June 9, 2011
The Most Dangerous Game, Animal Cruelty?
Do I believe that the author of The Most Dangerous Game intended the story partly as an indictment of the hunting of animals or cruelty of animals? I do have a few conversations or points in the story that would make me believe that the author of The Most Dangerous Game indeed did indict the hunting of animals or cruelty of animals. I would have to say that the author did indict cruelty of animals or the hunting of the helpless animals the hunters hunt in the story. Unfortunately, I know that some people may or may not agree with my risk taking opinion. I will further justify my personal opinion to my fellow readers in this essay. The main conversation between the characters Whitney and Rainsford near the beginning of the story was the first reason I was persuaded to believe that the author did indict cruelty of animals or the hunting of animals. The author showed how the hunter, Rainsford, feels about animals in Rainsford’s responses to Whitney’s statements during this particular conversation. During the conversation, the point was clear that Rainsford did not care about how the animals feel about being killed. The conversation also tells that Rainsford believes that animals have no understanding. These responses explained to me the feelings of the hunter toward the animals. To further explain the feelings of the hunter, when Rainsford arrived at the mansion of General Zaroff, I fell that he felt the same way about prey when they began to converse. The only difference with these two men is that they are hunting different things. Rainsford hunts animals, but General Zaroff hunts human beings. It is not until Rainsford experiences’ being the prey is when he realizes the cruelty in hunting. He also realizes the point that Whitney was trying to make to him. While Rainsford is trying to survive General Zaroff’s hunting game, he feels the...