A Literary Analysis of the Most Dangerous Game, a Short Story by Richard Connell

In the short story "The Most Dangerous Game", Richard Connell explores the idea of hunting and invites the readers to question the morality of the sport. Rainsford, a famous hunter, finds himself in a mysterious island where he meets General Zaroff, who shares the secrets of the island with him. Rainsford shows that his moral values are very different from Zaroff's when he finds out that he hunts humans instead of animals, and wishes to leave the island immediately due to his disapprovement of the General's ways and his opposing views on human versus animal consciousness. There is a common morality in nature that prevents us from killing our own species. If we do, that morality is broken. We can see it in the wilderness, where predatory animals hunt other animals to feed themselves and their families, but never kill their own species. Rainsford proves to be aware of this concept when he refers to Zaroff's hunting of humans as "cold-blooded murder", and shows that he does not approve of this.

General Zaroff, on the other hand, seems distressed and rather offended by Rainsford's words, stating that he does not believe "so modern and civilized a young man as [Rainsford] harbors romantic ideas about the value of human life." Their disagreement about the value of human and animal life can be founded in their differing opinions about consciousness. Early in the story, Rainsford dismisses Whitney's comments about animals' feelings when being hunted by stating that "they've no understanding." He simply sees hunting as "the best sport in the world". Both Rainsford and Zaroff agree that animals are not capable of reasoning; however, Zaroff separates himself from other hunters when he confesses that for him "hunting had ceased to be what you call 'a sporting proposition'." Instead, he looked for an animal that could match him in strength both physically and psychologically, which could only be another of his own species. Some may argue that some animals are more intelligent than others, and that some might even have a certain level of consciousness, meaning that Rainsford is no better than General Zaroff when it comes to hunting. However, Rainsford's drive to hunt is very different from Zaroff's.

Zaroff finds pleasure in knowing that his prey is fully aware of what is happening, and that they could fight back in case of a face-to-face encounter. He "lives] for danger", whereas Rainsford's intentions are simply to hunt animals that he believes have no feelings or thoughts whatsoever, and is convinced that "no animal can reason". Zaroff states that there is, but he does not seem disturbed by this idea; in fact, the thought excites him and feeds his thirst for a bigger challenge, because in his opinion "instinct is no match for reason." The argument between the two clearly shows both their stands on the subject when Zaroff offers Rainsford to go hunting with him, and he determinedly responds with a "Thank you, I'm a hunter, not a murderer." General Zaroff does not differentiate between friend and enemy. He treats his future prey, like Rainsford, with respect and provides them with everything they need to survive and to fight back.

Order custom essay A Literary Analysis of the Most Dangerous Game, a Short Story by Richard Connell with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Whether it is genuine or fake respect is not clear. He coldly hosts people in his island to later use them to fulfill his own twisted desires, showing no appreciation for their lives. Richard Connell's main character in this short story challenges that by standing up to Zaroff and staying true to his values, making it clear that he believes killing humans is murder regardless of the context, and that he puts limits when it comes to hunting, no matter how passionate he is about the sport.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer