Skip to main content

In "The Most Dangerous Game", which character's internal conflicts contribute most to the story's action and effect on the reader?

The two main characters are Zaroff and Rainsford. Zaroff has no internal conflicts. He is single-minded. He believes that he is a hunter and that role dictates his life. He has no ethical problem with hunting humans or any other animal. For Zaroff, there is nothing morally conflicting.


While on the yacht, Rainsford has no real conflicts either. He tells Whitney that there are two kinds of people: "the hunters and the huntees."  At this point, he is not as radical as Zaroff, but he expresses the same ideology that Zaroff follows. If Rainsford is hunting a jaguar, he doesn't care how the jaguar feels. He is the hunter and the jaguar is the prey.


However, when Rainsford learns that Zaroff hunts humans, he is appalled and, hopefully, so is the reader. Rainsford would never hunt humans himself, so he has an ethical disagreement with Zaroff. Then, Rainsford becomes Zaroff's prey and he (Rainsford) has an entirely new appreciation for the fear and anguish of being preyed upon. The reader follows Rainsford's internal conflicts of learning what it's like to be preyed upon while struggling to survive.


The narrator never says that Rainsford might now sympathize with the jaguar or some other prey. But Rainsford clearly learns what it is like to be the "huntee." The end of the story is not absolutely clear, but the final line suggests that he kills Zaroff and then sleeps in Zaroff's bed, effectively taking Zaroff's place and symbolically becoming Zaroff. This leaves the reader wondering if he will stay and be the next Zaroff. If this is the case, Rainsford will ignore any internal conflict about hunting, just as Zaroff had. A more optimistic interpretation of the ending is that Rainsford sleeps in Zaroff's bed, gets up the next morning, leaves the island, and vows never to hunt again. The ending leaves the reader wondering what will become of Rainsford.

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.