The Most Dangerous Game Essay Research Paper free essay sample

The Most Dangerous Game Essay, Research Paper This paper will analyse the short narrative called? The Most Dangerous Game? by discoursing the four chief en vs. himself. Rainsford, despite the battle he faces with the environment, he besides faces the job of managing himself. He keeps on stating himself non to lose his nervus, here he is seeking to maintain himself on path, and his head on the undertaking at manus which is remaining alive. The idea that he is being hunted like all those animate beings he one time hunted is giving him a false feeling of security. He starts to understand what the animate being is experiencing. He is placed in the exact places as the pray. This paper will analyse the short narrative called? The Most Dangerous Game? by discoursing the four chief elements of a short narrative which are, puting, character, struggle, and subject. The narrative involves two chief characters, Rainsford and General Zaroff. We will write a custom essay sample on The Most Dangerous Game Essay Research Paper or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Rainsford is a famed huntsman, who enjoys runing animate beings. He does non believe that runing animate beings is incorrect until he meets a certain General Zaroff. General Zaroff, is besides a adult male that loves to run, but over the old ages has grown dull with it. His changeless chase for bigger and smarter game has come to an terminal. General Zaroff is devastated because of this, and particularly after turning up his whole life with? rifle in manus? and the mark in his sights. He decides to take his runing to a higher degree, the Hunt for human life, Rainsfords life! This narrative takes topographic point in the Caribbean, on a privy island. The writer chose an ideal topographic point for his scene. The narrative consists of a war between the two chief characters, and what better topographic point so an island which has such first-class geographical characteristics to back up this battle. Some illustrations are the dense trees, trails, and some quicksand. This scene besides makes the two characters display all the accomplishments and fast ones they have learned over the old ages, and so pay war against each other. The scene plays a sufficient function in the narrative? s overall development. Without this puting the narrative would non uncover the game of? cat and mouse? which is traveling on. The scene holds the majority of the action in it, the narrative has characters concealing in trees, falling in quicksand, and by being led into traps. Not utilizing this scene in the narrative would do the narrative miss out on its exhilaration and suspense. The following few paragraphs will present the characters and will supply a psychological profile of them. Some observations will besides be made on the comparative importance of the component of character in the narrative? s development. Get downing with the characters which play a lesser function in the narrative. Whitney is a adult male who does non believe in runing and killing animate beings, he believe? s that animate beings understand that there being hunted down and killed. Whitney? s chief importance in the narrative is that the writer uses him as a? tool? , to assist us understand the personality and beliefs Rainsford has. Rainsford is the cardinal character in the narrative. Rainsford on the other manus, does non hold the same beliefs that Whitney has. He loves runing so much that he does non halt to believe whether or non the animate beings have any feelings or emotions. Bluffly he does non care if the animate beings feel anything. Rainsford doctrine is that universe is made up of two categories ? the huntsmans and the huntees. ? Rainsford has neer felt what it is like to be hunted, because he has ever been the marauder. That is certain to alter as the narrative unfolds and takes a authoritative turn, where in this instance the huntsman Rainsford becomes the hunted. Rainsford besides proves to be a underdeveloped character in the narrative. Rainsford does this by saying in th e latter portion of the narrative that he now understands how the animate beings feel when they are being hunted. The character General Zaroff is a really complex character, because he has two sides to himself. One side portrays a good educated, polite, hospitable adult male. On the other side General Zaroff portrays a really cunning cold blooded slayer. Killer in the sense that he hunts worlds for pleasance, and does non experience any compunction for them. Which is the consequence, as mentioned before, of his ennui towards runing merely animate beings . General Zaroff has the same views as Whitney, in the sense that humans and animals are equal. The difference being, General Zaroff believe?s killing an animal is the same as killing a man. The character Ivan, known as General Zaroffs servant, does not play a big part in the story. However, we know Ivan is General Zaroffs right-hand man. Ivan is considered a savage in the story, which would make it easy for someone like General Zaroff to control. Although, Ivan should be considered a main asset to General Zaroff, for he is the General?s alternative for captive?s who choose not to play the General?s lethal game. The major conflicts in the story are: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Environment, and Man vs. Himself. The conflict Man vs. Environment is portrayed when Rainsford is set out into the jungle to fend for himself while being hunted. His only defense is a hunting knife that General Zaroff supplied him with. With minimal fire power, Rainsford uses his environment to help him overcome the obstacle which lays ahead, (General Zaroff). By setting traps in the jungle he is able to show General Zaroff that he is not going to lay over and die. In the second part of conflict there is mant of conflict is man vs. man. It is the most important because Rainsford and General Zaroff battle one another through out the story. It all begins when Rainsford falls off his boat and swam to the nearest island, which was the island where General Zaroff was located. This is were the conflict begins. All of a sudden Rainsford starts to understand what Whitney was trying to get across to him at the beginning, which was to put yourself in the animals shoes before just speculating and guessing how they feel. The friendship which was started when the two men met, slowly evaporates. Rainsford starts to see that General Zaroff is psychotic, and that he plans to send him out as soon as possible. Obviously Rainsford does not want anything to do with Zaroff?s plan. This is when they ?bash heads? on ce again. General Zaroff leaves him no choice but to hit the jungle and survive the three days, without getting killed. His other alternative is too fight big bad Ivan. Don?t think so!! The battle of who is the best hunter is on. General Zaroff believes he is the best hunter, and wants to prove to himself that he can even hunt down and kill the well known Rainsford. He starts getting frustrated when Rainsford slowly kills off his assistant Ivan, one of his top dogs, and injures Zaroff. Right then you get the feeling that General Zaroff is starting to appear a little frightened, and that he is starting to run out of resources to track down Rainsford. After he loses the dog he becomes a coward and yells out into the jungle that he will be back with the rest of his hounds. Zaroff proves that he does not have the guts to take on Rainsford one on one. In the end Rainsford out smarts the General and ends up killing him. After Rainsford had thought that killing humans was crazy, he just do es it. It is justified in this case because of the situation that the General put him in. The element of conflict is huge in this story. Without the conflict, Rainford just lands on the Island and then just turns around and goes home. But the conflict restrains Rainsford to stay on the island and suffer like all the animals he has hunted in his lifetime. The theme of the story is essential, in the sense that it portrays many different aspects of human moral. The author shows us this by giving Whitney, Rainsford, and Zaroff totally different views on what is morally correct and incorrect. For example, the innocence of Whitney compared to the extreme madness of General Zaroff. And Rainsford who believes a little bit of both. The writer?s other purpose in the story is to show us that if you do not walk a mile in another man?s shoe?s, you cannot comprehend how they feel, you can only speculate. In conclusion I really enjoyed the story, and how Richard Connell guided us through the diffe rent levels of human moral of each character. I also liked how he displayed that if you put yourself in someone else?s shoe?s, it can change your whole outlook on a certain issue.