The Most Dangerous Game

[Anticrombie0909]

If anybody has read this short story, forgive me to lay out the cliff's notes version for those who havn't. A general on an island (forget the name) captures a shipwrecked man (again, sorry, no name) and tells him that he is a great hunter. But the problem is that he has run out of prey, and is bored with hunting just animals. When he discovered the joys of hunting humans. The General tells the man that if he can survive for three days on pure wits and a head start, he will let him go. Otherwise, the General will kill him.

So- is it hunting...or murder?

[makaveli121212]

why does it have to be either, i think its both...end of discussion

[Anticrombie0909]

Originally Posted by makaveli121212

why does it have to be either, i think its both...end of discussion

Dude, this is critical thinking. Time for thinking critically. Not just saying 'oh its both, lets not talk about it'. You're supposed to talk about it.

I'll give my views in a moment. I want to see what other people think before I add my bias.

[BluE_MeaniE]

I do think it is both, actually.
It's not legally either of those things, but I assume that the island is far away from anywhere, but killing somebody is usually murder, and he was participating in the act of hunting.

[Anonymous]

1) its hunting because he is hunting, so its a man, who says a man cant be hunted...ever heard the term man-hunter
2) its murder, hes killing a man in cold blood, i think hunting any animal is murder
3) how is this critical thinking at all, if i want to kill you, i hunt you down and then kill you...murder+hunting
4) its 1 oclock i want to go to bed

[makaveli121212]

Originally Posted by Anonymous

1) its hunting because he is hunting, so its a man, who says a man cant be hunted...ever heard the term man-hunter
2) its murder, hes killing a man in cold blood, i think hunting any animal is murder
3) how is this critical thinking at all, if i want to kill you, i hunt you down and then kill you...murder+hunting
4) its 1 oclock i want to go to bed

me

[dancingmaniac3]

...time for me to think critically....i honestly think its hunting, because, he is actually giving the prey (human) a head start and a warning. when u murder someone, u dont give them a headstart do you? and did they ever say if he killed that person? cause if he didnt even kill him, then its hunting. only if he killed him without warning or something it is murder...and if he hunted him and then killed him, its hunting. but based on the laws of our society, it would be murder, if he did it and was reported. if the hunter was on the same asland as the prey, and they were the only two, and he kills the prey, theres no one around to say it was murder. so for the hunter, its hunting. in conclusion...ITS HUNTING.

I've actually read the story, and I think the way it ends is really cool. Yay hunted man.

Let's not look at this from a legal perspective, since the laws of the land are not always right.

I think it's more of a sick perversion than anything else. To derive pleasure from killing humans is disgusting. Period. Such a person should be locked up with the key thrown away.

[dancingmaniac3]

BUT...it wouldnt be considered murder or anything...and how would he be locked up if the place he lives on doesnt have a law-obeying society? being locked up is based on ur dis-obeytion of laws doesnt it? so how can u say not look from a legal perspective, but say that he can be locked up and throw the key away?...i love arguing like this. i should be a lawyer.

[IsUkAtDdR]

i have to agree with dancingmaniac3, but if it was in a society with laws and everything then i would have to agree with chardish

[dancingmaniac3]

thank you isukatddr...and i would agree with chardish, IF it was a society with laws. but it obviously wasnt, since i dont think that a guy would go hunting on an island when theres a chance that the shipwrecked guy can get away and report the general to law-enforcers. if there was a law-based society, the guy being hunted would've ran to the police a.s.a.p. since he didnt, there isnt any laws or law-enforcement ppl...so i say its hunting, since, once again, there are no law-enforcers, or laws in that case, that say it was murder. case closed (i hope)

[IsUkAtDdR]

yah but i would still "kind of" think its killing also because your a man and he's a man. people would usually think hunting is a killing of something else. if you say your gonna go hunting they would never guess your saying your gonna go hunt down a man. they would think deer or animals.

[dancingmaniac3]

right, but thats because in our society, its against the law to murder someone...so they automatically think that hes not gonna kill a man, since we all think that he should know that its against the law. and once again, since there were no laws, he can kill a plant and call it hunting if he wanted. so in a way, murder sorta doesnt exist on that island.

[BluE_MeaniE]

I think it's still murder without laws. It's not "homicide in the first degree" or anything like that, but isn't murder just murder, and not defined by the law?

[dancingmaniac3]

AND...ppl think hes gonna hunt animals cause no one says "im gonna hunt a man" in our society...they say "im gonna kill/murder a man" so yeah. just to add that on.

[dancingmaniac3]

no, because, murder is a law-based term which means that u broke the law that says not to kill someone...so like murder is killing someone when its against the law not to. otherwise, its just hunting, or surviving.

[MalReynolds]

Actually, the end never specifies who won the sword duel, you just jumped and said Rainsford won the fight.

I think that it is perfectly fair. He was given a fair chance, and could have set traps. And he did. If Zaroff did kill Rainsford, it would have been murder. And also, Rainsford fancied himself as quite the hunter, so it was more situational irony.

I personally think Zaroff won the duel. It would make sense, because a weary and troubled Rainsford probably couldn't weild a blade as well as the keen, (although sleepy) Zaroff. It would be much more satisfying if Rainsford had won the duel, but the direction that Connell took with the story was dark, so I wouldn't at all be surprised if he had intended Zaroff to be the victor.

It does say "And he had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided," but that can be construed as death, for death to the weary and ill is like sleep.


My 2 cents.

Mal

[dancingmaniac3]

who is zaroff and who is rainsford? and i never jumped to who won...the question was, was the act of this called hunting or murdering someone...and since no one died then, then its considered hunting. and just like u said mal, he was given time and everything. even if he intentioned it to be murder, he would've killed him on the spot. and even then its not murder because of what i said in the posts above.

[MalReynolds]

Zaroff was the general that owned the island, and Rainsford was the hunter that washed up on shore.

I was merely providing insight to the ending to help others determine... Since Rainsford is supposed to have killed Zaroff in the end, then it is murder, because it was on private property, and Rainsford was trespassing.

The entire island belonged to Zaroff, see, and Rainsford being on it was trespassing. He could be shot. It wouldn't be murder, either, it would be protection of ones property.


Mal

[dancingmaniac3]

well see that changes everything. anti never said that he owned the island. so now its still not murder, but it isnt hunting either...so yeah its protection ur property, which by all means gives u a right to do whatever you want to. so ya it isnt murder or anything like that. but the way anti posted it, it sounded like it was just an island that belonged to noone out in no-where, where there wasnt a society. but i guess i should read that book. sounds awesome.