The Most Dangerous Game

“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

Introduction

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.

Conclusion

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. http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/danger.html

“Irony” Dictionary.reference.com. n.d. Web. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/irony

“Richard Connel-Writing Style” WordPress.com n.d. Web. https://richardconnelthemostdangerousgame.wordpress.com/writing-style/

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. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0895769X.2018.1537837


Download

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

The Three Hunters

August 28, 2019 by Essay Writer

Richard Connell and Ray Bradbury introduce the reader to experienced hunters who share three common character traits in their short stories. After comparing and contrasting character traits among Rainsford and Zaroff from Connell’s short story “The Most Dangerous Game,” and Eckels from Bradbury’s, “A Sound of Thunder,” one sees that the best hunter of the group is Rainsford. While each character possesses patience, observancy, and the ability to handle pressure, Rainsford uses these traits in the wisest and most proficient manner. Hunters need many different assets, yet patience is one of the most important.

The key to being a successful hunter is being patient. Rainsford demonstrates his patience in many ways during the three days of the most dangerous game. Unlike Rainsford, Eckels shows no patience on his own hunt millions of years prior: “Out of the mist a hundred yards away, came the Tyrannosaurus rex” (Bradbury 84). Rainsford’s patience is the key factor that separates him from Eckels, who becomes frantic during the hunt. Through Ship Trap Island, Zaroff is able to portray his patience as well. Eckels, on the contrary, cannot attain the same sense of imperturbability, because he constantly asks questions: “Eckels flushed. Where’s our Tyrannosaurus?” (Bradbury 84). Zaroff has the ability to slowly guide a ship to provide more participants in the most dangerous game, unlike Eckels, whose prey comes running at him. Eckels simply has no patience, a sharp contrast to both Zaroff and Rainsford. To demonstrate his dedication and commitment, Zaroff says, “So I bought this island, built this house, and here I do my hunting. (Connell 21) Eckels’ lack of patience is unfit for a task such as the most dangerous game. Rainsford’s patience is greater than that of both Zaroff and Eckels. Being patient is a useful trait, but without keen observance, all chances of success are dashed.

While hunting, being observant of your surroundings and enemies can mean the difference between life and death. Rainsford makes use of his senses by observing the environment of Ship Trap Island and using it to his advantage. Eckels however, fails to use the natural environment 60,002,055 years in the past, “A sound on the floor of the time machine stiffened them. Eckels sat there shivering.” (Bradbury 86). While Eckels can barely walk through the forest without getting himself killed, Rainsford has the ability to use his surroundings to injure and kill his enemies. Zaroff can be observant as well, but his skills are not honed as precisely as those of Rainsford. While not up to par with Rainsford, Zaroff is still more observant than Eckels, who is constantly corrected by the leaders of the hunt, “Stay on the path. Stay on the path!” (Bradbury 84). Zaroff scours the path for bits of information, while Eckels can barely keep on it. Eckels has no skill of observing, nearly meeting death on several occasions. Rainsford is quite the opposite, using many parts of nature to his advantage, “… the dead tree, delicately adjusted to rest on the cut living one, crashed down and struck the general a glancing blow…” (Connell 27). Eckels lack of observancy is the polar opposite of Rainsford, and this puts his life at risk. While Rainsford uses many aspects of the jungle to put him ahead, Zaroff and Eckels fall behind. Despite one’s skills of making traps and observing the wild, pressure can make or break a person.

Handling pressure can lead anyone to succeed, but failing to do so can result in disastrous conclusions. Of the three, Rainsford deals with pressure in the most effective manner. Unlike Eckels, who stumbles and almost gets himself killed during the hunt for the tyrannosaurus with Lesperance, Rainsford makes sound decisions in matters of life and death, “Eckels! He took a few steps blinking, shuffling. Not that way!” (Bradbury 85). Rainsford is not only able to survive the strikes of those who attack him, but actually manages to kill them under intense pressure. Zaroff is also able to deal with the stress that comes with pressure. Zaroff perseveres through pressure and is able to keep a calm disposition, unlike Eckels, who loses his confidence during the hunt, “”It can’t be killed,” Eckels pronounced this verdict quietly, as if there could be no argument.” (Bradbury 85). Zaroff uses his knowledge of past experiences to stay calm and continue the hunt. Unlike the other two, Eckels cannot handle pressure. Rainsford displays the polar opposite of Eckels untimely actions. “His mind worked frantically. He thought of a native trick he learned in Uganda… “The knife, driven by the recoil of the springing tree, had not wholly failed.” (Connell 28). While Rainsford uses all of his time to his advantage, Eckels fails to comply. Rainsford uses every second he has to make a positive situation for himself, while Zaroff and Eckels are not as capable of attaining such perfection.

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

The Most Dangerous Game: A Hunt For Morality

March 6, 2019 by Essay Writer

Albert Einstein once said, “Force always attracts men of low morality.” This statement illustrates the idea that men with low values or standards will often use force to build up a feeling of dominance which also makes someone oblivious to inhumane actions. General Zaroff is a perfect example of this type of man. In Richard Connell’s short story, “The Most Dangerous Game,” the author shows that Zaroff’s power demands him to use force to control the lives of other people. Rainsford stumbles upon Ship Trap Island and meets General Zaroff. Zaroff informs Rainsford that he will be part of his game. Rainsford seems to be the character that is affected by Zaroff’s forceful and demanding actions. Although Rainsford and Zaroff are skilled hunters with similar personalities, their set of morals and the way they respect others are very different.

Though they have many differences, Rainsford and Zaroff have very similar personalities. Early in the story Rainsford states. “‘The best sport in the world’” (Connell 40). Rainsford’s statement has significance because he is referring to his love of hunting. His love for an intense hunt illustrates his desire for a thrill and entertainment on each of his adventures. While on the yacht, Rainsford tells Whitney, “‘You’re a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how the jaguar feels’” (Connell 40). This statement clearly shows Rainsford’s thoughts and views on hunting. It is obvious that Rainsford shows a lack of concern and respect for the animals he hunts because he feels that he is the superior species and abuses his dominance which makes him disregard and feelings of the less superior animal. Zaroff shares many of these characteristics as well. When speaking with Rainsford, Zaroff declares, “‘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’” (Connell 47). Zaroff is expressing that he needs thrill and danger to make hunting an enjoyable activity just as Rainsford does. He also says that once he finds no more pleasure in hunting certain game, he needs to move on to a more challenging competition to relish the hunt. Zaroff then says to Rainsford, “‘That is why I use them. It gives me pleasure’” (Connell 50). This quote is significant because it shows the shallowness and lack of respect Zaroff has for the creatures he kills. The quote helps us realize that Zaroff is only using the creatures for personal enjoyment, with no intention of the creature’s feelings. Therefore, Rainsford and Zaroff both share the love of an exciting hunt. Also, each character has no sympathy or regard to their game’s suffering and misfortune.

For the reader to understand the reasoning behind the actions of Zaroff and Rainsford they must first recognize each character’s moral values. Like Rainsford, Zaroff has no concern for the lives of the animals he hunts. Zaroff, though, takes his lack of concern of animals and turns it into an extreme as he evolves to have no concern for the lives of men. After revealing to Rainsford his hunting philosophy, Zaroff says, “‘I refuse to believe that so modern and civilized a young man as you seem to be harbors romantic ideas about the value of human life…’” (Connell 49). Zaroff’s message in the quote deeply emphasizes his immorality and corruption. To any reasonable human being, including Rainsford, the idea of murdering men for personal enjoyment seems absolutely absurd. To Zaroff, though, this idea is perfectly acceptable, and perhaps should be expected for an educated man of the upper-class. On the other hand, Rainsford believes killing humans in place of animals is not hunting at all; it is strictly murder. Rainsford express his objection to Zaroff’s thinking by exclaiming, “‘Hunting? Good God, General Zaroff what you speak of is murder’”(Connell 49). In contrast to Zaroff’s view on hunting humans, Rainsford believes there is no exception to cold-blooded murder. In essence, Zarroff seems completely blinded from the reality of his inhumanity and brutality because all he has ever known is the intensity of the hunt. Throughout the characters’ argument, Zaroff constantly denies any form of cruelty and indecency in his actions; he only recognizes it as hunting and never murder. For this reason, it is clear that Rainsford has a significantly higher level of morality and values human life far more than General Zaroff. Perhaps the greatest difference between Zaroff and Rainsford can be found in the way each of the characters respect people.

Zaroff not only gets a thrill from killing other men as a way of hunting, but he also shows no respect for a person’s backgrounds or ethnicity. Zaroff, when speaking about Ivan, he tells Rainsford, ‘“A simple fellow, but I’m afraid, like all his race, a bit of a savage’” (Connell 44). Ivan is a Russian Cossack, and this claim about him illustrates Zaroff’s view on Cossacks as savages. Zaroff also makes a point that not all men are equal; some men are simply better than others. Zaroff tells Rainsford, “‘Life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong, and, if needs be, taken by the strong. The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure. I am strong’” (Connell 49). Zaroff is telling Rainsford that men of the higher class, or ‘the strong,’ are more important to civilization, and that they should take the world from the weak. Zaroff’s most unreasonable point is seen in this statement: “‘I hunt the scum of the earth–sailors from ship tramps–lascars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels–a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a score of them’” (Connell 49). Zaroff’s racism and self pride is seen through this quote. Zaroff refers to almost anyone who is not a Russian as ‘the scum of the earth.’ He also says that in some cases a horse or hound is more valuable than the lives of any sailor, black man, Chinese man, or any white man. These points clearly show that Zaroff believes that Russian is the elite race and superior to the race or ethnicity of any other man. Throughout all of Zaroff’s racist comments, Rainsford strongly emphasizes the fact that they are still men. Following one of Zaroff’s statements Rainsford exclaims, “‘But they are men”’(Connell 49). Rainsford had begun to get angry at Zaroff’s ridiculous comments and reveals his strong disagreements with Zaroff. This also shows that Rainsford believes no matter anyone’s race or background, no one deserves to be thrown off their boat and forced to battle a vicious man on an island for three days. After realizing the thoughts of each character one can conclude that Zaroff and Rainsford have different amounts of respect for people. Zaroff thinks he is better than all other people, but Rainsford holds on to the idea that men are men and should be treated with the same level of respect.

In Richard Connell’s short story, “The Most Dangerous Game,” he emphasizes that Rainsford and Zaroff both have outstanding hunting skill and similar personalities, but each character proves to maintain different ideals about morality and their treatment towards others. Zaroff and Rainsford share a similar personality because they both have a love for hunting and live for the thrill and excitement that goes with it. Each character also has little regard for the animals they kill in their hunts. Rainsford, though, values human life more than Zaroff. Rainsford is furious that Zaroff thinks it is okay to kill men because Zaroff only sees men as his hunting game. Rainsford also has more respect and is more accepting of all types of men. Zaroff is a racist and places himself at a higher value than other men. Furthermore, though they have a common love for hunting, Rainsford and Zaroff’s major difference in human morality outweighs any other similarity. Their diverse views act as a type of fuel for Rainsford as he is determined to put an end to Zaroff’s inhumane madness. Ultimately, Rainsford and Zaroff are almost nothing alike because of Zaroff’s such barbaric thoughts and action, therefore, Einstein proves to be correct: force does attract men of low morality.

Read more

Analyzing Suspense in ‘The Most Dangerous Game’

February 1, 2019 by Essay Writer

Suspense is one of the most effective tools used to grip the readers undivided attention in creative writing. It pulls the reader into the story, and gets them invested in the characters and the story line. It creates the intense feeling of needing to know what happens next. In “The Most Dangerous Game” Richard Connell successfully sustains the suspense with his skillful use of diction and setting as well as the carefully crafted antagonist, General Zaroff.

Richard Connell’s use of setting to increase the suspense is impeccable. In the beginning of the story, when Rainsford and some crew members are discussing ‘Ship Trap Island’ one of the crew members says “The place has a reputation, a bad one” and another says “This place has an evil name among seafaring men” to describe the island General Zaroff inhabits and hunts on (also known as ‘Ship Trap Island’). The reader feels anxious and nervous and wonders about what gives this island its fear-invoking reputation. Later in the story, when General Zaroff (antagonist) describes his hunting and how he traps people on his island, he says “Giant rocks with razor edges crouch like a sea monster with wide open jaws”. Using the analogy of ‘a sea monster with wide open jaws’ makes the setting a little more ominous and scary. The more eerie the setting, the more frightening it is. In this story, Connell utilizes the eeriness of his setting to make his story more suspenseful.

Diction is another one of the techniques used by Connell to add suspense to his story. After Rainsford falls into the Caribbean he hears screams that were an “extremity of anguish and terror”. Connell’s use of ‘anguish and terror’ as opposed to ‘fear’ makes of feel more scared and makes us want to continue on to find out who or what made such horrifying screams. When Zaroff talks about how he hunts, he says “to date I have not lost”. When he says this clipped sentence, we feel like something is left unsaid. Something like “and I do not plan to lose in the future”. He leaves the sentence hanging and this only increases the suspense. When he propositions Rainsford, he says “Your brain against mine”. This is another sentence that makes us feel like something has been left hanging. You feel like he is implying something, voicing his thoughts silently and subtly. When you do not know exactly what someone is thinking, especially the villain, you experience a feeling of even more suspense.

General Zaroff is the villain in this short story, and his mysterious persona and hospitality only increases our suspicions and fear about him. Connell creates an antagonist who, at first, gives shelter to our protagonist (Rainsford). It is later revealed, in a shocking twist that the reader is led into from the first paragraphs itself, that he hunts people for sport. His blasé attitude towards hunting people and animals is creepy and oddly intriguing at the same time. When talking with Rainsford he says “It would be impossible for me to tell you how many animals I have killed” and says that he is surprised that Rainsford “harbours romantic ideas about the value of human life”. These lines show his attitude and beliefs towards hunting for pleasure as well as the fact that he is unrepentant and has no qualms about killing to prevent boredom. When Rainsford first arrives it is said that “His smile showed red lips and stave off teeth”. This gives him the appearance of a predator. He also (when justifying hunting humans) says that “The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure” showing his views of superiority and the people (his inferiors-if you will).Connell’s brilliant but scary villain adds suspense and intrigue to the story and makes the story even more enjoyable.

Overall, Richard Connell effectively sustains the suspense with several techniques including setting and diction. He skillfully crafts an intriguing and mysterious villain, General Zaroff, creating eerie settings and uses word choice to heighten the intensity of the story itself. When reading “The Most Dangerous Game”, Connell makes us sweat up until the very end. He draws the reader into the narrative, and gets them invested in the characters and their mysteries. His diction creates the intense feeling of needing to know what happens next and keeps the reader on his toes throughout the story. The story ends brilliantly and with our protagonist triumphant, enjoying a well deserved rest.

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

Page count
1 pages
$ 10

Price