An Example of what Life and Rodney Dangerfield have in common: The Most Dangerous Game

He is hunched down in the bushes, a .22-caliber pistol in his hand. His blood-red lips split open in a smile as he watches his prey writhing, blood spouting from the wound, dry green leaves becoming wet crimson. Then, with a terrible pleasure, he places the gun against the skull of his prey and fires one last round. The hunter, brimming with sadism, drags his kill behind him, leaving a trail of blood behind on the ground. Human blood. This premise of man hunting man is one set up by Richard Connell’s short story The Most Dangerous Game.

The dominant theme to this story is that all life is to be respected and preserved. A proof for this is that the protagonist, Rainsford, is at first disrespectful of animals when he hunts. He is then placed into the animal’s role in a twisted hunt, and—due to the horrors he experiences—becomes more respectful. More support to back this claim is that General Zaroff, the epitome of disregard for life, is defeated by Rainsford at the end. However, this is not the most accurate theme of the story, and these examples also support another theme: animals, and life in general, are not respected and never truly will be, and we should all come to terms with this fact.

Let us primarily take into consideration the aspect that Rainsford at first cares not for animals, but his view is altered by his experiences with Zaroff. First, we must prove that Rainsford really did not care for animals. Let us look at the conversation on the boat between Rainsford and Whitney. Here is a quote:

“[...] Great sport, hunting.”

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

“For the hunter,” amended Whitney. “Not for the jaguar.”

“Don’t talk rot, Whitney,” said Rainsford. “[...] Who cares how a jaguar feels?”

From his very words, Rainsford has mentioned an utter contempt of the thought of animals having feelings. He claims that a sport where one goes out to kill animals is the best of all sports, which shows that he did not weigh an animal’s perspective in on the matter. Later, when Whitney suggests that the jaguar might just care about its feelings, Rainsford denies that they have any understanding. Another quote from this conversation gives us Rainsford’s philosophy on life, which is that he believes the world is “made up of two classes—the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are hunters.” This indicates that he believes in a two-way system, an eat-or-be eaten world, and he’s glad to be an eater; he’s glad that he’s the one killing and not the one being killed. Still, this was before he was being hunted by the general, which is supposedly when his beliefs change.

The second part to this is that supposedly, when Rainsford is being hunted by Zaroff, he empathizes with animals and gains respect for them. This is absurd. Rainsford relates to his situation as still being a hunter, not as being an animal. For example, his initial strategy is “I’ll give him a trail to follow,” muttered Rainsford, [...] He executed a series of intricate loops; he doubled on his trail again and again, recalling the lore of the fox hunt, and all the dodges of the fox. Rainsford used his mind, not his instinct, to guide him. Not only is this the opposite of what animals do, but also Rainsford does not believe that animals have a mind to begin with. Yes, a fox is mentioned as in a foxhunt, but he was using it simply as strategy, not as empathy. The only real metaphor Rainsford uses on himself is that Zaroff is the cat and he the mouse; a common metaphor that is generally used when describing any sort of pursuit. In addition, his fighting style is that of a hunter. He doesn’t use his own body to attack Zaroff, but instead builds traps normally used on animals while he hunts; again, he is thinking like a hunter, not an animal. In fact, as these are animal traps, he is probably thinking of Zaroff as the animal. Even at the end of the pursuit, Rainsford does not behave like an animal. An animal, when cornered, often fights back to the bitter end, as its instincts tell it to. Rainsford, on the other hand, rather than uselessly fight Zaroff’s pack of hunting dogs, jumps off the cliff into the ocean; this is a desperate gesture, but not something that follows animal instinct. Therefore, if Rainsford’s mind was functioning like a hunter, how can he gain empathy with them and have respect for them? He cannot, not unless his opinion was of that nature to begin with, which is a fact that the story itself contradicts without any in-depth interpretation. If someone is put under such drastic circumstances and does not change, then a society not placed under these circumstances will not change, and ours has not. Society still holds little respect for natural life.

However, it may still be argued that Zaroff had even greater contempt for life, even to the point where he neglected human life; because Rainsford defeats him in the end, respect for life is shown. This is not the case. It can be agreed that Zaroff had a greater contempt in the beginning, but what about the end? As mentioned, when he is cornered at the last, Rainsford leaps off a cliff into the ocean, making the general believe that he is dead. Rainsford is not dead, however. He has escaped. He could have swam to some rocks and hid, and then under cover of night, built a raft out of some trees and sailed away from the island in hopes of finding the mainland, letting Zaroff live and respecting his life. But as we all know, he does not do this. Instead, he swims back to Zaroff’s mansion and hides maliciously in the bedroom, patiently waiting for the general to retire. Then, when Zaroff is vulnerable, Rainsford steps out and confronts him, and ultimately kills him. This was not a necessary action, but willingly Rainsford took the life of Zaroff, even when the general had been willing to let him leave and declare himself defeated; murder shows the least respect for life that any act can, and even after his horrible experience Rainsford does just this. Then, to top off all of his other actions, he sleeps in the dead man’s bed; he essentially steals Zaroff’s things. Furthermore, it is not mentioned that Rainsford frees the captured sailors or kills Zaroff’s dogs. It is probably safe to suggest that in his willingness to commit murder that Rainsford has developed a knack for killing even human life, and in the act of taking the general’s bed, it also signifies Rainsford’s obtaining of everything else of the general’s, including the style of hunting. From these facts of Rainsford willingly taking a human life—showing a lack of respect for even that—and then takes Zaroff’s things, including his style of hunting, it is apparent that Rainsford has become worse, even as bad as General Zaroff.

Conclusively, as the main character of The Most Dangerous Game fails to learn from such a horrible experience the value of life, a society that has not been subjected to such an experience will also not know the value of life. Our disrespect has gotten even to the point where our children are killing their fellow children. The value of life in all its forms has not been discovered by all of society, and it never will. We must learn to cope with that fact, or we will all be, in the words of Sanger Rainsford, huntees of our own nature.