Compare the discussions between Whitney-Rainsford and Rainsford-Zaroff in "The Most Dangerous Game".
This is a great request.
In Rainsford's conversation with his friend, Whitney, Rainsford says that there are only two classes in the world - the hunted and the huntee. Rainsford does not entertain the thought that animals have any feelings or thoughts other than the fear of pain and the fear of death. He leaves it at that.
In Zaroff's conversation with Rainsford, Zaroff takes Rainsford's idea of two classes and takes it to its logical end. If there are only two classes in the world, then humans should be included as well. Some humans should be hunted and some humans should hunt. Zaroff sees himself in the latter category and so he creates a game on his preserve. When he tells this to Rainsford, Rainsford is disgusted and wants to leave immediately. Zaroff obviously does not allow him, because the general wants to hunt him.
Rainsford...
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.
does not see the inconsistency of his earlier statement. Perhaps not all fall into the hunter or huntee.
Why does Connell include a philosophical discussion between Whitney and Rainsford in "The Most Dangerous Game"?
In Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game," Whitney poses a philosophical insight at the beginning of the story that not only foreshadows Rainsford's future plight but also presents an ethical question about hunting and animals. For instance, if animals feel fear while being hunted, does that matter? Should hunters consider an animal's feelings? Rainsford argues that animals "have no understanding." Whitney counters by saying, "Even so, I rather think they understand one thing--fear. The fear of pain and the fear of death." Rainsford disagrees by saying, "Nonsense." This initial philosophical discussion with Whitney sets the story up for Rainsford's ultimate learning experience (foreshadowing), and it can also be revisited and analyzed after Rainsford learns what it does feel like to be hunted like an animal.
Furthermore, because of Whitney's insight, other questions might be posed as well: If animals feel fear and pain, then is it ethical to hunt them? If hunters actually understood what it feels like to be hunted like an animal, would they stop killing altogether? In Rainsford's case, when he learns what it feels like to be hunted like an animal, he completely changes his personal parameters for killing. Rainsford actually extends his personal boundaries from killing animals to allowing himself to kill a man. Ironically, the experience of being hunted like an animal does not teach Rainsford to stop killing; it inspires him to to kill his hunter like a "beast at bay." Therefore, the discussion between Whitney and Rainsford at the beginning of the story is there to foreshadow future events and to bring to light certain questions pertaining to the theme of whether killing is ever ethical or justified. It certainly is food for thought.
The discussion help establish theme, and foreshadows some of what Rainsford will experience on the island. As a hunter, Rainsford is very calloused toward his prey. He doesn't consider what effect being hunted has on the animal, because he assumes that animals have no feeling or real awareness of what is happening to them. This sets the stage for the dehumanizing of Rainsford on the island. Even though he experiences what it is like to be on the hunted side of the game, the ending leaves the assumption that he has only grown more cynical and calloused toward hunting, even if the prey is a rational, thinking, feeling human.
Compare Whitney and Rainsford's discussion to Rainsford and Zaroff's post-dinner conversation.
If we compare those two conversations, they have definite similarities. Both conversations are about hunting. More specifically, both conversations are about the thrill that the hunter gets from hunting a dangerous animal. Here is a bit from the Rainsford and Whitney conversation.
"We should have some good hunting up the Amazon. Great sport, hunting."
"The best sport in the world," agreed Rainsford.
The quote shows that both men are excited to begin hunting the jaguars. Later, Rainsford's conversation with Zaroff is also about the thrill of hunting a dangerous animal.
"I'll wager you'll forget your notions when you go hunting with me. You've a genuine new thrill in store for you, Mr. Rainsford."
The conversations are also similar in their division of types of people. Rainsford tells Whitney that there are two classes in the world. Rainsford says that there are hunters and huntees. What's great about Rainsford's comment is that Whitney and readers will likely apply "huntees" to humans in this context. Whether or not Rainsford means that is questionable, but it does foreshadow his conversation with Zaroff. Zaroff also believes that the hunter and huntee class distinction exists. He uses that distinction to help justify why hunting humans is okay. Zaroff uses slightly different words to identify the class distinction, but the distinction is the same.
"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?"
Regarding the topic of hunting, Zaroff and Rainsford have very similar opinions. That's probably why the two conversations are eerily similar. The main difference is Rainsford's role in the conversation. In the first conversation, it is Whitney that expresses compassion toward the feelings of the prey. In the second conversation, that position is taken by Rainsford.
What philosophy do Rainsford and Whitney present at the start of "The Most Dangerous Game" and why is it significant?
In Richard O'Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game," the philosophy presented is that animals (all kinds of animals) have feelings. When Whitney first presents the idea, Rainsford scoffs.
"Great sport, hunting."
"The best sport in the world," agreed Rainsford.
"For the hunter," amended Whitney. "Not for the jaguar."
"Don't talk rot, Whitney," said Rainsford. "You're a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares about how a jaguar feels?"
"Perhaps the jaguar does," observed Whitney.
"Bah! They've no understanding."
"Even so, I think they understand one thing—fear. The fear of pain and the fear of death."
Rainsford, a very famous big-game hunter does not understand that an animal could feel fear or anything else. In his mind, an animals has no understanding of the more sophisticated feelings of human beings.
However, when Rainsford meets General Zaroff, and the other man tries to get him to participate in hunting human beings, Rainsford is appalled by General Zaroff's disturbing idea that less intelligent humans, or those of poor circumstances, are not the equal to other human beings, and are, therefore, disposable. It is not until Zaroff decides to hunt Rainsford that Rainsford himself understands the concept of the "fear of pain and the fear of death."
Very quickly, Rainsford is thrown into a situation where he must kill or be killed. Only from the very real threat of being killed by Zaroff can Rainsford understand the inherent desire in all creatures to live, as well as what an "animal" (of any kind) will do in order to preserve its (his) life.
It would have been interesting to learn if Rainsford ever chose to hunt again after this experience. Would he be better able to understand the common response of all creatures to violence and cruelty after leaving the island?