PLN Post 3: "The Most Dangerous Blog Post"

I think that in the short story, "The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell, the author had a lot of hints toward how he feels about hunting and about 'the hunt.' While Rainsford was on the island talking to the general, I think Connell expressed his tone through Richmond like he was his puppet. That's how authors usually are, they would express just what they would do in their character, and I think Connell kind of did that with Rainsford.

"Hunting? Great Guns, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder!" said Rainsford as the general smiled grimly. I think that's when the author was best expressed through Rainsford, when the general talks about hunting humans, and what he thought was right and wrong about hunting when it comes down to this.

In class today, we had some questions based on some of the subjects of this short story. Like for example, "What makes a good hunter?" and "Can you be cunning without intelligence?". But one of them kind of reflects off of what Connell is talking about, which is, "Is hunting morally right?". Connell kind of states this in the tone of the story when Rainsford finally knows what it's like to the the prey in some situations, to not always be on top, and for an animal that doesn't even know it's being hunted or have reason, it might not even be moral if it's for entertainment and pride.

So that kind of sums up what I think Connells thoughts are about this short story and what his moral kind of represents. Thanks for reading, this one was a little shorter than may last couple but thanks for reading anyway!

- Matt

Also, for information about this short story, please check out the "Resources" page for info about everything I'm talking about. Thanks!

PLN Post 2: "The Good in Bad"

Again, I haven't read enough of my current novel to answer the guiding question relating to my novel, but I will try to compare the question with a previous novel I have read.


"Why do good people do bad things?"

In the book, "Catching Fire," by Suzanne Collins, (a previous book I have read) the Hunger Games and the contestants in it help represent why good people do bad things. There is a difference between bad and evil. For example, if a person accidentally commits man-slaughter, that is a bad thing. If a person commits homicide, that is an evil thing. Neither of them are good, but the intent of both of them are entirely different.

In Catching Fire, the Hunger Games that are played are run by the Capitol. If you did not read the series, the Hunger Games is a game played forcibly by tributes between the ages of 12-18. These tributes must fight savagely for their lives in order to gain the title of the Games, and their lives.

As you can tell, none of this is good. But there are some things to point out. The Capitol is obviously evil. The Capitol is forcing young teenagers to, without will, destroy the innocent lives of other tributes, and their family and friends, just to be able to keep surviving like they originally could if it wasn't for the Capitol's government. And they call that entertainment. That is extra bad; evil.

But the tributes aren't evil. They are good citizens of the twelve districts controlled by the Capitol, having to fight in the game. But you're probably asking, "Isn't it evil if they are killing other tributes in order to stay alive themselves?"

My colleague invented a table (originally used for Christianity purposes) to classify what is good, bad, and evil. Please note: I have slightly modified this chart to not include any religion and to fit with this discussion. This table represents what is good or bad, and why.

To do something good, you must have a good action, and a good intent. If you do a bad action, but with a good intent (or an accident) it is still bad, but it is not evil. If you do something good, but with a bad intent, then you have made it bad (mostly involves selfishness). But if you do something bad with the intent of it being bad, then it is evil.

If this makes any sense to you reader, then it should explain that those tributes are doing something bad, but not with a bad intent, to leave it with a good one, then it is bad, but absolutely not evil. If the Capitol is doing something bad, in order to gain power (selfishness) which is a bad intent, they are nothing but evil.

So why do good people do bad things? Because it depends on the action and the intent of what that person does. If a good person does something bad, it is not entirely evil, one side of it must be for the good. A good person isn't automatically evil for doing something bad, for no one good can do evil or be evil by being good.

Thank you for reading this blog entry. I try to do my best in describing and answering the question. If you are confused or have any questions or comments, you know where to find it!

 - Matt

First PLN Post: "The Utterly Perfect Murder"

"It was such an utterly perfect, such an incredibly delightful idea for murder, that I was half out of my mind all across America." That is the lead for the short story by Ray Bradbury, The Utterly Perfect Murder, which I am going to share my thoughts on. I chose this short story because everybody that is probably reading this is in my class, and have all read this short story, and because I haven't gotten very far on my independent reading book yet.

This short story takes place with a forty-eight year old man that randomly decides to kill a childhood bully. Let's stop it right there... He wants to kill someone who bullied him in grade school? Now, right here, I decided that this guy in completely insane. Why don't we incorporate one of Mrs. Lee's example questions right here (I'll put her questions in green from now on). Has it changed my thinking/perspective? Yes. I have decided that this guy has a lot of years in the mental institute ahead of him.

But anyway, in the next couple pages, he packs up, gets on a train, talks to himself a lot, and thinks about all the memories that he had of Ralph Underhill (a.k.a. the bully). His wife doesn't even care that her strange husband is going on a random journey in the middle of the night to possibly commit a crime. But you're probably wondering: "Matt, what did Ralph Underhill do the main character (because we don't know his name yet) to make him do this in the first place?" I'm glad you asked, because here is a list that tells all about what Ralph did.

• Knocked him down in snow and mud with a new suit
• Traded a Tarzan Clay Statue for a baseball mit (harsh)
• Never came to his house on fourth of Julys.

Now that's all that he described in the short story so far, but would you really come halfway across the country to kill somebody that did that to him 36 years ago? I don't know about you, but I think Ralph rolled him in the snow a little too many times.

When he finally got there, he hid his briefcase and prepared his pistol, and approached Ralph's house. When he rung the doorbell, and Ralph answered...

Did you know the main character's name is Doug?

Anyway, he did not take out his pistol. He did not shoot Ralph Underhill. Doug saw that Ralph was small, sick, weak. Helpless. And he knew now why he had come. Not to murder his childhood bully. But to see what he has become. What is intriguing or fascinating? He didn't need to take revenge, for Ralph has himself. He suddenly said, "Doug?-" Doug didn't expect for him to remember.

"Bang. Six shots through the heart. But I didn't use the pistol. I only whispered the sound of the shots with my mouth. With each whisper, Ralph Underhill's face aged another ten years. By the time I reached the last shot, he was one hundred and ten years old."

And after that, he just picked up his briefcase and walked away, while Ralph was calling, "Doug! Is that you? Answer me!" What passages, quotes, facts, statistics, etc. strike me? This whole situation kind of strikes me. At first I thought this guy was a total whack-job, but he just did something he had to. To face his fear, and "to see him and all he is in this hour. That's all." I think that this was something he had to do.

This was a pretty cool short story. I was a little "iffy" at first but turned out to come to a dramatic conclusion that had a pretty strong impact, even for the short story it is. Am I thinking “outside the box?” I think I am. I am thinking of things that might not even relate to the story, might not even relate to the character. I am coming to strong conclusions that are not mentioned in the story, but for something I had to figure out myself. 

This blog was a little longer than I imagined but thanks for reading anyway. Please comment!

- Matt