Life of Pi

I read this because Annabel had to read it for school and she didn't actually complain about it. I was as interested in her comments as the story. I enjoyed Part 1 and Part 3 but found the Pacific section interminable - was that the author's intention to reflect the situation?

I can understand why Annabel was flummoxed by the assignment to PROVE with contextual evidence which version of the story was true - she got a massive zero points out of 50 for her comments. Her English teacher must use a different definition of proof than scientists - one more akin to opinion.

My interpretation is that the human story is true but that Pi is so traumatized by events that he makes up the animal narrative in order to cope with it - like the last episode of MASH where Hawkeye relates the story of the woman who kills a chicken to avoid capture by the enemy but she really killed her own baby.