Amber Samsel: Outside Reading (Req. 2) - Blog 10
Back over spring break I read a book by Darcy Coates called "Hunted." It was an amazing novel about people going missing in the wilderness and presumed to be dead. One character went missing and her friends decided to go out into the wilderness and try to find her, but they had to deal with something other than getting lost in the woods. There was this creature that kept stalking them and trying to pick them off one by one.
As I was reading the book, I started thinking about our class discussion about what it means to be "wilderness." We determined that to mean "uncharted territory" or "the unknown," and of course we usually take that to mean being somewhere in a giant forest. While this book does take place in a forest that is so grand even the local police department hadn't even scoped out the entire thing, I think the main "wilderness" aspect of this novel may have been the creature itself. What I mean by this is that it is a creature that has never been seen before, all it leaves are these huge claw marks on the trees, there has been no mention of this creature to the police (because most missing hikers ended up dead), and there is no character that is able to accurately describe what it looks like. All of this combined explains exactly what uncharted and unknown are supposed to mean.
As with every novel, the mystery is solved in the end. (Spoiler alert) It turns out that the sheriff was dressing up as this creature to scare hikers into going off the path so they would get lost and die in the forest. He would then dispose of their bodies. Since we now know the ending to the story, we technically cannot classify the creature as a "wilderness" anymore. Now we know the truth, so that makes me wonder, will there ever be a time in the future in which there is nothing left for humans to learn? Would that mean that we would no longer have a "wilderness"? If we no longer have that wilderness, would we still be human or something greater?
Comments
Post a Comment