’s multivalent nature is reflected in the face of a multicultural Canada, full of diverse reasoning, beliefs, philosophies, and raisons d'êtres. Pi's frustration with the investigators stems from the belief that the key to any consequential life philosophy is a sense of moving forward. Yann Martel has provided us with an engaging exposition that leaves his reader in no doubt that if we allow ourselves to become stagnant “fact-fundamentalists” (Borg, pp. 16) without giving all due respect to the complexities of truth and metaphor, we risk rendering all meaningful writing obsolete.