Premium Essay

Summary Of The Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connel

Submitted By
Words 842
Pages 4
The Most Dangerous Game was written by Richard Connel. Considering Connel was born in the 1890’s, this story is pretty old. When The Most Dangerous game was published, it won an award for short fiction. This book was very interesting, and suspensful. Throughout the whole book, you are putting the pieces together as you read. Things start to make sense when things are said. This short story takes place in a jungle on a Carribean Island. A man named Zaroff lives on this island. He catches sailors that come through, and make them play his “game”. A man named Rainsford happens to be one of these sailors. Zaroff tries to hunt him, but soon finds out Rainsford has strengths he didn’t know about. Rainsford uses his hunting skills to avoid Zaroff in the jungle.
In this story there are two hunters. Rainsford and Zaroff. Rainsford is a skilled big game hunter. Zaroff used to hunt animals, but not anymore. Zaroff says “ I hunt more dangerous game”. In the story Zaroff is the main hunter. He used to hunt animals all the time. Animals began to bore him. So he decided hunting humans would be more fun. In the story Zaroff sets up a trap for ships. That brought the surviving sailors to shore. He would take the sailors into his house, and make them feel safe, and at home. Then he would …show more content…
Rainsford and Zaroff are both hunters. In the story, Zaroff becomes the only hunter. So when Rainsford isn’t being a hunter, he is obviously the hunted. So in live you can only be one or the other at one time. Rainsford hunts big game in the story. Zaroff used to be the same way, until animals began to bore him. Zaroff decided it’s fun to hunt humans. He found pleasure in chasing his own kind around the forest with a pistol. So Rainsford statement is obviously true. If you aren’t the hunter, you know you must be the hunted. Or in some cases, the

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Review of Law in Context

...message from the summary executioner before you dive in; These notes are an interpretation of the book Law in Context and the lectures given as part of the 1991 Course. They are not a satisfactory substitution for reading the text. You are only likely to get the maximum value out of this summary by reading it in conjunction with the text. The question of ‘the law in whose context’ may be worth keeping in mind as you read. This is an interpretation seen through my eyes, not yours. My comments are not unbiased, as it is as equally unlikely that yours may be. So my ‘advice’ is consider what is said here and in the book considering the need to understand the ‘mechanics’ that help make sense of the more involved themes that develop in the book as you progress through Law in Context. The observations, important in their own right, may be particularly useful for seeing how their often ubiquitous expression is taken as ‘normal’ in the areas of wider society, such as in discussions of economics and power. It is unlikely that you will find any ‘right answers’ from this summary, but I do hope it helps you in synthesising opinions. A bibliography of books I used is given at the end of this summary. If your head isn’t spinning too much, maybe it is worth getting together earlier in the semester with friends and talking about some of the issues that particularly interest you. Don’t be worried if ‘you don’t know anything’. It’s probable that you, as for most of us, are neither...

Words: 51747 - Pages: 207