[For those who have finished the book]

I disagree with what seems to be the consensus view on the meaning of this story. Most people have seemed to take the story as saying that you can arbitrarily choose your own reality and that those who choose the "better story" are …more enlightened. I don't think that Martel intended for the truth to be left open to interpretation. To ascribe equal validity to the two versions of the story told by Pi trivializes Martel's definition of faith as described in chapters 21 & 22. I think Martel sees the religious experience as an indescribably awesome experience that can only be explained through imperfect metaphors.

So I don't think the "true" story fits either of the two accounts given in the book. I think the book is actually about an internal spiritual journey and struggle. What actually happened in the physical world is not as important (though I think it is probably closer to the version without animals), but Pi is trying to convey this fantastic religious experience that is even more of a miracle than any events he could describe. I think the reader is supposed to believe that the story with animals is a better description of the true personal spiritual experience that Pi had, since it is colored by his own background and experience growing up at the zoo in Pondicherry, and better captures the incredible nature of the experience.

Some will probably read my review as just a third version of events that is equally valid, but to focus on the physical events is to miss the entire meaning of this book: A meaningful religious experience requires a leap of faith. Pi's story is much less extraordinary than believing in or experiencing God. (less)