Reason In The Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell

In life there are people who follow instinct and people who follow reason, but which one is more important in mankind? The short story “The Most Dangerous Game” is an exemplified example of this question. In the short story the reasonable and logical Rainsford goes against the instinctive Zaroff. When Rainsford lands on an island, he meets a fellow hunter named Zaroff. He later find out Zaroff hunts humans! Thankfully Rainsford’s reasoning comes comes out victorious when he slays Zaroff in the end. In the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell the author uses diction, characterization and figurative language to demonstrate that reason is stronger and more effective in mankind. Connell uses diction, specific word choice, in order to portray how reason is ideal for mankind. Zaroff states here that,’”Instinct is no match for reason.”(Connell 7). The author’s choice to use the words “no match for” portrays how reason is not even comparable to instinct. The words “no match for” are implying that reason is the winning side. In other words, reason is stronger and more powerful than instinct. The diction used in the statement proved reason was stronger, but diction is not the only stylistic device that

The author explained that, “‘I want the ideal animal to hunt’ explained the general ‘So I said, ‘What are the attributes of an ideal quarry?’ And the answer was, of course, ‘ It must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason.”’ (Connell 7). The use of the word “ideal” states how the animal must be of the highest kind. It then says the animal must be able to reason, which demonstrates how reasoning animals are the superior animals. This characterization of reasoning animals conveys how reason is an attribute of a stronger being. Connell uses a third stylistic elements to illustrate reasons