Essay On Most Dangerous Game And Rainsford's Dilemma

687 Words3 Pages
There are several conflicts in “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell; while person versus person is the most obvious, person versus self and person versus nature are also present. For example, the “jagged crags” upon which Rainsford lands scratch his hands until they are raw, and when Rainsford is trying to survive the hunt, nature once again acts as an obstacle. The muck is like “ a giant leech” and the insects “[bite] him savagely” through the dense vegetation. On the other hand, Rainsford faces an internal dilemma when he is talking to Zaroff about hunting humans for sport: while Rainsford is shocked by the proposition, he feels no revulsion, no disgust. Therefore, because Rainsford does not seem to have an internal aversion to Zaroff’s proposal, that causes a quandary - his lack of moral dilemma in this situation is a dilemma in itself.
Richard Connell utilizes suspense to increase mystery in the narrative, and his masterful storytelling allows him to implant questions in the reader’s mind without having to explicitly include them in “The Most Dangerous Game.” In the beginning of the story, our curiosity is immediately aroused as soon
…show more content…
We can infer that while on the yacht, feeding a human being to animals would never have occurred to him, and if it had, that he would have treated it like “grisly...cold-blooded murder.” Revenge also did not seem to be an important aspect to him before becoming the subject of Zaroff's dangerous game, but when he returns and encounters Zaroff in his bedroom, he soon resumes the hunt, this time with Zaroff as the prey. Rainsford compromises his own morals by continuing the game, and he even seems to enjoy killing his new human prey, resting comfortably in Zaroff's “very excellent” bed after killing the general and feeding him to the hounds. Thus, the reader realizes that perhaps Rainsford may have decided that hunting humans is not so “barbaric” after
Open Document