Essay Comparing Most Dangerous Game And The Sniper

1382 Words3 Pages

Humans have ruled planet Earth, as well as the animal kingdom for millions of years; in our wake we ravaged and have selfishly grasped the planet’s resources without remorse for the dwelling inhabitants. We have as well, turned on ourselves with our diversity and religious influences; this only led to more bloodshed and anguish among ourselves as well as anything and everyone in our path. The short stories “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell, and “The Sniper” by Liam O'Flaherty have both shown empirical evidence pertaining my perspective connecting the universal theme; good and evil. Therefore, I strongly believe that humans are primarily evil and contain the most devastating greed on the face of the Earth.
Similar to my thesis, Richard …show more content…

It’s evident that he’s the anti-hero just by observing his aptitude towards the horrible slaughter he has committed. The text states, “ As soon as I recovered I started for the Amazon to hunt jaguars, for I had heard they were unusually cunning. They weren't." The Cossack sighed. "They were no match at all for a hunter with his wits about him, and a high-powered rifle. I was bitterly disappointed.” (Connell). To further prove his character, he emits a profound discouraged connotation due to the innocent animal’s incompetence. Our main character, Sanger Rainsford has been sought out to be the hero in this story; yet he’s a hunter himself. In a conversation with the two, Rainsford was befuddled when the Cossack state, “ "I wanted the ideal animal to hunt," explained the general. "So I said, `What are the attributes of an ideal quarry?' And the answer was, of course, `It must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason.” (Connell). To brush up any confusion, the General is referring to a human as the animal of optimal quarry. Directly after the previous statement, Rainsford said, “ Thank you, I'm a hunter, not a murderer.”

Open Document