EPE ESSAYS (three examples)
NUMBER
OF ESSAYS IN THIS FILE: 3
EXAMPLE 1:
EPE ESSAY: THE MORALITY OF HUNTING
by
Prajna Pathak
Richard
Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game" is a very
exciting story of a manhunt. This story made
me think about the morality of
hunting: Humans are the cleverest creatures
on earth, but does it
give them a license to kill the other
animals and even human beings weaker
than themselves? I give below a short summary
of the story to set
the scene and then I will explore the ethics
involved in hunting as a
sport.
"The
Most Dangerous Game" presents the story of a hunter, General
Zaroff, who finds hunting human beings as
the most dangerous and
fascinating sport. He likes hunting humans
because human beings,
unlike the other animals, can reason better
and so provide a richer thrill
for the hunter. He does not think hunting
human beings is an immoral act
because he believes in the theory of might
is right and that the
strong have the right to kill the weak.
However in the story General Zaroff
fails to hunt down Rainsford, who had the
ill fortune to accidentally
slip overboard a yacht and swim to the
shore, seek shelter in the
General's
chateau in the midst of a jungle, and become General
Zaroff's quarry for three days.
Nevertheless, Rainsford, who believes it is
immoral to hunt human beings, was clever and
desperate--he gave
General Zaroff the slip in the manhunt and
killed the General. So
The hunter who craved to pit his wits
against the victim's wits for the
Sake of excitement met his end. In my
opinion Rainsford, who was also a
great hunter, learnt the valuable lesson
that it is cruel and immoral
to hunt innocent animals for the sake of
mere excitement and that
hunting is not the best, as he formerly
believed, but the worst sport in the
world. He knew full well what it meant to
feel the fear of pain and
the fear of death.
General Zaroff believed in the law of the
jungle, that is,
Might is right. So he felt there was nothing
wrong in killing animals and
even low-bred or weak human beings for
excitement. According to him,
the earth belonged to the strong and only
they are fit to survive.
To be weak is to forfeit the right to exist.
However,
this theory can be challenged in several ways. First
And foremost, what is strength? It does not
necessarily mean physical
strength. A strong creature like the
elephant is tamed and
domesticated by a human who is relatively a
weaker creature. If to be strong is
to be clever, then a fox may be stronger
than a lion. If strength lies
in wisdom, an ant probably is no less wise
than even a human being. So
it is very difficult to say who are the fit
and who have the right to
survive. Furthermore, there is no reason
whatsoever to claim the
right of the strong to kill the weak. The
weak have the right to live and
many weak creatures thrive splendidly.
Darwin's theory
of evolution teaches us that in the struggle
For existence only the fit survive. But it
does not tell us that the
Weak are unfit. As a matter of fact, many
strong creatures like mammoths
and dinosaurs failed in the struggle for
existence and became extinct,
while puny and weak creatures like the cockroach
or the common fly are
living and flourishing. This proves that it
is not physical strength that
guarantees fitness and the license to live.
Survival is a more
complicated affair than mere strength.
If we look at
the history of evolution we see that human
Beings have been very successful in the
struggle for existence. One of the
reasons for this may be that man does not
live by bread alone and
that the human society has developed a set
of civilizing virtues like
charity, kindness, and morality. We have
been taught that it is
immoral to destroy life. We have no right to
destroy what we cannot create,
and other animals are our fellow creatures.
Our knowledge of
ecology also teaches us that by killing
animals we may be tampering
with the delicate ecosystem and inviting our
own destruction.
Human beings are
probably the most intelligent creatures on
earth. That is why they have a great
responsibility of keeping intact
the life of the earth. Indiscriminate
killing for sport is an
uncivilized and anti-intellectual activity,
because we should share
this world with the other animals and live
in harmony with them.
Harmonious existence is the key to
civilization and survival. It is our moral
responsibility to tend life on earth, not
destroy it. Weak or
strong--every creature is beautiful and
essential for the health of
the world, and it is our moral obligation to
see that the other
creatures share this world with us. Live and
let live should be our
motto. Every life is holy.
EXAMPLE 2:
Summary and Revision of EPE Essay: Response
to "The Most Dangerous Game"
by
Jeff Heyer
The story "The Most Dangerous Game"
is written by Richard Connell. It
is the story of a man who falls off of a yacht in the Caribbean ocean.
The man, Mr. Rainsford, manages to swim to a
nearby wild island. He
approaches a large, gloomy home on this island, and meets the owner,
General Zaroff and his assistant Ivan.
General Zaroff is an
experienced hunter who has elevated his hunts to include humans due to
the challenge they present. The most dangerous game is, a play on words.
First, it’s a dangerous game in which General
Zaroff gives himself three days
to kill his prey. Second, the game itself is a human being. If the
general
fails, the hunted can go free. If the prey refuses to be hunted, they
must
face some kind of awful torture by the huge Ivan. Rainsford faces the
dilemma
of his life, fight or flight. He manages to run and hide from General
Zaroff
for two days. On the third day, Rainsford sets a trap, killing Ivan, and
manages to escape. Within this escape there is another hunt, Rainsford is
cornered and desperate, but at the last possible moment, he realizes he
can
escape by swimming to Zaroff’s home. Rainsford arrives at Zaroff’s home
before Zaroff, and hides in his bedroom. As Zaroff is preparing for bed,
Rainsford comes from behind the curtains,
announces his presence, and fights
and presumably kills Zaroff.
"The Most Dangerous Game" involves
many hidden messages. Within this story,
the author forces the reader to examine their views on hunting versus the
hunted. It causes the reader to reflect on their role and place in the
world.
The most important message to this story is
one of respect for human life.
The story is really well written and sends a
powerful message. Personally, I
had a few problems with the story. There seemed to be a level of far
fetched
story telling within the story. I feel that it could have been written
with a
little more realistic approach. The way Rainsford lands on the Island, by
falling off a rail, to get a better look at something he could not and
would
not see, seemed unrealistic. The most bothersome aspect to the story is
the
fact the Connell leaves the reader hanging, not knowing exactly how the
story
ends. All the reader knows is that Rainsford survived. This was an
extreme
letdown.
The story, for myself, makes me wonder how I
would fight for my life. It
makes any reader wonder what they would do in that situation. This is the
strength of the story, it really transports the reader into the story. It
also made me reevaluate my stance on hunting. It made me realize that I
too
could some day become hunted, instead of hunter.
The Story "The Most Dangerous Game"
involves the reader in many
experiences. It lets one feel what the fight for survival is like,
and what saving your own life could entail. Victory and joy are two
of the experiences one will feel when reading this story. However one of
the
most powerful experiences within the story is that of fear.
Richard Connell’s "The Most Dangerous
Game" takes the reader through
many human fears, particularly those that many will never experience.
One aspect to fear is that of your
surroundings. Your surroundings give gut
instinct. They can key you in to certain clues or signals that can
develop
into much excitement. Connell uses these surroundings, or the elements,
to
make the reader feel and experience fear, in the same way his characters
feel
fear. Right in the beginning of "The Most Dangerous Game", the
reader is
introduced to these elements of fear. The character Whitney explains how
they
sense excitement and danger from their surroundings. "I think
sailors have an
extra sense that tells them when they are in danger. Sometimes I think
evil
is a tangible thing-with wave lengths, just as sound and light have. An
evil
place can, so to speak, broadcast vibrations of evil." Later, we
witness the
first real danger that Rainsford encounters. When Rainsford falls
overboard
his "cry was pinched off short as the blood-warm waters of the
Caribbean Sea
closed over his head." Other aspects of the environment the Connell
uses are
the darkness and quicksand. Darkness is present throughout the story,
entering at the most opportune time, in order to evoke fear and terror.
The
quicksand that is often referred to within the story is not only an
undesirable place to be, but also represents something the reader can
feel.
In reading, the reader images a cool, muddy,
suffocating environment in this
quicksand.
Connell also uses sounds to evoke fear in the
readers. When Rainsford hears
gunshots throughout the story, they represent many things. Gunshots
primarily signify the hunter and the hunted. These gunshots represent a
shooter and the game, a terrifying notion, particularly when the game is
human. Early in the story, gunshots represent another fear. Gunshots
represent the fear of the unknown. At first, the unknown is a curiosity,
which ultimately leads to Rainsford’s predicament. One of the more
disturbing
sounds is one in which Rainsford hears as he is swimming toward the
Island.
"Rainsford heard a sound. It came out of
the Darkness, a high screaming
sound, the sound of an animal in an extremity of anguish and terror. He
did
not recognize the animal that made the sound-he did not try to; with
fresh
vitality he swam toward the sound. He heard it again; then it was cut
short
by another noise, crisp, staccato. ‘Pistol shot,’ muttered Rainsford,
swimming on." The horror in this experience, is that the reader
later will
realize that it was most likely a person, screaming in anguish and
terror.
General Zaroff represents fear in character.
His home alone, is a dark
mysterious building. "A lofty structure with pointed towers plunging
upward
into the gloom. His eyes made out the shadowy outlines of a palatial
chateau;
it was set on a high bluff, and on three sides of it cliffs dived down to
where the sea licked greedy lips in the shadows." This is a very
visual
example of foreshadowing, for the prey was entering the trap. Connell
adds to
the eerie feel of the house. "The massive door with a leering
gargoyle for a
knocker was real enough; yet about it all hung an air of unreality. He
lifted
the knocker, and it creaked up stiffly, as if it had never before been
used."
Inside the home, there are even more
terrifying objects. The most terrifying
being General Zaroff’s collection of heads. The General says, "I
want to show
you my new collection of heads. Will you come with me to the
library?" Here
we see the sick, twisted, and perverse mentality of General Zaroff. This
brings new meaning to terror, and transcends fear.
We have not even begun to discuss "The
most Dangerous Game" itself. This game
has many terrors and horrifying aspects. It is the fight for life, a
battle
for survival. Rainsford goes through a normal cycle of human
consciousness
when pressured in such a way. This psychological head-game is called
fight or
flight. The fight is when he sets traps, attempts to ambush, and kills
Ivan.
The flight is when he runs, hides, and swims.
Ultimately the dangerous game
represents all human fears. These fears are of death, being trapped,
being
pursued, darkness, loneliness, and terrible people.
The incredible part of "The most
Dangerous Game" is that it places the reader
in all of these situations. Fortunately, most people will never see,
feel, or
experience anything close to the events in this story. Realizing the
potential of such awful things can be useful. It allows us to examine our
values of human life, social dilemmas, and the gift of fear. Richard
Connell
takes the reader through many human fears, particularly those that many
will
never experience.
Example 3:
Glasnost and Perestroika - General Zaroff style
>by
David
F. Nied
>Richard's Connell's The Most
Dangerous Game combines suspense, daring, a
>battle of wits, and murder quite
efficiently with three characters: a
>noted American author and big game
hunter (Sanger Rainsford), an exiled
>Russian general and remnant of the
Romanov dynasty (Zaroff), and his big
>brutish sidekick- Ivan. Our story
explores the not quite original theme
>of hunting humans as prey. The nimble
and skilled American hunter falls
>off a boat and swims to an island
owned by the general. The general
>initially wines and dines his
happenstance guest, but casual table
>conversion gradually turns to the
general's real business on the island.
>His guest learns that he, too, is an
accomplished hunter, but animal prey
>no longer challenges him; he now
hunts the ultimate game - people! The
>American soon finds himself with
rations, a knife, and a short head start
>from the general. A battle of wits
ensues as the hunt commences, and the
>general narrowly avoids two lethal
traps set by his "prey." He does,
>however, lose Ivan and a tracking
dog. After three days of harrowing
>flight, the American comes to fully
appreciate the prey's viewpoint of a
>hunt. Using all the skill and cunning
he could muster, the American
>doubles back to the residence ahead
of the general. The general is
>initially
startled to find his prey waiting in his bedroom, but
>gracefully accepts the American's
challenge - a duel to the death. The
>general bites the dust!
>Connell's gripping and grotesque
story attempts to illustrate the
>so-called unflattering aspects of
sport hunting. He does so by turning
>the tables on an accomplished hunter
and delivering him into the hands of
>a crazed man hunter. He further uses
the evil Zaroff character to
>introduce the idea of hedonism. And
so Connell skillfully unites
>alleged hunting brutalities with
arrogant pleasure. This mixture of
>philosophies ultimately produces a
strong - if not misdirected -
>anti-hunting message.
>This essay will argue that Connell's
hunting sensibilities lack
>foundation.
>The superficial premise of Connell's
story is that animal hunting is
>brutal and cruel. But why? Animal
killing is a common daily occurrence.
> Animals hunt and kill other animals
without objection. Numerous species
>of domestic animals are slaughtered
daily with little objection from
>most people. So what arbitrarily thin
threshold divides these instances
>of accepted animal killing from sport
hunting?
>
>Connell, I think, promoted the idea
that the systematic hunting and
>tracking of an animal somehow gives
the animal time to recognize its
>situation and, thus, allow itself to
become terrorized. This terror
>becomes the basis of the cruelty
Connell attempted to illustrate.
>Connell's message is wrong - in my
estimation - because of fundamental
>differences between human and animal
thought processes.
>
>Humans possess the ability to think -
that is - to have or formulate in
>the mind; to reason about or reflect
on; to ponder; to construct complex
>language; to decide by reasoning and
reflection; to decide what to do; to
>judge; to speculate the future; to
achieve beyond one's circumstances, and so
>on.
>Humans exercise the power of reason,
conceive ideas, draw inferences,
>use judgment, and of course, possess
imagination. Humans are aware of
>their mortality; their ability to
assess a situation allows them to fear
>eminent danger. Indeed, one's ability
to imagine danger can lead to a
>state of terror. Most of us can
remember childhood fears, for example,
>of night monsters bent on getting us.
>
>Where do animals, however, fit into
this cognizant fear equation?
>Animals are governed by instinct - an
unlearned behavior that is invoked
>by a specific cause and that
generally fulfills some vital need.
>Instinctive behaviors include
fighting, escape, courtship, and
>food-gathering activities. And so
animals may instinctively avoid a
>predator or perceived danger, but
it's unlikely that these things cause
>terror within them. Consider the
probability that a bull will attempt to
>flee a matador. And wasn't Zaroff
knocked on his rear by a buffalo he
>was hunting?
>
>Consider, too, man's dominion over
animals. Those who abide Christian
>doctrine
should
>re-acquaint themselves with these
Bible passages:
>Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our
>likeness, and let them rule over the
fish of the sea and the birds of the
>air, over the livestock, over all the
earth, and over all the creatures
>that move along the ground."
>
>Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them,
>"Be fruitful and increase in
number and fill the earth. [2] The fear and
>dread of you will fall upon all the
beasts of the earth and all the birds
>of the air, upon every creature that
moves along the ground, and upon all
>the fish of the sea; they are given
into your hands. [3] Everything that
>lives and moves will be food for you.
Just as I gave you the green
>plants, I now give you
everything."
>
>Evolutionists need to consider a
fundamental difference between
>vegetarians and carnivores.
Vegetarians - plant eaters - possess teeth
>comprised entirely of molars. These
teeth are specifically designed to
>pull and grind plant material.
Carnivores - flesh eaters - possess both
>incisors and molars. Incisors are
specifically designed to cut and tear
>flesh. We humans possess incisors.
And so we see that two extremities of
>the belief spectrum tend to support
the idea of man's dominion over
>animals.
>
>Connell, of course, may have wanted
to convey an anti-cruelty to animals
>message, but I think that his agenda
included a more powerful and
>controversial moral concept. Remember
Zaroff's dinner comments to
>Rainsford: "Life is for the
strong, to be lived by the strong, and, if
>needs be, taken by the strong. The
weak of the world were put here to
>give the strong pleasure. I am
strong. Why should I not use my gift?
>If I wish to hunt, why should I not
hunt? I hunt the scum of the
>earth--sailors from tramp
ships--lascars, blacks, Chinese, whites,
>mongrels--a thoroughbred horse or
hound is worth more than a score of
>them."
>
>Zaroff's comments loosely describe a
philosophic precept called hedonism.
> Hedonism is a doctrine that states
pleasure is the highest good. Greek
>philosophers Aristippus and Epicurus
taught that hedonism equated
>pleasure with the gratification of
sensual desire and with the
>intellectual serenity brought on by
the rational control of desire.
>
>Jeremy Bentham, an eighteenth century
English philosopher, incorporated
>the idea of hedonism in his theory of
utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is
>the theory that the rightness or
wrongness of an action is determined by
>the goodness or badness of its
consequences. His Introduction to the
>Principles of Morals and Legislation
said that the greatest happiness of
>the greatest number should govern our
judgment of every institution and
>action. Zaroff, who considered
himself the leader of a society of two,
>embraced these principles. Connell
apparently disagreed with them and
>chose to personify them in the evil
Zaroff character.
>
>And so I contend that Connell failed
to establish hunting as an evil and
>bad thing. Additionally, I believe
that he was an avid opponent of
>hedonism and utilitarianism and wrote
his story, primarily, to vilify
>them.
|
|