The Most Dangerous Game

Ethical Decisions in The Most Dangerous Game and Barn Burning

March 18, 2021 by Essay Writer

Ethical decisions can be determined many of ways there is no correct or incorrect ethical choice. The major impact of ethical decision figures out what is correct or off-base thing to do. If you comprehend what your ethics are and where you remain in life it will be simpler to live step by step and make the correct ethical choice. When talking about ethical decisions, in these two short stories The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell and Barn Burning by William Faulkner; the two characters Rainsford and Sarty will end up making choices that we will determine whether ethical or unethical.

First off, in The Most Dangerous Game, I believe Rainsford is not correct in saying ‘Who cares how a jaguar feels?”. I know that the Game is a game for chasing wild animals and killing, but I don’t think other individuals should hunt other individuals if the challenge for killing animals is way simpler. Toward the finish of the story Rainsford is happy with the death of Zaroff because he can never again worry for his survival and is compensated with an agreeable bed and land to call his own. Even though he may be relaxed and stress free he will always have to live with the conscious of killing those individuals who were embarked to slaughter him. Instead of just killing himself General Zaroff instead of those other individuals that were told by General Zaroff to kill him. The ethical decision that Rainsford should have done was to go to the higher authorities and let them handle it. That would have been a lot easier and a lot of less people being killed.

At the point when Rainsford first discovered them for progress he would not help him in any capacity so General Zaroff took him in and acquainted him with everybody. Rainsford held resentment in the back of his brain until the time came. While being chased by these two men. Taking out Ivan was a simple errand and help since he wasn’t as experienced in the amusement chasing people as Zaroff seemed to be. After taking out Ivan. Rainsford could then concentrate on the greater danger who is known for chasing man and who likewise had a pack of chasing hounds. Indeed, self-protection is valid. I concur with what Rainsford did. As a wild creature which he is delineated as cornered and had nothing left to do other than bouncing or biting the dust. He took the most dangerous choice and went for the act of pure trust seeking after the best as he did. Rainsford made up for himself by hopping off the bluff and shockingly enduring it. He then later returned for vengeance guaranteeing his position of authority.

Secondly, in the story Barn Burning, Sarty Snopes and his family sees that the barn they were living in for four days had been in flames. His dad Abner Snopes is the bad person who started the fire. So, when they noticed the barn was in flames he tries and get everyone together and he tries to make sure Sarty especially because he is worried Sarty would tell and ruin what he was doing. Well right before Sarty was held and not capable of telling he got away to warn the owner of the barn that his barn was in flames. I believe he had made the right ethical decision by warning Major de Spain. Although the consequences were wrong with his dad dying he h made the right ethical choice. If Sarty had not warned the owner of the barn about the barn and stuff I believe he would have shared the guilt and eventually then throw his dad under the bus and say his dad was the one who cause the burning barns. The only thing I believe Sarty could have done differently so his father would still be alive is that he could have put out the fire himself instead of telling Major de Spain.

Additionally, regardless of how much love he had for his father there is no reason why Sarty should fell guilty because ethically that was the right decision. Throughout the story Sarty keeps his mouth shut about what his father was doing because of the love and stuff for his dad. Abner had kept telling Sarty throughout the story that he was becoming a man and that right there had another piece that made Sarty be a man and tell Major about what Abner was doing to the barn. Although Abner is ethically wrong for burning the barn there is a little responsibility that the Major should take. Abner is not just doing this for fun and games he is doing it with a purpose to get his message across that a man shouldn’t be rich because of the sweat of a poor man. So now when Abner burned the major’s barn, the major now must explain the death of a veteran with no proof that he burned his barn. The major could have sat down and spoke to the family about what happened instead of taking fatal shots. But he just listens to the warning of Sarty and fired his gun and killed Sarty’s dad.

In conclusion, in both short stories The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell and Barn Burning by William Faulkner I believe the characters Rainford and Sarty were both ethically right with what they did. But Rainsford could have done it a whole lot different. Because I believe it not right to just murder and get away with it, but these people were coming after him so by all means I believe it was kind of a self-defense type thing. Sarty on other hands was totally right with what he did. He had to overcome the love and bond he had with his dad to be able to tell the major about what his dad was doing and that takes a lot of courage to do. So, all in all I believe they both were ethically right in their decisions of what they did.

Read more

The Game of Life in The Lottery and The Most Dangerous Game

March 18, 2021 by Essay Writer

In most of today’s societies, we treat life as the most precious thing to hold on to. We all participate in numerous ways to keep us entertained in ways that also distract us from our regular lives; and a large part of our lives is to have fun. However, the themes of “The Lottery” and “The Most Dangerous Game” take the concept of games to a whole new level. One theme that “The lottery” and “The Most Dangerous Game” have in common is the desensitized view of the value of human life. In this way, the authors attempt to highlight how desensitized we really are to this type of behavior.

Although both stories show desensitization of murder, the antagonists have different motives. In “The Lottery”, the story does not directly say why they would start killing one random person per year. However, in Patrick Shields’ article “Arbitrary condemnation and sanctioned violence in Shirley Jackson’s ‘the lottery”” there are a couple of ways to look at the story. Shields suggests one of the ways to look at it is that the author did not directly specify any motive to the reader. He also suggests that Shirley Jackson’s possible intention could have been to allow the reader to evaluate the story and come up with the reason and their own background that they can relate. Another way to look at the story, according to Shields’ article is that the drawing is a ritual cleansing and the community believes that is in their best interest to perform it. Some proof to back this up would be the attitude of the mayor to even allow this kind of killing as acceptable and nothing out of the ordinary. When someone kills someone outside of the drawing, it would be considered murder and punished accordingly to their societal rules. If the murder occurred only as a result of the drawing, then it is a ritual and therefore less heinous.

In “The Most Dangerous Game”, the motive that the story gives the reader would be revealed by General Zaroff towards the middle of the story. Zaroff explains to Rainsford his passion for hunting and that he has been hunting for his entire life. His reasoning was that he was hunting for so long and a wide variety of dangerous animals like cheetahs and buffalos, he began to realize that he was getting bored of hunting normal animals. So, Zaroff decided to “invent a new animal” (Connell). His plan was to hold stranded people who crashed there captive and would later set them into the wilderness on his island to hunt them down. There are also a couple possible reasons according to Terry Thompson’s article “A Tale of Two Centuries: Richard Connell’s ‘The Most Dangerous Game’” explaining Zaroff’s motive. The reason that Terry Thompson stated was that it could have the underlying representation of the Darwinism theory of “change, adaption, natural selection and extinction” (Thompson). There is actually a quote from Zaroff himself in the story where he states that “Life is for the strong” (Connell). This is a very similar point of view as Darwin with his saying of “Survival of the fittest”.

In “The Most Dangerous Game”, Zaroff sees humans as a new animal that he can hunt which has reasoning unlike any other animal. This is also the result of his motives to increase his enjoyment in hunting. He says that the animal he wants to hunt must have the ability to reason rather than just animalistic instincts. This is mostly because he was hunting when he was a young child and hunted so much all throughout his life. As mentioned before, he also follows a similar saying to Darwin’s “Survival of the fittest” when he says that “Life is for the strong”. He has no remorse for taking the lives of other innocent humans as he would just treat his murderous ways as just a game to amuse him for the rest of his days.

Although both stories show desensitization of the characters, the antagonists have different game-like methods to carry out their heinous acts. In “The Lottery”, every year on June 27th the mayor of the town gathers everyone into the square and they do a drawing where everyone draws a piece of paper from an old black box and the “winner” would be stoned to death. In “The Most Dangerous Game”, Zaroff traps washed up people on his island (known as ship trap island) and then proceeds to challenge them to a game. The game is that he would let them loose in the wilderness and hunt them down “…armed only with a pistol of the smallest caliber and range” (Connell). If the victim could avoid Zaroff for three days, the victim would win. If the victim fails to do so and gets caught by Zaroff, then the victim would be shot and killed. Both stories have elements of chance, where the victims are left to chance to “survive the drawing or the hunting, neither story give the victims the option of “opting out” of the game.

In “The Lottery”, when a “winner” is declared, the winner is then stoned to death. However, before Tessie is stoned to death, Mr. Summers tells the rest of the community ‘All right, folks … Let’s finish quickly” with a seemingly uncaring, and an unempathetic tone. According to Shield’s article “Arbitrary condemnation and sanctioned violence in Shirley Jackson’s ‘the lottery””, there are a few reasons for the lack of remorse for the death of a fellow member of their society. The first possible reason would be that this has gone on for a long time. Evidence of this shows when readers consider that the characters were raised with the tradition of the drawing from a young age, so they would not question its morality along with the fact that the drawing has been going on for multiple generations. This could also explain why there is no hesitation of going through with the stoning on command by Mr. Summers. Another reason why they would treat this kind of situation nonchalantly would be that Shirley Jackson could be trying to point out the pointless violence in the communities’ life and that our lives are subject to chance just like how the victim is chosen through a community wide raffle. One more thing to notice is that there seems to be no real caring relationships among other families which may contribute to their lack of empathy towards murdered citizens, because of there being no real sign of the family of the murdered being in shock for very long when in this case, the only time any of Tessie’s family members showed any concern is at the end when Mrs. Hutchinson said this: ‘It isn’t fair, it isn’t right”.

In conclusion, both authors took the approach to present their themes with games among their characters. They each were trying to make their points by intriguing the readers with an ironic, light-hearted behavior of a game with a dreadful premise. The stories can also be treated as a sort of shock test, to test our societies on how desensitized we all are to certain practices that end with this specific outcome. It forces us to think that if we can’t be our best selves, how can we say we have the power to take away another human’s life.

Read more

The Most Dangerous Game: Book Versus Movie

March 18, 2021 by Essay Writer

The Worldwide Debate

Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and The Fault in Our Stars are books that turned into movies. Which version was better? This is the worldwide debate, the book versus the movie. In the case of “The Most Dangerous Game,” the movie had many differences from its short story counterpart. The most prevalent differences would be the addition of characters, the complete changes to the beginning and the end, and its lack of major details that were in the short story. However in the both the short story and in the movie, the main characters and the basic plot were kept the same.

The biggest difference was the addition of characters to the mansion of Zaroff. In the short story, the only characters mentioned in the mansion were Rainsford, Ivan, and Zaroff. One of the pieces of text that imply Rainsford was the only guest at Zaroff’s mansion would be on page 27 where it states, “They were eating borsh, the rich, red soup with whipped cream so dear to Russian palates. Half apologetically General Zaroff said, “We do our best to reserve the amenities of civilization here. Please forgive any lapses. We are well off the beaten track, you know.” Although this quote implies that Zaroff has other guests, they are never seen or mentioned by name in the short story. However, in the movie adaptation, there were numerous other servants and the addition of minor characters, Eve Trowbridge and Martin Trowbridge.

One of the first differences that I spotted was the beginning. In the short story, the way Rainsford ended up on Ship-Trap Island began like this, “He lunged for it; a short, hoarse cry came from his lips as he realized he had reached too far and had lost his balance. The cry was pinched off short as the blood-warm waters of the Caribbean Sea closed over his head.” However, in the movie, the yacht that Rainsford was on crashed into the jagged rocks of the fake channel of the island and the entire crew died. This beginning was far more different than the one in the short story. In addition, the ending was different as well! In the short story, this was stated, “Splendid! One of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds. The other will sleep in this very excellent bed. On guard, Rainsford…’ He had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided. From this quote, it can be assumed that Rainsford killed Zaroff and slept in his bed, but in the movie, something else occurred. Rainsford battles Zaroff and his servants in the living room of Zaroff’s mansion and he steals the boat on the island and speeds off with Eve Trowbridge, as Zaroff dies and falls out of the window into the sleeping grounds of his blood hungry dogs.

The disappointing thing about the movie is that is lacked the most suspenseful details. One of the scenes it lacked was the dinner scene where Zaroff told Rainsford about the game he hunts on the island. For the reader, it makes it feel like they are Rainsford trying to decipher what it is that Zaroff is hunting. When I found out what the most dangerous game was it was a jaw-dropping moment. Another sweat-dripping moment would be not knowing what will happen to Rainsford because Zaroff said this, “Tomorrow you’ll feel like a new man, I’ll wager. Then we’ll hunt, eh?” Based on this quote, two things could happen either Zaroff and Rainsford will be hunting together or Rainsford will be hunted by Zaroff! The uncertainty of what Rainsford will face was not as dramatic in the movie. Another thing was that was left out of the movie was the name “Ship-Trap Island” the name was not referenced at all, although minor, I feel the name should have been mentioned.

Now moving on from the differences, the movie and the short story’s plot was the same and also the main characters, Rainsford and Zaroff. The plot still beings with Rainsford finding his way onto Ship-Trap Island for whatever circumstance and, then him finding Zaroff’s home. There he learns of the deeds that Zaroff has committed on the island, and finally, Rainsford being hunted and eventually defeating Zaroff. That much of the story transferred onto the movie’s adaptation of “The Most Dangerous Game,” and the plot influences the readers and the watchers to feel suspense and to feel afraid for Rainsford, because of the diction used in short story it’s difficult not to feel as though you’re in Rainsford’s shoes traversing through the jungle as a madman is chasing after you. The suspenseful plot is what makes both the movie and short story so spectacular.

“The Most Dangerous Game”, a short story that spans decades! Many books and movies take inspiration from this stunning short story. The short story was such a wonderful read that a movie was created. However, differences like the addition of characters, a change in beginning and end, and lack of details can be identified, which changed the flow of the story for the better. The addition of new characters added suspense and irony. The change, in the beginning, made the story more dramatic and the ending added a Western cliché of Rainsford riding off into the sunset. However, the lack of details made the movie less suspenseful, but movies must be a certain length, so the lack of details is understandable. All in all, the movie and short story were extremely similar and is my favorite short story due to its combine usage of suspense and diction, it kept my eyes glued to the words on the pages.

Read more

The Most Dangerous Game

November 3, 2020 by Essay Writer

There are many different literary devices an author can use to develop a story. They select literary devices to create a plot, set the mood, and build excitement in their story. In Richard Connell’s short story “The Most Dangerous Game”, he details his protagonist Rainsford, who discovers himself trapped on a Caribbean island. Connell is effective in using the literary devices of foreshadowing and suspense to bring a sense of fear and danger throughout his story.

As Connell begins his story, he uses conversation between Rainsford and his friend Whitney that foreshadows the main conflict in the story. As Rainsford and Whitney stand on the deck of the yacht, Rainsford explains, “The world is made up of two classes – the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are the hunters” (1). This use of foreshadowing suggests that the tables will soon be turned on the hunter.

The reader’s thoughts are being prepared for the plot twist to come. Later, Whitney speaks about the island saying, “An evil place can, so to speak, broadcast vibrations of evil” (2). This remark continues to set the mood and tone for more evil events that take place later. Connell’s use of foreshadowing is effective, because it prepares the reader’s mind with a sense of fear and danger that will follow Rainsford on the island. His use of foreshadowing is also effective, because it helps to create the mood and conflict in the story.

Author, Richard Connell, continues to bring a sense of fear and danger in his story as he uses suspense to bring excitement and create the mood. Connell draws attention to Rainsford’s courage and determination. While being hunted, Rainsford hopes that he will not lose his courage and strength. This is seen when he breaks for cover before changing hiding places. This use of suspense enables the reader to sympathize more with Rainsford and recognize the enormous amount of strength needed to survive his situation. The reader comprehends the ongoing effort Rainsford must give to survive. Another time, Rainsford faces more danger when Ivan and Zaroff hunt him with a pack of vicious dogs. Again, Rainsford escapes by using his clever kills to construct a trap that kills Ivan. As each continuous event becomes more dangerous, it leaves the reader feeling as if nothing could top the previous event.

Connell’s brilliant use suspense is effective because, it keeps the reader guessing what will happen next and hungry for more until the end of the story. In Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game”, fear and danger are delivered through his effective use of literary devices foreshadowing and suspense. The mood is created with Connell’s detailed use of foreshadowing and suspense that builds excitement throughout the story.

Connell is effective in proving that the use of literary devices are a necessity in developing a captivating story.

Works Cited Connell, Richard. “The Most Dangerous Game” [Pdf].

Read more

The Use Of Literary Devices In Richard Connel’s The Most Dangerous Game

November 3, 2020 by Essay Writer

To fully understand someone, you must first walk in their shoes. There are things you will never truly comprehend until you experience them for yourself, such as genuine failure or even being pursued by an inevitable threat. Richard Connel emphasizes this theme in his short story, “The Most Dangerous Game”, by having a hunter named Sanger Rainsford experience how it feels like to be the prey instead of the predator. Initially taking place on a yacht in the Caribbean, Rainsford accidentally lunges overboard after hearing gunshots in the distance. While maintaining a certain coolheadedness with no other option left, Rainsford makes it onto the shore of a nearby island, where he finds General Zaroff, a Cossack hunter who is insanely passionate to the point where he even hunts down humans. Faced with constant terror of pain and death, Rainsford has to survive General Zaroff’s twisted game for three days until midnight. In doing so, Rainsford is forced to reconsider his position on how a hunted animal feels. By applying foreshadowing, irony, and metaphors, Connel is able to reveal that holding onto one’s ideals only takes them so far.

Firstly, Conel uses foreshadowing, the use of hints that suggest future events, to alert the readers of how Rainsford’s arrogance will get him into trouble.Foreshadowing allows the reader to infer what is in store for Rainsford as he refuses to accept what his fellow crewmate has to say. Whitney mentions to Rainsford about the superstition regarding ‘Ship-Trap Island’ and how great of a sport hunting is. However, she doesn’t forget to consider hunting from the opposite end. Rainsford, on the other hand, completely disregards the so-called philosophy about prey. He states, “Don’t talk rot, Whitney,” said Rainsford. “You’re a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares what a jaguar feels?” Rainsford also goes on to say that the ‘Ship-Trap Island’ superstition is “pure imagination.” Though Whitney is wary of a hostile presence of evil in the air, Rainsford fails to recognize any meaning in what she has to say. Furthermore, he is oblivious to the warning behind the infamous name of ‘Ship- Trap Island,’ which is reasonably the most noticeable form of foreshadowing throughout the whole story. The peculiar name foretells Rainsford’s predicament as he is stranded on a remote island with no means of escape. While Rainsford’s pride as a hunter continues to cloud his judgment, foreshadowing allows readers to sense the incoming danger. As foreshadowing omens the root of Rainsford’s problems, irony highlights the incongruity between Rainsford’s beliefs and actions.

Another literary device that shows how contemplating things holds value is irony, which occurs when expectations of something differs from reality. In this particular case, situational irony demonstrates how Rainsford was wrong in being quick to judge the hunted as weak during the exposition. ‘Nonsense,’ laughed Rainsford. ‘This hot weather is making you soft, Whitney. Be a realist. The world is made up of two classes–the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are hunters.” (24) Rainsford categorizes himself as a hunter and asserts to Whitney that a jaguar is unable to sense anything emotionally. He proclaims that such trivial things shouldn’t be pondered upon, especially when it relates to prey, which we can assume Rainsford deems as weak and inferior. Later into the story, however, Rainsford is treated as the prey. Though he is at a great advantage, he manages to prevail and outsmart General Zaroff at his own game. Rainsford finally realizes how the hunted feels as he used his resources and prior knowledge to escape General Zaroff’s confrontations. By doing so, he disproves his argument that the hunted lie at the mercy of the hunters, which he refers to as superior.

Irony helps display how Rainsford was wrong in neglecting what could have happened because General Zaroff was defeated by his own “prey.” While irony refutes Rainsford’s claims, metaphors allow readers to grasp the consequences of neglectance to a greater extent. Lastly, Connel strengthens the reassurance obtainable through exploring different alternatives by implementing metaphors, a figure of speech that is used to make a comparison between two things. Metaphors clarify the dire situation Rainsford carelessly gets himself involved in by specifying an indirect similarity between two things. During the rising action of the story, Rainsford suddenly realizes, “The Cossack was the cat; he was the mouse. Then it was that Rainsford knew the full meaning of terror.” As fear occupied Rainsford’s mind, he immediately makes the connection comparing himself to a mouse and General Zaroff to a cat, which is known to hunt mice due to their natural hunting instincts. After becoming aware of how skilled of a hunter General Zaroff is, Rainsford can only think of running away to find a temporary safe zone exactly as a mouse would. If Rainsford were to take notice of the situation beforehand, he wouldn’t have gotten himself in such a life- threatening situation. Now he has no choice but to subject himself to the perils affiliated with the affairs on ‘Ship-Trap Island.’ Metaphors allow the reader to understand what could’ve been possible if Rainsford were to take another course of action. One can’t help but feel relieved knowing they have escaped the hands of distress and anxiety. With that said, Connel is able to elaborate on how we should keep an open mind even if we are faced with ideas that challenge our own.

Given these points, one can conclude that Connel’s use of foreshadowing, metaphors, and irony throughout “The Most Dangerous Game” helped reveal that those who rely on their instincts alone can only go so far. By utilizing foreshadowing, the readers were able to conceive a sense of danger that Rainsford fails to recognize due to his ignorance. Whereas irony allowed one to see that always sticking to your gut will not always end the way you expect it to be. Furthermore, metaphors display displays what Rainsford could have avoided ,only if he was to act with more heed. Most importantly, Connel conveys the dangers and risks associated with not keeping in mind other possibilities. At times, you might find it hard to believe others, but their words may actually hold some truth. Though you may seem reluctant to agree with them at first, there’s no harm in taking a leap of faith in others.

Read more

“The Most Dangerous Game” Narrative Essay

September 29, 2020 by Essay Writer

“The Most Dangerous Game” is a short story authored by Richard Connell published in 1924. It is a story about a hunter becoming the hunted. “The Most Dangerous Game” essay shall provide an analysis of the story. The main character Sanger Rainsford accompanied by his partner Whitney set out on a journey from New York to Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. The two are on a mission to hunt the Jaguar, a big cat in South America.

The play notes here that Rainsford loves hunting to the extent that he calls it the best sport in the world. In the course of their discussion over their ability to hunt wild animals, they are terrified suddenly by gunshots and screams. This occurs at night.

The scare makes Rainsford fall off their boat into the Caribbean Sea in trying to rescue his pipe. The circumstance did not allow him to swim back to the ship. He then swims to an island, which is in the direction that the yells and gunshots had come from. This island also happens to be a Ship-Trap zone. On the Island, Rainsford finds two inhabitants living in a palatial mansion. General Zaroff is the owner of the island and an astute hunter.

The second person is Zaroff’s servant, who is deaf and mute. His name is Ivan. It is surprising that after the introduction, Zaroff has heard of Rainsford from the books he has read about him hunting leopards in Tibet, China. They then have dinner together. Zaroff’s explanation follows this to Rainsford on how he got bored with killing wild animals because the adventure did not bring challenges anymore.

His adventure surprises Rainsford, who, even after persuasion, refused to join. What happens when Rainsford refuses to hunt with Zaroff? Zaroff says that he now captures sailors whose ships are wrecked; he then sends them to the forest with food, dressed in full hunting regalia and a knife. The sailors now become his target and turn to hunt and kill them. Being a determined General, he sets his limits to three days. If by the third day neither Ivan, his hunting dogs nor himself have killed the prey, he lets them go.

However, his hunting skills had never allowed an escape to occur. Rainsford turns down the offer to join the hunting of human beings. Zaroff gives him two options. To become either the next prey to be hunted or Ivan whips him to death. Rainsford chooses the former.

In “The Most Dangerous Game,” dogs and Ivan play equally significant role in the plot. This is a dangerous game pitting Rainsford on one side and Zaroff’s entire team of Ivan and the dogs on the other side. It is the use of stamina and strength with the show of intelligence. Zaroff makes sure that Rainsford gets the standard treatment of a captive, including giving him food supplies and instructions. The challenge is risky but very intriguing. Rainsford starts by hiding his hunting tactics. He climbs a tree where he is very visible.

This serves to convince Zaroff that Rainsford is easy prey and immediately turns it into the game. The next flow of events proves that Rainsford is a guru in hunting. He sets a trap made of a massive log joined to a tripwire. The first casualty is Zaroff. His shoulder is injured, sending him back to the mansion to sleep. The trap he uses here, he calls it, a Malay man catcher. Day one is done, and Rainsford knows that he has two to go.

His trap on day two killed one of Zaroff’s hounds. This is a trap he nicknames the Burmese tiger pit. The third trap, a native Ugandan knife, kills his servant Ivan. Rainsford then throws himself over the cliff and swims back to the mansion to evade Zaroff. On returning home, the presence of Rainsford in his bed curtains causes Zaroff to salute him. Rainsford refuses this and challenges him for a fight. As the “The Most Dangerous Game” narrative essay shows, he is confident that he can handle him.

Rainsford considers the hunting of human beings as cold blood murder. The general takes the challenge. The challenge affects both whoever loses the duel would be fed to the dogs, and the winner will sleep on Zaroff’s bed. Rainsford expressed that he had never slept on a better bed before. This implies that he killed Zaroff.

“The Most Dangerous Game” essay proves that reading this play, we can see the conflict between man and wild animals. This appears to be acceptable in the story. In the beginning, Rainsford and his partner proudly talk about their experiences in hunting. They are also on a hunting mission to hunt a jaguar. Furthermore, Zaroff, who also explains to Rainsford how he was a good hunter of wild animals before he sort new challenges, has featured Rainsford in books for his hunting skills as read.

Zaroff introduces the second conflict that is between men. Zaroff launches his new adventure of killing people. He uses his wealth to prove his inhuman actions. He is chasing people to kill them like wild animals. This was, in fact, the cause of his death at the ending of the play.

Read more

The Irony of Humanity in The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connel Essay

September 29, 2020 by Essay Writer


The story The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connel is one of the most famous novels in its genre. The adventures of the main characters became the plot of the several movies. The Most Dangerous Game is a story about hunting of man another man in the isolated island.

The aim of this essay is to analyze the theme of the irony of humanity in The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connel.

The Confrontation between Rainsford and Zaroff

Rainsford is one of the main characters of the story. One day, he found himself in the small island in the Caribbean. He encountered Cossacks there. Zaroff, one of them, wants to kill Rainsford. The hunting started. When Rainsford and Zaroff met, Zaroff said that “Hunting tigers ceased to interest me some years ago. I exhausted their possibilities, you see. No thrill left in tigers, no real danger. I live for danger, Mr. Rainsford” (Connel n.pag.).

It should be noted that Rainsford was the inveterate hunter and he enjoyed hunting the animals. Hunting was the big game for him. However, he could not imagine that he would be the object of hunting himself. Zaroff told to Rainsford about his own hobby in the island,

“Here in my preserve on this island,” he said in the same slow tone, “I hunt more dangerous game.”

Rainsford expressed his surprise. “Is there big game on this island?”

The general nodded. “The biggest.”

“Really?” (Connel n.pag.)

The hunting of Zaroff and his pursuit of Rainsford represented the big game and the most dangerous one.

The Irony of Humanity

Richard Connel used certain literary techniques to endow his story with the inner meaning. In particular, he uses the allegory and irony in order to provide an insight into the good and evil sides in the story.

Irony is defined as “a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude to which is actually or ostensibly stated” (Irony n.pag.).

The irony of the Rainsford world outlook surrounds his story. On the one hand, he thinks that hunting the animals is not a murdering but he is convinced that Zaroff is the murderer because he hunts people, on the other hand.

In addition, Rainsford says that the animals do not have a feeling of fear justifying the hunting and its ethical background this way. However, it seems that the feeling of fear is the exactly what he experienced when he has realized that he is the target of the hunter himself. Ironically, the arrogance and violence characterize both the hunter and the hunted (Richard Connel-Writing Style n.pag).

The theme of irony of humanity is evident not only in the world perception and personal views of Rainsfrod but also in the contradictions evident in the life on the island. The author tries to show us that although the modern world is generally characterized by the high level of development and civilization, the countries are still hunting each other for the resources.

Even those countries which proclaim the highest standards of living and democratic values continue using primitive and unethical ways of gaining more resources and benefits. The war and military interventions are some of such ways.


In order to sum up all above mentioned, it should be said that The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connel represents a captivating story about the adventures in the Caribbean island. However, the story is not only interesting from the point of its fascinating plot. Rather, the inner meaning makes it valuable from the literary point of view. The irony of humanity is one of the central themes in the story. The author tries to make us think about the contradictions and the shortcomings of the modern world and the international relations.

Works Cited

Connel, Richard n.d., “The Most Dangerous Game”. Classic Short Stories. Web.

“Irony” n.d. Web.

“Richard Connel-Writing Style” n.d. Web.

Read more

Violence and Justice in The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell Essay

September 29, 2020 by Essay Writer

The destructive power of the conflict in terms of human history is vividly manifested in The Most Dangerous Game novel written by Richard Connell in 1924. It is a strangely unique short narrative, depicting multiple conflicts throughout the entire plot with the battling nature of the main characters. More specifically, Rainsford, a big-game hunter from New York and Zaroff, a Russian aristocrat, and the society itself. As the man who fought in the war himself, Connell created a story where one can sense the disastrous effect of the experienced violence. Considering this, the novel conveys the overall impact of the brutality on the minds of human beings, as part of society, by raising a question of the justifiable murder.

Critical points of Richard Connell’s biography

The celebrated American writer Richard Connell was born in Poughkeepsie, New York. He was a Harvard-trained newspaper reporter and an insatiable reader. Connell started writing since his early years and became an editor volunteer for the newspaper. He created an abundant heritage with more than 300 short stories over his comparatively short 30-year writing career (Grobman et al., 2016). At an older age, he published many novels and short stories, among which was The Most Dangerous Game that brought him imperishable fame (Babamiri, 2017, p.1). The idea of the literary masterpiece is about losing self-control, about fear and frustrations, about the culture forming and civilization issues, as well as the adverse outcomes after the passage of the war.

Summary of the novel and the analysis of Sanger Rainsford

The story portrays the protagonist Sanger Rainsford, a young American writer and a world-renowned big-game hunter with the adventurous spirit. Rainsford, with another hunter Whitney, is sailing through the Caribbean on their way to Brazil, where they aimed to hunt jaguar up the Amazon River. As a combat veteran of World War I, Rainsford courageously endures the unfortunate accident of the shipwreck that occurs late one night and brings him to the rocky shore of the island.

After the deepest sleep of his life and more exploration, Rainsford discovers, what seemed a mirage, a remarkable vision of northern European luxury and excess (Thompson, 2018, p. 2). He meets General Zaroff in his mansion, the man, who is passionate about only one thing in life, the hunt, and is already familiar with the Rainsford’s achievements. Considering him as a new victim, Zaroff is genuinely honest about his passion as he opens up about his preference for hunting the kind of animal that brings reason, which he called the “big game.” The next morning Rainsford is being told about the Zaroff’s mission to be hunted and, petrified, Rainsford departs and decides to outsmart the Russian aristocrat. After a continuing cat-and-mouse play with each other, several traps and injuries, Rainsford defeats General Zaroff in his mansion.

Connell’s novel challenged the basic principles of morality with its gruesome plot. According to Romagnoli, the novel is addressing the conflict in all of its flavors and is used as a literary trope (2017, p. 27). The writer conveyed the strong battling nature of both of the characters. Sanger Rainsford is an ardent big game hunter, who is swimming to the shore with the firm will to survive and is fully prepared for such an experience based on his past. He meets Zaroff, the island’s only civilized inhabitant, a man who is as much passionately devoted to hunting as Rainsfordand is. He gives Sanger an intimidating ultimatum to withstand a three-day deadly fight of human versus human or more accurately hunter versus hunted. Another case of the battling nature is manifested when Rainsford doubts his ability to avoid being killed.

The analysis of antagonist General Zaroff

General Zaroff, on the other hand, is a man who also experienced the war and seen a lot of dead people in front of himself. Consequently, his past affected his mental health and psych, however, in a very contrary way. Zaroff does not hesitate to become a murderer and shows no respect for other people’s lives, which makes him potentially dangerous for the protagonist Rainsford.

Zaroff hunting Rainsford and his “perverted philosophy of how hunting people are not ethically justified by society” is another sign of the battling nature (Romagnoli, 2017, p. 27). He claims that God made him a hunter, and his hand was made for a trigger, which was initiated by his father at the very young age of Zaroff. His sickly passionate hunting made it boring for General Zaroff to hunt animals and led him to hunt the people instead. While the protagonist and antagonist are equally matched in skills, for the “antagonist, who was hunting animals had long outlived his challenge, and only a new animal capable of reasoning would test his skills” (Grobman et al., 2016, p.191). Human beings amuse Zaroff in the way that they bring reasons, and he can demonstrate his power to them.

The symbolic undertone of the plot

The events of the novel take place in the jungle, which the author symbolically interprets in order to show the corrupted civilization. Following the ideas of Babamiri, the wild and ungovernable habitat of the jungle assumes the role of the “powerful symbol of Zaroff’s tangled psyche, and the chaos within the island” (2017, p.284). It also symbolizes the constraint and loss of control by Rainsford, as it disrupts his attempt to return to civilization. With the lack of rules, the jungle is not the place for humans to inhabit, because it makes them forget that they are first of all humans.

Under the absence of any societal rules, the hunter is more likely to lose both his moral and human principles. Besides, in such conditions, he inclined to nurture the atrocity into his soul. Such an outcome was a direct post effect of the war that made General Zaroff a real animal with no sympathy for others (Babamiri, 2017). Passing through the war ruined the power of civilization and its cultural values. Even though civilization existed for a long time, it was modified by new cultural values. Babamiri states that “culture is the advancement in a civilization, but civilization is a state of social culture” (2017, p.280). Referring to the question of the war effect on the minds of the main characters that embody the writer himself, it caused them to eliminate the limits of self-restraint that were respected before.

The central concept of The Most Dangerous Game, as intended by the author, is the notion of the absolute most dangerous game, which is human versus human. Rainsford versus Zaroff is the central conflict in the novel of two adventurous and courageous men, unified by the passage of war but separated by fundamentally different effects of the violent interpersonal background. Considering the wild environment issues of the jungle, one can trace the striking impact and gap of human manifestation. Connell is questioning the role of civilized society, as a good impact on Rainsford, despite his passion for animal hunting. Thus, the absence of it was a bad impact on Zaroff, who voluntarily chose the solitude in ungovernable habitat, which led to the horrific violence towards humans that was paid off in terms of justice.

Reference List

Babamiri, N. (2017) ‘The revival of the underscored value of life and lost civilization in The most dangerous game.’ International review of humanities and scientific research, 2(2), pp.279-286.

Grobman, S., Cerra, A. and Young, C. (2016) The second economy: the race for trust, treasure and time in the cybersecurity war. New York: Apress.

Romagnoli, A. (2017) ‘The man with identities’, in S. Eckard, (ed.) Comic connections. Analyzing Hero and Identity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp.23-28.

Thompson, T. (2018) Potemkin Redux: Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game”. ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews.


Read more

“The Most Dangerous Game” a Story by Richard Connell Essay

September 29, 2020 by Essay Writer

“The Most Dangerous Game” (1924), a short story written by Richard Connell, is one of the first literary pieces to tell the tale of human hunting – a subject highly popularized in the contemporary popular culture. The story is frequently viewed as an entertaining “hunter-becomes-the-hunted” tale filled with suspense and thrill (Thompson 86). However, despite this popular interpretation, the story conveys a deeper socio-political message about the impact of war and violence on people, by juxtaposing two representatives of the New and Old World in a dark and menacing setting.

The two primary characters in the story are a world-famous American hunter Sanger Rainsford and a Russian Cossack General Zaroff, who meet on an isolated island where the Russian expatriate resides in solitude, together with his mute servant Ivan (Connell 15). Once the reader learns about the men’s characters, it becomes clear that their names are, in fact, charactonyms. Rainsford’s first name is a play on the word “sanguine,” meaning lively, optimistic, and cheerful – all these adjectives are representative of the “great American democratic ideal” (Thompson 87). Ominously, his name also sounds similar to the Latin word for blood, “sanguis.” On the other hand, the Cossack’s name, apart from having the –off ending to signify his Russian roots, bears a particular resemblance to the word “tzar,” which denotes the authoritative leader of the pre-revolutionary Russia. Thus, the very names of the characters imply a clear contrast between the democratic New World and the aristocratic and violence-ridden Old World.

This distinction is further highlighted through the story’s secondary characters. Apart from the tale’s protagonist and antagonist, only two other people are mentioned in the story, each one of them associated with Rainsford and Zaroff, respectively. However, the interactions between the main characters and their associates are highly indicative of their personality. In the case of Rainsford, his brief conversation with Whitney in the beginning of the story sounds casual and informal, yet respectful – a kind of interaction that two amicable equals would have (Thompson 89). Zaroff and Ivan, on the other hand, present a completely different kind of relationship. First of all, Ivan is both deaf and mute, meaning that he is unable to provide a human connection for Zaroff. However, it appears that the latter treats him like nothing more than a useful object. When Ivan dies, the only thought of him that occurs in Zaroff’s mind is that “it would be difficult to replace him,” and even this thought does fully occupy him as he immediately starts reflecting on his other concerns (Connell 44).

The symbolism that Connell uses to describe the character of Zaroff is also highly significant in terms of capturing his evil personality. The first symbol is the color red that repeatedly occurs in the situations that involve Zaroff, be it the rich Russian borsht, Zaroff’s bright lips, or his servant’s crimson sash (Connell 16, 17, 35). This color is typically associated with violence which even Zaroff admits is his main hobby in life (Connell 17). Similarly, darkness is another story’s leitmotif surrounding the character of Zaroff. Since the very beginning of the story, the author talks about the night’s blackness that is so thick it is almost “palpable” (Connell 4). The color describes not only the story’s setting – the gloomy and isolated Ship-Trap Island – but also the protagonist’s appearance, with his black eyebrows, military mustache, and eyes (Connell 15). Similarly, Ivan is depicted wearing a black uniform (Connell 14). These repetitive mentions of black and red create not only a rather menacing portrait of the general but also an overall sinister atmosphere.

However, even though initially the main characters are significantly contrasted, this clear distinction between them fades away as the story progresses, so as to emphasize the effect that war and violence have on people. As Rainsford swims to the island in the beginning of the story, he hears a “high screaming sound” of an animal “in an extremity of anguish and terror” (Connell 9). As the audience learns later, this animal is, in fact, a human being. However, Rainsford is so innocent at this moment that even he, an experienced hunter, does not realize that the scream comes not from an animal, but from a person. Later in the story, when Zaroff proposes to Rainsford to hunt sailors together, the man is clearly disgusted and appalled by the proposal (Connell 33). Being involuntarily drawn into Zaroff’s cruel game, Rainsford is completely transformed under the influence of fear and desire to survive. The abrupt ending of the story captures this transformation by emphasizing that Rainsford is happy to be alive, and does not have any concerns about the violence that transpired at the island.

Undoubtedly, Connell’s story is a classic “hunter-becomes-the-hunted” tale that excites the readers’ senses by keeping them in suspense. It is, however, important to examine the story’s historical context to understand its deeper meaning: wars and violence are capable of transforming even the most democratic countries into brutal and aggressive societies.

Works Cited

Connell, Richard. The Most Dangerous Game. North Charleston, South Carolina: CreateSpace, 2014. Print.

Thompson, Terry W. “Connell’s The Most Dangerous Game.” The Explicator 60.2 (2002): 86-88. Print.

Read more

Rainsford’s Character in “The Most Dangerous Game”

June 27, 2019 by Essay Writer

“The Most Dangerous Game” is a short story and thriller by Richard Connell, which takes place after World War II on a remote island. The story chronicles the misadventures of a distraught castaway, as he makes his way through a mad man’s playground, narrowly escaping death at each turn. General Zaroff, the castaway’s captor, forces Rainsford into a game of murder that ends in Zaroff’s demise. Rainsford, the protagonist, is an embodiment of our inner man, the beast that dwells just below our outer psyche, the part of us that others, even those held close, fails to see. Throughout the story, Rainsford’s beliefs, temperament, sense of self and ultimate state of consciousness morph as the story progresses, which makes him a hard to miss, dynamic character. The most notable change in Rainsford is in his beliefs. Rainsford, an adept hunter, initially believes that animals experience no fear or recognizable emotion. He demonstrates this when he jubilantly states, “Who cares what a jaguar feels?”(11). He later insinuates that animals have no intelligence as he proudly declares, “Bah, they have no understanding” (11). Rainsford takes his egotistic beliefs and opinions further by ridiculing the animals he hunts and by partitioning his humanity from their primitive existence. His paradigm shifts dramatically when Zaroff announces his plans to hunt Rainsford down. He is released into the island’s dense jungle and abandons his treasured humanity in order to survive. During Zaroff’s challenge, Rainsford imitates the very animals he gallantly hunts. As the hunted, he feels the dreaded fear of the hunter, Zaroff. Briefly, Rainsford attempts to turn the tide on Zaroff by tapping into the fox’s trickery to confuse Zaroff. By doing so he acknowledges an animal’s intelligence. While awaiting Zaroff’s approach, Rainsford experiences anxiety while hiding in a tree, paralleling the jaguar. In the process, Rainsford changes. He shows an understanding, if not mutual respect, for animal emotion, in those actions.Rainsford’s shifting temperament changes next. He originally hails himself a marvelous hunter, best of his field, top of his class. Likewise, he thinks of himself as an elite class, hunter; while the other, seemingly weak, people are destined to be hunted. Before his capture, he tells his companion, Whitney that “the world is made up of two classes-the hunters and the huntees” (11). He goes on to state, “Luckily you and I are the hunters” (11).That fact does not hold true. The minute Rainsford steps onto Shiptrap Island, he becomes the hunted. He is also shocked that despite his best efforts, using all of his extensive hunter knowledge, he is not able to evade Zaroff. He eventually comes to the realization that he is not the best hunter and anyone can suddenly become the “huntee” (11).Along with his thoughts and temperament, Rainsford’s consciousness also begins to warp. During his initial meeting with Zaroff, Rainsford holds himself as a civilized member of society. After the unveiling of Zaroffs plans to hunt humans, he draws a wedge between Zaroff and himself under the grounds that he respects life yet Zaroff, an insane brute, does not. All his preconceived notions soon change. The first hint of the monster inside of Rainsford is evident when “he [feels] an impulse to cry aloud with joy…he [hears] the sharp crackle of braking branches as the cover of the pit [gives] way…he [hears] a sharp scream of pain as the pointed stakes [find] their mark.”(24). as his trap finally works on one of Zaroff’s dogs. In his tone, an apparent blood lust is audible if not visible from the sheer enjoyment found in the potential loss of life. Even after beating Zaroff at his own game and essentially earning his freedom, Rainsford still feels a hidden, inner impulse, a burning desire from inside. That impulse may very well be his animal instinct taking over when he says, “I am still the beast at bay” (25). After uttering those words he goes and defies his own logic and sanity by butchering Zaroff. Rainsford enlists himself into the ranks of the savage. His entrance into the realm of insanity becomes indisputable when he peacefully slumbers in Zaroff’s bed after committing murder. He becomes much like the animals and moves even closer to Zaroff, losing the ability to differentiate right from wrong.All things considered, a great deal can be learned from Rainsford’s experiences. He is an dynamic character whose brazen behavior helps us further diagnose the human condition. All people are good, yet all hold the potential for evil. Philosophers analogize humans to rolling stones. All must roll but not all must wade in the same moss. Humans are born good natured but social pressures twist a human’s perception of life, much like Rainsford on Ship Trap Island. The darkness inside of him is only awakened by the stress of General Zaroff’s challenge. His mind struggles to accommodate to its new environment and living conditions. Rainsford simply serves as a warning that the same beast dwells inside us all. Or is it already out?

Read more
Order Creative Sample Now
Choose type of discipline
Choose academic level
  • High school
  • College
  • University
  • Masters
  • PhD

Page count
1 pages
$ 10