Skip to main content

What does Travis mean with his comment, "that's stretching luck" in the short story, "A Sound of Thunder"?

As he travels in the Time Machine of Time Safari, Inc. in which he has contracted for the opportunity to kill a Tyrannosaurus Rex, Eckels asks the Safari Leader named Travis if it is possible to bring down the dinosaur "cold" with the guns that they have with them. Travis replies that it is possible



"[I]f you hit them right by shooting them in their two brains, one of which is in the head and another a good ways down the spinal column."



But, he tells Eckels that the guides try not to shoot in these places on the dinosaur because doing so is really taking a great chance:



“If you hit them right,...Some dinosaurs have two brains, one in the head, another far down the spinal column. We stay away from those. That’s stretching luck. Put your first two shots into the eyes, if you can, blind them, and go back into the brain."



With his statement that being able to shoot the giant in both the head and the base of the tail is "stretching luck," Travis implies that the distances between these two areas necessitate the hunter's being able redirect his aim and be accurate and quick, as well. In the time that it takes to fire the shots, the dinosaur might reach his attacker, and if the shots are not fatal, the Tyrannosaurus can, then, kill the hunter. But, if the hunter shoots it in the eyes, which are close to each other so very little realignment of the weapon is needed, the hunter can then blind the creature so that it does not know where the man stands. With the giant blinded, the hunter has the opportunity, therefore, to fire his gun more times and successfully kill it and not be harmed himself. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more