Murder, a Permanent Act
“Thou shalt not kill.” An individual was never created for the act of murder by another person, and there needs to be an explanation for such a violent and final act towards another human being. After a murder, the family unit undergoes permanent changes that are difficult for the surviving members to accept. As each member of the family struggles with their own pain and grief, being a source of emotional support and comfort to other members in the family network can be problematic. Not only must each member navigate their feelings of loss of their loved one; they must also deal with the way they died. This concept of murder is illustrated in The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell. Similarly to this, as murder is …show more content…
For example, The Most Dangerous Game, demonstrates this, “‘The best sport in the world,’ agreed Rainsford. ‘For the hunter,’ amended Whitney. ‘Not for the jugar.’ ‘Don’t talk rot, Whitney,’ said Rainsford. ‘You’re a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar feels,’” (Connell 4). Rainsford and Whitney converse the situation of hunting. Even more so, the two individuals discuss if the animal being hunted feels faith and if the person hunting the animal has empathy for the hunted animal. In which, Whitney believes that animals understand fear, the fear of pain and the fear of death. Also, Whitney states that prepared the animal being hunted does feel something. In the start of the short story, Rainsford explains that animals, simply, do not understand fear or receive some type of feeling, when being hunted. Rainsford, in addition to, emphasizes that he does not pose any empathy for the animals that he hunts. However, during the story, Rainsford learns how his philosophy can switch, when he is the hunter versus the hunted. Another instance of Rainsford experiencing the concept of being the hunted, instead of the hunter, is, “Then it was that Rainsford knew the full meaning of terror,” (Connell 34). At this point, General Zaroff has began hunting Rainsford. Rainsford is being forced to think like the hunted, instead of the hunter. Eventually, Rainsford processes how unpleasant it is to be the hunted. In other words, Rainsford is able to understand how difficult it is for the hunted to survive. This event is a turning point for Rainsford and his philosophy on hunting. In the beginning of the short story, Rainsford does not posses any sympathy towards the animals in which he hunts. However, as Rainsford discovers the atrocious feeling of being the hunted. Therefore, Rainsford is starting to empathize with the animals that are
“Thou shalt not kill.” An individual was never created for the act of murder by another person, and there needs to be an explanation for such a violent and final act towards another human being. After a murder, the family unit undergoes permanent changes that are difficult for the surviving members to accept. As each member of the family struggles with their own pain and grief, being a source of emotional support and comfort to other members in the family network can be problematic. Not only must each member navigate their feelings of loss of their loved one; they must also deal with the way they died. This concept of murder is illustrated in The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell. Similarly to this, as murder is …show more content…
For example, The Most Dangerous Game, demonstrates this, “‘The best sport in the world,’ agreed Rainsford. ‘For the hunter,’ amended Whitney. ‘Not for the jugar.’ ‘Don’t talk rot, Whitney,’ said Rainsford. ‘You’re a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar feels,’” (Connell 4). Rainsford and Whitney converse the situation of hunting. Even more so, the two individuals discuss if the animal being hunted feels faith and if the person hunting the animal has empathy for the hunted animal. In which, Whitney believes that animals understand fear, the fear of pain and the fear of death. Also, Whitney states that prepared the animal being hunted does feel something. In the start of the short story, Rainsford explains that animals, simply, do not understand fear or receive some type of feeling, when being hunted. Rainsford, in addition to, emphasizes that he does not pose any empathy for the animals that he hunts. However, during the story, Rainsford learns how his philosophy can switch, when he is the hunter versus the hunted. Another instance of Rainsford experiencing the concept of being the hunted, instead of the hunter, is, “Then it was that Rainsford knew the full meaning of terror,” (Connell 34). At this point, General Zaroff has began hunting Rainsford. Rainsford is being forced to think like the hunted, instead of the hunter. Eventually, Rainsford processes how unpleasant it is to be the hunted. In other words, Rainsford is able to understand how difficult it is for the hunted to survive. This event is a turning point for Rainsford and his philosophy on hunting. In the beginning of the short story, Rainsford does not posses any sympathy towards the animals in which he hunts. However, as Rainsford discovers the atrocious feeling of being the hunted. Therefore, Rainsford is starting to empathize with the animals that are