The Most Dangerous Game
Ethical Decisions in The Most Dangerous Game and Barn Burning
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.
Rainsford and Zaroff in The Most Dangerous Game
Imagine being stuck with a psychopath on an island. A single person must survive the game to hunt or be the prey of a murderer for falling into a trap. In Richard Connell’s short adventurous story, “The Most Dangerous Game”, a main character named Sanger Rainsford is a hunter that is put into a scary situation that makes him go through intense moments during the story. This story had shown that it was an intense and daring story to read because of how everything was stated and explained. It starts off by, Rainsford had jumped overboard from a ship and started to swim. He had swam towards the gunshots he heard from an island and decided to go towards it. After swimming, he had ran into General Zaroff who already knew him from his own book. Zaroff tells him about his hunting story and how he had hunted so many wild animals it became boring. General Zaroff and Sanger Rainsford are both skilled and intelligent but they also have something different and that is that Zaroff is insane while Rainsford is sane.
First of all, in this story, the two men shared the same trait and that is being skilled. Rainsford showed that he is skilled he was able to set a trap where he knew Zaroff was going to be. This reveals that even when he is fighting for his life, he is not giving up to fighting back. In order to fight back, Rainsford called to mind, “I’ll give him a trail to follow” (Connell 19). This states that he has a trick up his sleeve and thinks this is going to work even when trying to defend himself from Zaroff. In addition, Rainsford knows he will be at that specific spot, so he waits for the right time to attack. How Zaroff proved that he is skilled is how he knows everything and how he thinks killing animals is boring. How he showed how he knew something was up, “He paused, almost beneath the tree, dropped to his knees and studied the ground” (Connell 18). This shares that, he knows what is going on around him and knows his surroundings because this has happened before. Furthermore, Zaroff expects everything and his skill help him hunt things like wild animals.
Secondarily, in this story, they both showed that they are both intelligent. Rainsford displays how intelligent he is by how he could get away from Zaroff and has everything is already played in his mind. “Even so zealous a hunter as General Zaroff could not trace him there, he told himself, only the devil himself could follow that complicated trail through the jungle after dark” (Connell 18). This proves that he knows Zaroff will walk these exact places and will fall into the trap. He sees it in his mind of where his footsteps will be and that exact same spot. In addition, he says to himself that there is no one that could walk this trail this complicated. In the story Zaroff proved how intelligent he is by knowing Rainsford will be intimidated when he tells him that he hunts men. He even knows something was up, Zaroff shows, ” But the sharp eyes of the hunter stopped before they had reached the limb where Rainsford lay” (Connell 19). This states that, General Zaroff knows what is going on and how it is not going to work on him. Furthermore, he is way ahead of Rainsford and knows his trap he is trying to pull off.
At last, even though Rainsford and Zaroff share similarities but they are also different because Rainsford shows that he is sane, but Zaroff indicates that he is insane. Rainsford shows that he is sane by disagreeing with Zaroff when he says he hunts humans. Rainsford states, “Hunting? Good god General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder” (Connell 13). This explains that he thinks hunting men is like murder and what Zaroff is doing is wrong. Besides, Rainsford is sane and would only hunt animals not men. In the story Zaroff proves that he is insane because he doesn’t want to kill animals anymore because he thinks it is boring, so he decides to hunt men. Zaroff reveals, “I hunt the scum of the earth- sailors from the tramp ships- lascars, blacks, chinese, whites, mongrels” (Connell 14). This reveals that, he not only hunts animals, he hunts men that fall into his traps. Also the different type of men that he hunts. Therefore, he hunts or murdered men because he thinks that hunting animals have gotten boring and he wanted to make things more fun.
In the story, “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell, two men had showed that they are capable of surviving when one could be the prey of a murderer. They had shown that Sanger Raisford and General Zaroff are both skilled and intelligent. Later in the story they had confirmed that they didn’t have anything similar and that was Rainsford being sane while Zaroff being insane because of the choices they had made throughout the story. In addition, their decisions had to cause the story to be unpleasant or pleasant, it makes “The Most Dangerous Game” an intense and daring story of holding on to life.
The Most Dangerous Game: Hunting versus Killing
In his book, The Old Man and The Boy, author and big game hunter Robert Ruark wrote, “Hunting is the noblest sport yet devised by the hand of man… If you hunt to eat, or hunt for sport for something fine, something that will make you proud… But if there’s one thing that I despise it’s a killer… A man who takes pleasure in death for death’s sake…” Similarly, in “The Most Dangerous Game” Richard Connell tells the story of two men, Sanger Rainsford and General Zaroff. Both call themselves hunters, but as the story unfolds the line between “hunter” and “murderer” become blurred. Rainsford hunts big game because he believes hunting is the greatest sport in the world, but for Zaroff hunting is a means of challenging himself against the strongest, most dangerous game in the world. He soon realizes that the only prey that can bring him true satisfaction is the one that is able to reason, man. Throughout the events of the story, Connell’s use of conflict, mood, and symbolism reveal to the reader the central theme of hunting versus killing.
For a majority of the story Connell uses the conflict between Rainsford and Zaroff to reflect the theme by pitting the hunter directly against the killer. By analyzing this conflict, the reader is then able to decipher the key differences between the two hunters and judge which one is actually a murderer. From the moment that Zaroff reveals his intentions in hunting washed up sailors to Rainsford, there is immediate conflict between their clashing ideologies. While Rainsford believes that this crosses into the territory of murder, the cossack argues that hunting the one prey able to think, to reason, is what provides the greatest thrill. He attempts to reason by stating, “it supplies me with the most exciting hunting in the world. No other hunting compares with it for an instant. Every day I hunt, and I never grow bored now, for I have a quarry with which I can match my wits.” (Connell 7), but fails to get his point across to Rainsford. Following this interaction, the differences between the two are further illustrated when Zaroff sends Rainsford into the jungle to be hunted for three days. In the resulting sequence of events, Connell has the two men duke it out in a battle of wits. Rainsford’s use of traps and navigation skills that he’s picked up as a seasoned hunter allow him to stall out the Russian for the entirety of the time frame, and in the meanwhile manages to injure Zaroff’s shoulder and kill the general’s assistant Ivan along with one of his hounds. Zaroff acknowledges the other as a worthy match for him proclaiming, “Not many men know how to make a Malay mancatcher. Luckily for me I, too, have hunted in Malacca. You are proving interesting, Mr. Rainsford.” (Connell 13). Using conflict, Connell is able to convey the differences in mentality between the men to the reader. As we see, while Rainsford utilizes his intellect and will to survive the hunt, Zaroff uses more brute force and thirsts after his prey like a savage animal. This reflects the major theme of the distinction between hunting and killing by analyzing how each party thinks. Ultimately it shows what makes a hunter a murderer with the conflict displaying each man’s intent and morality behind the hunt.
Additionally the mood that Connell creates within his writing allow him to paint the setting along with Zaroff’s words and actions with a darker, more sinister light. Before Rainsford falls off his boat, his hunting partner Whitney describes to him rumors about an infamous ‘Ship Trap Island” occupying the waters they’re sailing. In this scene Connell creates a minor amount of tension, which intensifies when Whitney speaks on the uneasiness that he, and even the reader, can feel. He says to Rainsford, “Sometimes I think evil is a tangible thing–with wave lengths, just as sound and light have. An evil place can, so to speak, broadcast vibrations of evil.” (Connell 2). This instantly creates a foreboding sense of suspense that lingers throughout the whole story. When Rainsford is invited into Zaroff’s mansion the suspense that Connell created earlier doesn’t dissipate, but rather intensifies when interacting with the general. This suspense makes Zaroff’s amiable demeanor appear much more menacing than if it was otherwise not there. Furthermore when Rainsford is being chased down by the Russian, the suspense peaks as Rainsford. Using this mood Connell is able to show the reader the darker side of Zaroff without directly stating it. It creates a lens that the reader uses to view the events of the story as they take place. By using suspense Connell reveals the theme by depicting the general more as a ruthless killer than the noble hunter he claims to be.
The effective use of symbolism throughout the short story helps to portray what makes a man a hunter or a killer. Connell utilizes this device in order to depict Zaroff along with his island as what he intends them to represent, a bloodthirsty murderer and his trap. The most obvious symbol would be the island that these sailors wash up on as trap, such as one a hunter uses. The deliberate naming of this island as ‘Ship Trap Island’ makes it very clear that it is not to be trusted. It’s purpose for Zaroff also reflects this as it is used to lure sailors lost at sea and even has a lighthouse to act as bait. The second, most important, example of symbolism throughout the whole text is Connell’s use of the color red and blood. When Rainsford first falls off his boat, he falls into the ‘blood warm waters of the Caribbean’ (Connell 2), and when he washes up on the island the grass is also stained with blood. During Rainsford and Zaroff’s dinner, Connell details how the cossack showed ‘red lips and pointed teeth’ (Connell 4), like the fangs of a wolf. This alludes to Zaroff’s beastlike, predatory nature and how he hunts men as if he was a lion and they were gazelles. The difference between them, though, is that one kills out of necessity and one for pleasure. By using symbolism to impart to the reader the true meaning behind Zaroff and his island, Connell is able to portray his central theme. It shows how Zaroff disguises himself as a hunter of men by setting up a trap, but can’t help revealing his true qualities as a man who kills for his own satisfaction.
In ‘The Most Dangerous Game’ Connell uses conflict, mood, and symbolism in order to express the theme of hunting v.s. killing. With the conflict between Rainsford and Zaroff used to showcase the differences in how each man thinks, Connell paints a line between a hunter and killer. He also uses mood to further highlight Zaroff’s darker side along with using symbolism to reveal the general’s true character and his killer-like traits. Combined, these literary devices work in tandem with each other in order to show how even though Zaroff attempts to be a hunter, his motive and mentality toward the hunt betray his true nature. By the end of the story the reader is able to discern at what point a hunter turns into a killer. Stated best by Robert Ruark, the difference being that the killer is the, “man who takes pleasure in death for death’s sake”, who hunts for blood and not the sport.
The Game of Life in The Lottery and The Most Dangerous Game
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.
A Comparative Study of Symbolism in The Lottery and The Most Dangerous Game
The Lottery is a short story based on a small town with 300 residents and all families are known to each other. It is during the autumn and the residents are anxious and excited about the lottery. Lottery is an age old tradition practiced by the town people each year. It is believed that Lottery in June leads to a heavy corn harvest. Pieces of paper are put in a black box, later on, they are drawn and the family that picks the paper with a black spot wins the lottery. In the end one of the members in the winning family is stoned to death by the entire town’s population. Tessie, a mother and a wife becomes the victim and is stoned to death despite her pleas for mercy. In this town, tradition outweighs logic and basic humanity.
The most dangerous game is a story based on two friends Rainsford and Whitney who are on a hunting expedition to Rio de Janeiro in search of the big cat; jaguar. Little do they know that they are about to become the prey to a hunt by Zaroff and Rainsford is almost murdered in a hunting game. Conversely, Zaroff underestimates Rainsford and in the end he becomes the hunted and is killed based on the rules of his own game. Indeed Rainsford gets the thrill of hunting and catching his prey.
Both writers use symbolism in their stories; in the Lottery, Shirley constantly refers to a black box used to store the pieces of paper. The box represents a bad tradition that is based on unfounded belief and passed down from generation to generation without any tangible proof. The lottery process itself is a symbol of illogical beliefs that are embraced. In the story, we are told of how the people went on their daily activities before and after the lottery without the slightest concern on death. Stones symbolize hardness and cruelty of the people using everyday methods. Children collecting the stones represent how the tradition is passed down from one generation to the next without proper explanation as to the premise of the act.
In Richard Connell’s most dangerous game, the jungle is used to symbolize the complex thinking processes used by Zaroff in hunting and killing fellow hunters that come to the island. The Island is also used to represent the isolated life that he lives while darkness in the jungle represents the evil and death that prevails in the island. The light that comes from Zaroff’s house represents his level of trickery equal to that of trapping a moth by attracting it to some light in a dark room. The light also represents a sense of victory for Rainsford after a near encounter with death at the hands of Zaroff.
Connell uses imagery while describing the evil in the island and living conditions of Zaroff. He has a dump servant who adheres to his every whim and finds pleasure in torturing hunters. Conversely, he is tied of that life and seeks to recruit Rainsford to be a companion. When he refuses the offer, Zaroff gives him a head start and hunts him like a wild animal, Rainsford outsmarts him by laying traps, imagery is used to describe these traps and how they turn the hunted to the hunter.
Shirley uses irony in the lottery by describing how close knit the people of the town were and how the families knew each other. He paints a picture of love, solidarity and oneness, however upon Tessie ‘winning’ the lottery even her own husband and children turn against her and stone her death without a second thought. The randomness of the lottery and the quick way in which death to the innocent is executed means that there is no love for each other; the harvest is more important than the people’s lives.
Connell uses irony when he asserts that Zaroff saw Rainsford as an easy prey and when he caught him the first time, he let him go since he was seeking for thrill and wanted to play the cat and mouse game. He even thinks that Rainsford commits suicide by jumping off a cliff into the sea, little does he know that he had survived and waiting for him in his bedroom just to kill him. The mouse was more mischievous than it was believed to be.
Shirley uses a more friendly and lively tone in describing the town people and their activities. He describes their anxiety for the lottery and their anticipation for the next corn harvest to be heavy. Connell uses a stern and sober tone to describe the dark atmosphere that hovered over the island’ the darkness, the small light, the wrecked ship, the lonely islander and his dumb servant.
The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connel: a Critical Study
For the interactive adaption of a story into a game, the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connel was chosen. A classic story read by many students in high school, it is the story of a well-traveled hunter, Rainsford, who becomes trapped on an island off the coast of South America where an insane hunter by the name General Zaroff hunts humans. For three days, Rainsford is forced to participate in Zaroff’s “game”, and ultimately he triumphs and kills Zaroff in the end. The story contains many aspects that were easy to adapt into game form; however, it had many aspects that were very difficult to put into the game. By making an actual game out of “The most Dangerous Game”, it supports the idea of transmedia story telling because it enables the reader/player to experience the game in multiple, different ways. This essay will reflect on these subjects, and investigate them in depth.
“The Most Dangerous Game”. The name already says it; it’s a game. One might be quick to say that making an interactive game out of it was easy – and in some respects it was. The story line of Rainsford surviving in the jungle for three days as the evil General Zaroff hunts him makes for an easy plot to base the game on. With suspense already built into the story, it was easy to take that suspense and place it into the modified storyline. Also, the plot gave many options to how one might offer choices to the player. For example; when running through the jungle there are numerous things Rainsford can do. He can climb a tree, head toward the beach, make a fake path, or keep running. The very free, adventurous nature of the story offered a plethora of choices to be offered to the player. It is very similar to playing an open environment videogame; the user attempts to provide the player with the most freedom as possible while still keeping the story line in place. Despite this being an advantage, it also was a disadvantage. Offering choices is easy. Creating different tangents for each of them, and continuing to offer the same freedom after each choice grew difficult, and soon nearly impossible. Giving the player multiple choices calls for different scenarios and results to emerge, as at the end of each day Rainsford could be at any portion of the island. To solve this problem, choices became linked. For example, if Rainsford was at the beach and he wanted to go into the forest, that choice would take Rainsford to a large tree. If the player had kept Rainsford in the forest, and chose to stay in the forest, that choice would also take him to the large tree. This strategy links two tangents to one path and allowed the developer to keep the player in check – yet not limit the player’s freedom entirely. A difficulty that arose from this was linking choices together, but also making sure they occurred within the same time frame (whether the choice is given in the morning, afternoon, etc.). It required the developer to link choices that only made sense – time ways – not choices that made it convenient. This provided the game with a realistic touch, and added to the overall depth of the game.
Although originally written as a short story decades ago, the experience in interactive game form is very similar, if not more intense. When adapting a game from a literary work, you make the reader/player more involved in the story. The choices he/she makes directly impact his/her experience of the story. One choice leads to death, the other to victory – and not all the deaths and victories are the same. It is a very open game with multiple ways to end it. With each choice, it builds suspense, as the paragraph or two that ensues tells the player if he/she survives to live another choice. Suspense is such a key component to games because it grabs the reader’s attention. A game without suspense, or some sort of captivating feature has a far less chance at being considered a viable transmedia form than a game with suspense and purpose, something that this game has. One of the most important parts to transmedia storytelling is keeping the story centered on the core idea, and just altering the side aspects. For example, in the actual story, Rainsford kills Zaroff in his own house. In the modified version of the game, Rainsford never kills Zaorff in that way. This pattern reverbs throughout the whole game, where the game contains a similar plot and results, but achieves them through completely different means. The reason why this is done is to keep the player from getting bored and annoyed that he/she is playing the exact same story as the written work. Alterations to the story keep the player off guard and curious as to what will happen next. “The Walking Dead” does a fantastic job of this. Another aspect of transmedia storytelling is that the game focuses more on the environment, expanding it, and basing much of the gameplay on it, rather than focusing on specific characters and developing them throughout the game. This gives the game a different feel from the book because it tells the story almost from a different point of view.
The short story “The Most Dangerous Game” is one of history’s best all time short-story thrillers. Although intended for only one medium, it can transform into others (in this case an interactive game) with a bit of effort and hard work. The open island aspect makes it easy for the developer to create multiple choices for the player to choose from; however, this multitude of choices creates a problem of too many tangents, only solved by linking certain choices to a common destination. The interactive game version of the story is able to pass as a form of transmedia storytelling because it keeps the plot (the hunt between Rainsford and Zaroff), but alters the outcome and how the outcome is achieved, giving a player who has already read the story with a new sense of excitement, suspense, and purpose. It also focuses on the environment and expanding it, rather than the characters or plot.
The Most Dangerous Game: Book Versus Movie
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.
The Most Dangerous Game
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].
Literary Analysis Of The Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell
This research project dissects a piece by the short story guru Richard Connell. Known for his short story works and multiple O. Henry Memorial Awards, his short story, The Most Dangerous Game would go on to be his most memorable and one of his best. The research provided originates from many databases within the Bison Library including, critic pieces, biographies, and pictures, as well as other pieces of his work. This knowledge lead to a better understanding of his Tone, purpose of writing, and literary devices commonly used within his works.
At the age of ten Connell wrote for his father’s newspaper. This early environment of writing would set his future on a great path. This also shows his father’s influence on him, and his writing. When the United States joined the First World War so did Connell, serving in France for a year. In 1919 Connell married Louise Herrick Fox and moved to Paris and London for some time.
Writing style made “The Most Dangerous Game” a masterpiece. Connell uses literary devices such as foreshadowing, metaphors, and imagery to create a unique texture and tone to this piece. Connell at one point says “What Perils that tangle of trees and underbrush might hold for him did not concern Rainsford just then”. This is an example of foreshadowing, it allows readers to wonder about the story. Also foreshadowing builds the tone into a creepy like feeling. Connell then goes on to say “The lights of the yacht became ever faint and ever-vanishing fireflies…” Connell compares the lights to fireflies flying away. Allowing readers to visualize it in their minds. So it almost acts like imagery, but Connell really diggs deep into imagery when he explains the Generals dining room. Connell uses imagery in all of the story, but when he describes the dining room it builds such a great image it’s almost unforgettable. He says “There was a medieval magnificence about it; it suggested a baronial hall of feudal time with its oaken panels, it’s high ceiling, it’s vast refectory tables where two score men could sit down to eat.” Connell’s imagery allows for a great picture, and a great way to set the setting. Also it makes the General so elegant and rich that he would never hunt humans.
Connell’s story has gotten praise around the world, with most critics loving it. Rena Korb says “I praise the complexity of the work regardless of the simplistic plot that only allows for two main characters.” Korb is completely right, Connell’s plot contains one problem with only two characters carrying it. Yet through advanced vocabulary and great use of foreshadowing it makes the plot complex. Terry W. Thompson praises his work for the story being more than just a “testosterone-pumping” action adventure story. Connell’s story in some ways can be looked at as an allegory, and contains questions such as what is the meaning of life. Connell’s strongest tool, vocabulary using words that deepen the plot of the story without changing it. He uses words like savage, underbrush, and flickering illumination. These words may be come in his era of writing, but the simplicity of the rest of the story allows readers even now to understand, and depict his writing.
The Use Of Literary Devices In Richard Connel’s The Most Dangerous Game
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.