The Most Dangerous Game

[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.

[MalReynolds]

No, Zaroff clearly owns the island. But technically, it is still hunting, because home owners can still "hunt" criminals through their house. A good example of this fails to come to mind at the time, but it has happened before.

Mal

[tristia]

i personally think it would have to still be considered murder. If i remember the story right (and your asking me to go back to freshman english class), hes a general and such right? that would lead me to think that he is from a place that has laws and rules just because it has a government and military, so he is still commiting murder based on a moral level. He would know that it was murder because he is from a society that forbids the act of murder. I suppose it would also depend on what country he is from, but the manner of how zoloff speaks about his servant i guess is what you would call him (his large friend0 makes me think he comes from a highly civilized background. He calls him a savage, because he is def and dumb... just makes me think zoloff should know better than to be hunting men for sport... which would make it murder.

[HNJhack]

ok, well these are all good points. here's mine. i don't think anyone said this yet...

The general told the man(i beleive that was rainsford) that he would hunt him. He has stated that he will do it tha tmeans he has thought a bout it making it pre-meditated murder. end of story ^_^

oh yeah, all hunting is murder when you think about it. it's just the way it is.hunting is murder, but murder isn't always hunting. ^_^

[User6773]

At this point, I think the debate is pretty stupid.

It's murder. Who cares what fashion the general kills the shipwrecked man in? Who cares if he gets a head start? The point is, it's still willful, wanton killing of one man by another. Whether or not it's "also hunting" doesn't matter.

[hEaLiNgViSiOnAnGeLicMiX]

Well LOGICALLY, it's both. but for some reason, I think it's more murder than anything

Usually hunting is when an animal is killed. Of course it IS possible to hunt humans because animal and humans are alltogether living species. But think about it this way, during the process of hunting, the animals are killed at almost first site, to prevent it from escaping. The general gave the man 3 days, and then afterwards decided to kill him on the spot. Another thing, hunting is usually done for money. Either that or they want to make clothes out of the furr, or eat the meat. Obviously, the human has no furr, and the story never said anything about the general roasting the man atop a fire LOL.


Here's another thing though. Think of these two questions: What is murder? What is hunting? They're almost the same. Theyre both terms used to describe the killing of a living being. Difference is that you will have some kind of reward after hunting, wether it be meat *food* or money or clothes *furr* . But to justify what I said before, food money or even clothes did NOT come out of the idea of killing a human. so I to finish it off...IT WAS MURDER!

[Falcon]

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?

what youre talking about is natural laws... the laws that a [normal] person adheres to because he feels they are right, not because they are written as laws by a government. and in that case, i would agree with you.

as for the argument, i would have to say it depends on perspective. if you consider a man, in this case, to be an animal and not a man, then it is purely hunting. if not, then it is murder. i will agree with chardish that it is a perversion... that a person has gotten to a point where he has to hunt so much that he must hunt something smarter than simply an "animal", but something that is as smart as he is.

4) its 1 oclock i want to go to bed

"its 3 am and i wanna go to beeeed" -OAR

[dancingmaniac3]

ok this is getting way out of hand. i mean its a great story and all and makes u think hard, but theres just too many perspectives and we're never gonna get the answer. the only answer we get is the one we believe in. thats our answer. there is no RIGHT answer to this story, only the answer that we think it is. so basically, this can go on forever, ppl saying its murder, ppl saying its hunting, ppl saying its both, ppl saying its neither. i predict this thread will go on for a while with everyones opinion...

[HNJhack]

indeed it will. isn't that the point to these threads. they consist of very complicated sublects with no easy answer. in makes u as all think extemely hard to find an answer. eventually we will agree. because there is an answer to everything. ^_^

[MalReynolds]

But Rainsford is tresspassing, and if Zaroff feels threatened, then his is full in his right to kill Rainsford.


Mal

[VxDx]

It's both, end of discussion. Plus the story sucked.