Discussion Topic
Crafting thesis statements for comparing and contrasting Rainsford from "The Most Dangerous Game" with characters from other literary works
Summary:
To craft thesis statements for comparing and contrasting Rainsford from "The Most Dangerous Game" with characters from other literary works, focus on their survival instincts, moral dilemmas, and transformations. Highlight similarities and differences in how they navigate challenges and evolve throughout their stories. A strong thesis could emphasize these aspects to draw meaningful comparisons and contrasts between Rainsford and the other characters.
How does one compare or contrast Rainsford from "The Most Dangerous Game" and Eckles from "A Sound of Thunder" in a thesis statement?
When writing a thesis statement, you want to directly address the prompt in a succinct way. This means a clear and specific response in one sentence. It sounds like your prompt asks about the similarities and differences between Rainsford and Eckels. Let’s start with determining those.
First, Rainsford and Eckels are similar in that they both ended up in situations where they were in over their heads. Neither of them expected anything like they found. They both went in with incomplete information, and faced dangerous circumstances from the beginning. Both were in exotic and unfamiliar locales.
Both men are expert hunters. However, Eckels had never faced a dinosaur and its massive size frightened him.
It ran with a gliding ballet step, far too poised and balanced for its ten tons. It moved into a sunlit area warily, its beautifully reptilian hands feeling the air.
"Why, why," Eckels twitched his mouth....
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
"It could reach up and grab the moon." (“A Sound of Thunder”)
The difference, of course, is that Eckels was looking for adventure and sort of signed up for his. Rainsford, on the other hand, ended up in danger completely by accident. He fell off the boat and landed on Zaroff’s island by mistake. Therefore, while Eckels was just not expecting things to be as intense as he got, Rainsford had no idea what was coming.
"I can't believe you are serious, General Zaroff. This is a grisly joke."
"Why should I not be serious? I am speaking of hunting."
"Hunting? Great Guns, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder." (“The Most Dangerous Game”)
You can either compare or contrast Rainsford’s and Eckels’s adventures. If you are comparing, you might focus on the fact that both faced dangerous situations they were not expecting. Here is an example.
Both Rainsford and Eckels found themselves in dangerous situations where they did not have all of the information beforehand about what to expect.
If you were going to contrast them, I would focus on the fact that Eckels chose his adventure and Rainsford did not. You can add that to this thesis.
References
What's a good thesis for comparing and contrasting Rainsford and Zaroff in "The Most Dangerous Game"?
Sanger Rainsford and General Zaroff, from the short story "The Most Dangerous Game," are similar in their zeal for hunting, yet very different in how far they will go to indulge in their passion.
Rainsford has immersed himself in the world of big game hunting. After all, he has written books on the subject and when the reader first meets him he is on his way to hunt jaguars in South America. He is also initially unfeeling in his attitude toward the animals he hunts. He comments to his friend Whitney,
"You're a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar feels?"..."Be a realist. The world is made up of two classes, the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are hunters."
Later, however, Rainsford's opinion of hunting is challenged when the tables are turned and he becomes the prey of the diabolical General Zaroff. He realizes what it's like to be a "beast at bay." Despite the fact he ultimately wins the "game" against Zaroff, the reader might assume he will never hunt again.
Zaroff is a homicidal sociopath. He has grown bored with hunting animals and, because he feels he is a superior human being, he hunts men on his remote island. He tells Rainsford the rationale for his brutal practice:
"Life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong, and, if needs be, taken by the strong. 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? I hunt the scum of the earth: sailors from tramp ships--lassars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels--a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a score of them."
Zaroff will go to any means to indulge his lust for the blood sport. Zaroff offers to hunt with Rainsford but the American separates himself from the general. He cannot fathom hunting people and tells Zaroff,
"Hunting? Great Guns, General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder."
Zaroff gives Rainsford the option of being hunted or succumbing to the torture of the servant Ivan. Rainsford chooses the hunt and, while Zaroff is an excellent tracker, Rainsford escapes and kills the general in his bedroom in the stories last scene.