Bringing Literature To Life--Through Violence! [Tuesday, Second Period]

[steel-not-glass.livejournal.com]

Hopefully none of her students had eaten themselves into a candy-coma last night. Mostly because Cindy had no intention of stopping or taking it easy on anyone if they had. "Morning," she said breezily. "So, today's class, we're going to discuss the question of what makes us human. In Richard Connell's short story, The Most Dangerous Game, our protagonist, Rainsford begins the story by explaining to his friend Whitney about the two types of people in the world, the hunters and the huntees. And later, General Zaroff says that animals have nothing other than their legs and their instincts; the true difference between mankind and animals is the ability to reason. Then, of course, Zaroff proceeds to turn Rainsford into nothing more than a particularly dangerous animal and hunt him across the island."

Cindy handed out copies of the short story and then returned to her desk, perching on the edge and looking out at them. "Zaroff finds Rainsford easily that first night--does that mean he is more a human than Rainsford, since he is able to out-fox and out-reason his prey? Does being turned into a huntee somehow lessen Rainsford? This story makes us question just what being a human means--is humanity so simple to encapsulate, as both Rainsford and Zaroff do? Or is there something more to being a human being than the ability to reason. Would you consider either Zaroff or Rainsford to be human--neither of them wince away from killing other living creatures as a game, the only difference is the kind of game they're willing hunt. Is that what it means to be human? Do their actions, including the wanton destruction of life, exclude them from humanity? Or is it a dangerous game to start putting limitations on humanity at all? Let's form groups and discuss the nature of what humanity really is."

Comments

Class Discussion: Humanity

[steel-not-glass.livejournal.com]

What defines 'humanity'? What separates humans from animals--and does that definition exclude certain types of people? Are there any inherent problems in trying to limit what is considered human? Where do Zaroff and Rainsford fall according to your definition? Is one 'more' human than the the other?

Pair up and argue your definitions. Please, make messy threads!

Re: Class Discussion: Humanity

[child-of-rer.livejournal.com]

Sov looked around for someone to team up with, while pondering the issue. It seemed... wrong somehow, to reduce it to hunting and hunted.

Re: Class Discussion: Humanity

[whateverknight.livejournal.com]

Squall's answer neatly avoided all the thorny philosophical issues. "What makes someone human is their genes," he declared. "And what makes them a person is their sentience. If you want to talk about what makes someone a decent person, that's another question entirely."

Re: Class Discussion: Humanity

[child-of-rer.livejournal.com]

Sov tilted their head. "I guess," they said. "If people had to be decent to qualify as humans, then some would most definitely be excluded. And it seems to me that this Zaroff is just making an excuse to behave cruelly."

Not really an argument at all, but Sov was trying,