The story Rikki TIkki Tavi, by Rudyard Kipling, is about good versus evil and our main character Rikki Tikki Tavi’s battle against Nag and Nagaina, two snakes who are terrorizing the garden. The main narrative takes place as Rikki Tikki Tavi as the hero and the snakes are “without a doubt” the villains of the story. However, I disagree, I do not believe that Nag and Nagaina are evil. Rikki Tikki Tavi would kill them regardless because that is mongoose nature, and they were living in the garden long before Rikki TIkki Tavi got there.
On the other hand, many disagree and believe that Rikki TIkki Tavi is innocent and was defending himself and others from the snakes. One of the first incriminating details about the snakes was that when Rikki Tikki Tavi arrived to the garden he learned that Nag had eaten one of Darzee’s children that fell from the nest. This is why both Rikki Tikki Tavi and the readers immediately have a bad impression of the snakes even if the baby bird who fell would have died on impact or fell because of irresponsible parents. The second piece of incriminating evidence is that the snakes attacked Rikki Tikki Tavi first so of course Rikki has the right to fight back. However I feel that the reason they attacked first was because of the nature of the mongoose, they knew to attack first otherwise they would
…show more content…
most likely die.
The third reason that makes the snakes seem evil is when Rikki Tikki Tavi had overheard them plotting to kill the family. This reason is valid, however, we only have a first hand account of what happened and from what was
overheard it seems that Nag was more innocent than Nagaina. And the final incriminating piece against the snakes is Nagaina’s attempt to bite Teddy, the youngest member of the family. This was after Nagaina had found out her husband was dead and blamed the man with the gun rather than Rikki Tikki Tavi. I do not believe they are as solid as they seem, the arguments against the snakes are very biased, especially because Rikki Tikki Tavi had also done quite a few things that could be seen as being just as bad, if not worse, than the snakes. As I will explain, the snakes are not as evil as they are made to seem. For example, the snakes were there first, long before Rikki Tikki had arrived they had made the garden their home. In addition to living there before Rikki Tikki Tavi, they might have continued to live there without disturbing the humans, as they had once done if Rikki Tikki Tavi had not come to that garden. I believe that they had the right to stay in that garden if they were there before everyone else. Furthermore, Rikki Tikki’s actions were not so just. He might have saved Teddy and his father, but he killed an entire batch of eggs to do so. After killing Nagaina’s entire family, he uses reasons like snakes always being the enemy of the mongoose to justify killing them and he immediately assumes that their offspring will also be evil. In conclusion, the snakes were treated unfairly while Rikki Tikki Tavi was remembered as a hero, despite killing about 28 people, if we are counting the unhatched eggs he broke. Rikke then went after her and her last egg despite her promise to never come back if he handed over her last egg. These are a few of my reasons as to why the snakes were treated unjustly, and despite both Rikki Tikki Tavi and the snakes doing equally bad things, Rikki Tikki is seen as a hero.
Because the artist constantly created a relationship between text and image, each incorporation has a slightly different relationship. The first is that the sheathe without the text inscribed would just be seen as a sharp, brutal, farming object, but with the text it creates a new meaning. In this case, the text can be deemed as prioritized because the there is a reliability the sheathe has with the words. The second is the incorporation of words in within the corrupted snake garden. In this case it tells viewers that not only are there people and institutions in the government whose actions can be deemed slithery and comparable to a snake, but also combined with the inscribed words such as falsehood, malice, venom, and hatred. If it wasn’t already explicit enough, the artist is trying to convey not only is the government is infiltrated with snakes, but they also represent extremely negative behaviors. In case, I think the text is reliant on the image because without the words viewers could get still get the point it’s trying to
Rikki tikki tavi I cannot get that song of the brave Rikki Tikki Tavi the mongoose out of my head. A mongoose is a furry creature from India who kills cobras or other types of snakes and if its eyes get red, the mongoose is mad. Also the mongoose is a curious creature It is strange how similar the book is in the movie. Some of these similarities are the conflicts, the resolution and the rising action.
Rikki-tikki is proud of himself because he helps the animals and the humans by killing the snakes or dangerous animals. The humans first find him after the flood washes him out of his berrow. Teddy wants to give him a funeral but his mom seas that maybe he isn't dead. He helps a bird and he helps the humans. On Page 16 “Teddy shouted to the house: “Oh look here! Our mongoose is killing a snake.“ On Page 18 and 19 Rikki-tikki killed Nag, “The big man picked up Rikki-tikki and he had said it's the mongoose again, Alice: the little chap has saved our lives now.” Teddy's father, the big man beats the snakes after Rikki bites the snakes to make sure the snakes are dead. Rikki kills the eggs in the melon bead so that there aren't little Cobras around
The sight of the snake is so heartbreaking that even the man is left to rethink
The snake’s calm demeanor when they first meet, his confidence and power, and his gruesome death help evoke sympathy in the reader. The reader’s first impression of the snake is that “he held his ground in calm watchfulness.” His stance was tense, but not threatening, as “his head was not drawn back to strike.” He does not intend to attack without being provoked; he
Mongooses can usually fight off snakes and so his family puts him in charge of protecting Teddy. Later on in the day, Rikki-Tikki-Tavi hears Kariat and approaches him, making sure Teddy is safe. Rikki-Tikki-Tavi swings his body in side-to-side motions, so he can make a move in any which way. Kariat makes a move and Rikki-Tikki-Tavi jumps and land on his back. Rikki-Tikki-Tavi bites his neck and paralyzed Karait. If Rikki-Tikki-Tavi never killed Karait, he could’ve easily killed Teddy. But Rikki-Tikki-Tavi saves his family by risking his life again, to ensure the safety of them
The comparison of the rattlesnake to a bigger, more frightening, and yet less deadly creature makes the former seem dangerous. While a blacksnake would “flee at the sight of a man”, the rattler proved its fearlessness with the way he “held his ground”. The rattler is cocky, and for good reason, because his poison could kill the man much easier than the theoretical blacksnake could. The man is in a life-threatening situation and the reader is likely to sympathize with his fear and worry. The author uses violent diction when describing the snake to make us see him as a vicious creature, in need of killing to keep others safe. Even dead, the rattler “may still bite”. He needs to be kept as far as possible from people - especially vulnerable people, such as young children - in order to protect them. The author includes this hostile wording to bring awareness to the fact that the snake is remorseless, even in death, and that taking its life is noble and just. Finally, the snake’s “little song of death” is personified negatively by the man to show that the snake is the villain in the story. Life is, according to the rattlesnake, “dear and would be dearly sold”. It comes to light in this phrase that the snake is looking for revenge from the man’s actions. The rattler is not as innocent as he may have initially seemed. As he attempts at the man’s life to bring
Ménez, Andre’. The Subtle Beast: Snakes, from Myth to Medicine. New York, New York: CRC Press, 2003.
“The Rattler” is a story that is written by Donald Beattie that expresses a survival and protective tone to persuade readers to side with the man that killed the snake in order to protect a larger community of animals and humans. Beattie is presenting the story to a large group of people in attempt to persuade them. Beattie uses imagery, simile, and pathos to develop a root of persuasion and convince the audience to reanalyze the man’s actions.
The effect the reader perceives in the passage of Rattler is attained from the usage of the author¡¯s imagery. The author describes the pre-action of the battle between the man and the snake as a ¡°furious signal, quite sportingly warning [the man] that [he] had made an unprovoked attack, attempted to take [the snake¡¯s] life... ¡± The warning signal is portrayed in order to reveal the significance of both the man¡¯s and the snake¡¯s value of life. The author sets an image of how one of their lives must end in order to keep the world in peace. In addition, the author describes how ¡°there was blood in [snake¡¯s] mouth and poison dripping from his fangs; it was all a nasty sight, pitiful now that it was done.¡± This bloody image of snake¡¯s impending death shows the significance of the man¡¯s acceptance toward the snake. In a sense, the reader can interpret the man¡¯s sympathy toward the snake because of the possibility that he should have let him go instead of killing him.
The point I am trying to prove here is, Sykes would always want to scare Delia with a snake, the first time it was with the bull whip and the last night Sykes put the snake in the soap box to scared Delia to death. Little did Sykes know Delia had faced her fears and learned how to overcome of the snakes. Towards the end of the story when Sykes was supposed to be the master of catching Snakes, the rattle snake makes a transparent sound and bites Sykes. He wanted to scare Delia lifeless but his plan back fired on him.
A situation is presented that causes the readers a predicament. In the “Rattler” a short story a man must make a decision to kill a snake, or let it live taking in consideration his obligation to protect his farm and the people and animals in it. The author first presents the man with his point of view making him favorable to the readers showing his conflict in which he has to complete a duty despite his own morals for the protection of everyone else. The author then presents the snake as an innocent in the situation by using details that show the snake is not an evil being but rather a harmless victim. In “The Rattler” the man’s encounter with a snake leads him to do an obligation that he later feels remorseful for. The
Snake is a evil snare. Sykes engages with a rattlesnake to put a joke on her because he knew snakes are her weakness “Course Ah snowed it! That’s how come Ah done it” (Hurston 1). Knowing that she hates a snake, he does, considering evil, karma follows him. Chinaberry Tree sends Delia freedom from her husband because she knows the snake bit Sykes, but she is not willing to help him.
Throughout several myths, monsters are described as many diverse creatures. At first glance, they all seem very distinctive. However, each monster is like a combination of several qualities and characteristics that are matched in different ways to form the monsters that appear in myths such as Hercules, Bellerophon, and Perseus. All monsters have very distinct looks that make them inferior to humans. Generally, they are a mixture of two or more different animals such as snakes, lions, or humans and they may have multiple heads. For example, Cerberus was a horrific three-headed dog that had the tail of a dragon and his back was covered with snakes. Several monsters have some part of them from a snake. Snakes symbolize an evil quality and that is why many monsters are forms of them. Cerberus had his whole back covered in snakes and a dragon tail. Both of these are snake-like parts that contribute to Cerberus looking terrifying. His tail is from a dragon which is very similar to a snake and his back is filled with snakes like fur. The Hydra of Lerna is also an im...
... Nature, including human beings, is `red in tooth and claw'; we are all `killers' in one way or another. Also, the fear which inhabits both human and snake (allowing us, generally, to avoid each other), and which acts as the catalyst for this poem, also precipitates retaliation. Instinct, it seems, won't be gainsaid by morality; as in war, our confrontation with Nature has its origins in some irrational `logic' of the soul. The intangibility of fear, as expressed in the imagery of the poem, is seen by the poet to spring from the same source as the snake, namely the earth - or, rather, what the earth symbolizes, our primitive past embedded in our subconsciouness. By revealing the kinship of feelings that permeates all Nature, Judith Wright universalises the experience of this poem.