"The Most Dangerous Game" can be seen as either escapist
or interpretive literature, or an example of both together. On the surface, it is a
thrilling tale of two men pitted against each other in the most simple of situations,
with suspense and drama coming from action and reaction. In this sense, it is escapist
because it details an unusual circumstance that must be overcome through extraordinary
measures.
However, it is also an example of interpretive
literature, as a main theme of the story is morality and responsibility. General Zaroff
believes that he is morally allowed to hunt and kill humans through his abilities as a
strong, alpha-type character.
"The weak of the world were put here to give the
strong pleasure. I am strong. Why should I not use my gift? If I wish to hunt, why
should I not?"
(Connell, "The Most Dangerous Game,
classicreader.com)
He thinks
that hunting humans is simply the logical progression of hunting animals. Rainsford
disagrees with this attitude, but adopts portions of Zaroff's philosophy to survive, up
to and including "hunting" Zaroff himself. In this fashion, we can see that there is a
deeper meaning in the story beyond the straightforward
adventure.
No comments:
Post a Comment