Purpose of the Paradox

   The purpose of the paradox in the novel was to help the reader understand the situation better. Pi was with Richard Parker-- but Richard Parker is a human name, and Pi comes from a word that means 'fish'. Why is Pi an "animal" and Richard Parker a "human"? Because when Pi embarked on his adventure across the ocean, his wild instincts activated, and he needed Richard Parker to tame him. Martel meant for this because in troubles like Pi's, everyone has an animalistic tendencies, but they need to be tamed so we aren't conquered.

Draft

   Richard Parker is real. Religion is true, and Pi's journey centered around his religions. Martel's purpose for the reader was to allude irreligion and religion and work the reader's mind. Is the story Pi told rational as irreligion or was it impossible like religious concepts? It is real, because all things are possible.

   Richard Parker did not exist. He was only a symbol of help and deliverance, and more broadly, Pi, himself. Martel's purpose was to show readers that their imagination is them and they can save their life even in a time as Pi's.

Reader Autobiography

   People read because they feel as if either they get information better, or their source of imagination is held by the power of reading. Someone is a reader based on whether or not they read books, let alone know how to read. If someone wants to earn that title, then they must love reading with a passion. A passion for reading isn't predisposed, so it must be learned, hence. A good reader must be savvy with the text; they need to be perceptive and discerning of what they are reading. If one reads with only their eyes, but not the heart and mind, they aren't good readers. Reading is symbolic in many ways, so it takes engagement to read very well. I don't really have a favorite author, even though I've read books before. I don't really have anything for or against their literature. 
   I absolutely do not consider myself a reader. Because of my short attention span, I am unfortunately not a good reader. I am easily bored by the thought of it, and I can't push myself much further than glossing over pages. Reading is not my cup of tea under any circumstances, notwithstanding the Bible. I really don't like reading because I don't see it like others do. People are enthralled by it, and they can binge on several series of books in months. I, however, can't finish a chapter without throwing an internal temper tantrum. The cuticles of my fingers start to burn and itch from the austerity of it. For me, there isn't an objective to reading-- I don't gain very much from it.
   I learned to read through homeschooling; my mom required me to read books since I was four. I'm a very blocked reader at the very, very least. I have no passion for it in any way, shape or form unless it caters to my interests-- which is still very blocked. I'd love to be able to read without my eyelids becoming so sore. I wish I could read a book without any trouble, skimming through it, yet grasping every little detail down to the ink of the letter. I'm never enthusiastic about reading, and I wish I could find my enthusiasm for it.
   The reading I choose to do on my own is limited to the Bible, picture books, a few comic books here and and a few animal encyclopedias there, and only a handful of other categories. I hate non-fiction, sci-fi, mysteries and whatnot. The ideas are so boring and weird, so I don't like bothering them. I got nightmares from certain book covers or other attributes to the books that I rendered creepy.
   I didn't gain anything, really; I knew all of this all along. I've always known how selective and halfhearted my approach to reading is-- period. This process was very upsetting. It's enough that I don't enjoy reading, yet I have to read books I don't like for a grade, and this doesn't help much more. Sharing this makes me feel grouchy and indifferent to how others feel about reading, and I'd like to assure that I am not deliberately trying to downplay something that people love.

Writer Self-Study

   People write typically because it is a form expressing their feelings without speaking. There's really no key to being a writer, nor is there any identity or title outside of social construct in writing as long as there is a heart behind the writing instrument. To have good writing, though, it does take common skills. You obviously need to know how to write, know your grammar, have a sense for passion, execute your words well, and create diction. Above all, though, you must know what you want to say.
   My favorite writer has to be God. He's the author and finisher of my salvation, and He continues to write a story on my heart. I'm an empty page, an open book; God is the writer. He continues to work in me, and He never stops! I love how God allows me to show the world what He's done in me. I'm so happy to be a light for Him.
   I definitely consider myself a writer-- a good writer, too. I know what I want to convey through my writing, and I think that's what makes my writing special. It is a part of my identity, in that case. I don't only write for homework, but I also write as a hobby. It's something I enjoy doing with a passion, and I think this is the case on account of my introversion. I am not well suited to social environments, and I'm not very fond of talking. I find writing a lot easier to do, because it's not as embarrassing. It doesn't leave the sting that talking does.
   From a literal standpoint, I learned to write through academics, but I believe that writing has always been something innate within me. I've always loved writing, not necessarily for reading, but for the same reasons people enjoy drawing or other hobbies. I see writing as a vivid picture. Everything I write looks like something for me, literally. That's what makes writing fun for me, because I get to experience the flavors that the words bring, if you will.
   There's not really anything to which I can base my writing. It's so different every time that I can't ever put my finger on it, unless it's supposed to be written a certain way. I definitely write from the heart; my brain only enables it. I always catch myself going on tangents when I write, namely when I'm supposed to be writing something specific. It's a blessing and a pet peeve that I wish I could tame better, and I'd like to learn different writing systems, too. The Latin Phonetic Alphabet is too boring now. I'd like to actually use some of the systems I've made up myself, or learn Kanji, Cyrillic or Hebrew so I could write in a new way that opens doors to a new experience.
   The writing I choose to do is always based on how I'm feeling and what environment I'm in. I don't do very well in rooms with a bunch of people; writing is sometimes personal for me, and I don't like when my experiences aren't at their highest potential. I like writing when I'm happy, because it's the only way my thoughts flow at a pleasurable rate. I do enjoy poems a bit, even though I don't get to do them very often. I'm usually confined to essays on a certain subject, and I have to be very focused on achieving every aspect requested in my papers. I don't like the kinds of writing that argue with another. The probing feeling irritates me, and I loathe those undignified monologues that demean other works of art.
   Reminiscing on what I just wrote has allowed me to see how complicated, yet miraculous writing is for me. I learned a little from my own approach to writing that it is very quirky. It's interesting, but quirky; I have a very intellectual aura, but the cadence feels a bit compulsive and childish. My writing is sort of my personality plastered onto wherever it's written.
   I feel as if this process was somewhat eye opening. I already knew a lot about my writing style, but every word is a growth from one point. I think this process was fairly enjoyable. I got a lot out of it, and I can't wait for opportunities in life to where I can apply my gift to so much!

It's a Hat! Or a Snake... That Ate an Elephant?

   The figures could be both a hat or a snake that ate an elephant, but it does take a little perception. The upper figure could be a really cute hat with an elephant-eating snake design, or it could be an x-ray of a snake, whose eyes definitely got bigger than its stomach. The lower figure is definitely a normal hat. It has the shape, and its color is very convincing. However, this very well could be that same snake shown above, save the x-ray. And for the fun of it, the lower figure may not even contain an elephant-- the snake could have eaten a hat! 
   There is a pattern here, as this example relates to the novel Life of Pi. The figure above could be Pi's imagination in front of him, like the cute hat. Or he could have explored inside his mind to find his wild imaginations in his midst. Hence, the x-ray. But maybe it was a bit more austere, and he really was all alone. Still, Pi could have had the mundane reality, but that tiger inside was only masked, as the snake's skin concealed the elephant within.
   In terms of a better story, the winning answer must be that the figure above is a snake that ate the elephant. The believable story gets old, and people begin to crave something more incredulous, like an elephant-eating snake, or in Pi's case, the tiger who journeyed with him across the Pacific Ocean.
   The "lifeless factuality" award goes to the regular hat. It is so down to earth; no time for extreme creativity-- just the facts. There is no snake. There is no elephant. Just a simple hat. To reiterate, there was no tiger. There was no carnivorous island. Just a journey alone on a boat.