Comparing The Most Dangerous Game And The Sniper

Words: 740
Pages: 3

Human nature is a mixture of both good and evil. People were not born evil or good Certain situations influence human nature causing people to do things that that they never would’ve done before. These certain situations occur in stories such as “The Sniper”, a historical fiction tale about a man accidentally killing his brother (Liam O’Flaherty), and “The Most Dangerous Game”, a fictional adventure about a man who learns a valuable lesson between being the hunter and the hunted.(Richard Connell) In these two stories there are people who don’t have a choice in what they do, causing them to unintentionally do evil actions. In the story, “The Sniper”, there is a sharpshooter, who accidentally kills his own brother in a desperate attempt to survive. This sharpshooter is not a dreadful …show more content…
He learns a lesson about being humane with his prey by being put in the same situation as them. For example, when Whitney, his hunting partner talks about treating animals humanely Rainsford responds with “ Who cares how a jaguar feels?”(6). This shows that Rainsford does not have sympathy for hunting animals. However, when Rainsford is put into a near death experience, he changes and does things that he has to do in order to survive. Being put in the same position as his prey, changed the situation, causing him to do some evil and good acts. For example, Rainsford says ‘Thank you, I’m a hunter, not a murderer.’(14) This gives an image to the reader about how Rainsford does not approve killing men. However, Rainsford is put in a position where he is forced to kill Ivan, Zaroff’s assistant. This would be an evil act that was forced on him in order to stay alive. Rainsford also does some good acts, like killing Zaroff in order to protect other possible victims. This passage proves to the reader that every act has a reason behind