ipl-logo

What Role Did Rainsford Play In The Most Dangerous Game

313 Words2 Pages

Q: If Rainsford from “The Most Dangerous Game” went home and admitted to his involvement in the story and was put on trial for General Zaroff’s, what do you think would be the outcome? Rainsford murdered a human, everyone has their own opinions on whether it was right or wrong. Rainsford was helped off the island and Rainsford felt guilty so Rainsford confessed to killing General Zaroff. Rainsford was put on trial for General Zaroff’s murder, If the judge sees what Rainsford did as a homicide then Rainsford will be put in jail but if the judge see it as surviving then the judge might feel differently. But I do not think Rainsford will get away with no punishment because either way he murdered a human being. For Rainsford, killing Zaroff could have been just to win “The Most Dangerous Game” or for survival because General Zaroff would have definitely killed Rainsford if he saw him again. Was Rainsford’s murder justified? …show more content…

Rainsford is a competitive hunter just like Zaroff so there is a possibility he killed Zaroff because he is stubborn and wanted to win, which would lead him to be guilty and have a more intense punishment. In the end I think even if it was for survival rainsford will have to serve some jail time for his actions. I believe Rainsford should serve some jail time because he did push Zaroff’s body off the window and let the dogs eat his flesh, pushing Zaroff’s body off was unnecessary but the actually murder has its own punishments. Do you think he should be in jail for murdering Zaroff even if it was for his own protection?, keep in mind that Rainsford would be guilty for many things he has done as

Show More
Related

  • The Most Dangerous Game Rhetorical Analysis

    364 Words  | 2 Pages

    Since Zaroff is hunting humans, one of them is most likely to die. Murder can not go unpunished. Rainsford would most likely have died if he didn’t kill Zaroff. Some may say that one should never kill no matter what. Well, if Rainsford himself never killed Zaroff, he would have died.

    Read More

  • A Character Analysis Of Rainsford In The Most Dangerous Game

    242 Words  | 1 Pages

    The main character in the Most Dangerous Game, Rainsford, endured numerous troublesome trials. The last trial he endured, in my opinion, was the hardest; giving him the chance to attack and kill Zaroff right then and there, instead choosing not to take advantage of the situation. Ultimately, he confronted and challenged him to a fair and even sword fight, the winner getting to keep Zaroff 's home while the loser was fed to the dogs. This act shows a great deal of Rainsford 's character and personality, proving to be a man of honor and fairness, with respect in this scenario. Rainsford allowed an even fight to take place, and as a result, for his actions, he won while Zaroff received what he truly deserved.

    Read More

  • Cask Of Amontillado By Edgar Allan Poe And Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell

    532 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the story Rainsford says to Zaroff, “Hunting? Great Guns, General Zaroff what you speak of is murder.” This reveals how in “Most Dangerous Game” Rainsford thinks that Zaroff is strictly killing people for self pleasure and fun, which is far worse than anything that Montressor did. Others may exclaim that Zaroff got caught which makes him less of a villain because his plans failed. This is by no means true because the author, Richard Connell, does not directly tell the reader if Rainsford made it off the island to tell of what Zaroff does.

    Read More

  • Comparing Zaroff And Rainsford In The Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell

    688 Words  | 3 Pages

    On one hand, Rainsford is a man of decency, enthusiasm and integrity, he has strong desire to live and indomitable fighting spirit to survive. Rainsford depends on his own resources and experience won the game. On the other hand, Zaroff had many advantages over Rainsford when the game began, but he is conceited and stuck-up, this causes he lost his life in the game. Besides, Zaroff’s hunting game is unhuman and injustice, such a premise has predetermined his

    Read More

  • Rainsford Vs Zaroff Essay

    616 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Rainsford and Zaroff share common passions, skills and ideology. Initially, there is admiration between both characters, but their similarities become the cause of the conflict. Rainsford murders Zaroff and has put an end to the murderous human

    Read More

  • Most Dangerous Game Movie Comparison

    440 Words  | 2 Pages

    Also, General Zaroff is an extreme hunter and doesn’t find pleasure in hunting regular animals. Zaroff says the most dangerous game is humans because they have the ability to reason. Rainsford is going to be hunted and is given a certain amount of time to survive. Moreover, while Rainsford is being hunted Zaroff

    Read More

  • People Should Not Be Held Accountable In Life Essay

    937 Words  | 4 Pages

    Later on in the story Rainsford kills general zaroff. I think that Rainsford should not be held accountable because if he didn't kill faroff, Zaroff would have killed him. Rainsford aso saved all the other people's lives that Zaroff had captured and was planning to hunt and

    Read More

  • Why Is Martin Bryant Guilty

    955 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Port Arthur Massacre occurred on the 28th and 29th of April 1996 in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant is undoubtedly guilty for the murder of 35 people along with 20 people injured as he had the motive due to being socially inappropriate, mentally disabled, and infused with a high level of frustration and anger towards others. Similarly, witnesses report seeing him at the scene of the crime and time frames noted by those who saw him, place him at Port Arthur on the day this event took place. Further to this, though he initially denied having anything to do with it, he later confessed at the court hearing, and admitted his guilt. Martin Bryant is undoubtedly guilty for the murder of 35 people along with 20 people injured as he had the motive due to being socially inappropriate, mentally disabled, and infused with a high level of frustration and anger

    Read More

  • Gentleman Your Verdict Analysis

    677 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Gentleman, Your Verdict”: A Moral Dilemma 1. In my opinion, I don’t think the jury should convict Commander Oram of murder because he wanted at least some people to survive and to do that, many men had to die. The fact that he commits suicide makes a difference because if he hadn’t it would have made it look like he killed 15 other men so that he could survive. If he hadn’t commit suicide, I would definitely change my answer to ‘yes, he is guilty’. I don’t think that the other crew members are guilty because they didn’t have a say in what was done.

    Read More

  • Sanger Rainsford Character Analysis

    624 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although, now it seems that Rainsford has adopted General Zaroff's cold attitude toward killing humans, so if Rainsford has changed, it was not to a better person but to a worse. From first no sympathy for animals to no sympathy for men. One way it seems that way is he kills Ivan with no pang of guilt. Some might say that's not murder that's just self-defense. But if that's the case then why does Rainsford after claiming victory and safety from death go to Zaroff's room at night and kills him.

    Read More

  • Was Rainsford Justified In Killing General Zaroff Analysis

    662 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rainsford has no way to live unless he kills General Zaroff because Zaroff would most likely continue to force Rainsford to

    Read More

  • How Did David Goodreau Get Guilty

    121 Words  | 1 Pages

    I believe that if this was tried again that David Goodreau would still be found guilty. Only because when he confessed he knew certain things about the crime that ordinary people wouldn't known. There were defiantly problems with the investigation, Starting with the fact that the police didn't even peruse the murders of the two girls. Another problem with the investigation was that the police never really looked or found any evidence at the crime scenes. David Goodreau was sentenced to life in prison with out parole.

    Read More

  • Essay On Most Dangerous Game And Rainsford's Dilemma

    687 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Comparing Shrek And The Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell

    1160 Words  | 5 Pages

    When General Zaroff took Rainsford into his home they communed about hunting. Furthermore, Rainsford became aware of the fact that Zaroff know desires to hunt humans, and not animals anymore. Consequently, Rainsford states, “‘I can’t believe you are serious, General Zaroff. This is a grisly joke… Hunting? Good God, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder…

    Read More

  • Fear Exposed In Richard Connell's The Most Dangerous Game

    824 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rainsford was repealed by the fact that Zaroff kills humans for fun. Consequently, Rainsford

    Read More

More about What Role Did Rainsford Play In The Most Dangerous Game

Open Document