DescriptionAn essay that explains how underestimating your opponents can lead to your ultimate downfall.
MessagePlagiarization of this content will result in expulsion from your school/university and legal action. All work is owned by its respective author.
ImageGetty Images
The overlooking of small details can be a fatal flaw. Naturally, seeing the bigger picture has always been more efficient than nitpicking every specific, though what happens if someone knows how to take advantage of that? What if someone knows that weakness? Ignorance blinds many to even the most obvious things, not because they are unintelligent, but because they cannot recognize the actual problem. If, for say, someone was looking for easy prey, would they ever expect it to fight back? Would hunters ever expect to be hunted? Would detectives ever expect their damsel in distress to be the culprit of the crime? Likely not. The Parachutist by D’Arcy Niland, The Boar Hunt by José Vasconcelos, and Lamb to the Slaughter by Roald Dahl all contain prime examples of these ideas, showing how underestimating opponents can lead to one's downfall.The Parachutist is a simple representation of how prey can overcome predators. A hawk, flying around after a hurricane in the middle of the Australian Outback, is desperately spying for food. Quickly, it comes along a kitten and, within seconds, swoops down to scoop it up, just as it always has with other creatures. The cat becomes highly distressed as the giant bird steams towards it and digs in its talons, briskly gaining altitude. Seemingly, the hawk was the dominant force of this mission, attempting to bring their prey upwards in the hopes of dropping it from such a height, leading to an easy kill. As they climbed, the bird began to loosen its grip, preparing for the final blow. However, the victim was prepared to fight back. “The talons relax slightly, and that was its warning… in the first flashing shock of the movement the kitten completed its twist and slashed the hawk's legs and buried its claws in the flesh like fishhooks… The kitten was the pilot now and the hawk no longer an assassin of the void, the lord of the sky, and the master of the wind” (Niland 35, 36). In an intelligent move, the prey saw a chance to get the upper hand on its predator, on its enemy, as the hawk's sheer confidence—and hunger—overshadowed the fact that its hunt could fight back. The kitten became the very thing it fought, gaining complete control of the larger being and forcing them down to the ground, promptly letting go and successfully becoming a parachutist of sorts. If only the hawk knew what its challenger was capable of, if only the hawk did not allow its ignorance to take over, would it have won. But it did not win, failed by its hubris and starvation, devastatingly losing its meal due to undervaluing its foe. However, this tale of hunters versus the hunted is explored in much more than just The Parachutist, as the next story devels even deeper into the ignorance of those who underestimate their adversaries, watching them fall because of it.The Boar Hunt perfectly presents the problem of playing with nature. Four men, named the Columbian, the Peruvian, the Mexican, and Quito, are out on a hunt in Peru, searching for wild boars. They have done such activities before, killing merely for fun; it is seen as an entertaining bonding experience by the characters as they camp out and shoot whatever hits their eye first. It was a challenge they were prepared to take on, as they talked with the local natives and learned that “boars travel in herds of several thousands… They are very easy to kill if one attacks… When they march about hungry, on the other hand, they are usually vicious” (Vasconcelos 60). With this information, they continue their journey in the middle of the jungle, rifles in hand and hundreds of bullets ready to fire. And fire they did, instantly welcoming a crowd of angered boars with “shouts of joy and well-aimed shots… spending all of the cartages in the magazine… [counting] dozens of them” (Vasconcelos 61). This slaughter represents a horrifying display of human superiority, of disregard for other life, and is the start of their ignorance. They murdered a hoard of boars, ignoring the advice given to them and showing no care for these beings, for the lives they were taking. To them, it was just a game. But the boars would like to disagree. After the mass killing, the men returned to camp, arranging the end of their first round. However, there was no end to their day, or more accurately, their nightmare, as the antics of the furious boars ensued. That part about being vicious when attacked in groups bit them right in the back, as quickly the Columbian, the Peruvian, the Mexican, and Quito were surrounded by a pugnacious pack of prey. They were instantly crushed by their target practice, by the very things they tried to toy with; the men played with nature, killing just for pleasure, so the boars did the same. “It seemed to us that, by a sudden inspiration, they were preparing to take revenge on us for the ruthless nature of man, the unpunished destroyer of animals since the beginning of time” (Vasconcelos 63). The boars quite literally ate three of the men, only one remaining alive, though it is unclear who. Somehow, he manages to escape their barbaric pummeling, quickly vowing that he “will participate in no more hunts” and “not kill for pleasure;” he promises not to amuse himself “with the ignoble pleasure of the hunt” (Vasconcelos 63). Ultimately, this illustrates the lesson of this story, of this narrative: never to undervalue others. The men knew not to kill the boars in groups, never mind in general, but continued to do it regardless. They never cared, never thought about the effects on others besides themselves, so nature decided to teach them the consequences. Their ignorance and idea of authority dazed them, precisely like the hawk, and led to the “lesser beings” winning the fight. The victims were only victorious due to their predator's pomposity. But what happens when both are humans; what happens when the predators cannot even recognize their prey?Lamb to the Slaughter expertly examines the idea that those who underestimate their opponents are bound to fail. The short story starts with Mary Maloney, a pregnant married woman living in a suburban American home during the 1950s, waiting for her husband, Patrick, to return from his detective job. She is excited to see him, just as she always is, but when he comes through the door one fateful day, some terrible news follows. Though the audience is not told what is said, it can be inferred that he told her he was leaving, saying he planned to give her “money and see that [she is] looked after” (Dahl 89). This is the first seed of conflict in the narrative, as the constantly loyal and loving Mary is told that she is being abandoned, causing her to be quite mad. Nevertheless, she does manage to keep her discontent undercover, continuing to be a good, caring wife. She offers to get him a drink, something he ignores. Then, she asks if he wants dinner, which he declines, stating that he intends to go out. In spite, Mary storms over to the freezer, slipping out a slab of lamb she planned to cook. Though instead of concocting a magnificent supper, she decides to use it as a club, wacking her husband on the back of the head and killing him. Whether out of love or rage, she undoubtedly murdered him, quickly realizing the consequences. “All right, she told herself. So I've killed him… She began thinking very fast. As the wife of a detective, she knew quite well what the penalty would be… [but] what about the child? What were the laws about murders with unborn children? Did they kill them both—mother and son… Mary Maloney didn't know. And she certainly wasn't prepared to take a chance… She carried the meat into the kitchen, placed it in a pan, turned the oven on high, and shoved it inside” (Dahl 90). Mainly, she worried about her child's life, driving her to ensure her innocence by using lessons learned from her husband’s job, instinctively taking care of the “weapon.” After shoving the mostly frozen lamb into the oven, she heads out to the store to establish an alibi in Sam, a clerk, knowing that if she had someone to vouch for her, she was less likely to be suspected. And that is precisely what Mary did, going there to pick up a few vegetables, promptly coming home, and acting all surprised when she found her husband's dead body on the ground. Quickly, she rushes over to him and calls the police, who arrived minutes later. Of course, the apparent myriad of actions ensue, as the officers heavily question Mrs. Maloney, but to no avail. She maintains her composure the entire time, successfully duping them into believing she came back to the murder. Predictably, the biggest question they ask her is where she was at the time, and she responds by saying she was at the grocer. Someone swiftly sets out to confirm this information, coming back fifteen minutes later with a “page of notes,” whispering phrases like “acted quite normal… very cheerful… wanted to give him a good supper… peas… cheesecake… impossible that she…’” (Dahl 91). This testimony from Sam states what Mary said verbatim, allowing her to manage the impossible, perfectly finessing her late husband's co-workers into believing her story and getting away scot-free. Her act of deception was almost complete, and now all she had to do was permanently dispose of the weapon, as that was the last aspect of the crime they were searching for. The officers believed it to be still on the premises, knowing it was big and blunt, just like the lamb. However, while searching, one notices the lamb in the oven, pointing out that it was perfectly cooked. It had been hours since she placed it in there, but that did not matter, as, for a third time, she had an instance of brilliance, recognizing that the men working on her case were likely hungry as they looked for the same unassuming murder device they had just found. So, she offers them the lamb, which they gratefully accept, eating away at the most important piece of evidence on the scene. That was the final genius of Mary, the final usage of their oblivion, the final usage of their underestimation, as she opportunistically fed them their own stupidity. She was the true mastermind; she knew how to take advantage of them. She knew the power of their ignorance, and this last line of the entire tale sells that flawlessly: “‘Personally, I think it’s right here on the premises.’ ‘Probably right under our noses. What do you think, Jack?’ And in the other room Mary Maloney began to giggle” (Dahl 93). Mary knew what she did, how she did it, and why, laughing at them and showing no regret for what had occurred. She is the ultimate distillation of the underestimated opponent, of the unknown predator. Never was Mary the prey; never was she the weak one. No, Mary Mahoney was the danger, leading them to their downfall. She was always in power, just like the kitten or the boars, as their ability to use others' hubris gave them an advantage no one could even think was possible.In The Parachutist by D’Arcy Niland, The Boar Hunt by José Vasconcelos, and Lamb to the Slaughter by Roald Dahl, the concept that underestimating one’s opponent can lead to their misfortune is explored masterfully. Without a doubt, the hawk thought it had the upper hand, the hunters assumed they were superior, and the officers believed that good-old Mary Maloney was incapable of committing such an act, showing the sheer potential someone can have when their foe misjudges their capabilities. It is not the overlookers who are powerful, but those who know how to take advantage of them. And that is the lesson, the ultimate message of these stories: the power of ignorance. When someone chooses to only look at the bigger picture and undervalue anyone or anything, no matter the reason, they can lose out on a lot. When people minimize others, they are destined to fail at noticing the real problem. So do not let that happen; do not let ignorance get in the way of finding the truth; do not underestimate opponents. Because if someone does, the opportunists will rise, while their own downfall lurks right around the corner.

Sources

Traditions in Literature. Scott, Foresman, 1989.