Home > The Most Dangerous Game Summary & Study Guide > The Most Dangerous Game Group > Discussion Board

Why do you think Rainsford chooses to confront Zaroff in the end, rather than simply ambush him?

That's a great question.  I think it comes down to the fact that every time a wrong is done, a crime is committed, people want to the know the "why".  Rainsford has suffered a horrible experience.  The fear and panic he felt must have been overwhelming.  Of course, he wants an answer where there probably is no answer...some psychopaths have no idea why they do what they do.  They only know they get a rush from being in power over someone else and causing pain. 

ransiford wants tell  zarooff killing is bad and also he wants general zaroof to feel like him when he was hunted.

posted by sanju

Personally, I feel that Rainsford stops to have the breif discussion with Zaroff because he wants to make one very important point clear: He is not killing Zaroff as a man but as an animal.  Rainsford still believes that what Zaroff is doing is wrong.  He wants to clarify that he has not sunk to Zaroff's level by killing another man.  He wants to express the point that he is still an animal being hunted that is defending himself, not a man who is commiting murder.

By ambushing Zaroff, Rainsford wouldn't have the satisfaction of making Zaroff surrender or congratulate him for winning, after all, Rainsford did win the Most dangerous Game

Sanger Rainsford is not a murderer, and by allowing General Zaroff a chance to survive the hunt, this time as the prey, he keeps his own fair-minded humanity intact--and proves who is the greater of the two hunters.