- 9th Grade
- Lexile: 740
Source: The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell
Assessment Answers
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| PART A: Which TWO of the following best identify the central themes of this story? | When violence becomes too common, some people no longer take it seriously. |
| PART B: Which TWO phrases from the text best support the answers to Part A? | “hunting had ceased to be what you call ‘a sporting proposition.’ It had become too easy. I always got my quarry.'” (Paragraph 94) “You’re a big-game hunter, not a philosopher.” (Paragraph 10) |
| Explain how beginning the story with the dialogue between Rainsford and Whitney contributes to both the author’s characterization of Rainsford and the story’s mood. Cite evidence from the story in your response. | The dialogue between Rainsford and Whitney at the beginning of “The Most Dangerous Game” serves several important purposes in terms of characterization and setting the mood of the story. Characterization of Rainsford: This initial conversation reveals key aspects of Rainsford’s character. He is portrayed as a seasoned hunter with a somewhat dismissive attitude towards his prey. For instance, when Whitney suggests that hunted animals experience fear, Rainsford responds, “Nonsense! Beasts have no understanding.” This line indicates Rainsford’s lack of empathy towards animals and a certain arrogance in his belief in human superiority. This characterization is crucial as it sets up Rainsford’s transformation throughout the story. His experiences on the island, where he becomes the hunted, challenge and ultimately change these initial beliefs. Setting the Mood: The dialogue also establishes a foreboding and suspenseful mood. As they discuss Ship-Trap Island, Whitney mentions the superstitious fears of the sailors and describes the island as a place of evil. Whitney’s unease contrasts with Rainsford’s skepticism and confidence, creating a sense of impending doom. This conversation effectively foreshadows the dangerous and morally complex situation Rainsford is about to encounter, setting the stage for the story’s exploration of the hunter versus the hunted theme. Overall, this initial dialogue is a strategic narrative tool used by Richard Connell to both introduce and develop his main character, as well as to establish a mood that draws the reader into the story’s suspenseful and ominous world. |
| PART A: What does the phrase “sporting proposition” most closely mean as it is used in paragraph 94? | game-like challenge |
| PART B: Which phrase from the text best supports the answer to Part A? | “It had become too easy. I always got my quarry.” (Paragraph 94) |
| Why does Zaroff think Rainsford is “droll” and “naïve”? (Paragraph 116) | Zaroff thinks it’s foolish and old-fashioned that Rainsford values human life even after fighting in the war. |
| What does Rainsford’s repetition of the word “nerve” in paragraph 169, paragraph 179, and paragraph 197 reveal about his character? | Rainsford’s repetition shows that it is his courage and ability to reason that enables him to survive. |
| How does Rainsford’s opinion on animals change throughout the story? | At first, Rainsford sees animals only as prizes for human hunters, but later Rainsford sympathizes with the animal “at bay” when he too becomes the hunted (Paragraph 204). |
| “He had never slept in a better bed, Rainsford decided.” (Paragraph 207) What is the overall effect of the last line of the story? | The last line leaves the reader to infer that Rainsford has killed Zaroff, contrasting Zaroff’s chilling death with Rainsford’s rewarding night’s sleep. |
| Compare Zaroff’s and Rainsford’s points of view on the hunt. How does this tension contribute to the moral stakes of the story? Cite evidence from the story in your response. | Zaroff’s Viewpoint: General Zaroff’s perspective on hunting is one of extreme desensitization and moral detachment. He sees hunting as the ultimate sport, but only when it challenges him, which leads him to hunt humans. Zaroff states, “hunting had ceased to be what you call ‘a sporting proposition.’ It had become too easy. I always got my quarry” (Paragraph 94). This reflects his belief that only a hunt with real danger and intelligence (like humans) can be exciting or valid. He views humans not as beings with intrinsic moral worth but as the most challenging and thrilling game. Rainsford’s Viewpoint: Initially, Rainsford’s view of hunting is more traditional. He sees hunting as a sport for humans, with animals as the prey, not considering the prey’s feelings. However, his perspective evolves dramatically when he becomes the hunted. Experiencing the terror and desperation of being prey, Rainsford gains empathy and understanding for the hunted, which he lacked before. His ordeal on the island radically shifts his view of hunting and its moral implications. Tension and Moral Stakes: The tension between Zaroff’s and Rainsford’s viewpoints is central to the story’s moral stakes. Zaroff represents a complete moral decay, a loss of empathy, and a disregard for human life, viewing hunting humans as acceptable for his amusement. In contrast, Rainsford’s transformation from hunter to hunted forces him to confront the fear and suffering experienced by prey, leading him to a newfound understanding and empathy. This tension highlights critical moral questions about the nature of hunting, the value of life (both human and animal), and the impact of experiencing life from the prey’s perspective. The story uses this tension to challenge the reader’s views on hunting and violence, ultimately suggesting a more empathetic and moral stance towards all beings capable of fear and suffering. |
Discussion Answers
How might the author’s use of the word “game” in the title of this story have a double meaning?
The use of the word “game” in the title of “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell carries a significant double meaning, which is central to the story’s themes and plot:
- “Game” as Hunting Prey: In the context of hunting, “game” refers to the animals pursued and killed for sport. The story begins with a traditional understanding of this term, with Rainsford and Whitney discussing the hunting of animals. This sets up the initial expectation that the story is about hunting in the conventional sense.
- “Game” as a Contest or Sport: The second meaning of “game” relates to a contest or sport involving skill, strategy, or chance. As the story unfolds, this meaning becomes more prominent. The “game” in the story evolves into a deadly contest between General Zaroff, the hunter, and Rainsford, who becomes the hunted. Zaroff treats this hunt as a form of entertainment or sport, albeit a twisted and morally perverse one. This interpretation of “game” aligns with the dangerous and strategic cat-and-mouse pursuit that unfolds between the two characters.
The double meaning of “game” in the title plays a crucial role in the story. It highlights the transition from hunting as a sport where animals are the prey to a horrifying game where a human becomes the prey.
This shift challenges the reader’s perceptions of hunting, sport, and morality, and it underscores the story’s exploration of the fine line between the hunter and the hunted, as well as the ethical implications of treating life as a mere game.
Zaroff says he started hunting the most dangerous game because he was bored. In your opinion, is this a common reason why people do bad things?
The notion that boredom can lead individuals to engage in harmful or unethical behavior is a complex and multifaceted issue.
In the context of “The Most Dangerous Game,” General Zaroff turns to hunting humans, which he refers to as “the most dangerous game,” out of boredom with traditional hunting. He seeks greater thrill and challenge, which reflects a deeper psychological and moral problem beyond mere boredom.
In real life, while boredom can be a factor contributing to why some people might engage in bad or unethical actions, it’s usually not the sole reason.
Human behavior is influenced by many factors, including but not limited to personal ethics, societal norms, psychological state, life experiences, and sometimes external pressures or situations.
- Seeking Excitement and Stimulation: In some cases, individuals may commit harmful acts out of a desire for excitement or stimulation. This is particularly evident in situations where individuals feel that their everyday life lacks excitement or challenge. In these cases, engaging in risky or unethical behavior can be a way to break the monotony.
- Moral and Ethical Disconnection: More often, harmful actions stem from a lack of empathy or moral disconnection from others. In Zaroff’s case, his boredom leads him to devalue human life, seeing others merely as means to an end for his entertainment. This indicates a significant moral failing.
- Psychological Factors: Psychological issues can also play a role. Some individuals may have tendencies towards thrill-seeking or have other psychological traits that make them more likely to engage in dangerous or unethical behavior when bored.
- Societal and Cultural Influences: Societal norms and cultural background can also influence what individuals do when they are bored. What is considered ‘bad’ can vary greatly depending on societal laws and cultural norms.
In summary, while boredom can contribute to why some individuals engage in bad behavior, it’s usually part of a broader set of reasons. It’s important to consider the psychological, ethical, and social factors influencing behavior.
While extreme, Zaroff’s actions in the story serve as a fictional exploration of how the absence of ethical constraints and the pursuit of thrill can lead to deeply immoral actions.
Zaroff compares the war to hunting human beings on his island. How are people changed by war? Is war like hunting? How does it differ?
General Zaroff’s comparison of war to hunting human beings on his island in “The Most Dangerous Game” opens up a complex discussion about the nature of war, its impact on individuals, and how it compares and contrasts with hunting.
- How People Are Changed by War:
- Psychological Impact: War often has a profound psychological impact on those involved, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. The experience of intense danger, witnessing death and suffering, and possibly participating in violence can leave lasting scars.
- Moral and Ethical Challenges: Soldiers and civilians in war zones may face severe moral and ethical dilemmas. These experiences can challenge their beliefs and values, sometimes leading to a reevaluation of their perspectives on life and humanity.
- Desensitization to Violence: Constant exposure to violence can sometimes lead to desensitization, much like Zaroff in the story. However, this is not a universal reaction, as many individuals respond with increased empathy and a deeper understanding of the value of life.
- Social and Cultural Effects: War can also lead to changes in social structures, cultural norms, and community dynamics. It can bring about both positive changes, such as social reforms, and negative impacts, including societal fragmentation and cultural loss.
- Is War Like Hunting?
- Some Similarities: Both war and hunting involve strategy, the pursuit of a target, and often the use of weapons. At a superficial level, Zaroff’s comparison stems from these similarities, especially in the context of pursuing and outmaneuvering an opponent.
- Intent and Purpose: The fundamental intent and purpose of war and hunting are typically different. Hunting is often pursued for sport, food, or population control of animal species. Conversely, war is a complex social and political phenomenon that can arise from conflicts over resources, territory, ideological differences, or defense.
- How War Differs from Hunting:
- Moral and Ethical Dimensions: War, unlike hunting, involves complex moral and ethical questions, as it affects human lives and societies on a large scale. The impact of war extends far beyond the battlefield, affecting the political, social, and economic fabric of nations.
- Scale and Complexity: Wars are large-scale conflicts that involve not just individuals but entire nations or groups. They are influenced by a wide range of factors, including politics, economics, and culture.
- Consequences: The consequences of war are generally far more profound and far-reaching than those of hunting. Wars can reshape national boundaries, alter global relations, and have lasting impacts on civilian populations.
While Zaroff’s comparison highlights some superficial similarities, war is a far more complex and impactful human endeavor than hunting. It involves a wider range of factors and has more profound and long-lasting effects on individuals, societies, and the world.
In “The Most Dangerous Game,” humans are described as the one animal that can reason, but humans fall for obvious tricks and are hunted like animals. Humans use the environment to their advantage, but sometimes the environment becomes a trap. What is the relationship between humans and animals, or between humans and nature? Do humans control nature, or does nature eventually triumph?
In “The Most Dangerous Game,” the relationship between humans and animals, as well as between humans and nature, is complex and multifaceted, exploring themes of control, vulnerability, and the inherent wildness of the natural world.
- Humans and Animals:
- Human Superiority and Reason: The story initially sets up humans as superior to animals due to their capacity to reason. This is exemplified by Zaroff’s belief that humans are the most challenging prey because of their ability to think and strategize.
- Vulnerability and Equality in Danger: However, the story also demonstrates that, when placed in danger and stripped of their societal constructs and tools, humans can become as vulnerable as animals. Rainsford, a skilled hunter, finds himself in the position of the hunted and experiences the same fear and desperation that hunted animals feel.
- Humans and Nature:
- Utilization and Control of Nature: Throughout the story, both Zaroff and Rainsford use the natural environment to their advantage. Zaroff uses the isolation and dangers of his island to trap his prey, while Rainsford uses his knowledge of the terrain and natural traps to evade Zaroff.
- Nature’s Unpredictability and Dominance: Despite their attempts to control and manipulate it, nature in the story often proves to be unpredictable and overpowering. The treacherous swamps, the dense jungle, and the sea itself are all elements that can quickly turn against the characters. This suggests that while humans can try to control nature, they are ultimately at its mercy.
- Do Humans Control Nature, or Does Nature Triumph?
- The Illusion of Control: The story suggests that humans’ perceived control over nature is often just an illusion. Despite their intelligence and technological advancements, humans are still subject to the fundamental laws and forces of the natural world.
- Nature’s Ultimate Power: Nature in the story is a powerful and impartial force that can both aid and hinder the characters, regardless of their intentions or abilities. This implies that while humans can temporarily manipulate nature to their advantage, they cannot ultimately control it. Nature’s unpredictability and omnipresence serve as a reminder of the limits of human power.
“The Most Dangerous Game” portrays a nuanced view of the relationship between humans, animals, and nature. It challenges the notion of human superiority and control, highlighting our vulnerability and the ultimate power of the natural world.
The story underscores the idea that humans, despite their unique abilities to reason and manipulate their environment, remain an integral part of the natural order, subject to its whims and dangers.
