Most Dangerous Game
By having less life experience or less experience in various situations (think hunting), how can effect you either positively or negatively in the long run? Connect this to Rainsford's experience with General Zaroff?
Dustin, Jordan, Jason, John, Garrett, Phillip, Cole
posted by annes @ 8:25 AM
5 Comments:
Without personal life experiences, you start to form perceptual images from what you hear around you. Once you see the true perspective, you learn how the other side feels. In "The Most Dangerous Game," Rainsford tells Whitney in the beginning that an animal doesn't have feelings. When he is hunted like an animal he learns how an animal feels when it's demise is impending. Once you have seen the other side of the story for yourself, you will never think twice about how blown out of proportion the stereotypes around us are.
By having less experience in various situations it will effect you in a negative way because you don't know what to do or anything. When having more experience does and you don't know what would be right or wrong. Rainsford's experience with General Zaroff was like a life or death sitution like quinn's comment.
I agree with Quin that if you have little or no experience in something that your doing, than it will effect you negatively. You have to no something about what your doing, in order to do well. In the short story, "The Most Dangerous Game" Rainsford did good because he had experience in hunting. It showed refering back to the times that he leared how to set up traps. So that effected him positively.
I think that having less life experience is a definite disadvantage, because if you can’t predict certain situations you cannot prepare yourself. Only one advantage comes from less experience that is you are more willing to take risks. This comes from not knowing the consequences.
Having less life experience can have a negative effect on you, because it can make you naive. In "Most Dangerous Game," Rainsford is amazed that Zaroff plans to hunt him.
Post a Comment
<< Home