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.