The Most Dangerous Game Analysis

In the story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and the poem “Porphyria’s Lover” by Robert Browning, the authors use characterization and imagery to convey that the desire for power can drive man to psychotic actions.

It had been a week since Rainsford managed to kill the nefarious General Zaroff. The challenging part was almost over or so it seemed. There was not a clear way for Rainsford to escape. As days passed, Rainsford tried to escape. He tried making a boat from driftwood that he found, he tried swimming, he even tried sending a signal by using a flashlight. Rainsford had become so desperate that he even tried some ridiculous plans like trying to pole vault across the ocean. As a result, Rainsford ended up having huge gashes in his left leg ,which got infected, and he had to amputate it. As days turned into weeks, and weeks into months, Rainsford had lost hope and became bitter.

Suspense, thrills, and mystery? “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell is a story with diverse genres and while leave readers thinking deeply about the author. The main characters in the story are Sanger Rainsford and General Zaroff, who both have a passion for hunting. Except, Rainsford finally learns about what exactly Zaroff enjoys hunting. Rainsford is brought into a twisted game one he makes a bet with the general, in which he is hunted for three days straight and has to survive in order to win. He faces many obstacles, but he manages to survive everything he goes through deliberately. “The Most Dangerous Game” has many conflicts, for example, man versus man, man versus nature, and even to the point a man is versus himself.

Everyone has been led to believe that all lives are equal, and they are however, in terms of monetary value, lives are not equal. Aside the ethics about assigning value to the live it is still done. The justice system tries to resolve this loss by using unjust means. Life should not be given a value in any sort of currency, it is is not right as there is no way to put a price on something as priceless as life. Even if the life of a person is affected by an illness, their worth should not be decreased. All lives are equal, some people need more help than others and it should be given if and when deserve such help. The value of life has been contemplated throughout history, such as Shakespeare's (1599) play, hamlet; in which Hamlet’s

When it comes to the topic of the value of life. Most of us will readily agree that there is no amount of money that can equal the loss for a loved one.. Where this agreement usually ends however, is on the question of whether or not the government has the right to assign a dollar value on the human life. While some are convinced that a dollar value is enough other believe that there is no dollar value that can compensate for their lost loved one. Society should base the value of life based on that person's future income in expected life to live.

There are survivors all around us, and they all could have faced grave challenges to be standing where they are today. Rainsford, in the "Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell, faced intense challenges in a "fight to the death" conflict against one of his most successful supporters, General Zaroff. Lee, from "My escape from North Korea" by Hyeonseo Lee, faced tough challenges while trying to escape the depths of a country that treated her horrendously. Aron Ralston, from "Trapped", a story explaining that Aron himself was hiking alone when the unthinkable happened: Two large, heavy boulders fell on his arm and he had to endure over a hundred painful hours of being trapped in between the two rocks until he did a self-amputation on the arm

To put a value on life can be immoral. But i believe that it is not bad that the government is handing our reparations to help the victims. “Why are you demeaning the memory of my husband?”, said Kenneth Finberg. I think that trying to give money for the lost one is not a way of replacing them, its to help the victims loved ones to get the necessary

The value of life is a question that not many people can answer. How much are you truly worth once you pass away? One million? One thousand? One dollar? To me, life is priceless it is not something you can simply go to the store and buy as a replacement.

Another important question that is repeatedly debated about with euthanasia is does it devalue human life? When putting the arguments for the affirmative and the negative side by side, one would see that euthanasia does in fact devalue life. It deteriorates society’s respect for life because people could in theory pretend to be extremely sick and then have a doctor legally kill them. With the acceptance of euthanasia, society also accepts that some lives, as in those who would be candidates for euthanasia, are values less so than others, or the healthy and strong people in the world. As said earlier, there are two types of euthanasia; involuntary and voluntary. With the acceptance of voluntary euthanasia, there would be a slippery slope that would undoubtedly lead to involuntary euthanasia and the slaying of people who are considered to be objectionable. Then there is also the true thought that euthanasia may not actually be in the patient’s best interests. The patient could ask for euthanasia too prematurely, and if they are killed and the doctor realizes something could have been done, the blame would be placed on that doctor.

A large controversy among families and the government is how to value a person’s life. After the 9/11 tragedy many people were unhappy with how some people were compensated more than others. The amount of life insurance a person receives should be based on their success. The amount of money a family receives should just be able to sustain their same way of life. Some argue that all people should be paid equally, however higher-paid people should get more money because they earned it. Roger Ebert believed you should only worry about things that you enjoy and value in life. This will not help families after a death, though, with a funeral and other financial costs.

Life Boat Ethics discusses the value of human life by presenting the argument that, if ten people could fit in a lifeboat, then one should give up their spot for someone who deserves it more (Hardin). However, the article does not specify what makes any person more worthy of salvation than the others. If one bases value on the amount of time possessed, then surely the children are the most important lives. However, the elderly have gained experience and wisdom, both of which contain value. And what if the person given a spot by the sacrifice of another gives up his spot as well? This means that the first person’s sacrifice was meaningless. How does one determine which life has more value in these circumstances?

Michel de Montaigne explained that “the value of life lies not in the length of days, but in the use we make of them.” This quote sums up many peoples exact feelings about the value of living, what it means, and who really appreciates it. Our society has become obsessed with putting a monetary worth on everything we do, even the most precious of things. Life is one of the few things that you cannot put any price on, despite what others might believe. Memories and what they mean to those who have made them are priceless, so why should a legal character determine what the value of our lives have been, when all it sees is the way that we have died, rather than the worth of what we have lived. Hamlet, Roger Ebert, and Kenneth Feinberg all felt differently about their thoughts on life, but in the end, a life is a life, and that is something all people can agree on.

In the short story of the “Most Dangerous Game” written by Richard     Connell, the antagonist General Zaroff and the protagonist Rainsford find themselves in a decisive battle to win a life and death situation. General Zaroff is a cossack who finds it fun to kill humans because they can reason. As Rainsford lands on his island, he meets General Zaroff who tells Rainsford about his crimes. After staying at Zaroff’s place, Rainsford gets told that it is his turn to be haunted by Zaroff. Following the next day, Rainsford makes preparations to go into the vast forest. If he survives in three days time, he will win, if not, he will be hunted. Rainsford flees into the forest knowing his chances to survive are slim. As he reaches far into the dense jungle to rest, he hears Zaroff’s footsteps and he quickly hides. General Zaroff knows where Rainsford is and he walks back carelessly. Rainsford knew the General was playing games with him. His hands trembling, Rainsford devised a plan and built a trap with a very weakened tree, he quickly hid 100 feet away.  As Zaroff approached, he was hit by the tree, Zaroff went back to get treated. Rainsford improvises another trap, a pit with spikes on the bottom as Zaroff is with his dogs. It works, one of his dogs falls in and dies. General Zaroff goes home once again and this time with Ivan and a pack of dogs goes after Rainsford. Rainsford makes yet another trap; a small tree stretched back with a vine and fastened with a knife.  Although

The General then said, “Great job on the victory, but now I have another challenge, the winner gets my comfortable bed and the loser gets fed to my vigorous dogs.”

When it comes to an individual’s life nobody ever really thinks about death nor do they think about what their families might have to deal with after they pass away. It isn’t until this certain type of situation involves them, that people speak their opinions. Often when someone speaks about the value of an individual's life, they are referring to the amount of compensation a family will get for their loved one’s death. There are many people who believe a person’s life should not have a price tag on it or that the value of someone’s life is far beyond just money. One man who believed that there was more to the value of life than just money was Roger Ebert. Not only were people directly voicing their opinions but they were also doing it throw television such as the show Elementary. Both of those subjects somehow incorporate their thoughts on the value of life based on their personal and public experiences.