Characters, Life of Pi, Hayakawa...All in One?

Firstly, I apologize for the misposted post beneath this one..my keyboard went nuts.

Anyway...

I clearly understand the connection between the characters and our writing prompt from Life of Pi that Mary mentioned previously. Therefore, I’d like to elaborate and add another connection I found between the two works. When Father initiated the explanation of his background in self-defense, Step-daughter says, “This is no place for stories. Here they don’t tell stories” (Pirandello 222). Father replies, “But I’m not telling a story. I want to explain” (Pirandello 22). The remarks exchanged between Pi and the Japanese investigators were similar. One party believes that factual evidence is easily represented in narrative form. The opposing party is under the impression that language types other than solid reports are incapable of relaying a true set of data.

Later on, the Director assumes the “role” of the Japanese investigators and Father remains the analogical “Pi.” The former states, “Let’s get to the point, my friends, let’s get to the point! This is just a lot of talk” (Pirandello 226). The latter replies (with the quote previously indicated by Grace), “But a fact is like a sack: when it’s empty, it won’t stand up. To make it stand up, we’ve got to put reason and feeling into it to give it body” (Pirandello 226).

Father goes on to deliver a line which I felt was greatly interlaced with the teachings of Hayakawa.

But all the trouble is there, in words. We all have within us a world of things, each of us our own special world made of these things. Now how can we understand each other if I use words for these things that have meanings and values particular to my special world, while whoever hears my words related them to meanings and values particular to his special world? We think we understand each other, but we never do. Look: my pity, all my pity for this woman, she sees as the most ferocious cruelty” (Pirandello 222).

Here are demonstrated examples of differences in extensional and intensional worlds. What may be defined a certain way for one person may be on the opposite side of the spectrum for the next. Affective connotations vary within each mind. Language is perceived differently by all of its readers, writers, listeners, and speakers. This all leads to the inability of a context to be duplicated exactly more than once.

Father goes even further to say, “Yes, expressions! Words! Aren’t they a solace for all of us? When we’re face to face with a fact that can’t be explained, or an evil that eats us up, isn’t it a help to find a word that may say nothing but that brings us relief” (Pirandello 221)? In other words, words do not always necessarily MEAN something, but rather fill a void of either internal or external silence when necessary. According to Hayakawa on page 58 of LITAA, language is not always classified in report-form. It may be used to establish a communion, togetherness, or relief between two parties.

Although many of Father’s philosophical observations have struck me as crystal clear, some of his speculations bewilder me. I was unable to fully comprehend his comparison between what appears to be plausible and what seems to be true (pages 216-217). An explanation would be greatly appreciated! Gracias, merci, thank you!

(Sam Maliha)