Universal Conflict In The Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell

In most stories there is only one universal conflict but in the story “The Most Dangerous Game” there is two, man vs. man and man vs. self. The author, Richard Connell, uses this method to change the protagonist’s harsh viewpoints. The protagonist, Rainsford, is a dynamic character. He is a professional hunter and believes animals have no emotions; however, throughout the story his attitude toward the animals he hunts, and hunting changes due to the appalling experience he lives. At first, Rainsford is on a ship on his way to go hunt in the Amazon. He is having a discussion with one of his companions about hunting. Rainsford says “The world is made up of two classes—the hunters and the hunted.” This demonstrates his insensitivity towards animals; nevertheless during the course of the story his feelings are changed. He changes because in the story the roles are reversed, instead of being the hunter he becomes the hunted. Next, while he is on the ship discussing with his companion, Whitney, she says “We should have some good hunting up the Amazon. Great sport, hunting.” And he agrees “The best sport in the world.” This conversation proves

man. The general’s first proposition is for Rainsford to join him in his challenging hunt of human prey. Rainsford responds, “But they are men.” However, the general replies, “I refuse to believe that so modern and civilized a young man as you seem to be harbors romantic ideas about the value of human life.” In other words what the general says to Rainsford is that he is a hypocrite because he’s acting so close minded in his attitude about not hunting humans. Rainsford is going through a battle in his head whether he should hunt with him or become the hunted. The man vs man conflict is shown in the story by the actual battle between Rainsford and the General. This is not as complex as the man vs