How is Rainsford a dynamic character in "The Most Dangerous Game"? I need an idea other than "He is a dynamic character because he is able to change and adapt as the situation changes. At first,...

How is Rainsford a dynamic character in "The Most Dangerous Game"?

I need an idea other than "He is a dynamic character because he is able to change and adapt as the situation changes. At first, he is a hunter--then he becomes the hunted. Lastly, he defeats the hunter and the possibility is left open that he himself could take the place of Zaroff. His ability to think and act makes him dynamic, and the fact that his actions change based on the situation makes him highly dynamic."

3 Answers | Add Yours

Top Answer

bullgatortail's profile pic

bullgatortail | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

The definition of a dynamic character is one who undergoes changes in his personality or attitude. By the end of the story, Rainsford is truly a changed man. Where he earlier believed that animals felt no fear or pain and had no understanding, Rainsford soon came to realize that the hunted do experience the terror of being hunted. Revenge did not seem to be an important aspect to him before becoming the subject of Zaroff's dangerous game, but when he returned and encountered Zaroff in his bedroom, he soon resumed the hunt--this time with Zaroff as the prey. Rainsford compromises his own sense of honor by continuing the game, and he even seems to enjoy his new human prey, resting contentedly in Zaroff's own comfortable bed after killing the Russian. Another change may also have overcome Rainsford: He may have decided that hunting humans was not such a bad idea after all.

tinicraw's profile pic

tinicraw | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

One aspect to be considered in Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game" might be that Rainsford doesn't just change his mind or personal philosophy about whether animals feel fear while being hunted or not. Rather, consider the possibility that Rainsford's mind turns into thinking like a hunted animal--as though he literally stops thinking like a human by the end of the story. For example, when Rainsford says, "I'm still a beast at bay," he could be expressing the fact that he doesn't just sympathize with animals who are hunted, but he empathizes with them on a highly personal level. Is it possible that the traumatic experience of being hunted for three days could change Rainsford's mind--his whole system of thinking in his brain--into making him believe that he is an animal? If so, then a cornered animal will attack its predator out of instinct and a sense of survival. An animal would not think about the laws of men or the moral dilemma regarding murder or not. A beast at bay has no moral obligation to the legal, social, or moral laws of men. Therefore, when Rainsford kills Zaroff, he has changed from thinking like a human to thinking like an animal, and that certainly is a dynamic change. As a result, to Rainsford, he is not a human killing another human; instead, he is an animal killing its hunter. 

Sources:
sunshinedaises's profile pic

sunshinedaises | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted on

he changes because he learns what it feels like to be hunted. maybe his opinion about hunting will change

We’ve answered 320,003 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question