Revisit chapter 48 for the story of
how Richard Parker got his name and discuss its significance. (There are
many things to have fun with here! Think, ponder, and analyze.)
Richard Parker, a professional hunter was on the lookout for a man-eating panther that’s been attacking village people. But he then realized that the bloodthirsty panther was none other than a female tiger with her cub. Richard Parker wasn’t set out to kill the tiger, but to move them from the village. Earlier when he set up a trap with a goat to lure the tiger by the river, he noticed the little cub running to the river to get a drink of water. When Richard Parker shot the mother tiger, he immediately brought the cub to the river to drink because it was “thirsty”. When the identification papers were mixed up, “Richard Parker” was given to the little cub instead of the name “Thirsty” as the hunter originally planned.
I feel like the significance of this mixup was to show that the hunter Richard Parker meant no harm to the tiger. He wanted to nurture it, because whether you were human or tiger, youth is innocent. I feel like with the cub being named after Richard Parker, he’s meant to take on the innocent and nurturing role of the hunter, whose job is viewed as a “killer,” even though Richard Parker did not kill any of the tigers. Pi informs that tigers and other predators don’t necessarily attack just to kill, but for protection against invasion or discomfort they feel in order to survive in the wild. I feel like this contributes to the name Richard Parker being given to the cub because Richard Parker was found at such an innocent, harmless state that a cub couldn’t possibly possess those traits. Therefore a “killer hunter” wouldn’t hurt a helpless animal. And as every animal parishes on the life raft with Pi, Richard Parker marks his ground and does not move whatsoever. I find this significant because seeing as the tiger being the most vicious animal on that raft, he did not touch the other animals nor did he touch Pi. This being said, a part of Richard Parker (the hunter) could be reflected through the cub Richard Parker and their passive nature, despite their “killer background.”
Angelika, I enjoyed reading your comment because it dives deep into an unanswered questioned while connecting it to one of Martel’s dualities represented in the book: human-animals. I like how you said that initially, both tiger and hunter were preconceived to be killer and savages. However, when analyzed a little closer, and coming to understand who both he tiger and hunter really are, it blurs the differentiating line man and animal. Animals are meant to be seen as dangerous but when understood, they really aren’t. Similarity to hunters, while obviously some are savage, other hunters are “hunting” for animals to survive or bring them somewhere better. Like you said, human Richard Parker did not kill any tigers. This just shows how shallow people can be when making biases or judgments towards things that seem dangerous on the outside. -Caroline amáselo
Richard Parker, a professional hunter was on the lookout for a man-eating panther that’s been attacking village people. But he then realized that the bloodthirsty panther was none other than a female tiger with her cub. Richard Parker wasn’t set out to kill the tiger, but to move them from the village. Earlier when he set up a trap with a goat to lure the tiger by the river, he noticed the little cub running to the river to get a drink of water. When Richard Parker shot the mother tiger, he immediately brought the cub to the river to drink because it was “thirsty”. When the identification papers were mixed up, “Richard Parker” was given to the little cub instead of the name “Thirsty” as the hunter originally planned.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the significance of this mixup was to show that the hunter Richard Parker meant no harm to the tiger. He wanted to nurture it, because whether you were human or tiger, youth is innocent. I feel like with the cub being named after Richard Parker, he’s meant to take on the innocent and nurturing role of the hunter, whose job is viewed as a “killer,” even though Richard Parker did not kill any of the tigers. Pi informs that tigers and other predators don’t necessarily attack just to kill, but for protection against invasion or discomfort they feel in order to survive in the wild. I feel like this contributes to the name Richard Parker being given to the cub because Richard Parker was found at such an innocent, harmless state that a cub couldn’t possibly possess those traits. Therefore a “killer hunter” wouldn’t hurt a helpless animal. And as every animal parishes on the life raft with Pi, Richard Parker marks his ground and does not move whatsoever. I find this significant because seeing as the tiger being the most vicious animal on that raft, he did not touch the other animals nor did he touch Pi. This being said, a part of Richard Parker (the hunter) could be reflected through the cub Richard Parker and their passive nature, despite their “killer background.”
-Angelika
Angelika, I enjoyed reading your comment because it dives deep into an unanswered questioned while connecting it to one of Martel’s dualities represented in the book: human-animals. I like how you said that initially, both tiger and hunter were preconceived to be killer and savages. However, when analyzed a little closer, and coming to understand who both he tiger and hunter really are, it blurs the differentiating line man and animal. Animals are meant to be seen as dangerous but when understood, they really aren’t. Similarity to hunters, while obviously some are savage, other hunters are “hunting” for animals to survive or bring them somewhere better. Like you said, human Richard Parker did not kill any tigers. This just shows how shallow people can be when making biases or judgments towards things that seem dangerous on the outside. -Caroline amáselo
Delete^Masel
Delete