Does one always have repercussions for ones actions? In my personal opinion General Zarroff can best answer that question. Richard Connell wrote Lord of the Flies , and in it he bluntly shows that there are always repercussions for our actions by Rainsford killing General Zarroff. Mr. Connell portrays General Zarroff to be a man of violence and of action.
General Zaroff likes to hunt. Zarroff likes to hunt so much he stops hunting animals and started hunting for people. Zarroff prefers to hunt people rather than animals, because he believes that animals lack reasoning, making the hunt easy for him, and he like a challenge. People provide that challenge he so desires, because humans can reason. Sanger Rainsford and his friend Whitney were traveling to Rio de Janeiro to hunt a jaguar. Whitney decides to head in for some rest, while Rainsford decides to go on the deck for a smoke. As he is smoking, he heard a gun shot, he walked towards the sound and leaned on the rail. He fell in the river and swam to shore there he falls asleep. Sanger Rainsford swims to the shore and falls asleep, he wakes up the next afternoon and sees chateau and didn’t believe his eyes. He knocks on the gate but, but was not allowed in until Zarroff returns. Ivan (zarroff's servant) lets him in as soon as Zarroff returns.
…show more content…
In the Dining hall there are many heads and trophies of his previous hunts. Zaroff gives Rainsford clues on what kind of animal he now hunts. Rainsford slowly figured it out and starts to Vex. Zarroff does not understand why he is vexing, but ensure he will be even more angry as the hunting