Comparing The Most Dangerous Game And A Jury Of Her Peers

When evaluating a piece of literature people use their own judgement, intelligence and experience to evaluate how well a story is written. A story should contain elements that are essential to the central purpose and most importantly a depth of significance for its purpose. In close examination of the literary devices in the stories, “The Most Dangerous Game”, by Richard Connell, and “A Jury of Her Peers”, by Susan Glaspell, Glaspell’s story has the most content that achieves its central propose and its purpose has a higher meaning by not being written in the form to entertain it’s reader.

Characterization in literature is how authors develop characters and present them with humanistic traits to create an image for their audience. Authors

either present their characters directly or indirectly. When doing direct presentation they tell the reader exactly what the characters are like or have another character describe them. In indirect presentation the author gives clues of how a character is through their actions and the reader has to determine what they are like by what they say or do. Other terms that are used when talking about characters is flat and round. A flat character is normally a person that can be summed up in couple on sentences because they only have one or two predominant traits. Certain flat character can be categorized to be stock characters since they are stereotyped figures that can be recognized because they have be repeated in other fictional stories. In contrast, round characters are more complex and have a more humanistic quality about them.
In “The Most Dangerous Game”, Sanger Rainsford is the protagonist who is the “American democratic ideal… [who is] determined, and capable of taking care of himself in any situation.” (Thompson 2) Rainsford starts out as a man’s man who answers to no one and no man is his superior. He is tough and aggressive, also a person who is unafraid to kill, “The world is made up of two classes--the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are hunters” (10).
By this comment he shows that he has no sympathy for the big game animals that he kills and that his victims have no type of feelings. It is assumed from the conversation that he has with Whitney that he is realist which would explain why he thinks the way he does toward the animals he hunts and kills. According to Rainsford’s definition, philosophers have sympathy for other beings and humans are superior to animals. Rainsford considers himself a realist because he just doesn't care if animals experience fear, little does he know that his “moral compass” will guide him on a new path. Rainsford then doesn’t have this ideal when her meets Zaroff and Zaroff sure doesn’t think that he is a realist. He says, "I refuse to believe that so modern and civilized a young man as you seem to be harbors romantic ideas about the value of human life" (15). When Rainsford is out in the jungle, he experiences some serious panic, quickly realizing that he has “new things to learn about fear” (22). He pulls everything out of his hunter’s arsenal, booby trapping and creating false leads all over the place. But quickly realizes that being hunted is even worse than fighting trench warfare in World War I: “Rainsford had dug himself in in France when a second's delay meant death. That had been a placid pastime compared to his digging now” (19).
General Zaroff is the antagonist of the story who greets Rainsford after realizing that he has been stranded on the island, but later hunts him and tries to kill him. Zaroff’s bizarre hobby is masked by his fine clothes and cultivating voice. He is from a wealthy aristocratic Russian family and was once a Cossacks, killing things and commanding a cavalry division in the Russian Army. Once all the power and privilege was taken away from the czar by being over thrown by the Bolsheviks, who had been oppressed by the rich, Zaroff had to move to a safe location. Lucky for him he didn’t have to “to open a tearoom in Monte Carlo or drive a taxi in Paris,” because he made some wise financial decisions and “had invested heavily in American securities” (86). As a man with hobbies Zaroff has imported animals onto the island to kill like elephants, tigers, and other big game animals. But none were challenging enough and he had
to do something because hunting was beginning to bore him. So can came up with a plan to hunt the only animal with reason, a human, in his mind he was doing the society some good since her only hunts worthless humans the “the sum of the earth” and don’t compared or are as valuable as a good dog or horse (121).
As for in “A Jury of Her Peers”, there are seven characters in total throughout the story but five of them can be considered principal characters. George Henderson is a young man who holds the position of the county attorney and is in charge of overseeing the investigation of John Wright’s murder. He is confident that he has the ability to build a case against Minnie Wright and is sarcastic when belittling the female characters by saying, “No, Mrs. Peters doesn’t need supervising. For that matter, a sheriff’s wife is married to the law” stating the woman’s loyalty (282). Henry Peters is a middle aged man who is the local sheriff, who is assisting George Henderson in his investigation. Although being friendlier compared to Henderson he is clear about his prejudice against Minnie Wright and is also dismissive of his wife and what he sees as her womanly concerns. Lewis Hale is also a middle aged man who is a local farmer who visited the Wrights’ home and discovered Minnie calmly pleating her apron as her husband laid murdered in his bed. He accompanies Henderson and Peters because of his firsthand account of the case. But Mrs. Hales worries that her husband will reveal his tendency to say unnecessary things and make things more difficult for Minnie when telling the story of his discovery.
Now going on to the two women in the story, Mrs.

Peters, the wife of the sheriff, is describes as a woman who does not look the part because she is small and thin. Mrs. Peters’ physical characteristics is a reflection of her obedience to her husband, and to the law, that she struggles to overcome. She even reminds Mrs. Hale of the men’s duties and their own responsibilities to the law, by saying, “I’d hate to have men comin’ into my kitchen…snoopin’ round and criticizin’.” “Of course it’s no more than their duty”, but she ultimately is an active participant in the attempt to conceal the evidence of Minnie Wright’s guilt (105-106). Martha Hale is the wife of Mr. Hale and resident of the nearest farm to the Wrights’ home. Due to the proximity, as well as her acquaintance with Minnie Wright, she feels extremely responsible for not having visited the married Minnie Wright years ago. Martha Hale comes off ass the protagonist of the story from the first few paragraphs and is more strong-willed than Mrs. Peters. By defying her husband and the law by concealing the evidence against Minnie Wright and ultimately chooses to ally herself with a fellow woman against the patriarchal society in which they live in.

Theme is the main idea or the underlying meaning of a literary work. When an author uses a theme they try to reveal some truth about life and also use it as a unifying element to shed some light or bring attention to the story. The theme can sometimes be discovered when one of characters has a revelation about themselves, their relationship with others or the universe. A well written story will have many complex insights on life but its central insight is what gives the story its unity by having many of its elements relate to one another throughout the

story.
The theme of violence and cruelty is prevalent in “the Most Dangerous Game”, since the beginning of the story when Rainsford first awakes on the island, “Some wounded thing—by the evidence, a large animal—had thrashed about in the underbrush; the jungle weeds were crushed down and the moss was lacerated; one patch of weeds was stained crimson” (43). Evidence is given that there was a scene of struggle with a gun, remembering that same night were he hear gunshots, which were the reason he had fallen out of the yacht. Connell gives the reader the dilemma of deciding whether hunting is a brutal activity or an amusing sport. Rainsford’s attitude at the beginning, "You're a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar feels?” suggesting his willingness to commit an act of violence without thinking of the ethical implications (10). Upon meeting General Zaroff, it is shocking to Rainsford that someone is out there who has a greater lack of compassion and is soon caught up in Zaroff’s game fighting to stay alive. The reader then starts to sympathize with Rainsford and learns what it is like to be an animal that is being hunted.