Good And Evil In The Sniper And The Most Dangerous Game
The idea of good and evil are sometimes represented by light and dark. Light is the guide in the dark, but dark is the evil lurking in the light. For instance, good and evil are one of those human nature that everyone has and cannot escape from. For example, a person could be bad yet still have good luck. This comes from the idea that all bad comes with good, vice versa. But there are also situations where a faulty action come with a bad consequence. The latter could be perceived as karma. Karma is the consequence, the price paid for a bad deed or the reward for a good deed. In “The Sniper,” by Liam O’Flaherty and “The Most Dangerous Game,” by Richard Connell, the characters in the story portray evil and good in various forms. These
…show more content…
At first Rainsford, the protagonist, is seen as a malicious person because he kills animals for fun. For example, Rainsford believes that hunting is a “great sport” (6). There are situations where killing is an exception to evil, but in Rainsford’s case, he is a person who kills animals for enjoyment. This demonstrates evilness because killing for intent of pleasure is immoral and against human nature. However, Rainsford is revealed a good person when he tells General Zaroff that hunting human for pleasure is out of extraordinary and not righteous (13). In other word, Rainsford is able to deny hunting despite hunting being his life. So, even though General Zaroff threatens Rainsford in this situation, he chooses to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. Additionally, Rainsford told General Zaroff, “‘I am still a beast at bay,’” (22). In this scene, the readers could predict that Rainsford has put himself into the shoes of the animals. Thus, he is able to sense and feel the emotions that an animal could have felt when they are being hunted. Through this, it is inferred that Rainsford realize that hunting for pleasure, in which is what General Zaroff does, is an immoral thing to do. Overall, Rainsford is a blend of good and evil because he is able to differentiate the difference between hunting for survival and hunting for
At first Rainsford, the protagonist, is seen as a malicious person because he kills animals for fun. For example, Rainsford believes that hunting is a “great sport” (6). There are situations where killing is an exception to evil, but in Rainsford’s case, he is a person who kills animals for enjoyment. This demonstrates evilness because killing for intent of pleasure is immoral and against human nature. However, Rainsford is revealed a good person when he tells General Zaroff that hunting human for pleasure is out of extraordinary and not righteous (13). In other word, Rainsford is able to deny hunting despite hunting being his life. So, even though General Zaroff threatens Rainsford in this situation, he chooses to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. Additionally, Rainsford told General Zaroff, “‘I am still a beast at bay,’” (22). In this scene, the readers could predict that Rainsford has put himself into the shoes of the animals. Thus, he is able to sense and feel the emotions that an animal could have felt when they are being hunted. Through this, it is inferred that Rainsford realize that hunting for pleasure, in which is what General Zaroff does, is an immoral thing to do. Overall, Rainsford is a blend of good and evil because he is able to differentiate the difference between hunting for survival and hunting for