Gallagher 1
Katie Gallagher
English 9 H (1)
O’Brien
October 8, 2009
Change of Might, Change of Mind
In “The Most Dangerous Game”, Richard Connell asks his readers to evaluate
how their views and beliefs are shaped by their own circumstances. Through the journey
of hunter Sanger Rainsford, we are introduced to two other hunters, Whitney and General
Zaroff. The discussions between Rainsford and Whitney, and later Rainsford and Zaroff,
reveal the hunters’ different perspectives on their sport. More importantly, however, they
reveal how a hunter’s perspective changes when he becomes the hunted.
The first of Rainsford’s two discussions in the story is with Whitney. Whitney, a
hunter and Rainsford’s bunk mate on the ship, approaches hunting with an awareness of,
and respect for, his prey. Whitney explains that the sport may be enjoyable for the
hunters, but quite the opposite for the huntees. To this, Rainsford replies, “’Don’t talk
rot, Whitney. . . You’re a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar
feels?’” (68) The passage does not just reveal the characters’ views of hunting, but their
views on life as well. Rainsford is a “hunter,” so he need not consider the feelings of the
hunted. Whitney, however, looks beyond his own interest to consider the fear and
suffering of the “hunted.”
The second important discussion takes place between Rainsford and Zaroff.
General Zaroff has taken Rainsford’s disregard of the “hunted” to extreme. His island is
populated by “an ideal quarry” (75) of animals: human beings. When Rainsford arrives
on the island, Zaroff explains to Rainsford that he became bored with hunting traditional
game; he had to find a new animal to hunt that would always challenge him and leave
Gallagher 2
him wanting more. Rainsford is astonished by Zaroff’s revelation. He explodes,
“’Hunting? Good God, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder’” (75). But Zaroff
dismisses Rainsford’s view in the same manner that Rainsford dismissed Whitney’s
concern for the jaguars. Zaroff explains: “Life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong,
and, if need be, taken by the strong. The weak of the world were put here to give the
strong pleasure. I am strong. Why should I not use my gift? If I wish to hunt, why
should I not?” (76). Because Zaroff’s prey are members of Rainsford’s own species, he
begins to consider how they might feel; Zaroff, however, considers himself superior to
“the scum of the earth” (76), and, therefore, does not have to regard their feelings.
On the surface, these conversations reveal two different approaches to hunting.
On a deeper level, however, they reveal two different approaches to life. Whitney is a
hunter, but has considered the feelings of his prey; at a broader level, his feelings and
opinions are formed with regard to others. Zaroff also is a hunter, but with no regard at
all for the feelings of his prey. His whole life has been a quest for greater selfamusement. Zaroff is so self-centered that he is unable to recognize anyone else’s rights;
instead, all creation exists to fight his “[e]nnui” (78). During the course of the story,
Rainsford states both of these views. Early in the story, Rainsford falls clearly within
Zaroff’s camp. To Rainsford, “[t]he world is made up of two classes—the hunters and
the huntees” (68). Because Rainsford is a hunter, he does not have to consider the
huntees at all. However, when Rainsford sees how General Zaroff has applied this
philosophy to the human species, Rainsford is repulsed. If Zaroff had hunted any other
animal, Rainsford probably would not have strayed from the Zaroff perspective. Because
Gallagher 3
Zaroff’s prey were men who looked like, acted like, and reasoned like him (Rainsford),
he finally is able to put himself in the shoes of his prey.
The idea of humans hunting other humans for sport is, of course, an exaggeration.
Moreover, it does not appear to be the author’s goal to have the reader condemn hunting
as a sport. Instead, Connell appears to be asking the reader a question: Would you do the
things you do, or hold the beliefs you hold, if you were in a different position, came from
a different background, or had a different education? Connell is challenging his readers
to reevaluate their beliefs and views. Through Rainsford, Connell teaches us that we
neither can fairly judge, nor fairly evaluate, another’s position until we ourselves have
stood in their place.