The Most Dangerous Game

Just wondering what all of you thought about something. There are so many questions about conflict and theme in the Most Dangerous Game. I always use it in my Short Story unit to introduce the idea of escape fiction as opposed to interpretive fiction. I'm pretty sure it is a purely an external man vs man story. To actually take it seriously and examine Zaroff, the animal rights theme and other conflicts seems upsurd to me. Perhaps at a grade six level one might consider these but the story does not warrant them. It’s kind of like asking why Godzilla was so damn angry all the time. Did he have issues with his father? Did he have conflicting feelings about nuclear war? Godzilla is a sea-monster, he's angry, that's it.!……I’d love to hear what you guys think.

I love the idea of taking the story seriously and investigating it on its own turns.  Perrine is one of those anthologists, I think, who include the story in a rather condescending way to show by way of contrast what is good lit and what is not. Lots of critics have studied ways to break down this divide between "high culture" literature (which requires interpretations) vs. popular literature (which allows us to "escape" and does not require interpretation).  Your insight to the text--the themes you see it offering--gives it the dignity and respect it is due.  As teachers, I think we are responsible for teaching students to read all printed words because none, just none, is transparent in their meaning and in their relationship to our world and readers.  Congrats to you for teaching the story in this way.

HA!  Best laugh I've had all day.  Godzilla, indeed.  (Maybe he had the same problem Grendel had with the Geats...too much dang noise. Turn that Japanese techno-crap down, can't a lizard get some shut eye??) 

I too think it's ridiculous to look at this as an animal-rights story.  I think anyone who does takes it far too seriously.  Still, it's bound to get students talking and might loosen them up for something more meaty (if you will). 

Anyone willing to take the other side? 

I don't know that I'd call it an animal-rights story, but I do think a man vs. self conflict is inherent in Rainsford when he must reconsider his position as a hunter. From his comment, "Who cares how a jaguar feels?" near the opening of the story to "Rainsford knew now how an animal at bay feels," he has been forced to come to grips with a position he had not previously even thought possible. Will he ever hunt again? My freshmen students often ask this question. I don't know. But I do think that he has a better understanding of what it means to fight for survival. The main difference, of course, between Rainsford and the jaguar is the man uses his reason to succeed. Does that mean he's superior and therefore has the right to hunt the animal? That, I believe, is Zaroff's justification for his game because he sees himself as superior to all others. Only Rainsford is a worthy opponent, he thinks, and then the great hunter turns out to be a disappointment until the great surprise at the end. It's one of my favorite stories to teach freshmen.

Oh good grief. You guys are killing me here. Does anyone else see the irony in a discussion group solely based upon the notion that something doesn't deserve a lot of discussion?

Granted, I've fallen into the pit myself (no pun intended, MDG fans), but at least I pointed out the irony first. Here's the thing: Nobody cares about the internal conflicts of the characters in this story. Performing a head-shrink on these characters is about as useless as attaching a screen door to a submarine. The big VS. in this piece of lit. is one of two things -- Man vs. Nature or Man vs. other Man. You could even do both. There's my two cents; take it or leave it, folks.