Skip to main content

In "The Most Dangerous Game," what happens to the men if they choose not to be hunted?

In the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell, people who refuse to be hunted are beaten to death by Ivan, a giant of a man who used to whip people to death for the Czar of Russia.


In this story, the villain is a man named General Zaroff.  Zaroff lives on “Ship Trap Island,” which is somewhere in the Caribbean Sea. Zaroff’s life passion is hunting. During his career as a hunter, he eventually became bored because hunting wild animals is too easy. He decided he wanted to hunt human beings since they are intelligent and would be more challenging to hunt. Humans are “the most dangerous game” to which the story’s title refers. Zaroff obtained Ship Trap Island and uses shipwrecked sailors (including some whose ships were wrecked thanks to false navigational lights that Zaroff rigged up at sea) as his prey.


When Zaroff tells Rainsford this, Rainsford wonders how he gets the men to agree to be hunted. Zaroff tells Rainsford that the men have the choice of possible death in the hunt or certain death at the hands of Ivan. When Rainsford asks, “Suppose he refuses to be hunted,” Zaroff replies,



"I give him his option, of course. He need not play that game if he doesn't wish to. If he does not wish to hunt, I turn him over to Ivan. Ivan once had the honor of serving as official knouter to the Great White Czar, and he has his own ideas of sport. Invariably, Mr. Rainsford, invariably they choose the hunt."



As you can see in this link, the knout was a brutal whip used in Russia to flog criminals. Very often, the criminal was beaten to death. Ivan performed this duty for the Czar and, Zaroff implies, enjoys inflicting pain on people.


The answer to your question, then, is that people who refuse to be hunted are handed over to Ivan to be beaten to death.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.