"The Most Dangerous Game" Richard Connell

“The Most Dangerous Game”

Richard Connell

            “’The best sport in the world,’ agreed Rainsford.

            ’For the hunter,’ amended Whitney. ‘Not for the jaguar.’

            ‘Don’t talk rot, Whitney,’ said Rainsford. ‘You’re a big game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares about how a jaguar feels?’

            ‘Perhaps the jaguar does,’ observed Whitney.

            ‘Bah! They’ve no understanding.’

            ‘Even so, I rather think they understand one thing- fear. The fear of pain and the fear of death.’

            ‘Nonsense,’ laughed Rainsford. ‘This hot weather is making you soft, Whitney. Be a realist. The world is made up of two classes—the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are hunters’” (2).

            I chose to write about this passage because in the first read, it seems to be a simple exchange between hunters. It feels as though Connell put this conversation there to set up their journey and the setting. The conversation is cold and impersonal. Both Whitney and Rainsford have strong opinions about the subject. However, the conversation is courteous and polite. I don’t think either of them knows the other very well. The sentences are simple and thought out. It is obvious that both of them are passionate about the subject but they are trying not to offend the other. They are not desperate to go in depth about the subject.

            After reading the rest of the story, my opinion of this conversation changed. I now know that this exchange had to occur in order to set up the context for the rest of the story. I should’ve known that nothing in literature is specifically placed or written on accident. Everything has a purpose, whether it be a minute detail or a paragraph about a destination. This passage is an excellent example because readers will, at first, skip over it, not paying any concern to its significance. After reading the rest of the story, this passage serves to bring the meaning of the story full circle. After learning about General Zaroff and his game on the island, the conversation makes more sense. The reader understands that the conversation between Rainsford and Whitney is necessary for the rest of the story to make sense.

My interpretation is that this story is a story about redemption. Rainsford refuses to acknowledge that animals can feel fear. He depersonalizes the animals so it is easier to kill them. Whitney provides a contrast to this view because he is more sympathetic towards the animals. I find it interesting that Rainsford chalks Whitney’s morality to being soft. He dismisses Whitney’s comments because the weather is making Whitney crazy. His argument is not logical. However, Whitney chooses not to pursue the argument any further.  

The ending of the story confuses me. Connell alludes to the fact that Rainsford wins the fight against Zaroff so it does come full circle. Rainsford is back on top as the hunter. However, Rainsford does not change his attitude about hunting at all. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I was hoping that Rainsford would feel such fear that he would be able to empathize with the huntees by end. This is not the case; he kills Zaroff and this detail is so minute that Connell does not feel compelled to write about it. The only “justice” is that General Zaroff is killed for his inhumane acts. But what does this murder say about Rainsford? Will he inherit General Zaroff’s passion for hunting humans?