The Most Dangerous Game"The Most Dangerous Game," an adventure talethat pits two notorious hunters against one anotherin a life-and-death competition, is the story forwhich Richard Connell is best remembered. Firstpublished in 1924, the story has been frequentlyanthologized as a classic example of a suspensefulnarrative loaded with action. Connell's story raisesquestions about the nature of violence and crueltyand the ethics of hunting for sport.

"The Most Dangerous Game" gained favor-able recognition upon its initial publication in 1924,winning the prestigious O. Henry Memorial Awardfor short fiction. Its popularity was further estab-lished when the first film version of the story wasproduced in 1932. Alternately known as The MostDangerous Game and The Hounds of Zaroff, thefilm tampered notably with Connell's plot, particu-larly in the introduction of a female character. Thestory's theme, that of the hunter becoming thehunted, has become a popular one in other booksand films since Connell's version appeared.

Richard Connell

1924

Author Biography

Richard Connell was a prolific writer in the firstseveral decades of the twentieth century. He wasborn October 17,1893, in a New York state commu-nity near the Hudson River, not far from TheodoreRoosevelt's homestead. He started his writing ca-

155

The Most Dangerous Game

reer early, working as a reporter for the Poughkeep-sie News-Press while still in high school. He spent ayear at Georgetown College (now University) inWashington, D.C. while working as a secretary forhis father, who was a member of Congress. Whenhis father died in 1912, Connell moved back East toattend Harvard University. There he exercised hisinterest in writing by serving as an editor for boththe Daily Crimson and the Lampoon, a precursor tothe popular National Lampoon satire magazine.Around this time he also worked as a reporter for theNew York American newspaper and served inWorld War I.

Throughout his career, Connell variously wrotenovels, plays, short stories, and screenplays forHollywood movies. Among the screenplays he wroteare Seven Faces and Brother Orchid, a mob talestarring Edward G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart.Most of Connell's fiction was published in the1920s and 1930s, including the novels Mad Lover,Playboy, and What Ho! He was a prolific fictionwriter. His stories, more than 300 in all, werefrequently published in such popular magazines asThe Saturday Evening Post and Colliers. Many ofthese were later published in collections, includingThe Sin of Monsieur Petipon in 1922, Apes andAngels in 1924, and Ironies in 1930.

Some of these collections met with mixed re-views from critics. In 1925, a reviewer for the NewYork Times commented that his collection of storiestitled Variety ' 'ranks, though high, in the great armyof the second-rate." "The Most Dangerous Game,"however, has remained popular since its initialpublication. One of its strengths is its finely craftedaction, which provides a type of suspense andadventure rare in short fiction. Connell died of aheart attack in Beverly Hills, California, on Novem-ber 22, 1949.

Plot Summary

The celebrated hunter Sanger Rainsford, while aboarda yacht cruising in the Caribbean, falls into the sea.While swimming desperately for shore, he hears theanguished cries of an animal being hunted; it is ananimal he does not recognize. Rainsford makes it toland and after sleeping on the beach, he begins tolook for people on the island. He finds evidence ofthe hunt he overheard and wonders, upon findingempty cartridges, why anyone would use a smallgun to hunt what was, according to the evidence,

obviously a large animal. Rainsford then followsthe hunter's footprints to the solitary house on theisland.

The mansion looms above him like somethingout of a Gothic novel and inside is a similarly Gothiccharacter as well: Ivan, a gigantic, mute man. Ivan isabout to shoot Rainsford when the entry of anotherman stops him. The second man, General Zaroff, isfar more civilized looking than Ivan and has exqui-site manners. He apologizes for Ivan and givesRainsford clean clothes and dinner. While the menare eating, Zaroff reveals his passion for the hunt.He tells Rainsford he hunts "big game" on theisland—game he has imported. Hunting had ceasedto be a challenge to Zaroff, so he decided to hunt anew animal, one that could reason. Rainsford realiz-es with horror that Zaroff actually hunts humans andwonders what happens if a man refuses to behunted. He finds there is no refusing Zaroff, foreither a man goes on the hunt or he is turned over tothe brutish Ivan. Zaroff never loses. AlthoughRainsford passes the night in comfortable quarters,he has trouble sleeping. As he finally dozes off, hehears a pistol shot in the jungle.

The next day Rainsford demands to leave theisland. Zaroff protests that they have not gonehunting yet, then informs Rainsford that he, in fact,is to be hunted. Zaroff tells him that if he survivesthree days in the jungle, he will be returned to themainland, but he must tell no one of Zaroff s hunt.With no real choice, Rainsford accepts his suppliesfrom Ivan and leaves the chateau. He has a three-hour head start and is determined to outsmart Zaroff.He doubles back on his trail numerous times until hefeels that even Zaroff cannot follow his path. Thenhe hides in a tree for rest. Zaroff, however, comesright to him but chooses not to look up in the treeand find him. Rainsford realizes Zaroff is playing agame of cat and mouse with him. After Zaroff haswalked off, Rainsford steels his nerve and moves on.

Rainsford decides to set a trap for Zaroff. IfZaroff trips it, a dead tree will fall on him. SoonZaroff's foot sets off the trap, but he leaps back andonly his shoulder is injured. He congratulatesRainsford and tells him he is returning to the cha-teau to get his wound looked at but will be back.Rainsford flees through the forest. He comes to apatch of quicksand known as Death Swamp wherehe builds another trap. He fashions a pit with sharpstakes inside and a mat of forest weeds and branchesto cover the opening. One of Zaroff's dogs springsthe trap, however, and ruins Rainsford's plan.

i 5 6 Short S t o r i e s for S t u d e n t s

The Most D a n g e r o u s Game

At daybreak, Rainsford hears a fear-inspiringsound: the baying of Zaroff s hounds. He makesanother attempt to save his life. He attaches a knifeto a flexible sapling, hoping it will harm Zaroff as hefollows the trail. But this too fails; it only kills Ivan.In a fit of desperation, Rainsford looks to his onlyescape—jumping off the cliff into the sea whichwaits far below. He takes this chance.

That night General Zaroff is back in his man-sion. He is annoyed with the thought of having toreplace Ivan and he is slightly irked because one ofhis prey has escaped. He goes up to bed and switch-es on the light. A man is hiding behind the curtains.It is Rainsford. Zaroff congratulates him on winningthe game, but Rainsford informs him that they arestill playing. That night, Rainsford sleeps withimmense enjoyment in Zaroff s comfortable bed.

MediaAdaptations

"The Most Dangerous Game" was filmed byRKO in 1932. It was directed by Ernest B.Schoedsack and Irving Pichel and produced byDavid O. Selznick and Meriam C. Cooper. Itstarred Joel McCrea as Rainsford, Leslie Banksas General Zaroff, and co-starred Fay Wray andRobert Armstrong. Also known as The MostDangerous Game in the World and The Houndsof Zaroff. 65 minutes, available on video.

Characters

IvanIvan is the deaf and dumb assistant to General

Zaroff. He is extremely large and seems to enjoytorturing and murdering helpless captives. Indeed,Zaroff uses the threat of turning his huntees over toIvan if they will not comply with his desire to huntthem; the huntees invariably choose to be huntedrather than face the brutal Ivan. Ivan, like Zaroff, isa Cossack—a Russian who served as a soldier to theRussian Czar in the early 1900s. Ivan dies as theresult of one of Rainsford's traps.

Sanger RainsfordAfter hearing gunshots in the darkness, Sanger

Rainsford falls off a yacht into the Caribbean Sea."It was not the first time he had been in a tightplace," however. Rainsford is an American hunterof world renown, and is immediately recognized byGeneral Zaroff as the author of a book on huntingsnow leopards in Tibet. While he shares both aninterest in hunting and a refined nature with Zaroff,Rainsford believes Zaroff s sport to be brutaland Zaroff himself to be a murderer. As the object ofthe hunt, Rainsford constantly attempts to preservehis "nerve" and uses his knowledge of hunting andtrapping to elude Zaroff. Rainsford becomes terri-fied, however, as Zaroff outwits him (but allowshim to live) and toys with him as if he were a mouse.Having already killed Zaroff s assistant, Ivan, andone of Zaroff s dogs, Rainsford surprises Zaroff inhis bedroom. Rainsford refuses to end the game

there, however, and kills Zaroff. Rainsford thenspends a comfortable night in Zaroff s bed, whichraises the question of whether he will simply replacethe evil Zaroff.

General ZaroffGeneral Zaroff greets the stranded Rainsford

by sparing his life, but later hunts him and attemptsto kill him. Zaroff is distinguished by a ' 'cultivatedvoice," fine clothes, the "singularly handsome"features of an aristocrat—and an obsession forhunting human beings. He has established a "pala-tial chateau" in which he lives like royalty with hisservant Ivan, his hunting dogs, and his stock ofprey—the poor sailors unlucky enough to end up onthe island. Zaroff s decoy lights indicate ' 'a channel. . . where there is none" and cause ships to crashinto the rocks off the coast of his island. He capturesthe shipwrecked sailors and forces them to play hisgame or be tortured and killed by Ivan. Zaroff toyswith Rainsford, declining to murder him three timesto prolong the game. To him, the life and deathstruggle is little more than a game and, whileinsulting Rainsford's morality, he asserts that hisembrace of human killing for sport is very modern,even civilized. Zaroff, like Ivan, is a Cossack and' 'like all his race, a bit of a savage''; yet he alsoclaims a past as a high-ranking officer for theformer Tsar of Russia. Zaroff s refined manners,and poised and delicate speech contrast with hisbrutal passion.

V o l u m e 1 157

The M o s t D a n g e r o u s Game

Themes

Rainsford, a noted hunter, falls off a ship and swimsto a foreboding island. He finds there the evilGeneral Zaroff who, with the help of his brutishassistant, hunts humans for sport. After three daysof fighting for his life in the jungle while Zaroffhunts him, Rainsford surprises Zaroff and kills him.At the story's end, it is not clear if Rainsford willleave the island or take Zaroff s place.

Violence and CrueltyEssentially an action-packed thriller, Richard

Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game" buildsaround explosions of violence. The violence of hismalicious host, General Zaroff, initially shocksRainsford, but as he fights to stay alive he becomescaught up in Zaroff's game. Zaroff attempts tojustify his violence with "civilized"' arguments. Heposes as a modern rationalist and argues against' 'romantic ideas about the value of human life'' andthen scolds Rainsford for being "extraordinarilydroll'' in his response. Zaroff continually defendshis murderous desires as the sophisticated and ra-tional extension of hunting animals.

Issues of violence and cruelty in ' 'The MostDangerous Game'' exist not only on a literal levelbut on a symbolic level as well. As Connell directsthe reader to sympathize with Rainsford, the readerfeels what it is like to be a hunted animal. Zaroffshows off his animal heads and after describing hisnew prey, he refers to his "new collection ofheads," which are supposedly human. This com-parison of decapitated heads opens up parallelsbetween the murder of humans and the murder ofanimals. If hunting humans for kicks is murder,Connell asks, then how does this differ from hunt-ing animals?

The story also stimulates an array of questionssurrounding the nature of violence. Zaroff seems toenjoy violence intensely and thoroughly. Rainsfordhimself is a hunter of considerable fame. Indeed,Connell structures the entire story around violenceand implicates readers through their involvement inthe story. Just as the story is ostensibly about a manwho enjoys killing, the story's success rests on thereader's capacity to enjoy the violence of the plot.As stressed in the title, the reader receives thevicarious experience of risk and danger. Connellmixes violence and cruelty with pleasure to engagethe reader and make a statement at the same time.

RevengeThe conclusion of' 'The Most Dangerous Game''

inspires many questions, including: Has Rainsfordbecome a murderer just like General Zaroff? Howhas he changed, and why? Although he won thegame, and General Zaroff appeared ready to set himfree, Rainsford still killed Zaroff. Zaroff s murder,therefore, is not self defense, as it would have beenbefore Rainsford won the game. It is either an act ofrevenge or a killing for sport.

When he first learns of Zaroff s sport, Rainsfordis horrified. Yet, during the game he kills the dogand Ivan and does not indicate remorse. Connellthus opens up the possibility that playing the gamechanges Rainsford. He does not set the other "prey"free as soon as he murders Zaroff. Does he intend tofree them, or does his pleasant night's rest indicate adesire to stay on the island? Will he merely replaceGeneral Zaroff? Sparing Zaroff could have broughtthe opportunity for authorities to prosecute Zarofffor his crimes, but Rainsford resorted to the vio-lence he initially abhorred.

Style

Setting"The Most Dangerous Game," a gripping tale

that pits man versus man in a South Americanjungle, includes elements that recall several liter-ary genres, including Gothic, action-adventure,and horror.

In "The Most Dangerous Game," RichardConnell provides an ominous setting typical of theGothic genre. Horrible sounds and dismal sights fillthe background of this story, and the details becomemore frightening and typical of both the horror andaction-adventure genres as the story progresses.When he falls off the yacht, Rainsford immediatelyfinds himself in the "blood warm waters of theCaribbean sea"—an indication of worse things tocome. He fights through the surf, listening to gun-shots and the screams of dying animals he later findsout were humans. Rainsford passes over rocks thathe could have "shattered against" only to leave' 'the enemy, the sea'' for ' 'knit webs of weeds andtrees." The environment is consistently malicious,dangerous, and unyielding.

At first, Rainsford believes the "lofty structurewith pointed towers plunging upwards into thegloom" is a "mirage." The house is not a literal

/ 5 s S h o r t S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t

The M o s t D a n g e r o u s G a m e

mirage, but its civilized facade is soon shattered inthe ensuing violence. Rainsford encounters many ofthe foreboding indicators of a haunted mansion: the"tall spiked gate," the "heavy knocker" on thedoor gate that creaks, and the gigantic scale of therooms decorated as if in "feudal times." The tablelarge enough for "two score men," and the omi-nous "mounted heads of many animals—lions,tigers, elephants, moose, bears; larger or more per-fect than Rainsford had ever seen" add to thefearful, medieval horror setting. The wild jungleoutside, complete with a "Death Swamp," echoesthe adventure genre. Connell sets the "game" in adangerous wilderness of quicksand, wild seas, fall-en trees, mud and sand, and rocky cliffs.

Point of View' "The Most Dangerous Game'' features an om-

niscient third-person narrator. The narrator de-scribes things from Rainsford's perspective for mostof the story but breaks away toward the end tofollow General Zaroff back to his "great paneleddining hall," to his library, and then to his bedroom.A possible reason for this shift in perspective maybe that Connell wants to illustrate how the hunter,Zaroff, has become the hunted.

StructureConnell structures "The Most Dangerous

Game" tightly and concisely to complement thestory's action. He writes with an often abbreviatedstyle that rapidly moves the reader along throughthe plot. Twists and turns proceed with little de-scription; this emphasizes those moments when thenarrative slows down and tension is generated. Thestory features a classic device of the horror genre:the moment in which time slows down, and asecond seems like an hour. Many words are used todescribe a short interval of time, so the reader'sexperience of time slows down and the momentacquires a greater importance in relation to theremainder of the text. Examples of this includewhen Rainsworth falls in the water and when hewaits for the general in the tree.

In contrast, Connell takes a different approachat the end of the story. Having stretched out intensemoments throughout the story, including the in-volved description of General Zaroff s return, Con-nell quickly describes the final confrontation. Hegrants it only a few paragraphs of sparse dialoguebefore ending the scene abruptly with "He hadnever slept in a better bed." By describing none ofthe final battle, Connell stretches the suspense as far

Topics forrurther

StudyHow does the author make the reader sympathizewith Rainsford? How could Connell have writ-ten the story to have readers identify instead withGeneral Zaroff?

After the hunt, do you think Rainsford willbecome more like General Zaroff? Why orwhy not?

When General Zaroff explains his love of hunt-ing to Rainsford, he makes several racist state-ments. Do you think he does so because of the erain which he lives? Do you think Zaroff's racismreflects the author's own beliefs?

as he can. He waits until the last two words of thestory to reveal the survivor with: "Rainsforddecided."

Historical Context

American Interest in Central Americaand the Caribbean

By 1924, the year' 'The Most Dangerous Game''was published, the United States was firmly com-mitted to Latin American politics. Military con-cerns and economic interests, including banking,investments, and the exploitation of natural resourc-es, tied American interests to Latin America andresulted in expansionist legislation. The Platt Amend-ment of 1901 provided for American intervention inCuba in case an unstable new government failed toprotect life, liberty and property; this was writteninto Cuba's constitution. In 1905 President Roose-velt urged European nations to keep out of LatinAmerica. He believed the United States was theonly nation that should interfere in their politics.This paternal, interventionist attitude was typical ofmuch of the United States's Latin American foreignpolicy. Such policy, highlighted by the constructionof the Panama Canal, created solely for the sake of

V o l u m e I 159

The M o s t D a n g e r o u s Game

A scene from the film version o/The Most Dangerous Game.

American shipping and naval power, would contin-ue to influence Latin American politics for decadesto come.

Latin Americans have consistently waveredbetween supporting American foreign policy andrejecting it as intrusive, meddlesome, and overpow-ering. Indeed, America's and other first-worldnations' continuous economic exploitation of Car-ibbean and Latin American countries has resulted ina crippling dependence on international trade. Byoften terrifying, scandalous means, Western com-panies have controlled the economies of relativelyunderdeveloped nations like Jamaica, thereby in-suring their dependence on foreign trade. The econo-mies of such countries have often become entirelydependent on the corporations that have exploitedthem, which has frequently resulted in mass pover-ty. The wrecking of native economies and theirgrowing dependence on international conglomera-tions has spurred the coining of the term, "bananarepublics." Into these turbulent and contested Car-ibbean waters, Rainsford falls.

Big Game Hunting in South AmericaIn Connell's era, big-game hunting in South

America was done mainly by outfitted safari. The

most desired species were jaguar, puma, ocelot, reddeer, and buffalo. The jaguar, the most powerfuland most feared carnivore in South America, was aprized trophy. It attains a length of eight feet and canweigh up to four hundred pounds. The great cat washunted primarily with hounds in the forests ofVenezuela, Columbia, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay.In this story, Rainsford and his companions arepreparing to hunt jaguar.

Roosevelt and HuntingLike General Zaroff in Connell's story, Presi-

dent Theodore Roosevelt, who would later foundthe National Parks System in the United States, wasan insatiable hunter. He traveled all over the globeto hunt. On safari in Africa, Roosevelt and his sonkilled 512 animals, including 17 lions, 11 elephants,20 rhinoceroses, 9 giraffes, 8 hippopotamuses and29 zebras. In the story, Zaroff describes similarhunting trips. Whereas Zaroff's most dangerousgame was the human, Roosevelt considered theAmerican grizzly bear the most threatening—hewas nearly mauled by one while hunting in Wyo-ming. As a youth, Connell lived near Roosevelt inrural New York in an area near the Hudson Riverknown for its pristine wilderness.

160 S h o r t S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t s

The Most Dangerious Game

Compare&

Contrast1920s: Big game hunting in African and SouthAmerican countries is popular with wealthy Eu-ropeans and Americans. In 1909, Theodore Roo-sevelt and his son kill 512 animals on an Africansafari.

Today: Most big game hunting in Africa andSouth America is illegal due to dwindling animalpopulations. The number of tourists visiting theseareas, however, has reached record highs.

1920s: American foreign policy favors interven-tion in the governmental affairs of Caribbeannations.

Today: Despite decades of economic embargoesand other tactics on the part of the United States,Cuba remains controlled by Fidel Castro's com-munist forces. The United States regularly re-

stricts refugees from Cuba and other poverty-stricken and unstable countries from entering theUnited States.

1920s: The Soviet Union, led by Vladimir Lenin,is established in the aftermath of the RussianCivil War. Private ownership of property andChristianity are banned, and the Cossacks—military forces loyal to the Tzar—are killed ordeported. Economic conditions, however, fail toimprove on a wide scale.

Today: The Soviet Union has been dissolvedand the Russian president is elected by popularvote. Democratic and capitalistic economic re-forms have failed to stem the widespread pover-ty, inflation, and lack of goods and services thataffect the majority of the people.

Bigotry in AmericaIn "The Most Dangerous Game," Zaroff s

comments regarding ethnic types reflect the senti-ments of anti-immigrant advocates of the time.Zaroff describes his hunting of men to Rainsfordand justifies it by saying, "I hunt the scum of theearth-sailors from tramp ships—Lascars, blacks,Chinese, whites, mongrels—a thoroughbred horseor hound is worth more than a score of them.'' In the1920s, this attitude was not uncommon amongConnell's American audience. Americans whosefamilies had immigrated only decades earlier fre-quently launched vitriolic attacks against immi-grants who were perceived to be inundating thework force and lowering the American standard ofliving. One writer of the period, Kenneth Roberts,warned that unrestricted immigration would create' 'a hybrid race of people as worthless and futile asthe good-for-nothing mongrels of Central Americaand Southeastern Europe." Federal dictates beganrestricting the entrance of immigrants into America.In 1921, Congress set strict quotas for each Europe-an country, and the National Origins Act of 1924reassigned quotas that gave privilege to British,

German, and Scandinavian immigrants over Ital-ians, Poles, and Slavs. The 1924 regulations com-pletely restricted the immigration of Asians, Afri-cans, and Hispanics.

Critical Overview

Connell's ' 'The Most Dangerous Game'' has thrill-ed readers since its first publication. In 1924, theyear of its release, Connell was awarded the presti-gious O. Henry Memorial Award for short fiction.Readers and critics alike have consistently appreci-ated and enjoyed this story, even as many of Con-nell's other stories, novels, and collections havefallen out of print. Critics initially praised the storyas an excellent action-adventure tale, a tightly toldstory that moves quickly through a nail-biting plot.

Connell has been praised for the fluidity of hissimple writing style and his ability to entertain. In1925, a reviewer for the Saturday Review of Litera-ture found his stories ' 'easy to read, all displayingfacility and versatility." The striking originality of

V o l u m e 1 I 6 1

The M o s t D a n g e r o u s Game

the central idea of "The Most Dangerous Game"—the hunting of humans—has continued to fasci-nate readers, as reflected in the multiple movieversions of the story and the many collections inwhich it has been anthologized. Movies and novelsindebted to Connell's story include The RunningMan, a futuristic tale in which convicts bet theirlives—they are hunted on a televised game show—to gain their freedom. Critics have also noted thatthe escapist qualities of "The Most DangerousGame" have a tendency to overshadow Connell'sfine writing.

Criticism

Rena KorbRena Korb has a master's degree in English

literature and creative writing and has written for awide variety of educational publishers. In the fol-lowing essay, she discusses various elements of' 'The Most Dangerous Game,'' including its set-ting, its Gothic-like description, and the competi-tion between the two main characters.

Richard Connell's short story "The Most Danger-ous Game" is fairly well known to American audi-ences even if his name is not. Connell began writingprofessionally in 1919 and continued to do so untilhis death thirty years later. He was a prolific writer,and his more than 300 short stories appeared in suchrespected American magazines as the SaturdayEvening Post and Colliers, and were translated intoforeign languages. He was a commercial success,publishing in a span of 15 years four novels and fourshort-story collections. The Saturday Review ofLiterature, commenting on Variety, the collectionof stories in which "The Most Dangerous Game"was reprinted, found the stories "easy to read,[with] all displaying facility and versatility."

Several of Connell's early stories were well-received critically—"A Friend of Napoleon" and' 'The Most Dangerous Game'' won the O. HenryMemorial Award for short fiction in 1923 and 1924,respectively. Yet after these first critical successesand despite his ongoing commercial success, Con-nell never earned much acclaim from his peers. TheNew York Times said of Connell that "the verytricks which have given him a large and remunera-tive public have continued to rob him of the critical

rewards which come to a man of his talents if hedevote them to a shrewder and more critical study ofthe contemporary scene."

Connell began working as a screenwriter inHollywood in the 1930s. Soon, he was devoting thegreat majority of his time to that genre and, after1937, he published no further novels or story collec-tions. Many of his short stories, however, weremade into popular movies; "The Most DangerousGame" was first filmed in 1932. Both the story'saction and its ability to function as escapist enter-tainment are preserved in the film. These elementsof the story in particular explain why it has beenadapted many times since that first production.

With only two main characters and a straight-forward narrative,' The Most Dangerous Game'' isbasically a spare story. This does not mean, howev-er, that is a simplistic one. Connell's careful workturns a plot that could be deemed unrealistic intoa story that compels the reader to breathlessly shareRainsford's life-or-death struggle. One of thequalities of the story that makes the reader aware ofits deliberate structure is the opening scene, whichuses violent imagery in its language while chroni-cling the violent events happening off in the distance.Rainsford, while safely aboard the yacht, hears anabrupt sound and then three shots of a gun: this is hisintroduction to General Zaroff s hunt. As he fallsfrom the boat's railing, he again hears the "cry[that] was pinched off short as the blood-warmwaters of the Caribbean Sea closed over his head."Rainsford, now steeped in a metaphorical pool ofblood, again hears the cry: ' 'an extremity of anguishand terror.'' The sea has become a place of violence,and the island, which represents his only chance forsafety, promises more of the same.

When Rainsford reaches land, the narrativeturns from the more subtle indications of whatawaits him to blatant symbols all readers can recog-nize from horror books and movies. Rainsford'sdesire to find safety and civilization is so great thathe does not fully comprehend the oddity of theisland, including the evidence that a hunter has shota "fairly large animal. ..with a light gun." Hedoesn't notice what is obvious to the reader: that theisland is a place of true Gothic terror. In the "bleakdarkness'' he comes upon a ' 'palatial chateau'' with"pointed towers plunging upwards into the gloom."The mansion is "set on a high bluff and on threesides of it cliffs dived down to where the sea lickedgreedy lips in the shadows." There is a "tall spiked"

1 6 2 S h o r t S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t s

The Most D a n g e r o u s Game

WhatDo I Read

Next?Moby Dick (1851), Herman Melville's classicadventure novel of a sea captain who hunts hisnemesis, the great white whale, Moby Dick.

Heart of Darkness (1902) by Joseph Conrad. Anovella about a man, Marlow, who enters theBelgian Congo in order to find Mr. Kurtz, aWestern man who has succumbed to the darkforces of the jungle, built a fortress, and gener-ated fear among the natives for his violent,messianic ways.

"The Bear" (1935) by William Faulkner. A

short story in which Ian McCaslin is initiatedinto adulthood through the annual hunt of OldBen, an elusive black bear.

The Snow Leopard, by Peter Matthiessen, pub-lished in 1978. A National Book Award-win-ning account of the author's journey with zoolo-gist George Schaller to the Tibetan Plateau in theHimalayan mountains in search of the elusivesnow leopard. His journey leads him to thecenter of Tibetan Buddhism, Crystal Mountain.

gate at the front of the house, and a large door ' 'witha leering gargoyle for a knocker.'' This is the typicalhaunted house, with an evil madman lurking inside,as well as dark secrets and a brutish henchman.

Once Rainsford enters General Zaroff s home,the narration becomes subtle again, and it takesRainsford some time to understand the nature ofZaroff s hunt. The reader, as before, picks up onauthorial clues. Zaroff declares that Ivan is ' 'likeall his race, a bit of a savage," then confirms thatboth he and Ivan are Cossacks as ' 'his smile show[s]red lips and pointed teeth." During dinner, Zaroffstudies Rainsford,' 'appraising him narrowly.'' Zaroffis an obvious predator, toying with Rainsford like acat plays with a mouse before finishing it off. OnceRainsford discovers that Zaroff hunts humans, Zaroffbegins exhibiting more predator-like behavior.When Rainsford asks how he gets his victims,Zaroff demonstrates a button that causes lights toflash far out at sea: "They indicate a chan-nel. . .where there's none." After the ships crashagainst the rocks, Zaroff simply collects the menwho have washed up on the shore.

Zaroff also demonstrates the predatory trait thatwill dominate his hunt with Rainsford: his delight inkeeping his prey dangling until the moment of thekill. Because of the pleasure this brings him, heallows Rainsford to think he is safe, showing him a

comfortable bed to sleep in and giving him silkpajamas. Though his decision to hunt Rainsfordseems to be a spontaneous decision—"GeneralZaroff's face suddenly brightened," and he says"This is really an inspiration" —his mind isclearly set on the idea the night before. He hadalready told Rainsford how he starts the ' 'game'':by suggesting to one of his "pupils"—who he hasphysically trained for the hunt—that they go hunt-ing. Only moments later he says to Rainsford,' Tomorrow, you'll feel like a new man, I'll wager.Then we'll hunt, eh? I've one rather promisingprospect—'''

Ironically, Zaroff s belief in his invincibility asa hunter weakens him and causes his defeat. ThoughZaroff wants to hunt humans because they have theattributes of an ideal quarry— ' 'courage, cunning,and above all, [the ability] to reason" —he under-rates these very abilities. He sees them only asnecessary to enhance his fun, not as something thatcould cause a prey to actually escape him. Threetimes Zaroff chooses not to kill Rainsford, but savehim "for another day's sport," taunting him all thewhile. This cat-and-mouse method, however,comes at a high price. Each time Rainsford fightsback, he causes greater damage: first he injuresZaroff; then he kills one of Zaroff s dogs; andfinally, right before he escapes from Zaroff byjumping into the ocean, he kills Ivan.

V o l u m e 1 163

The Most Dangerous Game

Connell's careful work

turns a plot that could be

deemed unrealistic into a

story that compels the reader

to breathlessly share

Rainsford's life-or-death

struggle."

Zaroff also loses to Rainsford because of theirdiffering perceptions of the rules of the game, and intheir differing beliefs as to whether or not the hunt isa game. Zaroff thinks it is; Rainsford doesn't. Theyboth know that Rainsford is playing for his life, butthat is the only point on which they agree. Zaroffresponds to Rainsford's attempts to trap him as ifthey were puzzles set out for his amusement. Hedoesn't recognize that Rainsford is actually tryingto kill him and instead delights in identifying thetraps— "Not many men know how to make aMalay man-catcher. Luckily for me, I too havehunted in Malacca'' —and in seeing which of themen has earned a point— "Again you score," hetells Rainsford. Because it is a game, played accord-ing to specific rules, Zaroff would expect Rainsfordto adhere to the bargain and return to civilization butnever speak of the hunt that takes place on theisland. He is such "a gentleman and a sportsman"that he can conceive of no other ending shouldRainsford not die at Zaroff s own hands. But Zaroffnever realizes that the game Rainsford plays is farmore serious and has equally high stakes for both ofthe men involved. Thus Zaroff s words when hefinds Rainsford in his bedroom— ' 'You have wonthe game" —no longer have any clearly definedmeaning. Rainsford, who will triumph, instills inthe game rules with a whole new significance. Heremains a ' 'beast at bay'' until the almost unfathom-able occurs: the prey kills the predator.

Source: Rena Korb, for Short Stories for Students, GaleResearch, 1997.

David KippenDavid Kippen is an educator and specialist on

British colonial literature and twentieth-centurySouth African fiction. In the following essay, he

discusses ' 'The Most Dangerous Game,'' within thecontext of the adventure genre. He also explores thesimilarities and differences between the story's twomain characters and what they represent.

As is the case with most authors who make theirmark (and livelihood) in the genre of adventurefiction, Richard Connell (1893-1949) deals in easi-ly recognizable stereotypes rather than fully-devel-oped, introspective characters. His primary interestis in crafting fast-paced stories of manly deeds, not[Henry] Jamesian studies of interior life. This beingthe case, it is not surprising that most of his fictionhas disappeared from sight, replaced by more mod-ern treatments of more modern stereotypes. Onestory, however,' 'The Most Dangerous Game," hasescaped this oblivion. What is it that kept thisparticular story from disappearing? Despite its ap-parent weakness in character development and of-ten wooden dialogue, the story has two greatstrengths, both of which contribute in equal meas-ure to its long-term success. The story is an ex-tremely successful example of the adventure genre,and the stereotypes Connell uses to create the dy-namic balance from which its action springs evokeallegories which remain relevant today.

If, as Poe writes in his review of Hawthorne'sTwice Told Tales, the principal identifying attributeof the short story is that it may be read in a singlesitting, a good example of the form will necessarilyprovide a study in economy. As a subset of the shortstory form, the "short adventure story" genre de-mands even more economy. Not only is there nospace for tangents, there is no room for introspec-tive brooding, either. The action is the story, thestory the action. Success in this genre dependsentirely upon sustaining a level of suspense thatmakes the always surprising (and yet always eager-ly anticipated) outcome gratifying. Taken together,these demands for economy and action insist that agood example of the short adventure story willnecessarily have tremendous internal continuity.That is, the story will push toward its final outcomeat every level and everything not related to thatoutcome will be eliminated. With this in mind, onecan begin to examine some of the structural devicesConnell uses to such great formal success.

If the story is internally consistent, one shouldexpect that even its title would have a strong con-nection to its outcome. The title of "The MostDangerous Game'' represents a microcosm of theentire story's action. Though this may not be entire-ly obvious at the outset, a closer look makes the

164 Short S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t s

The Most D a n g e r o u s Game

title's apt, formal, elegance clear. "Game" is bothsomething played and something hunted. The mostdangerous game (to play) is therefore (to hunt) man.

Read this way, the title is suggestive, but not yetrobust enough to support the development of thetight, well-built story Connell crafted. Had hestopped here, Connell would have described Zaroff sisland before the arrival of Rainsford. In GeneralZaroff s world, there exists a hierarchy of danger-ous game animals, with the Cape Buffalo at the top.But Zaroff is too good a hunter for this game, andeven the Cape Buffalo is overmatched.'' [T]he idealquarry," Zaroff explains, ".. .must have courage,cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason."Once the ability to reason enters the equation,necessitating a turn to man as quarry, Zaroff discov-ers that all men are not equally endowed with theskills necessary to be—or play—the game. He alsodiscovers that a hierarchy of dangerous game menexists, with Spanish sailors at the base and only' 'the occasional tartar'' at the peak. Until the arrivalof Sanger Rainsford, this is a static system: Zaroffstill has not lost.

This title, however, has still more to yield. Thedouble-entendre suggests that the story will be aparable of the divided self: if man is the mostdangerous game, the most dangerous "game man"is the one most like the hunter—that is, like the self.The primary opposition between General Zaroff, arefined but amoral Cossack, and Sanger Rainsford,an equally refined but slightly more moral NewYorker, therefore, has less to do with which indi-vidual will win the game than with the dramaticpossibilities of pitting a younger version of the"great white hunter" against his older self. On theother hand, Zaroff and Rainsford are simultaneous-ly more than opposite sides of the same self, for theyrepresent ideologies in opposition. If the premisebehind the title provides the course upon which thecontest between younger and older self will be run,their ideological conflict provides the impetus forboth to participate in the game.

This final point may be somewhat obscure.Assume that Rainsford was persuaded by Zaroff sarguments to join in the next day's hunt. Rainsford'scollaboration would have undermined the story'splot, muddying the waters enormously. In orderto arrive at approximately the same outcome—Rainsford deciding ' 'he had never slept on a betterbed" after dispatching Zaroff—Connell wouldhave had to craft an interior self of sufficient com-plexity to allow Rainsford to participate in the hunt,

While their

similarities are compelling,

it is the degree and kind

of Rainsford and Zaroff's

differences—differences of

both culture and ideology—

that drive the story's plot."

repent of his participation, and provide retribution.His retribution would still have had the same moralcomponent—otherwise he would be morally indis-tinguishable from Zaroff—but the fact of his ownparticipation in a manhunt would make Rainsford'smoral position shaky. (This scenario is less implau-sible than it might at first seem. Recall that at thestory's end Rainsford is completely untroubled byhaving hunted and killed Zaroff. However much thereader's desire to see Zaroff punished may vindicatethe specific act of killing him, Rainsford has none-theless played Zaroff s game of' 'outdoor chess'' tothe end and is, by all appearances, quite content withthe outcome.)

Given the above, one can be certain of severalthings. First, that Rainsford's internal reversals wouldboth take time in the telling and demand otherinternal context to be effective; the story wouldtherefore be considerably longer. This change inlength and focus would violate the genre restrictionsI discussed earlier. The second consequence wouldbe that Rainsford's sleep would not be untroubled.This sounds like a minor point but turns out to berather significant, indicating out of necessity thatthe story has become a journey from extrovertedinnocence to introspective experience. Finally, hadRainsford joined the hunt, the parable of the dividedself underpinning Connell's plot would no longerfit. In the adventure genre, though one may strugglewith character, character is destiny. The youngerself may slay the older self, but only in order tomake room for the younger self in the older self sabode. Rainsford's refusal to hunt men is thereforeas essential to the plot's denouement (outcome) as ishis proven ability as a hunter of animals.

The final structural device to examine, then,before looking at the story's allegorical dimensions,

V o l u m e 1 165

The Most Dangerous ( f a m e

is the dynamic balance of similarity and differenceseparating and uniting Zaroff and Rainsford. Thereader is provided with little contextual informationabout Rainsford, beyond that he is on his way tohunt jaguar in Brazil and that both Whitney andZaroff seem to respect his prowess as a hunter. ButRainsford's skill is evidenced more strongly byWhitney's spoken admiration for Rainsford's al-most superhuman marksmanship ("I've seen youpick off a moose moving in the brown fall brush atfour hundred yards") and Zaroff s immediate rec-ognition of Rainsford as the author of a treatise' 'about hunting snow leopards in Tibet'' than by hisingenuity while pursued. Indeed, though he doesmanage to win at the conclusion, Rainsford's failureto outwit Zaroff in practice forces Rainsford toborrow heavily against this demonstrated experi-ence as a hunter in the eyes of the reader. Similarly,Zaroff's conventional background as a hunter isoffstage but his zeal for sport is kept beyond ques-tion. (Though the largest, most perfect trophiesRainsford has ever seen hang in the dining hall, thereader never actually enters the trophy room.)

These similarities in interest would not be suffi-cient to argue for any deep similarity between themen by themselves but, as Connell is at great painsto point out, the similarities do not end here. Notonly are Zaroff and Rainsford consummate hunters,they are consummate aesthetes as well. Havingstripped off his clothes after falling off the boat,Rainsford has no possessions with which to demon-strate his wealth, but Connell overcomes this minorobstacle by creating in Rainsford a man with novisible means of or need for support, who has nocareer beyond traveling the world in search ofgame. Beyond this, Sanger is able to recognizesubtle marks of the General's enormous wealth thatwould escape a poorer man, from being able toidentify his borrowed evening suit as "from aLondon tailor who ordinarily cut and sewed fornone below the rank of duke," to recognizing that"the table appointments were of the finest—thelinen, the crystal, the silver." The similarities donot end with matters of taste or profession, or evenwith how well-matched Zaroff and Rainsford are inthe field; they extend even to matters of size. It is notcoincidental, given that Rainsford will end the storyin the deposed General's bed that the General'sclothes fit Rainsford well. In the real world, thecombined weight of these facts would be written offto coincidence, but there is no room in this genre forthe tangential possibilities coincidence implies. Onemust conclude that Zaroff and Rainsford are, for the

purposes of the story, different editions of thesame figure.

While their similarities are compelling, it is thedegree and kind of Rainsford and Zaroff s differ-ences—differences of both culture and ideology—that drive the story's plot. Given Zaroff s criticismof Rainsford's unwillingness to hunt as "naiveand.. .mid-Victorian" it is not particularly surpris-ing that one of the ideological oppositions Connellexploits is between Victorianism and Modernism.What is somewhat surprising is that of the two,Zaroff is clearly the Victorian. The description ofZaroff s chateau makes it sound more like a cas-tle—the sort of mid-Victorian monstrosity onewould encounter in Gothic fiction, with its high,pointed towers, tall spiked gate, leering gargoyle,and baronial hall suggesting feudal times. AndZaroff s person, with his blood-red lips, Dracula-like teeth, and precise, deliberate accent mirrors hishome. Zaroff cites Rainsford's "experiences in thewar—" but, Rainsford cuts him off "—do notmake me condone cold-blooded murder." Zaroffhere represents the old Europe while "SangerRainsford of New York'' represents the America of1924: newly confident in the aftermath of the FirstWorld War that it is Europe's equal in might, but notimmune to individual suffering. Slightly less stressed,but nonetheless present, is the conflict betweenAmerican self-reliance and Europe's rigid classsystems, or between serfdom and self-reliance.Zaroff's servant Ivan is the incarnation of serfdom:huge, strong, completely obedient, and dumb. Bycontrast, Rainsford's companion Whitney seemsquite clearly to be a hunting partner, an equal.

There is one stereotype heretofore not dis-cussed in this essay beyond an occasional allusion, astereotype Connell invokes with sufficient origi-nality and force to keep his story read: the "GreatWhite Hunter." Though the story is set in theCaribbean, this fact seems arbitrary—a plausiblestop between New York and somewhere in theAmazon basin. The literary setting—the settingthat forms the backdrop from which both the par-able of the self divided against itself emerges—isthe same Victorian vision of Africa [Joseph] Conraddescribes in Heart of Darkness. The air is "likemoist black velvet''; the island so ' 'God-forsaken''that even cannibals would not live there. (Canni-bals? On the Caribbean?) Like Marlow, Conrad'sprotagonist, Whitney's sentences often trail off intosilence, saying more by what remains unsaid: ' 'It'srather a mystery—"; "Some superstition—";"Even Captain Nielsen—." Evil has become "a

166 Short S t o r i e s for S t u d e n t s

The Most D a n g e r o u s Game

tangible thing—with wave lengths just as soundand light have." This is not to say Connell isderivative of Conrad—their stories are in entirelydifferent genres—but rather, that Connell invokes acliched—perhaps stereotypical is a better word—version of Conrad's Victorian vision of Africa. Butas soon as Sanger falls overboard, this languagegives way to a more robust, more journalistic prose,stylistically nearer to Hemingway than Conrad.

This is a fine point but not a minor one; it holdsa key to what may be the story's saving originalattribute: the juxtaposition of two historically dis-tinct versions of the "Great White Hunter." Con-nell describes a contest between the Great WhiteHunter of his youth—he was born three years afterConrad's journey up the Congo and six years beforethe publication of Heart of Darkness—and thesame figure in 1924. Throughout the story, in proseand image, these two languages mirror the conflictbetween the respective visions of Africa of the erasthey describe. Thus, almost by coincidence, his is acontest setting two dramatically different visions ofAfrica against each other—the vision behind thescramble for Africa set against the era of greatgame hunters.

Prior to 1876, Europe's most substantial directand indirect holdings in sub-Saharan Africa con-sisted of what became modern South Africa. Butbetween 1876 and 1912, the map of Africa wasredrawn. In a series of territorial and diplomaticmaneuvers that came to be known as ' 'the scramblefor Africa," the territory-hungry countries of Eu-rope (Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy,Portugal and Spain) divided up among themselvesthe entire African continent, creating arbitrary andartificial boundaries, and leaving only Abyssinia(Ethiopia) and Liberia independent of direct Euro-pean control. Though the scramble was a barbaric,selfish affair, by the mid-twenties a combination offactors had made a more sentimental, less mercan-tile view of the era and its conquests possible (e.g.,the recent horrors of the European war on one handand increased settlement and tourism in Africa onthe other.) By 1924, the dominant Victorian meta-phor for Africa as a place of barbarism and darknesswas giving way to the Modern vision of Africa asboth a place to test one's manhood and a place ofopenness and beauty. What this suggests, perhaps,is that an aesthetic of the hunt is at stake, one inwhich hunters like Denys Finch-Hatton, whom IsakDinesen (nee Karen Blixen) memorialized in Out ofAfrica, and Ernest Hemingway provide the proto-types for Rainsford, while Zaroff finds his closest

analog in a combination of figures like Conrad'simmortal Kurtz and the historical Henry M. Stanley.

Source: David Kippen, for Short Stories for Students, GaleResearch, 1997.

Jim WelshIn the following essay, Welsh compares the film

version of ' 'The Most Dangerous Game'' to Con-nell's story, citing many of the differences betweenthe two, particularly the changes Hollywood madeto the story to take advantage of the sets and actorsthey had at their disposal.

Richard Connell's story "The Most DangerousGame," offering a tightly-knit narrative of adven-ture and melodramatic suspense, would seem alikely vehicle for cinematic adaptation. Of the twomain characters, one is ordinary, the other bizarre.The story does not involve much complexity ofconsciousness; rather, it succeeds as escapist enter-tainment, and it is therefore well-suited for theHollywood treatment that was to be made withineight years of its writing. The story was first pub-lished in 1924; in 1932 it was produced as a motionpicture for RKO by David O. Selznick and MiriamC. Cooper, directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack andIrving Pichel from a screenplay prepared by JamesAshmore Creelman.

This movie has been much praised for its tightediting and effective camera-work, perhaps withsome justification if one considers the hunt andchase that dominates the last thirty minutes. Thescreenplay makes a few situational changes andinvents additional characters, also creating the needfor additional dialogue. Like the story, the filmbegins on board ship, with the characters discussingbig-game hunting and a mysterious island off in thedistance. The device for getting Rainsford off theship and on to the island is different, however, sincein the story Rainsford loses his balance and falls intothe sea, while in the film the yacht is misled by thefalse channel markers that General Zaroff latermentions in the story. The shipwreck in the movieprovides additional excitement during the first tenminutes, the turmoil and confusion of the sinkingyacht, the attack by sharks of the survivors, andRainsford's escape to safety. This is a tolerableextrapolation, awkwardly extended, perhaps, buttolerable. ("Oh, it got me!" says one poor wretch asa shark consumes the submerged portion of his body.)

The changes that mark the next sequences arenot so tolerable, however, when Rainsford finds his

V o l u m e 1 167

The M o s t D a n g e r o u s Game

The film deliberately

elaborates the bizarre and

the grotesque, partly, one

supposes, in keeping with the

movie trends of the times."

way to Zaroff s estate. The film was made at thesame time King Kong was being shot, the storygoes, and attempted to use many of the same actors.Of course, Fay Wray was one of the ' 'stars'' of KingKong, and obviously there is no role for her inConnell's story, so the filmmakers invented one.The invention makes Count Zaroff seem more sinis-ter and more perverse than he might seem in theoriginal story, since apparently the man's sexualappetite can only be aroused after he has satisfiedhis bloodlust through his murderous hunt—a bi-zarre aphrodisiac, to say the least. "Only after thekill does man know the true ecstasy of love," themovie character asserts.

The film deliberately elaborates the bizarre andthe grotesque, partly, one supposes, in keeping withthe movie trends of the times. During the early1930s Universal Studios began two successful hor-ror cycles— Dracula and Frankenstein —and theGothic design of "The Most Dangerous Game"seems to imitate Universal trends. Count (not Gen-eral) Zaroff is played by Leslie Banks, who affects aheavy Slavic accent that calls Count Dracula tomind, as do his evil servants, the mute Cossack Ivanand the Tartar who serves as his manservant. TheCount appears to be mad: he clutches his foreheadfrequently, remembering the wound caused by adangerous Cape buffalo, his eyes staring insanely asthe camera zooms to a close-up, emphasized by thenever subtle music of Max Steiner. In the storyConnell is at pains to describe the "amenities" ofcivilization the General preserves at his island hidea-way. All the movie can do is to show the Countcarefully dressed in his evening suit, sipping cham-pagne and playing a Max Steiner ditty on the grandpiano, a piece that sounds like Tchaikovsky copu-lating musically with Cole Porter, to the advantageof neither.

When the movie Rainsford, played by JoelMcCrea, arrives in the Count's drawing room, he is

introduced to two other shipwreck victims, Eve andMartin Trowbridge. Fay Wray is therefore given abrother, a vulgar lush played stupidly for comedy byRobert Armstrong, who makes such a pest of him-self that the Count understandably decides to takehim hunting before the night is over. The Count saysnothing to Rainsford to explain the sport he has"invented," but Eve has been on the island longenough to know that something is amiss. Two othersurvivors who arrived with her and her brother havesince disappeared. She leads Rainsford to the Count'strophy room, where they discover the awful truthabout their predicament. The Count then discoversthem, and the hunt is on.

It makes dramatic (as well as box-office) senseto involve Fay Wray in the hunt. For one thing, herbody becomes the stakes of the game, winner takeall if Zaroff is victorious. More important, however,by having the woman with him in the jungle,Rainsford is given a logical excuse for articulatinghis thoughts. He is therefore able to explain for herbenefit (and the audience's) what he intends by thetraps he rigs. The difficulty, of course, is that awoman would tend to slow the man down, makinghis capture all the more easy for the Count.

The film is just over an hour long, and, in myopinion, the expository business that dominates thefirst half-hour is embarrassingly awkward by to-day's standards. No one could listen with pleasureto the drunken dialogue that has been written forEve's brother, and even Joel McCrea as Rainsford isnot too interesting a character when he speaks.Being spared bad dialogue, Noble Johnson looksright for the part of mute Ivan, scowling wonderful-ly. Leslie Banks is certainly well-spoken enough asthe Count, but he none the less appears to be astagey villain, as when his face is lit from below intwo clumsy cutaways in the trophy room.

The action of the hunt is effectively filmed andedited, however, and suspense is built through alter-nating techniques, depending first on a series ofcrosscutting shots between pursuer and pursued,then, when the dogs are called, a series of low-angleshots of the dogs racing towards and jumping overthe camera at ground level, alternating with anotherpull-back tracking shot of the obsessed Countrunning toward the camera. Finally, Rainsford andEve are trapped, cornered. Rainsford kills one hunt-ing dog with his knife and struggles with anotheruntil a shot from the Count's rifle drops man anddog into the sea far below, leaving Fay Wray thecaptive of the sexually aroused Count.

1 6 8 S h o r t S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t s

The Most D a n g e r o u s Game

As in the story, Rainsford reappears at theCount's estate after his leap into the sea, but what issuggested by a single line in the story ("On guard,Rainsford. . .") is expanded in the film to anunforgettably bad fight sequence involving Rainsford,the Count, and two servants, followed by Rainsford'sescape with Eve in a motor launch, action worthy ofa serial cliff-hanger, and about as artful. The Count,mortally wounded, attempts to shoot an arrow fromhis Tartar bow at the escaping launch, loses hisstrength, and falls to his death to the dogs below.This final sequence is unbelievably campy, and yetit is perfectly typical of what might contemptuouslybe called the Hollywood treatment. In his "com-plete" ' guide to TV Movies, Leonard Maltin givesthe movie a high, three-star rating, probably be-

cause of the much-admired chase sequence. Themovie has been ridiculously over-rated, but, as anadaptation, I cannot think of a more revealingnegative example.

Source: Jim WelshWelsh, Jim. "Hollywood Plays the MostDangerous Game," in Literature/Film Quarterly, Vol. 10,no. 2,1982, pp. 134-6.

Sources

A review of Variety in New York Times, March 29,1925, p. 8.

A review of Variety in Saturday Review of Literature, August8, 1925.

V o l u m e 1 1 6 9