Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Most Dangerous Game’ by Richard Connell analyses
The most dangerous game analysis
The most dangerous game richard connell analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Most Dangerous Game’ by Richard Connell analyses
If you had the choice of being hunted or being chained up and left for dead, what would you choose? General Zaroff and Montresor both murdered people. Zaroff killed for the game and Montresor killed for revenge. These people both had special and unique ways of killing. But the men also both had different reasons and ways of killing. General Zaroff liked to draw the people in and make them comfortable before letting them go and hunting them like animals. Montressor would rather explain to the person what will happen and leaves them with nothing, all alone, to starve and die without brutally hurting them. Zaroff looks them in the eye as if nothing is going to happen. He gives them food, and even shows them how he kills the people. Montresor doesn’t tell them anything and …show more content…
Montresor and General Zaroff live in very different worlds. Montresor, from “The Cask of Amontillado” kills a man named Fortunato because Fortunato ruined his pride. However, General Zaroff from Richard Connell's The Most Dangerous Game became bored with hunting animals and instead began to murder humans as sport on his private island. Although General Zaroff and Montresor are both sociopathic, how they killed their victims and the reasons behind the murders they commit are different.
General Zaroff and Montresor are both sociopaths who murder other people. Zaroff disregards the rights of others by forcing them to take part in his games, as seen when he says, “The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure”. He is saying that only the strong people are good enough to stay on Earth and what better way to prove his strength than to murder the weak? Zaroff also feels no sympathy for those who he forces to
Both “Full Circle” and “The Most Dangerous Game” have many differences with how the murder is presented in the story, but both also have many similarities. In the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” the murder was done for fun and sport, General Zaroff killed his victims to fulfill a hunting sensation. But in the short story “Full Circle”, the murder was done out of jealousy, because the Terry was rejected. Throughout my paper I hope to show the similarities and differences of the murder cases within the two stories.
“You’re a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar feels?”. The story “The Most dangerous Game,” by Richard Connell introduces an adventurous type of thriller with two main characters named Sanger Rainsford and General Zaroff. Both of which are hunters who in the story play a “game” invented by General Zaroff out of pure fear of becoming bored of the hunt. General Zaroff is a big fan of the hunt and everything he says about the hunt is to be taken serious. Rainsford and General Zaroff are described to be excellent hunters through the traps Rainsford makes, all the big game Zaroff has hunted, but Zaroff is better at hunting through the fact that the hunt has began to bore and he needs more of a challenge hunting humans.
If animals were humans, then General Zaroff would almost be as bad as Adolf Hitler. General Zaroff, a character in Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game,” should be considered a negative character because of the way the author portrays him though indirect characterization, such as what he does, what he says, how other characters react to him, and what he looks like. Although there is plenty of indirect characterization, there is little to none direct characterization.
Therefore, that means Montresor can do anything he wants, even if that means getting away with killing Fortunato. So, to get closer to Fortunato, he hangs out with him like they are friends. General Zaroff in the “Most Dangerous” game, gets hunters and makes them huntees. How Rainsford got to the island and his boat crashed and landed on an island and went to a rich man's house that he saw in a distance. In the meantime, Rainsford was having dinner with the general and the general was talking about how hunting animals was too easy to hunt.
Though, the conclusion that White makes that is arguable is the fact that, “…we, the gentle reader, might similarly welcome Montresor back into the human community with our horror-stricken hearts” (White 555). This is debatable because even though humans want to defend their units, whether that be family or country, not everyone is exempted for the guilt that comes with murder. All in all, the act of taking the life from another human, still is rarely —if ever— justifiable, especially to the torturous extents that Montresor takes the action. So not everyone would forgive Montresor in this manner, this can bring valuable insight to us as a humanity, and how if we feel extensive discomfort over Montresor’s assassination of his rival, then perhaps we should feel the same way about the annihilation of our countries own
Have you ever met someone so clever, determined, and cruel to leave a man to die over an insult? Montresor is the perfect example of these character traits. In “The Cask of Amontillado”, by Edgar Allan Poe, Montresor uses all of these character traits to get revenge on Fortunado for insulting his family name. Montresor’s clever planning, determination for revenge, and cruel murder are the perfect combination for his unequaled revenge.
Montresor is a man who feels pride in himself and in his family, so when Fortunato—an acquaintance of Montresor— “venture[s] upon insult,” Montresor “vow[s] revenge” against him (1). Montresor hastily decides that he must kill Fortunato, even though his use of the word “venture” implies that Fortunato had not yet insulted him, but nearly did. Montresor’s impulsive need for revenge causes him to formulate a plan to murder his acquaintance. He keeps Fortunato intoxicated by “presenting him…[with] wine,” he “fetter[s] him to the granite,” and he “plaster[s] up… [a wall of] new masonry” to trap Fortunato in the catacombs (39, 71, 89). All of these acts are signs that the need for revenge has made Fortunato insane. A person who has any sense of morals would not commit crimes such as Montresor’s. His impetuous decision to exact revenge caused him to lose his
No matter how well executed, a crime of this magnitude will leave scars on the conscience, thus marring it’s perfection. Conflicting psychological emotions and actions plague the journey causing inner conflict ranging between pity and revulsion by the time the narrator concludes. Notwithstanding the shortage of information on Montresor’s life in the ensuing fifty years since Fortunato’s death; it can be surmised from the events leading to the murder that Montresor does, in fact, have a conscience and that it builds upon itself as the action
Do you know the definition of a serial killer? Maybe you have your own definition, such as: a person that mass murders people in the grocery store. Or: a crazy human being that kills people more than once. According to Dictionary.com, a serial killer is defined as “a person who carries out a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern.” General Zaroff from the story The Most Dangerous Game fits almost exactly into that definition. He makes the worst decisions over all of our short stories because he takes innocent lives with great intention, he takes immense pleasure in doing so, and he does it repeatedly.
“Indifference to me is the epitome of all evil.” (Elie Wiesel). The short story “The Most Dangerous Games” by Richard Connell relays a shocking exposé of a man who believes that regardless of what is right or wrong, that this should not matter as long as it meets his needs. General Zaroff is an expatriate Russian Cossack who now lives on an island with his henchman and hounds. He is the antagonist or the adversary of Rainsford and remains static throughout the short story always remaining as he did in the beginning. However, it does not take the reader long to discover that Zaroff portrays himself as a “man of the world”, “psychopath” and “egotist”. As the reader proceeds through the short story ‘the most dangerous game’ the idea of General Zaroff being a sophisticated, intelligent, cultured ,well educated, and civilized man quickly changes as his true self is revealed.
In "Cask of Amontillado", Montresor is the narrator. "The thousand of injuries of Fortunato he has borne as he best could; but when he ventures upon insult, Montresor vows revenge" (Poe 528). As the story unfolds, "Montresor's idea of perfect revenge" is "characteristically precise and logical in detail" as to how he commits his crime (Delaney 1).
After reading The “Most Dangerous Game” we, as a class, were asked whether or not it is considered correct to kill someone but, like a ballot, there were mixed results. This can branch out into a wide variety of topics ranging from abortion to downright murder. “Most Dangerous game” is a short story about a man named Rainsford who gets saved after a boat crash. The man who saved him, General Zaroff, is a hunter. A trait both share in common. However, Zaroff kills humans rather than animals in that the hunt is more thrilling. Of course, there is a disagreement on the subject matter to further the plot. Rainsford is completely opposed to the idea of killing his own kind. We also analyzed the film, “The Hunger Games”. Katniss Everdeen was forced into an arena where the only way to stay alive was to kill others. Both pieces of literature are a survival of the fittest test. Both had justifiable reasons for killing and it made reputable, however morbid, sense.
He shows absolutely no remorse or any true interest in the effect that his actions will have. Even to go as far to make jokes at the expense of the future murder of his so called “friend.” Like Dr. Stout said, sociopaths can lead people to their impaling doom with much ease. The sheer ease of his master plan of revenge unfolding. His use of reverse psychology on people to have them ultimately do his true bidding. Playing with Fortunado’s trust to his own satisfaction and gain. He exhibits many traits of a sociopath throughout the story. Edgar Allan Poe is well known for doing this in many of his works as seen in classic works like The Black Cat, The Tell-Tale Heart. The protagonists of these stories are also sociopathic, insane, vengeful and blood thirsty people who in reality are in fact the true antagonists. In each of their minds they believe they’re rightfully exacting justice and don’t see any error in their actions or just simply don’t care. They’re also cold, unfeeling, persuasive, and sinister murders who escalate small issues out of proportion. A sinister character is a recurring theme in Poe’s work and Montresor is surely no exception to this
Montresor’s actions can then be explained due to Antisocial Personality Disorder. “A person who has this disorder overlooks the rights of others, is incapable of loyalty to others or to social values, is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is imperious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others" (MacKenzie). Antisocial personality disorder affects a person and their ability to function properly in society. Montresor had Antisocial Personality Disorder since he acted irrationally and blamed his action on Fortunato. Montresor kept justifying his actions and convincing himself he was doing what was right. By Montresor refuses to recognize his actions he further showed that he had Antisocial Personality Disorder. Montresor also was unable to ever feel remorse to Montresor and did not have any guilt. For these reasons presented, it can be justified that Montresor suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder. This diagnosis would help justify to the reader his strange behavior and his desire to seek revenge on Fortunato. By analyzing the characteristics of Antisocial Personality Disorder, it explains Montresor’s desire for revenge, manipulation and lack of empathy for
The first indirect factor that could contribute to Montresor’s vengeful act, and thus the story’s theme of revenge, is the character of Montresor. Montresor tends to harbor feelings of resentment and has a hard time not taking things out of context (Womack). He also plans the murder of Fortunato in advance and devises it in such a way that he will not be caught. In killing Fortunato, Montreso...