Category: The Most Dangerous Game

Introduction

The importance of the setting in literary context can be seen among the most important factors, driving the direction of the work. In that regard, the setting in a work is not merely an indication of place and time, rather than it is their impact on the plot, the interactions of the characters, and its theme. Nevertheless, the degree of such influence might vary where there are stories in which the setting might be replaced in without affecting the development of other elements. In that regard, it is not a reference to the setting as a measurement for the quality of the essay. It is an indication that such element despite being equally present in different literature works might serve different purposes.

Analyzing the setting in two different short stories, The Destructors by Graham Greene and The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connel, the differences in the significance of the setting can be specifically evident. In Greenes short story, the setting serves as a partial explanation for the storys conflict, being a major element of influence, around which the story was built. In Connels work, it can be stated that the main element is mainly the theme, whereas the setting is mainly insignificant. In that regard, this paper analyzes both works in the context of their setting, arguing that the perception of Greenes story is linked to the setting in which it takes place.

The Theme

The differences in the themes of the short stories become apparent when they are analyzed as stand-alone elements. In that regard, the theme in Connels story can be considered self sufficient, explained and understood through the main the interactions between Rainsford and the protagonist Zaroff, which is violence and cruelty. The theme in Greenes work, on the other hand, cannot be considered self-sufficient, where the interactions of the characters and the conflict in the story cannot be understood at once. In that regard, the purpose of the Connel in demonstrating the violence and its condemnation is directly related to the theme, while in Greenes story it is not. Summarizing the plot of The Destructors, it is revolves around the destroying the house of Old Misery. The interactions of the characters, in that regard, are neither sufficient to explain the purpose of the author, nor to connect it to the purpose of the story. Other elements were necessary to outline the authors main theme, which explains the actions of the story. In that sense, one important element is the setting.

The Setting

The setting in The Destructors is London nine years after the end of the World War II (Greene 1), where the city still contains traces from bomb blasts, with most buildings being destructed by the blitz. Accordingly, the whole story can be seen built around representing the influence of the setting on the main characters of the play. In that regard, it can be stated that even the choice of the characters are directly related to the setting, where the author chose kids to indicate the severity of such influence. It can be assumed that the behavior of adults in such setting would not be questioned. In that regard, the impact of the setting can be amplified by the fact that most those kids were not old enough to comprehend the war.

In Connels story, it can be stated that the setting is largely neutral. Taking place presumably somewhere in the Caribbean, the only aspect that can be seen significant in the setting is its remoteness form civilization. Such remoteness only serves to indicate the desperation of the situation. However, such remoteness does not explain the motives of the characters actions. In that regard, it can be stated that the theme of the story and its purpose would have been clear with another setting being selected. Accordingly, the time period does not play a role in the story, with the theme being explored and understood in the modern time as well.

The Setting as a Driving Force

The role of the setting as a driving force in the story can be seen in The Destructors, where the narration shows the shift in the values of the society due to the war. In that regard, while there are characters that create expectation opposite to what occurs, e.g. Trevor and Old Misery, the setting, on the contrary makes the events of in the story common, which can be seen through the Trevors reactions to the surprise return of Old Misery or the reaction of the lorry driver to the destruction of the house.

In The Most Dangerous Game, the narration is driven by climatic moments in the story, e.g. falling from the yacht, finding people on the island, realizing Zaroffs game, and the moment in the bedroom. The emphasis on the setting between these moments is descriptive, rather than symbolic. The same can be said about the actions of the characters. Thus, it can be stated that the setting does not drive the plot of the story.

Conclusion

Analyzing the setting in both stories, it can be stated that despite its importance in both cases, its significance is more evident in the Greenes The Destructors. In that story, the setting is not only a sense of place and time, but also an explanatory background, outlining the storys them and purpose.

Works Cited

Connel, Richard. The Most Dangerous Game. 1924. Pearson Custom Publishing. Web.

Greene, Graham. The Destructors. 1954. Pearson Custom Publishing. Web.

The story of The Most Dangerous Game revolves around General Zaroffs untiring bizarre hunt for Rainsford. In this book by Richard Connell, the story plot includes three types of conflicts which are Rainsford vs nature (social), Rainsford vs himself (psychological) and Rainsford vs General Zaroff (physical) which were essential elements of this terrific short story. There were situations in this story where Rainsford confronted with him the conflict within himself which he had to struggle with for survival.

Rainsford went through an internal conflict when he was in the ocean and had to keep stay focused by not panicking and realizing that his clothes were not helping his strokes and he wrestled out of his clothes otherwise he would have drowned. Another situation where Rainsford kept his composure was when Ivan had his gun pointed at him and he had to use his coolheaded approach or Ivan would have him dead. Also when General Zaroff told Rainsford regarding hunting men looking, Rainsford had to think over whether he should or should not attack General Zaroff. Rainsford faced another internal conflict when he was in the jungle for three days and he kept reminding himself I will not lose my nerve. I will not. Furthermore, Rainsford sought a tree as his hiding place when General Zaroff and had to struggle to keep himself noiseless and motionless.

All of his internal conflict management and prolific approach helped Rainsford to fight himself to keep going without getting much-needed rest and conquer himself and General Zaroff to survive and fight his enemy.

Works Cited

Connell, R. The Most Dangerous Game. Filiquarian Publishing, LLC, 2006.

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 Connells 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 Rainsfords 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 Zaroffs 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.

Connells 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 islands 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 peoples 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 Zaroffs 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 Connells The Most Dangerous Game. ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews. Web.

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 Connells 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 Rainsfords 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 Zaroffs 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.

Connells 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 islands 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 peoples 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 Zaroffs 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 Connells The Most Dangerous Game. ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews. Web.

The story of The Most Dangerous Game revolves around General Zaroffs untiring bizarre hunt for Rainsford. In this book by Richard Connell, the story plot includes three types of conflicts which are Rainsford vs nature (social), Rainsford vs himself (psychological) and Rainsford vs General Zaroff (physical) which were essential elements of this terrific short story. There were situations in this story where Rainsford confronted with him the conflict within himself which he had to struggle with for survival.

Rainsford went through an internal conflict when he was in the ocean and had to keep stay focused by not panicking and realizing that his clothes were not helping his strokes and he wrestled out of his clothes otherwise he would have drowned. Another situation where Rainsford kept his composure was when Ivan had his gun pointed at him and he had to use his coolheaded approach or Ivan would have him dead. Also when General Zaroff told Rainsford regarding hunting men looking, Rainsford had to think over whether he should or should not attack General Zaroff. Rainsford faced another internal conflict when he was in the jungle for three days and he kept reminding himself I will not lose my nerve. I will not. Furthermore, Rainsford sought a tree as his hiding place when General Zaroff and had to struggle to keep himself noiseless and motionless.

All of his internal conflict management and prolific approach helped Rainsford to fight himself to keep going without getting much-needed rest and conquer himself and General Zaroff to survive and fight his enemy.

Works Cited

Connell, R. The Most Dangerous Game. Filiquarian Publishing, LLC, 2006.

Law’s first problem with evil is that if there’s an omnibenevolent God, then why is there any evil put into the world at all (Law, 1:45)? This is the logical problem while the evidential problem is that although there might be a world where evil and an omniscient God can coexist, why is there such a large quantity of evil in the world? Opposers say that some degree of evil has to be produced for the greater good of the world in the end (Law, 2:46). The logical explanation isn’t as strong as the evidential one. Although there might be reason for some evil in the world due to mankind, there is no explanation for natural disasters that cause human suffering because humans cannot create such atrocities themselves (Law, 9:50).

According to Card, if I were a Nazi prisoner guard whose job was to send camp captives to the gas chamber, I would be evil. This is because as a guard, I could foresee that the intolerable harm that would come from the chamber is death. Death is intolerable and in this case, foreseeable. A significant part of an atrocity is due to the perception that human agents failed to intervene to prevent it when they could and should have (Card, pg. 5). Atrocities are perpetrated by many players in various roles who have different degrees of knowledge of the enterprise and atrocities are uncontroversially evil (Card pg.15). By allowing the captives to get sent to the chamber when I should have intervened and stopped the practice, makes me a culpable wrongdoer.

Opposers claim that since I am not the one performing the torture on the captives, I am not an evildoer, but a bystander. They believe that I, the guard, don’t have enough knowledge or physical presence during the activity to be considered evil. However, although I may not know the extremities of which the gas chamber holds, evil intentions can hold many forms such as the the failure to attend to risks (Card, pg. 20).

In a story, there are three types of conflict. There is moral conflict, physical conflict, and personal conflict. Moral is the debate of a moral concept throughout a story. Physical conflict is what impacts a character physically. In the Connell story, protagonist, Rainsford, tries to escape the hunting of General Zaroff. A personal conflict is similar to a moral conflict, but happens to a character intrinsically. For example, in “The Most Dangerous Game”, Rainsford struggles with the moral conflict of whether or not hunting humans is morally right (Connell, pg. 19). A conflict starts with the point of attack, then a complication, unraveling towards the turning point, and finally leading to a resolution.

Foreshadowing is when an author drops subtle hints throughout the story that leads to a big point of the story, usually towards the end. An example is when Rainsford swims to shore to escape General Zaroff’s hunting game (Connell, pg. 37). At the beginning of the story, Rainsford was stranded in the sea and swam to shore to remain alive (Connell, pg. 5). By swimming to the shore at the start of the story, Connell lets the reader know that he is a good swimmer, so when it is revealed that swimming is the way that Rainsford escapes the hunting of Zaroff, the reader is not surprised.

According to normative egoism, humans should act to promote their individual self-interest. It is not necessarily how humans are, but how humans ought to be. For example, most firefighters are regarded as heroic. Do those who involve themselves in fighting fires do it because they want to help others from dangerous activity or do they do it because of the reputation around their job? According to normative ethics, they should be doing the job because of self-interest and because it makes themselves have a much greater reputation to the public.

Moral relativism means that our judgements about ethics are relative to something else (MacKinnon, pg. 1). A relativist would not believe in one specific right way of doing something. A relativist would look at a culture would say they do not have enough knowledge of the practice, or they didn’t grow up within that culture and therefore, cannot make a valid judgement on it. Friedrich Nietzsche describes that words like good and evil are defined by different people depending on their perspectives of the world and how they were brought up (MacKinnon, pg.48). A relativist insists that there are too many situations and cultural differences between certain areas of the world to make a clear judgement about what is morally right and wrong (MacKinnon, pg. 50). Unlike moral relativism, egoism focuses on the benefits of actions for the person themselves while moral relativism simply states that there is no universal right or wrong.

In “The Most Dangerous Game”, the conflicts presented in the story do pose some problems for the plausibility of the normative form of moral relativism, not so much egoism. Rainsford deems the hunting of humans wrong all throughout the story despite him not understanding the culture of the island fully. For example, despite ‘winning’ the game the General created, Rainsford insisted that he would not participate in any sort of hunting of humans with him. Rainsford said, No, general,” he said. “I will not hunt” (Connell, pg. 22). This poses problems for the normative form of moral relativism because in a world where that theory is concrete, Rainsford, although he could refuse to participate in the game, would not recall the General’s actions as morally incorrect like he did. If Rainsford and the General lived in a relativist society, they would both accept that neither of their opinions on the hunting of humans are faulty, they simply are what each one thinks. As for egoism, I believe that there are much fewer problems posed from the Connell story. The major conflict of the story is that Rainsford is trying to ‘out survive’ the General’s hunting. Although murder is (mostly) universally wrong, the General still practices the hunting because it brings him pleasure. At the beginning of the story, Rainsford also makes a statement about how there are the hunters and the huntees in the world (Connell, pg.2). That is what an egoist would say due to the fact that egoism has a ‘every man for themselves’ outlook on life.

Opposers might say that although throughout the story Rainsford is persistent on his despising of the hunting of humans, the end of the story might leave an open end on to how he will carry on his beliefs. The ending states that Rainsford lied in the General’s bed and had never slept so good. One could take that figuratively and say that, because he had now lived through the culture of the island for a longer duration than when he first arrived, he could possibly understand why the game was so pleasurable and might continue it (Connell, pg. 34). That would defend the moral relativism stance on this story. However, according to relativism, Rainsford had not been on the island long enough to make a valid judgement of the practice, therefore he would still be making a judgement on predisposed opinions.

In a game of survival, two hunters are facing off against each other. But not in the way you think! One great hunter will hunt another, leaving only the victor alive. Our very own Sanger Rainsford is up against the ruthless and Russian General Zaroff. This historic match all started just because Rainsford was unlucky enough to fall in the Carribean, and land into Ship-Wrecked Island! Rainsford and Zaroff are the two best hunters in the world, so when put against each other, who will win? Rainsford, renowned for his books and impressive quarry, will go against skilled and overconfident Zaroff. If Rainsford can evade the General for three entire days, he is allowed his freedom. If not, well let’s say it won’t be pretty. Who do you think has a higher chance of winning? You’ll have to keep watching to see who has the higher chance to win in the categories of their abilities, advantages, and attitudes!

The first thing we’re going to be talking about is their experience and ability! During their dinner, Zaroff tells Rainford that he’s been hunting since he was a child. He tells him, “I killed my first bear when I was 10.” (Connell 33) and “When I was only five years old he gave me a little gun, specially made in Moscow for me, to shoot sparrows with.” (Connell 33). Not a very modest guy, is he? Yet, this is much more experience than Rainsford has had. Even though he was a “celebrated hunter” (Connell 33), Zaroff being able to kill a bear at so young of an age is quite impressive and horrifying. Rainsford, although a great hunter, has not quite yet proven himself. We know he’s written a book, “I’ve read your [Rainsford’s] book about hunting snow leopards in Tibet..” (Connell 31). But we won’t see him put his actions to use until later.

The second thing we need to talk about is the advantages each has. Zaroff, with his knowledge of the land, can navigate where his quarry is most likely to go when he hunts them. We know because when Zaroff advises Rainsford before the game by saying, “I suggest, too, that you avoid the big swamp in the southeast corner of the island.” (Connell 39). But Rainsford is left clueless being new and all. Rainsford does have the advantage of not leaving any tracks though, “I suggest you wear moccasins, they leave a poorer trail.” (Connell 39). But since Zaroff gave him this advice, it may be a trap since he knows how to identify them. Other advantages Zaroff has is his luxuries! The rules of the game states, “I am to follow, armed only with a pistol of the smallest caliber and range.” (Connell 36) This may seem like a small advantage, but Rainsford is only equipped with a hunting knife, “…a leather sheath containing a long-bladed hunting knife;” (Connell 36), so the advantage is obvious there. The final thing is the ability to win. Zaroff has not yet lost a single hunt in his entire life, according to himself! During their first meet, he tells Rainsford, “It had become too easy. I always got my quarry. Always. There is no greater bore than perfection.’ (Connell 34). Rainsford, however, believes that there are different levels of danger. He tells Zaroff, “I’ve always thought,” said Rainsford, “that the Cape buffalo is the most dangerous of all big game.” Zaroff has never lost to his quarry, even the human ones with logic. He tells Rainsford, ‘To date, I have not lost.” (Connell 36). Hunting is easy for Zaroff it seems, I think maybe too easy?

The final thing I want to talk about is hunting attitudes. While these men’s hunting attitudes are somewhat similar there is one key difference, Zaroff is merciless. Both believe that the status of the world is split between hunters and hunted, as is stated in the very beginning and when Rainsford is speaking, “The world is made up of two classes–the hunters and the huntees.” (Connell ). It seems that Zaroff has the same idea saying, “Me He made a hunter.” (Connell 33). Zaroff is taking it a step further though. He has no mercy for anyone, not even humans! He doesn’t even let them fall into his grasps by chance! He tells Rainsford, “But where do you get them?’…They indicate a channel,’ he said, ‘where there’s none; giant rocks with razor edges crouch like a sea monster with wide-open jaws.” (Connell 36). And he has a prison for his victims! “We’ll visit my training school,’ smiled the general. ‘It’s in the cellar. I have about a dozen pupils down there now.” (Connell 36). These both describe his disregard for whether they are human or not. Rainsford is then put at a disadvantage, only believing animals are the game when Zaroff has a more sadistic way of looking at things.

Now let’s have a quick recap, shall we? With better advantages in his own game, a more ruthless attitude when it comes to winning, and blatant hunting ability, I believe Zaroff is going to have a better chance. Rainsford has morals, something that won’t help him here, while Zaroff has a game to win. Rainsford could never kill a man in cold blood, while his competitor does it for pure entertainment! There is no question on who is crazy enough to win.

All things considered, Zaroff has the edge in this competition. He has a pistol, dogs, a life’s worth of hunting experience, and a flawless career. Based on these things, we all expect Zaroff to have the upper hand and Rainsford to be in the ground before we yell time. But we can never know until it happens!

“The Most Dangerous Game” is a gripping short story written by Richard Connell. Published in 1924, the narrative follows the harrowing experiences of Sanger Rainsford, a renowned hunter who finds himself entangled in a deadly game on a remote island. This essay will explore the key theme of the story, examining the moral dilemmas faced by the characters, the pursuit of power, and the intricate nature of survival.

Summary of the Story

The story begins with Rainsford aboard a yacht bound for Rio de Janeiro, where he plans to engage in a hunting expedition in the Amazon. However, fate intervenes when Rainsford falls overboard and finds himself stranded on Ship-Trap Island.

Rainsford’s initial relief at reaching the island turns into terror when he discovers its sinister inhabitant, General Zaroff. The general, an aristocratic Russian, reveals his twisted pastime to Rainsford: hunting humans. Zaroff’s refined mannerisms and eloquence mask his dark obsession with playing the deadliest game.

As the story progresses, Rainsford becomes the unwilling prey in Zaroff’s sadistic game. He is given a brief head start before Zaroff begins his relentless pursuit through the treacherous terrain of the island. Rainsford’s survival skills are tested to their limits as he navigates the dense jungle, employing various strategies to outwit his cunning pursuer. He undergoes a transformation, questioning the morality of his own actions as a hunter and empathizing with the plight of the prey.

The author skillfully builds tension and suspense as Rainsford eludes Zaroff’s relentless pursuit, employing various strategies to outwit his cunning adversary. Rainsford’s resourcefulness and ability to think on his feet become crucial in his quest for survival. The clash between the pursuit of power and the moral conscience of the individual adds layers of complexity to the plot.

Connell presents vivid and harrowing descriptions of the perilous jungle environment throughout the story. Rainsford faces numerous challenges, from evading traps and snares set by Zaroff to enduring physical exhaustion and mental anguish. The relentless pursuit forces Rainsford to confront his own fears and push himself to the limits of his physical and mental endurance.

The story reaches its climax when Rainsford, cornered and seemingly out of options, makes a daring decision. He constructs an intricate trap, utilizing the island’s natural features to his advantage. In a thrilling twist, Rainsford becomes the hunter, turning the tables on Zaroff. The story concludes with Rainsford emerging as the victor, ending Zaroff’s reign of terror.

Connell masterfully crafts a suspenseful and action-packed plot in “The Most Dangerous Game,” keeping readers engaged from start to finish. The intense hunt and the constant battle for survival create a sense of urgency and exhilaration. The plot explores the depths of human resilience and the lengths individuals will go to preserve their lives when faced with extraordinary circumstances.

In summary, “The Most Dangerous Game” presents an engaging plot that takes readers on a suspenseful journey filled with moral dilemmas, the pursuit of power, and the intricacies of survival. The story captivates with twists and turns, keeping readers on the edge of their seats as they navigate the dangerous game on Ship-Trap Island.

The Key Theme

The key theme in “The Most Dangerous Game” is the exploration of morality and the ethical choices individuals make in extreme circumstances. Richard Connell’s story raises thought-provoking questions about the boundaries of morality and the consequences of disregarding them.

The Moral Dilemmas

In “The Most Dangerous Game,” the characters are confronted with profound moral choices. General Zaroff, a former Russian aristocrat, becomes the embodiment of moral corruption as he justifies his bloodlust through his belief in superiority. Rainsford, on the other hand, is initially driven solely by the thrill of hunting. However, as the story progresses, Rainsford undergoes a transformation and begins questioning the ethics of his actions. The story raises thought-provoking questions about the boundaries of morality and the consequences of disregarding them.

The Pursuit of Power

Connell masterfully weaves the theme of power throughout the story. General Zaroff, having grown bored with hunting “regular” animals, craves a greater challenge and control over life and death. He assumes the role of a god, determining who lives and who dies. The character embodies the dangerous pursuit of power at any cost. His desire for dominance and control ultimately leads to his downfall. “The Most Dangerous Game” serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the destructive nature of an unchecked thirst for power.

The Intricacies of Survival

Survival plays a pivotal role in the story, emphasizing the indomitable spirit of human beings when faced with adversity. Rainsford is thrust into an unfamiliar environment where he becomes the prey. As he battles against Zaroff, he experiences fear, desperation, and the instinctive drive to survive. The story explores the depths of human resilience and resourcefulness when pushed to the limits. Rainsford’s transformation from predator to prey presents a captivating exploration of the complexities and uncertainties of survival.

Conclusion

“The Most Dangerous Game” captivates readers with its exploration of moral dilemmas, power pursuit, and survival’s intricacies. The story serves as a powerful reminder of the thin line between civilization and barbarity and raises important questions about the limits of morality. Through the characters of General Zaroff and Sanger Rainsford, Richard Connell highlights the dangers of unchecked power and the transformative potential of human resilience. As readers navigate the twists and turns of this thrilling narrative, they are confronted with profound questions about their own values and the ethical choices they make in their own lives.

In conclusion, “The Most Dangerous Game” is a timeless tale that continues to captivate audiences with its exploration of morality and survival. The story’s enduring themes serve as a reflection of the human condition and leave readers pondering the true nature of power and the lengths individuals will go to preserve their own lives. Richard Connell’s masterful storytelling and thought-provoking narrative ensure that “The Most Dangerous Game” remains a riveting literary work, inviting readers to delve deeper into its themes and engage in introspection about their own beliefs and actions.

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.

“Irony” Dictionary.reference.com. n.d. Web.

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

Looking for The Most Dangerous Game essay examples? This paper analyzes the short story by Richard Connell. It explores The Most Dangerous Game themes & provides the story’s summary.

Introduction

“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.

Summary of The Most Dangerous Game

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.

The Most Dangerous Game Theme

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.

Conclusion

“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.