Thanks! This is a good point about reading something you disagree with. In this case, besides, the book is entertaining even though some of the protagonist’s religious remarks seem too much like preaching to me.

I agree with you that similar arguments can be raised for pets or farm animals. But that just goes to say that the protagonist’s points are shortsighted at best. Of course this is a novel and he is not going to delve into long scientific discussions here. Still, it was for me a feeble argument for what he was trying to extrapolate it for.

I continued reading and got to the part where he is more descriptive about the religions. It is interesting. I like his syncretism, mixing up Hinduism, Catholicism and Islamism. I will give it another shot.

@ Ricardo:

Well, I enjoyed his writing style and I thought he made some interesting points. But yeah, I don’t fully buy into the Zoo thing either, but at the time it made me think about the ethics of zoo keeping and the like. Which is I guess something literature is supposed to do. You may agree or disagree, but if it makes you go “Hmm… I never thought about it like that” then I think this is a good thing.

For me this beats reading a book which requires no thinking, and just goes through the motions of rehashing old tropes to the point you can see the plot twists coming like three chapters in advance. Sometimes reading something you definitely disagree with can be interesting an engaging experience in itself, because it makes you think about why you disagree with it, and explore the other side of the issue.

I mean you brought up a lot of excellent points to counter Matel’s thesis and they are all valid criticisms of this idea. Would you research these facts or even think about them otherwise? I think there is at least some value in a book that spurs you up go and do that.

But coming back to the zoo thing – you could make a similar argument about domesticating animals. I mean, dog and cat owners like to think that their pets are loved, cared for and their lives are much better and fuller than if they would be if they were wild animals. In case of some breeds this is not even a choice because they simply would not be able to survive without human care.

You could make a very valid argument that, say dog breeding that let to all these “toy” dogs that can no longer survive without us is kinda fucked up and cruel in itself. But on the other hand can you imagine a world without pets? I mean, what would we do without cat pictures on the internet?

Hi Luke,

I saw on Goodreads that you read this book, giving it 5 stars and searched for your review here. I am about 15% down the book and considering stopping. I read already the part you describe here where the author defends zoo animals when compared to their wild counterparts. It is when I started to consider stopping

He finishes his point by asking the question “would you rather be put up at the Ritz with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor or be homeless without a soul to care for you?” I find the question at least unfair. First, we are humans, which means we are capable of discernment. More importantly, the question is misleading as it doesn’t go all the way in the comparison he is making. It should have been: “would you rather be put up at the Ritz with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor BUT locked in that room forever or be homeless without a soul to care for you BUT be able to roam freely anywhere you please?” I’m not sure all humans, with our ability to discern, would answer this question so easily and promptly, either way.

But to go back to animals, he oversimplifies the animal nature by saying their requirements are “the absence of parasites and enemies” and “the abundance of food”. If that’s the case, why so many species can’t be bred in captivity? Why so many die when brought in a cage? Why some need to be fed with live preys so they can still “hunt” tem? If they prefer the zoo, wouldn’t they prefer some ready-made food too? My biggest problem here is that I think the author just selectivity picks advantages of the zoo and disadvantages of the wildlife to prove a point, which is not even about zoos but religion.

Simple searches on Google Scholar reveal problems researchers investigate in zoos related to animal depression, breeding, feeding, stress in dealing with humans and other animals and in being in closed spaces, even in measuring how “happy” they are in a zoo as opposed to out in the wild. This doesn’t translates to me as zoos being a “preferable” option for the animals even though they might get used to it. And he ignores all this to be able to blame people for not having zoos in their “good graces” anymore. A “problem” also faced by religion. That is, according to him, religion is free (or almost) of problems but people are now picking on them nevertheless. He says, “certain illusions about freedom plague them both”.

This religion bias is bothering me and making me disconsider the book. It didn’t bother you?

[…] I reviewed Life of Pi I mentioned that at the end of the book the narrator asks the reader to pick which version of the […]

Well, what about the shipwreck? Or his relationship with the tiger? Or the “spoiler”? For me me these were big, life changing things to the little Pi. So it’s not like “nothing” happened to him. But maybe I’m getting to hung up on semantics here.

There was not much in this book in terms of action, dramatic suspense or unexpected plot twists – I’ll give you that. I can see how it could get boring if you had different expectations. I enjoyed it nevertheless.

I picked up the book expecting Pi to have some sort of life, wherein something happens in it. It didn’t.

Well, the spoiler didn’t bother me that much, but it does make it hard for one to buy into the whole “this is a true story” thing. Then again if you consider the “second story” then it doesn’t really matter.

In those terms you could look at it as a metaphorical sort of thing. I’m not sure what it would be though…

I read it when it went out in Europe, some years ago. I loved it. I can be as picky on books as Luke is picky on films, if not more. But that book is just totally amazing. Great ideas, great story telling, great characters. And please note that it is a book written by a French speaking guy directly in English. The only thing I didn’t like as much as the rest is actually the “spoiler” Luke mentions…

@Mack – What did you expect to happen though? I pretty much expected it to be all about kid on a boat with a tiger doing nothing. :)

And I would say that the spoiler I mentioned above counts as “something” that happened. And so does the second, much more gritty story story he told to the Japanese men.

Yes, it was well written, yes, the arguements were good, but it just. Didn’t. Go. Anywhere

I got through a good third of the book and NOTHING HAPPENED

Threw it across the room, had a coffee, picked up Robert Sheckleys Mindswap instead. Which was much better.