Have you ever played a game with high stakes? Whether it was simply getting an extra slice of pizza at dinner, or having your sibling do your laundry for a week? Have you ever played a game where you hide from a man named General Zaroff in a jungle and try not to get killed so that your head is the newest addition to his collection? Hopefully most of us haven’t experienced that second one… Well in my case, I almost felt like I was, right there with Rainsford trying to escape Zarroff. This is because in “The Most Dangerous Game”, by Richard Connell he uses appealing characterization as well as detailed setting and plot descriptions to engage the reader. On the other hand, another short story I read was “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson which in my opinion was the complete opposite. I didn’t feel connected to the story on any level, nor could I picture any of the situations or scenes. Overall this short story was a miss for me because of its lack of characterization, and descriptive language which is …show more content…
He used different analogies, essentially painting a picture in the reader's mind. This is very effective because it can help to make you feel like you're in the story, and keeps you engaged waiting to see what will happen next. “Ugh! It's like moist black velvet.” (Connell) and “...giant rocks with razor edges crouch like a sea monster with wide-open jaws. They can crush a ship as easily as I crush this nut.” (Connell) are some examples of this. Just by reading those sentences you automatically have some vision pop into your mind, which is very important in any story. In “The Lottery” no descriptions were effectively put in the writing. Nothing caught my eye and made me think. Essentially, not a picture was painted. Having no vision of the story, or no picture of how the setting looks or feels can often make a story boring, and that's deffinetly the case