The Threat to Survive

Read this story and this blog will make sense....CLICK ME!

What did you think? A little demented? Inspiring? If you found inspiration in that there might be something wrong with you. But hey? You can find inspiration in the oddest places, right?

Anyways, to admit, I really liked the story even though it was really, really....horrible? No, that's not the word. Let's say psychotic. Does that work? I think so... At least for General Zaroff.

So, my question to you all is, do you think what Rainsford did, in the end, was necessary? Should he have killed the general? Yes or no?

There are multiple ways one could answer this question. Yes, he should have killed the General because if he hadn't the General would continue hunting people. No, because Rainsford became exactly what he was against. It's a hard answer. Can you imagine being in Rainsford shoes?

So maybe, we should restate the question. If you were Rainsford, what would you have done?

Hi, I'm Rainsford. I'm being hunted, literally, through the jungle by a lunatic, named General Zaroff, who's trying to kill me, and, not to mention, he's finding pleasure in doing so! Is that not nutty or what?! 

Now, what should I do if and when he finds me? Kill him, give mercy, plead and beg? 

Ok, back to me. People have the tendency to choose their life over others. So picture it this way. Rainsford did it in self-defense. Does that count? Rainsford had the chance to eliminate the evil that infected the island and was trying to kill him. He took that chance. But in doing so could you say he also became exactly what General Zaroff was?

General Zaroff was a lunatic, as you all know, who was bored of hunting animals so of course, I mean who wouldn't do this, he switched to hunting humans. As he said, "Humans are nothing more than animals." But through his reasoning, there is a large flaw. There is a wide expanse of differences between humans and animals. Humans have the capability of reasoning. The chance to critically think through situations whereas animals are the opposite. Animals have their animal instincts. Yes, people have instincts too but these are not the instincts I am talking about. Animals only instinct is to kill, protect, and survive. Every choice an animal makes is based on how can I survive? And through this thinking, they either decide to kill or take flight. 

Humans, yes, their instinct is how to survive but do they always kill or flee in the chance of survival? I don't believe so. We have the capability to reason out these dilemmas. The chance to trap a person and hold them until someone comes to take them away. Will we kill if it comes to that? Yes, I believe so. But only and only if it comes to that. It's called self-defense. The threat to survive.So back to the question, did Rainsford become what he was against? I don't believe so. He critically thought through the situation and decided what had to be done. This is probably bad to admit, but I believe he had to do it. If he wouldn't have Rainsford would have been killed and General Zaroff would have continued his displeasures.

But, in the end, did they both become animals? Face to face they stood and the only thought that flashed across their mind was the threat to survive. They both would have killed to survive. They believed it was the only way. Is this an instinct of an animal? You alone surviving?

There's so much that could be taken from this story. More than could be imagined. So much that I could continue this post for an unlimited time. 

What did you take away from the story?