Here are some sample udemy posts from last year. I hope this helps you have a better idea of the type of writing that is expected for this assignment. Each new color is a new person's post, so this should also help you see what is expected as far as length is concerned, but always remember that it's quality over quantity. Some people can go on for pages and say pretty much nothing. Let's curb the BS, shall we? :P

You do not have to be overly formal, but I don't want you to be overly casual either. The occasional txt acronym is acceptable, as is humor and slang. Discussing literature should be just as FUN as it is INFORMATIVE! If you are still unsure, please check in with me to see if I think you're doing what you should be doing. Remember, no news is good news, so if you don't hear otherwise from me, you can assume that you're on track for receiving a full completion grade. :) 

BTW, I just randomly copied and pasted from different groups, so these are in no particular order.

Without further ado, here are your samples! 

@Sara: I agree with you about the cook from the second story. I don't believe he was absolutely evil, but was unable to control his greed in such a sticky situation. I guess unlike Pi, he let his Richard Parker side get the rest of him...badum tsh. I feel like he might have given up when Pi was killing him because reality was beginning to sink in, and he began to realize how traumatic his actions were.

On a lighter note...

@Stephen, in regards to the Discovery Channel statement, I highly recommend looking up Meerkat Manor on youtube. That show is/was quality.

@Vikram. Solid post man, but when I read the sentence where you said the second story was unbelievable because of the extreme atrocities I paused for a second. To me, it seems much more reasonable for humans to go back to their primitive instincts when put into a situation where it is kill or be killed. The story refers to humans as animals, and like in the first story, animals will kill each other when no other option for survival presents itself. Also, when trying to figure out whether a story is more believable or not, I think the better route to take would be to see which story is more contains less loopholes as opposed to less gruesome and atrocious.

Hey everyone! This is probably the coolest assignment ever because I feel like im on facebook! I wanted to talk about the second prompt. As i was reading the novel, i tried very hard to figure out what Richard parker symbolized. i doubted that Martel would specifically include a tiger without have a major symbolic purpose for it. As i reached the end of the book, I realized that Richard parker could symbolize the animalistic side of Pi. Pi's adventure at sea eventually turns him into an animal and causes Pi to go against most of his religious values. For example, Pi eventually kills a fish by breaking it's neck. Pi's reaction to his actions was a flood of tears, but Pi eventually becomes very used to killing. This goes against pi's religious values to not kill and to eat meat. By the end of novel, Pi has become almost exactly like richard parker. Pi even eats some of the human flesh from the dead Frenchman. This symbolism could explain Pi's reaction to leaving the boat without giving Pi a chance to say goodbye. Pi said, "i was weeping because Richard Parker left me so unceremoniously"(p. 285).Pi may have been so upset because he felt as if his aniamlistic side, which helped him survive, left him. this is only a assumption. i am sure Richard parker represents many other things.

Hi everyone! (: The version that I think is the most believable is the one with the animals. When the ship first begins to sink, Pi claims that the crew is afraid to go onto the lifeboat. The crew very well knew that if they stayed on the ship they would die, so something way worse must have been on the lifeboat for them to forgo a means of escape. What could be worse then drowning? Only a gruesome death by hyena. By throwing Pi onto the lifeboat, they were offering the hyena a sacrifice. Secondly, throughout the whole story Pi has hope that his family is still alive. Pi even thinks for a moment that his family might have been on the other lifeboat, instead of the blind, heartless man. If he saw his family die in front of him, he would not have had that great hope. Also, Pi is a vegetarian and it took him a long while before he ate an animal. He is also a very religious boy. I cannot see him killing another human being so easily, especially so quickly, even if it was to save his life or get revenge. Lastly, when meeting with the Japanese men, Pi defended his story to the last word. He was getting angry when they wouldn't believe it, and kept asking why his story was so unbelievable. Pi, who can amazingly control his emotions, would only get so angry if his story was true. We all know how we get when somebody doesn't believe us. He made up the other story almost to ridicule them. Of course humans would believe the story that is so much more gruesome. They have no faith in their own kind, and easily believe that Pi, his family, and the chef were savages. It's pathetic that that's what they find more believable.

I absolutely like the story with animals better. It shows that at last resort, people (and animals) can like each other and survive with each other, instead of the story, which shows that in the end, there's only chaos and cruelty. The animal story is truly amazing, and I love it. It's awesome. :)

The end.

David: I think your idea about the two Mr. Kumars is definitely valid. It kind of shows Pi's two sides, possibly an internal struggle between religion and science. While initially he believes in them both, there is a time on the boat where he speculates on whether God has forsaken him. At that point, instead of religion being his savior, it was science that saved him, allowing Pi to gather the nourishment necessary for his survival (i.e. catching fish and turtles, gathering fresh water). This could have cast his belief in God further into doubt. Maybe his entire trip on the boat with Richard Parker reflected Pi's efforts to grapple with two very different ideologies, religion and science, and his hope that he could embrace both with abandoning either.

Reply to Emma: I like the idea of Richard Parker representing Pi's savage will to survive. Pi starts out a squeamish vegetarian who turns his nose up at the animal fat in the biscuits he finds. Eventually, however, his will to survive becomes stronger and he's more than willing to put aside his moral hangups about meat. All the while, Richard Parker flourishes into health from a long bout with seasickness. However, I don't agree with your theory that Richard Parker represents god. Pi is eventually able to tame and control Richard Parker. Any omnipotent deity would be able to withstand a human's attempts to trick and tame it. Although I see your point about Richard Parker acting almost as a judge of the saved and the damned, other aspects of Pi's relationship with the tiger don't seem to fit the model of a god and one of his creations.

I'm kind of going off subject here, but I figured it would just be something different to talk about :). When I was reading the book, particularly the first 100 pages, I was completely bored with all of the religion stuff. I couldn't understand why Pi was so facinated with religion, let alone three very different ones. But after finishing the book and learning the double-sided ending, I think the main point Martel was trying to make was to just have faith. Even being religious, Pi admires athiests just for the fact that they have a belief in no god, while agnostics just can't decide. This related to the quote we talked about in class (B1, I don't have a copy of the book so I can't give the quote, sorry..) about how when a man of faith is on his deathbed he can imagine what will become of him next, while an agnostic seems to be rational and practical right to the end. Despite the fact of how different the religions are, Pi seems to love them all. I think this is because he sees each religion as the same thing - a story of love. Each religion is just a different way of saying the same thing, just like at the end of the book Pi gives two stories but there extremely similar. So....going back to the debate on which story is true, I think that the one with animals is true because of how much Martel stresses "faith". I think he wants us to believe the animal story, and I'm personally more inclined to believe what the author was trying to tell.

@Sam. I definitely agree with you. There was just so much detail in the first story that it made the second story look like it was made up on the spot. The story about the humans lacked so much insight that it led me to believe that it was only made to satisfy the Japanese men. Pi seemed a lot more emotionally connected while telling the first story. The way the story was told made me convinced that he truly experienced it. On the other hand, the second story with the humans just seemed lifeless and boring. The great amount of detail put into the first story easily convinced me that those events really occurred.

Somewhat sidetracking, I saw Group 2 talking about how Pi's ability to meld his beliefs in multiple religions with his respect for science to be a laudable ideology. I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on that. Personally I found it odd, referring only to his religions, that he could so adamantly believe in 3 systems which blatantly discredit each other. To me, it made Pi seem like a very mentally impressionable character. If he is so easy to influence, this may give credence to the theory that Pi went insane on the lifeboat and completely contrived the story with the animals to escape his actual situation. Anyway, other opinions?