Within Mary Shelley’s gothic novel, the viewer can identify how although society calls him a monster they still distinguish him from a human standpoint. Which can be witnessed through Shelley ’s language; her word choice illustrates that even though the characters label him a monster, they still hold him accountable the same way they would a human. A critical piece of language that classifies him as human is when Victor refers to him as a murderer, “I repaired to a criminal judge in the town, and told him I had an accusation to make; that I knew the destroyer of my family; and that I required him to exert his whole authority for the apprehension of the murderer” (Shelley, 202). The choice Victor made to call him a murder rather than a predator shows that the creature is more closely related to humans rather than animals. Furthermore, the creature is referred to as a murderer, meaning that he has developed the mental capacity to commit a crime.
Most Dangerous Game Argumentation Paragraph The story, “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell is about Sanger Rainsford ends up on an island with General Zaroff, who hunts humans. Rainsford ends up playing General Zaroff’s game and becomes the huntee while Zaroff is the hunter. Zaroff loses the game and gets killed by Rainsford. Rainsford was justified in killing General Zaroff. During the time Rainsford is in Zaroff’s house they have a conversation about hunting.
In this quote, we see that Montresor’s intention is to kill Fortunato, rather than take him to taste the expensive wine. As the story goes on, we get a better picture of Montresor’s evil plan by linking the things that he has said in the beginning with him taking Fortunato deeper and deeper into the catacombs. In The Most Dangerous Game, we realize from very early on in the story that the General’s intention is to hunt, and ultimately kill Rainsford. In the story, the General says: “[The animal] must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason”, to which Rainsford’s answer was that no animal could reason. This quote is the first point in the story it is certain that Zaroff is a murderer.
Rainsford is a competitive hunter just like Zaroff so there is a possibility he killed Zaroff because he is stubborn and wanted to win, which would lead him to be guilty and have a more intense punishment. In the end I think even if it was for survival rainsford will have to serve some jail time for his actions. I believe Rainsford should serve some jail time because he did push Zaroff’s body off the window and let the dogs eat his flesh, pushing Zaroff’s body off was unnecessary but the actually murder has its own punishments. Do you think he should be in jail for murdering Zaroff even if it was for his own protection?, keep in mind that Rainsford would be guilty for many things he has done as
When Rainsford saw Zaroff’s trophy room he knew that the loser of the game would die. If Rainsford wanted to live he would have to win the game. It is true that Rainsford set up traps that could have killed Zaroff but the only way to win was to kill your opponent. Rainsford was also acting in self defence as Zaroff tried to kill him using his bow and arrow, rifle, and hounds. Although the only way to win was to kill your opponent, Rainsford tried to find another way out by pretending to fall into the
Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.
Whereas, in The Cask of Amontillado, the reason behind the murder is revenge, “The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could; but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.” Additionally, Montressor’s jealousy is another reason because of which he murders Fortunato. The other difference noticed in the short stories, is that in both of the short stories the aftermath of the murder is different. In The Tell Tale Heart, in the near end of the story after the murder, the narrator feels very happy , and
In “A Good Man Is Hard to Find,” Flannery O’Connor creates a story where the roles of good and evil blend together. In the short story, a family in the rural South gets caught up with a criminal named the Misfit after their wreck and they end up getting murdered. The clash between the grandmother and the Misfit highlights the religious aspects of the story and also O’Connor’s beliefs. Her stylistic traits of violence, distortion, and religion are used to convey a corrupt world that needs salvation. O’Connor’s trait of violence is used throughout to reveal the corrupt and criminal world that emanates the need for salvation.
She is saying at the end of the primitive world she wanted to be a guide for those in the future, to make a reference point for them to follow. Her tools were “the desires of humans as they emerged/ from the killing fields, from the bedrooms and the kitchens” (Harjo 3-4). All three locations are symbolic for various places of corruption. Killing fields represent war, a struggle for control and power. It represents the greed; the only reason war breaks out is due to some type of power struggle.
Murder can be defined as “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”. How then, are others able to make us sympathize with not only murderers, but people who have committed horrendous crimes? For example, the media is constantly attempting to humanize rapists and even terrorists with phrases like “lone wolf” or “alienated and adrift.” Such phrases make some of us want to pity the criminal. This can be seen when we compare Perry Smith and Dick Hickock from Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood. Capote portrays only one of these two seemingly distinct characters (Perry) in a way that the reader feels the need to relate to and even sympathize with him.