We are all
natural story-tellers when discussing our own lives. We stitch together events
of our past and present imbuing the details with our own interpretations. For example, "I was born....raised
by my parents who.... brothers and sisters....and therefore....,"etc.
Yann Martel's award-winning
book Life of Pi , recently made into a 3-D movie, tells the story of a young
Indian boy Pi, the son of a zookeeper, who decides to travel to Canada by boat.
The cargo ship (Tsimtsum) is wrecked in the midst of a violent storm, and Pi is
the only human survivor. He endures many hardships as he struggles on a life
raft in the Pacific Ocean. His sole companion is a Bengal tiger, who because of
a clerical error, is named Richard Parker.
After many life-threatening
circumstances, the two reach the land of Mexico, where Pi is taken to the
hospital. He recovers and is interviewed by two Japanese investigators, who sent to find
out why the ship sank, refuse to believe Pi's incredible narrative about
survival with the tiger on the life raft in the Pacific. Pi humors them, altering
his story. This invention of another narrative, opens up a philosophical can of
worms: What is the real story? How
much does a narrator change his story to make it palatable to his audience? And
to himself?
Perhaps what the
real story is doesn't matter as much as the purpose it serves, which, I suggest
is survival.
In his new book Hallucinations (Knopf ), Oliver Sacks adds another dimension to the human impulse to spin tales.
A professor of neurology at the New York School of Medicine, Sacks observes
that the brain in the states of (1) boredom or (2) loss of sensory input may
hallucinate to create images to
fill the void.
In other words,
we create narratives all the time in many situations for the sake of our
physical and/or psychological survival.
Is it fair to
say, then, that a narrative, our storytelling, works when it keeps us alive,
and fails us when we lose hope?
Conclusion: A
narrative serves us well when it offers flexibility to change with our needs
and times, to help us survive and avoid disillusionment.
Dear Reader, I
welcome your experiences and comments. jsimon145@gmail.com
The idea of our impulse to make "images to fill the void" reminds me of a bit from Wallace Stevens' "Le Monocle de Mon Oncle":
ReplyDeleteBut it excels in this, that as the fruit
Of love, it is a book too mad to read
Before one merely reads to pass the time.
There is something important about 'reading merely,' 'telling merely,' 'imagining merely.' It both expresses and relieves the ennui of various losses, which might otherwise consume time rather than pass it, shape it, keep it going. Such 'mere texts' are typically not balanced on a central theme or truth that authorizes them, but motivated by the processes of imagination.
Thanks so much for your personal input on story-telling. I'm thrilled when a blog brings up poetry for a reader.
ReplyDeleteDear Jane,
ReplyDeleteAn interesting reading of the book. I assumed it was fable, a necessary but disappointing survival mechanism for Pi, and perhaps a convenient ending for the author; I like your reading better and will take a second look. Have a great day, my friend.