Compare And Contrast The Most Dangerous Game And General Zaroff

660 Words3 Pages

Children may think that their parents are evil for not letting them do something or not letting them go somewhere, but in reality they always have a good reason for saying no. In our world today and in the stories we read, there are people who are more evil than anyone 's parents. In each of the stories “Cask of Amontillado” and “The Most Dangerous Game,” the two characters Montresor and General Zaroff are both very evil and two faced. General Zaroff is more evil of the two men because he does not value human life, he makes his prey feel comfortable while they are staying with him, and he gives his prey no chance for survival.
First of all, General Zaroff is the more evil of the two men, because he does not value the human life. When Rainsford figures out General Zaroff’s “new animal,” he is very shocked. He then replies with “Hunting? Good God, General Zaroff what you speak of is murder” (Connell 25). …show more content…

He does give his prey weapons to fight with, but they are not strong enough weapons to help them fight back. He informs Rainsford of what weapons his prey gets when he first says “I give him a supply of food and an excellent hunt knife” (Connell 28). This may seem good, but really it is unfair because General Zaroff hunts with a pistol. A gun will most likely win every time, but Rainsford was very smart and knew just what to do because he was also a very skilled hunter. Rainsford also knew where to hide and how to cover up his tracks so it would be harder to find him. He won the game by getting back into General Zaroff’s room by the end of the third night. General Zaroff was very surprised and then said to really win you have to beat me in a fight and whoever wins will get to sleep in the bed tonight. Rainsford was the winner of the fight and this just shows how smart he is and the strength he has to never give up in even the toughest

Open Document