The Most Dangerous Game Character Analysis

1122 Words3 Pages

“The general sucked in his breath and smiled. "I congratulate you," he said. "You have won the game."
Rainsford did not smile. "I am still a beast at bay," he said, in a low, hoarse voice. "Get ready, General Zaroff."
The general made one of his deepest bows. "I see," he said. "Splendid! One of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds. The other will sleep in this very excellent bed. On guard, Rainsford." . . .
He had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided.”
Also known as “The Hounds of Zaroff”, “The Most Dangerous Game” is the ultimate showdown between instinct and reason. In this thrilling exploration into the minds of two equally deadly adversaries, Rainsford, our American-born protagonist, fights to save his life in the midst of …show more content…

Many examples of literature often contain the transformation of a major character, and “The Most Dangerous Game” seems to follow the same pattern. At the beginning of the piece, Rainsford is introduced to us as cocky big-game hunter with eyes set only on adventure and entertainment. Throughout the story, we observe his transformation from a calm and composed strategian, to a man who has truly feared for his life. Because of his newfound position as prey, it may be safe to assume that he leaves the island, or at least the deathmatch, with a greater sense of empathy and respect for the beasts he hunts. However, it can also be said that his Cossack predator experiences no such transformation, as he remains good-humored even in the face of the death of his behemoth assistant and one of precious dogs, suggesting little to no change in his cold and vicious …show more content…

For example, it was mentioned beforehand that one of the key differences between the two men is their differing levels of respect for human life. However, this statement can be easily contradicted, as the ending of the story leaves sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.
To list an example, there is the argument that by killing Zaroff and subsequently subjecting him the fate of a dog’s meal, Rainsford contradicts one of his own personal truths, the value of human life. By killing Zaroff, he is sinking to the level of who he despises. Instead of ending the game in a simple victory by obliging by the general’s rules, he deliberately tries to kill his opponent. Although many would state that this may be an act of justice, as some sort of impromptu execution, it ultimately simplifies to an unnecessary act of hypocrisy not typical to the original image of the protagonist. By killing a murderer in the act of justice or revenge, you are becoming no better than that individual. To expand upon this point, one could also pay close attention to Rainsford’s disposition after murdering Zaroff. The closing line of the story clearly states that Rainsford slept comfortably, even after supposedly killing his opponent. This surprisingly cool and relaxed reaction may be attributed to the sheer physical exhaustion Rainsford experienced after his trials; however, it can also be said that Rainsford could

Open Document