Henry Selsar The Most Dangerous Game Comparison

“Short fiction seems more targeted – hand grenades of ideas, if you will. When they work, they hit, they explode, and you never forget them. Long fiction feels more like atmosphere: it’s a lot smokier and less defined.” — Paolo Bacigalupi. A notable, original story is organized and has tis literary elements woven into the very fabric of the story, hence allowing the reader's mind to become a part of the plot and deeply envision it, and classic instances of this are the two stories, The Most Dangerous Game authored by Henry Selsar and The Most Dangerous Game, authored by Richard Connell. The Most Dangerous Game is centered around the experience of a bright fellow named Dickie who lives in a civilization that executes overly intelligent individuals.

The Most Dangerous Game tells the tale of two main people, Rainsford and Zaroff. Rainsford falls overboard and swims Zaroff's island, only to find himself stuck on the island of a delusional man who hunts humans. Astonishingly, both of the stories are similar in character, conflict, and setting notwithstanding the different plots--and it’s no coincidence that they are written to the highest standard and are unforgettable.
In 2016, UNESCO Institute of Statistics reported that 263 million youth are not receiving any school education, globally.1 This is an issue in modern-day society as it limits people's job options, often leading people to more tedious occupations with lower salaries—but in the short story The Most Dangerous Game, uneducation is commonplace and society is expected to be uneducated. The example outlined in the story is the Jordan family, who are uneducated and uninquisitive. An exception to this is Dickie Jordan, their 12-year-old son, as proven by his conversation with his father:
"'Why did it have to rain today?' [Dickie] said. 'Why couldn't it rain tomorrow?'
'Because it just did, that's all. Rain makes the grass grow.' [replied his Dad.]
'Why, Dad?' [Dickie asked.]
'Because it does, that's all.' [replied his Dad.]
'What makes it green, though? The grass?' [Dickie asked.]
'Nobody knows,' his father snapped..."
Exceptional grades are a standard occurrence for Dickie, as stated by himself ("'I get good marks in school,' he said hesitantly."). Dickie is the protagonist in the story, while the remainder of his family are the foils as there is a disparity between them and Dickie. Dickie is intellectual, while the family is not—placing emphasis on Dickie's cleverness as he is distinctive in contrast with the rest of his family. Over the course of the story, Dickie's personality remains the same, thus making him a static character. Furthermore, he is a flat character, meaning he is not complicated. Opposite of a flat character is a round character wherein the personality of the character is complex—examples being both a little good and a little bad and having contradictory motives. The Most Dangerous Game, an alternative short story features two key characters, General Zaroff and Sanger Rainsford. Rainsford, a world-renowned animal hunter is faced with a wicked situation of being hunted as he lands on Zaroff's island, making him the protagonist and is sympathetic, meaning that we root for them and like them, in the given order. Although he is accustomed to a life of ease and treat, although this is removed when he is required to prevent himself from being hunted—making him a dynamic character due to significant changes in him over the course of the story. General Zaroff, a manhunter is described by the narrator as "[a] man [who] was singularly handsome; his second was that there was an original, almost bizarre quality about the general's face. He was a tall man past middle age, for his hair was a vivid white; but his thick eyebrows and pointed military mustache were as black as the night from which Rainsford had come. His eyes, too, were black and very bright. He had high cheekbones, a sharpcut (sic) nose, a spare, dark face—the face of a man used to giving orders, the face of an aristocrat." Zaroff is the antagonist (bad person) and is unsympathetic as he performs the barbarous practice of hunting humans. A similarity between the two short stories are Dickie and Rainsford. Both are inquisitive and intelligent. For Rainsford, this is proven by his curiosity of the island, and for Dickie, his various questions about the workings of nature along with his decent marks in school. In addition, the statement just prior to the description of Zaroff, "I've read your book about hunting snow leopards in Tibet, you see," explained the man. "I am General Zaroff." Although less significant, this implies that Zaroff is educated as he reads books. In the same way, Rainsford is also educated in hunting, and possibly among other topics—especially considering that Rainsford authored a book, as confirmed by Zaroff, one of his readers: "'I've read your book about hunting snow leopards in Tibet, you see.'" While the plot of the stories differs significantly, certain characterization aspects remain the same. Dickie and Rainsford are both intelligent, curious individuals—far from uneducated—and the conflict is similar as well and points to one common subject: death.
"Death comes to us all sooner or later.

We cannot escape it." — Brian Jacques. As this quote applies to real life, it certainly applies to the short stories The Most Dangerous Game and The Most Dangerous Game. The first story, respectively, is about a boy named Dickie who is illegally intelligent because he harbored a high intelligence quotient that violated the law. For that reason, the government executed him. "'This is the Government Educational Service. Your son, Richard M Jordan, Classification 600-115 has completed the Government examination. We regret to inform you that his intelligence quotient is above the Government regulation, according to Rule 84 Section 5 of the New Code … ‘You may specify by telephone,' … , ‘whether you wish his body interred by the Government, or would you prefer a private burial place?" It is apparent that the conflict present in this story is Character versus Society, where the character is Dickie, the society is the government, and the conflict is being put to death for high intelligence, as unquestionably hinted by the burial question. In comparison to The Most Dangerous Game, Rainsford was hunted for three days. To gain victory and avert his death, he must remain hidden from General Zaroff and not be discovered during the three day duration of the hunt. Thus, the story features Character versus Character conflict where Rainsford conflicts with General Zaroff, the conflict being Zaroff hunting Rainsford. The link between the two stories is the inclusion of death within the conflict, albeit different types of conflict. When Dickie was assessed and found to have an IQ that was too high and violated the law, he was put to death. If Rainsford was to be discovered by Zaroff any time while the hunt for him was occurring, he would be murdered. Death came to Dickie and almost came to Rainsford when Zaroff seemed to be aware of his location, but indirectly gave him another chance to extend the hunt. One last similarity between the stories

is how the setting provides the perfect backdrop for the conflict to transpire in both stories—despite one being in a futuristic dystopian society and the other one on a secluded island.
The setting's importance is immense since it has various functions, mainly by providing the perfect atmosphere for the action to occur and connecting with the story. The Most Dangerous Game and The Most Dangerous Game make first-rate use of setting by integrating setting with the conflict and characters. This is most eminent in The Most Dangerous Game considering that a remote island, with no laws and governance, allows Zaroff to do as he wills—consequently allowing him to hunt humans. Alike to Zaroff taking advantage of the setting, Rainsford does the same by utilizing the natural environment, such as using trees to set up traps like the Malay Mancatcher. On top of that, the vegetation offers locations for Rainsford to hide in. Less prominently, the role of setting in The Most Dangerous Game is less crucial, but not nonexistent in comparison to The Most Dangerous Game, meaning it still plays a part. One example is the truth serum, as explained by Dickie's father in a dialog amongst the two:
"'This is different. This is a - special kind of test. They give you this stuff to drink, you see, and then you go into a room where there's a sort of machine –'
'What stuff to drink?' Dickie said.
'It's nothing. It tastes like peppermint. It's just to make sure you answer the questions truthfully. Not that the Government thinks you won't tell the truth, but it makes sure.'"
The existence of a truth serum denotes that the society is technologically advanced to understand chemistry and formulate an effective serum. Similarly, truth serums in our cutting-edge society do exist, a few being "ethanol, scopolamine, 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, midazolam, flunitrazepam, sodium thiopental, and amobarbital, among others."2 Both stories use setting to shape the story, though The Most Dangerous Game makes a more noticeable usage of this. The interconnectedness of the setting with other literary elements in any story makes the setting crucial for an admirable and well-thought-out story. Setting is a key aspect, so perfecting it is imperative.
To wrap it all up, the two short stories The Most Dangerous Game and The Most Dangerous Game both have similar literary element character, conflict, and setting in view of the fact that the elements are deeply woven into both stories and connect. Remove or simplify an element and the story will worsen. Writers, no matter where they are, can benefit from understanding these two exemplary stories--but what about the reader? They too can have a memorable time reading it, as quoted in the beginning: “… and you never forget them …”