"The Most Dangerous Game" Richard Connell

“The Most Dangerous Game”

Richard Connell

            “’The best sport in the world,’ agreed Rainsford.

            ’For the hunter,’ amended Whitney. ‘Not for the jaguar.’

            ‘Don’t talk rot, Whitney,’ said Rainsford. ‘You’re a big game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares about how a jaguar feels?’

            ‘Perhaps the jaguar does,’ observed Whitney.

            ‘Bah! They’ve no understanding.’

            ‘Even so, I rather think they understand one thing- fear. The fear of pain and the fear of death.’

            ‘Nonsense,’ laughed Rainsford. ‘This hot weather is making you soft, Whitney. Be a realist. The world is made up of two classes—the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are hunters’” (2).

            I chose to write about this passage because in the first read, it seems to be a simple exchange between hunters. It feels as though Connell put this conversation there to set up their journey and the setting. The conversation is cold and impersonal. Both Whitney and Rainsford have strong opinions about the subject. However, the conversation is courteous and polite. I don’t think either of them knows the other very well. The sentences are simple and thought out. It is obvious that both of them are passionate about the subject but they are trying not to offend the other. They are not desperate to go in depth about the subject.

            After reading the rest of the story, my opinion of this conversation changed. I now know that this exchange had to occur in order to set up the context for the rest of the story. I should’ve known that nothing in literature is specifically placed or written on accident. Everything has a purpose, whether it be a minute detail or a paragraph about a destination. This passage is an excellent example because readers will, at first, skip over it, not paying any concern to its significance. After reading the rest of the story, this passage serves to bring the meaning of the story full circle. After learning about General Zaroff and his game on the island, the conversation makes more sense. The reader understands that the conversation between Rainsford and Whitney is necessary for the rest of the story to make sense.

My interpretation is that this story is a story about redemption. Rainsford refuses to acknowledge that animals can feel fear. He depersonalizes the animals so it is easier to kill them. Whitney provides a contrast to this view because he is more sympathetic towards the animals. I find it interesting that Rainsford chalks Whitney’s morality to being soft. He dismisses Whitney’s comments because the weather is making Whitney crazy. His argument is not logical. However, Whitney chooses not to pursue the argument any further.  

The ending of the story confuses me. Connell alludes to the fact that Rainsford wins the fight against Zaroff so it does come full circle. Rainsford is back on top as the hunter. However, Rainsford does not change his attitude about hunting at all. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I was hoping that Rainsford would feel such fear that he would be able to empathize with the huntees by end. This is not the case; he kills Zaroff and this detail is so minute that Connell does not feel compelled to write about it. The only “justice” is that General Zaroff is killed for his inhumane acts. But what does this murder say about Rainsford? Will he inherit General Zaroff’s passion for hunting humans?

“An Occurrence on Owl Creek Bridge”

Ambrose Bierce

“He closed his eyes in order to fix his last thoughts upon his wife and children. The water, touched to gold by the early sun, the brooding mists under the banks at some distance down the stream, the fort, the soldiers, the piece of drift—all had distracted him. And now he became conscious of a new disturbance. Striking through the thought of his dear ones was sound which he could neither ignore nor understand, a sharp, distinct, metallic percussion like the stroke of a blacksmith's hammer upon the anvil; it had the same ringing quality. He wondered what it was, and whether immeasurably distant or near by— it seemed both. Its recurrence was regular, but as slow as the tolling of a death knell. He awaited each new stroke with impatience and—he knew not why—apprehension. The intervals of silence grew progressively longer; the delays became maddening. With their greater infrequency the sounds increased in strength and sharpness. They hurt his ear like the trust of a knife; he feared he would shriek. What he heard was the ticking of his watch” (1-2).

This is my favorite passage in the story because the author is able to describe a ticking watch in such great detail that the reader can derive two meanings from the description.

In the first meaning, the author provides an ironic turn of events because the ticking of his watch is what sets him free. Farquhar, in these last moments before his death, is trying to envision his wife and children. He desperately thinks of them to provide a sense of comfort and relief right before he dies. However, the author describes the beauty in the nature as a distraction to his thoughts about his family. The steadfast ticking of the watch provides him with the determination to set his mind free and escape. Listening to the metallic percussion allows his mind to wander back home where he can, in a sense, die in his wife’s arms. The watch is an interesting symbol to incorporate into this tragic scene because the ticking of a watch indicates time running out. Those who listen to the seconds pass by hear a sense of monotony as time is fleeting from them. People often associate everything with time; which, consequently bounds them to the minute hands of their watches. Everything takes a certain, determinable amount of time. It creates a mood of apprehension and in some cases, anxiety. For this reason, this passage is ironic. The ticking of the watch allows Farquhar to be set free, not held down.

In the second meaning, Farquhar is bounded down by the regular ticks of the second hand. The author indicates that the monotony of the beats actually drives Farquhar mad in his final moments before death. He apprehends each second by with a large fear because he knows what is going to happen, yet not when. This fear of not knowing is so immense that he goes mad. Time was created to provide a sense of urgency and order to the world. Without it, the world would be in chaos. People rely on the time to run their lives. Unfortunately for Farquhar, he is unable to discern the amount of time that he has left. The ticking of the second hand serves as a constant reminder of his mortality.

My interpretation of this story is that time is a paradox. It can either save us or destroy us. We, as people, need to understand that time can bring meaning to our lives, but it can also destroy meaning. Therefore, our lives are up to us. They are what we choose to make it. Time is simply an abstract concept created for order. What we do with it will decide our fate.

"God of Love"

“GOD OF LOVE”

“You can’t control who you love. You can’t control who loves you. You can’t control how it happens, when it happens, or why it happens. You can’t control any of that stuff”

            This passage, the first words that Ray speaks, is the most profound and philosophical passage in the entire movie. These words resonate with me because Ray describes exactly what makes love unique to anything else. People have learned to control almost every aspect of their lives. They control what time they work up in the morning to go to whatever job they want. They control where they live, and what job they choose to work at. They can control what emotion they are feeling when they watch the sunset on the beach or eat disgusting food. Life is made up of a million choices every single day. Love is not one of those. People, in a sense, do not control whom they go home to at the end of the day. Marriage is a decision. Staying committed to someone is a decision. But whom you fall in love with is not up to you.

            I do not like the idea of somebody like Ray traveling around on his bike, shooting arrows at people and hoping they survive for the long run. To me, that is too random, too insane. I would like to think that there is a plan for everybody. I believe that everything happens for a reason. I find comfort in the notion that you are where you are for a reason and nothing is left to chance. I want to believe in a greater plan or purpose but I don’t want to believe that somebody has control over that. This is what makes love tricky. Who designs these plans?

            This film bothers me because I do not want to think that somewhere a misguided young man is riding around shooting arrows in the dark at other people because he has given up on his own love life. Was he chosen because he gave up on love or because he has good aim? That being said, I do not think there is one soul mate for everybody. I think that notion was created for fairy tales and happily ever afters. Ray gave up on love because he couldn’t make Kelly fall in love with him. This is sad, however, Ray understands that Kelly is in love with Fozzie. When Ray throws the love dart at Fozzie, he controls love.

“The Story of an Hour”

Kate Chopin

“Some one was opening the front door with a latchkey. It was Brently Mallard who entered, a little travel-stained, composedly carrying his grip-sack and umbrella. He had been far from the scene of the accident, and did not even know there had been one. He stood amazed at Josephine's piercing cry; at Richards' quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife.

When the doctors came they said she had died of heart disease—of the joy that kills” (1).

Josephine had finally felt free. She no longer wanted to be married to her husband. She felt released, happy, excited. The arrival of the spring season indicates that Josephine is ready for a renewal. She prays to live many more years to experience a sense of freedom that she had lost in her marriage. Ironically, her husband’s death provides her with a chance to experience a new life.

This passage is gravitating because I’m not sure what to think about Richards. My first thought is that he is trying to protect Josephine from her husband, Bently. The language is interesting because he is trying to shield Brently from Josephine. It seems to suggest that Brently is the one that needs to be protected. Josephine does not seem like anything more than an innocent housewife. Is it possible that she is controlling and manipulative?

However, it also seems probable that Richards is in love with Josephine and wants to be with her. When I read this for the second time, I interpreted it as this complicated love affair. I also thought that perhaps Richards orchestrated this entire scandal to make Josephine realize that she does not love Brently. If he could convince her that Brently died and she realizes how happy she is without him, would she begin to fall in love with him?

There is a tragic sense of loss in this story because the one person who has kept Josephine grounded for her entire life is the one who also kills her. Josephine gets what she has always secretly desired, but the same day, it is taken away from her. To me, this is murder. She dies because she realizes that she can’t have what she wants. The one part that I can’t understand is why she would allow her sister to take her downstairs. She does not want anybody to see her in her current state of emotions, yet she goes downstairs to sit with Richards. Is it possible she loves him too?

The irony lies in the fact that her husband is completely oblivious to the entire situation. If I’m correct in assuming that Richards is in love with Brently’s wife, he is unaware. He is also unaware of the fact that she had cried not for his loss, but her freedom. She wept tears of joy at his loss. At the end of the story, the doctors tell Brently that she dies because of a “joy that kills,” however, the reader knows this is not true. We know she dies because she can’t have what she wants. Richards hides Brently from her view because he knows the end result. He knows she would be devastated to learn the truth.

“The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” Ursula Le Guin

“The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”

Ursula Le Guin

“Those are the terms. To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed. The terms are strict and absolute; there may not even be a kind word spoken to the child” (81).

This passage strikes me as the most important passage in the story because it pertains to the message of the story. To me, this story explores whether one person should suffer immensely for the rest of the population’s happiness or if everyone should suffer a little bit. The ones who walk away from Omelas are the ones who believe that everyone in the community should carry their own guilt and suffering. Those who abandon the community are not afraid to experience guilt. They realize that it is wrong to make a young child suffer for everyone in the community.

The narrator provides a unique perspective on the Omelas because he is a complete outsider. I wonder how the story would change if a citizen from Omela provided the narration. The opinions would be drastically different. The objective narration is an interesting choice because the story would make more sense with a limited omniscient or omniscient narration. The reader would have a clearer idea of this community. The reader would be able to understand the community’s motivation to act this way.

I think that the author purposefully chose this objective narration so the reader would think more about the philosophical questions that are tied to the theme of the story. The questions that I have not been able to answer are

Who makes the “terms”?

Why are the Omelas’ against

What would happen if someone did show compassion or feel guilt about the child? Would they be exiled from the community?

If we, today, were faced with this proposition, how would we decide? Would we let one suffer for the greater happiness of the entire community?

What is the right thing to do? The fair thing to do? The just thing to do? The right thing, the fair thing and the just thing are all different from one another.

In my opinion, the right thing to do is to allow this child to be treated properly, to live a happy life without the incessant suffering thrust upon him. The fair thing to do would be to prohibit anyone from experiencing more pain and suffering than somebody else. The just thing to do would be to allow everyone to deal with their own negativities and pains on a personal basis.