In a world where killing one another is completely unexpected, why is hunting and killing animals strictly for the fun of it perfectly accepted? Everyday hundreds of animals all over the world are killed for the joy of the hunter and nobody notices, but if one person is kill the story is on the news, in the papers, and all over the internet. The scenario of hunting another human has intrigued several generations through books and movies, but what if there is a bigger meaning behind these stories? In “The Most Dangerous Game” Richard Connell used the hunter becomes the hunted story line to captivate readers, but on closer examination Richard Connell was illustrating that the act of hunting should be portrayed as murder.

 

“The Most Dangerous Game” is the classic story of the ‘hunter becoming the hunted’. Many critics believe Richard Connell wrote strictly for entertainment purposes only, but closer examination of the storyline shows Connell’s distaste for the inhumanity involved with hunting. As Rainsford, the main character, and his fellow hunting partner Whitney embarked upon their journey to the Amazon, they stir-up an argument about the feelings and fears animals have or don’t have during a hunt. Rainsford ask, “Who cares how a jaguar feels?” To which Whitney counters, “Perhaps the jaguar does.” Rainsford question is one that many people have, but Whitney statement expresses a little sympathy towards animals. Rainsford continued the debate with, “Bah! They’ve no understanding.” Whitney counters, “Even so, I rather think they understand one thing–fear. The fear of pain and the fear of death.” Rainsford point of view is one some take because animals aren’t able to express their emotions to humans. But Connell uses Whitney to express his true feels about the cruelty towards animals involved with hunting. Connell soon puts Rainsford in the situation of being the hunted and let him experiences the genuine emotions involved with fighting for his life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once upon the strange island, Rainsford meets General Zoroff, a noble hunter that claims he has lost his love of hunting regular game. Over dinner Zoroff explains to Rainsford, ” Hunting tigers ceased to interest me some years ago. I exhausted their possibilities, you see. No trill left in tigers, no real danger. I live for danger, Mr.Rainsford.”  Rainsford, being a big-game hunter himself, is intrigued by Zaroff. Until he learns that Zaroff has filled the void of hunting animals with hunting humans. Rainsford is appalled, “Thank you, I’m a hunter, not a murderer.” Hunting animals and humans should be considered the same act. Humans are considered animals by scientist so what makes the two acts so different? What would happen hunters in today’s society felt the same way as General Zaroff and wanted more of a challenge? These are question that Richard Connell was trying to arise within his readers when he wrote this story.

 

In “The Most Dangerous Game” Richard Connell used the hunter becomes the hunted story line to captivate readers, but on closer examination Richard Connell was illustrating that the act of hunting should be portrayed as murder. Most critics consider Richard Connell’s work to lack substance but if you look closer and examine the fact you can see that “The Most Dangerous Game” had deeper meaning than most people see upon first glance. Killing is wrong whether one is hunting humans or animals. Early civilizations used hunting as a resource but now that when have millions of grocery stores we no longer need to kill animals for food. When hunting became a sport it became wrong.