The Most Dangerous Game Rainsford Character Analysis

573 Words2 Pages

Pushed to do many things he wouldn’t normally do, Rainsford can’t be evaluated on the same scale that ordinary folk are. That being said, he compromised a lot of morals that most would never think of. Because of his evolution from the situation, it’s imperative to understand that to evaluate Rainsford and his morality, one has to think outside the box. At different parts in the story, he must be analyzed differently.
Rainsford is a well-known hunter, with a pile of books to prove it. General Zaroff, Cossack, shares the pastime of hunting with him, the only difference being what they pursue. General Zaroff looks up to him and would be honored to have him join the hunt. Upon finding out what it is that’s hunted on Ship-Trap Island, Rainsford is absolutely abhorred and wants nothing to do with a manhunt. After refusing to assist in the murder of another, Rainsford is told that he shall have the choice all of the island’s visitors have had: Ivan or Zaroff. Thinking about the torment that will take place with Ivan and the death with General Zaroff, he scruples for a moment but ultimately decides his fate shall be left to the forest that he will be hunted in. At this point in the story, it’s clear that his morals align with modern day thoughts. Rainsford is okay with hunting animals for sport, but he draws the …show more content…

At the beginning of “The Most Dangerous Game” he wouldn’t have been able to wrap his mind around the thought of killing another human. In the end, he kills a man in cold blood. While his actions can be justified, it’s morals that make them questionable. It’s important to take the entire story into perspective, not just the things he did wrong or the things he did right. Rainsford now knows what it feels like to be hunted, but the ending of the story indicates he won’t stop hunting. With all this information, it’s suggested that Rainsford is parallel to the person he was disgusted with: General

Open Document