I think "The Most Dangerous Game" is an escape book whose principal emphasis is on plot. The story is about a hunter who after a series of unlucky events finds himself in an island with a man who hunts people for sports. The two main characters represent two opposite sides. Rainsford is a good person who respects human's life while General Zaroff is a kind of bad guy who has no value for human life. Suspense is the main element to make the story attractive. There is a mystery coming from the very beginning when Rainsford first hears about the "Ship Trap Island". Then the second mystery is introduced when Zaroff tells Rainsford what the most dangerous game in the world is. The story comes to its climax when Rainsford is forced to join Zaroff's hunting game. The celebrated hunter now becomes the quarry. Reader's curiosity, which combined with anxiety, has been greatly aroused at this moment. The question --- " Who is going to win the game" keeps them reading. No one knows what will exactly happen until the answer comes out at last. The whole book is full of actions and conflicts. Rainsford conflicts with himself, with nature, with society and with Zaroff. There is no dull moment in the story. Something exciting is always happening. With the development of the plot, readers are left anxious to find out how Rainsford manages to escape from being caught. The ending of the story is a typical ending for the escape book. Rainsford finally kills Zaroff. The hunter and the hunted change their positions. The good defeats the evil. The happy ending gives every reader a kind of relief. "The Most Dangerous Game" is a good adventure book for people of all ages to enjoy. That's why I think it's an escape book rather than an interpretive book.
How to Cite this Page

Criticism on "The most Dangerous Game"

Richard Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game"' is a story about hunting. The title describes it as the most dangerous. However, we do not find this out until the proagonist, Sange Rainsford meets the antagonist General Zaroff. The story also consists of many types of conflict to build suspense. First, there is external conflict when Rainsford fallsfrom the ship into the ocean. It is Rainsford against nature. Can he survive? He manages to swim to a nearby island owned by Zaroff. He takes Rainsford in and wines and dines him. Zaroff questions Rainsford. He finds out that Rainsford is an author of a hunting magazine. Zaroff finds this interesting. Therefore, he lets Rainsford know about his game Rainsford is informed he will become part of this game. Now, we see another type of enternal conflict. Rainsford is terrified. He refuses to condone cold-blooded murder; he thinks this is inmoral. Zaroff gives Rainsford the choice of playing his game or he can deal with Ivan. Zaroff gives Rainsford a head start. The hunt can last for three days or until one of them kill the other. The game has now become physical. It is Rainsford against Zaroff.Finally, Rainsford tades control of his terror. He figures out a way to beat Zaroff at his own game. Rainsford swims to Zaroffs home. He waits for Zaroff, then his fight for survival is over. The hunter becomes th hunted. Which is the more dnagerous of two? This is a true story of one mans bravery and ability to fight to the end.

Criticism 2:Analysis of The Most Dangerous Game

Many people look at themselves in the mirror and say, " I know who I am." But how many of them have done so after analyzing themselves through a story? And if they have done that, how many of them were being honest with themselves? A Lacanian analysis can bring out sides of us that we didn't know existed. I found this to be true after reading "The Most Dangerous Game." By looking at the events in the story and the characters that play them out, I found that there is a part of me that has an insatiable curiosity and a love of danger. To begin with, by looking closely at the main characters and their actions, I found a small part of myself in each of them. When Rainsford heard gunshots from the yacht, he jumped up onto the ship's railing. My initial response was, "Why would you do such a thing when no one is there to help if you fall?" I believe that this was my logical, sensible reaction. However, if I look at the situation with a sense of curiosity I find that I would have done the same thing. I think this is because, even though I've always tried to be a responsible, reasoning person, I have always had a desire to be carefree and daring. I think that want comes from movies I've seen in the past and books I've read in which the female characters were adventurous and lived for danger. I can remember times when I would finish reading a book, perhaps, and try to be just like the adventuring character. I can also look at General Zaroff, too, and see a hidden facet to my person. What I first thought of the General was that he was disgusting, evil, and had no respect for human life. I thought, "Oh my gosh, what if there really are people like this in the world?" However, when General Zaroff laid all the cards on the table and stated his purpose, hunting people, specifically Rainsford, I was oddly intrigued. I was frustrated with myself for being interested in such an inhumane game. But upon further examination of my reaction, I found that it wasn't the game that literally that fascinated me, but the concept of it; the danger. I feel that this interested me because the very few tastes of danger that I've had in the past have appeared to me as fun, actually living life to the fullest extent. Rainsford's curiosity and General Zaroff's obsession with danger are both found in my hidden personality because in my subconscious mind I've developed a passion for such things through personal experiences and fictional occurrences. In the same way, some of the events in the story grabbed my attention. When the game started and Rainsford began running in confusion from General Zaroff, I felt that I, too, needed to think of a means of escape. "...spurred on by...panic." This is how Rainsford describes his actions. If a person is driven by panic alone, a certain danger awaits them. In an odd way, this moved me to something like excitement; excitement for that danger that lurked ahead of Rainsford in the jungle of bushes all over the island. I think I was interested in this because this sort of situation is foreign to me, in a way. And ever since I was young, trying new things has appealed to me. So naturally, something that I have rarely had experience with would snatch my attention. Another happening in the story was when General Zaroff set the hounds on Rainsford. "Ever nearer drew the hounds. Rainsford forced himself (onward)..." In the same section, "He heard the hounds. Then he leaped far out into the sea." The constant reminder of the pursuing hounds awakened a fear in me, I think because I have a habit of putting myself in the character's position. It was no different here; I pretended I was Rainsford. But what shocked me was that I almost enjoyed the fear. I believe that I responded this way because my life has always been safe and I've always looked before leaping because that is what I was taught to do by teachers and my parents when I was young. All in all, I find that within the safe, studious, careful person that I am, there lies a much deeper person a person that enjoys walking on the wild side, being dangerous, and throwing caution to the wind. I can see this side of me more clearly when I read "The Most Dangerous Game" because the events and characters in the story somehow transform me into my danger-loving twin.