Answer:
Killing should never really be considered to be justified whether in a work of fiction or not; however, Rainsford was in a position of kill or be killed. The whole thing is a case of kill or be killed, essentially self defense. I guess it depends on how you view that type of thing, but in my opinion, if Rainsford had not killed Zaroff, then he would have undoubtedly died. Therefore, yes I believe he was justified in his decision.
As with all interpretive questions, your answer is based upon your own reading of the story and how you analyze the plot and characters. Rainsford had escaped Zaroff, and won the game. There was no reason to return to the masion and kill Zaroff except to exact revenge. Consider that Rainsford himself is a hunter, used to being in power. Although he had never considered doing something as inhumane as Zaroff in hunting humans, his choice to kill Zaroff reveals his need to be in control. In this case, his killing of Zaroff isn't about justice, but about revenge.
On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest Zaroff would have quit hunting humans. He was a static character, who didn't change even when he "lost" the hunt of Rainsford. In this reading, the audience can interpret that Rainsford is doing his part for mankind by eliminating the threat of the murderer Zaroff. After all, on this island, there is no justice system by which to prosecute him.
You will need to choose the answer that best supports your understanding of the characters.
Answer:
To show that cruel behavior is not limited to only one situation.
Explanation:
Elie Weisel's memoir Night tells his experiences during the Holocaust and the discrimination the Jews faced at the hands of the German Nazis. The book also became one of the most famous and important pieces of information about one of the most horrendous genocides in the world's history.
As seen in the given excerpt, the author narrates how he had witnessed a "stampede" kind of situation among the prisoners over a small piece of bread that a worker had thrown into the wagon. And similar to this event, he also recollects how an elegant Parisian lady had done "charity" work by throwing coins to the natives on the Aden which only led to the "natives" diving into the water to retrieve them. These two scenes seemed so similar to each other, leading Weisel to conclude that cruel behavior is not limited to just a single situation but could also be seen in numerous ones, however unlike they may seem.
No, this is not a run-on sentence
All i can say is good luck.
