As members of society, it is safe to say that we believe there is a clear distinction between instinct and reason. One can be impulsive, almost natural, as if it was buried deep inside us centuries ago, while the other requires logic, thought, and analysis. In trend with modern times, we substantially favor reason over instinct. In an age surrounded by numbers and stats, we trust research and probability over our “gut instincts.” After all, the word “instinct” sounds primitive, raw, and uncut. It makes us think of our evolutionary ancestors or beasts of the wilderness. However, in Richard Connell’s, “The Most Dangerous Game,” our beliefs about the distinction between instinct and reason, and even human versus animal, are quickly disproved. We see that the differences between instinct and reason are not as exclusive of each other as we believe them to be.
The Most Dangerous Game was written and published in the mid 1920’s. Known as the “Roaring Twenties,” it was a time of great prosperity and advancement for the world. However, the U.S. was just coming out of a war, WWI, where destruction and violence took place on a scale unbeknownst to the world. Author Richard Connell was a soldier in that war. He fought in France, which was host to some of the most barbaric battles of the conflict. This no doubt inspired him to draw upon the relationship of human versus animal, and instinct versus reason.
One of the most intriguing aspects of the piece are the settings that Connell chose for the story to take place in. Connell bases the story on an island, where a large jungle is present. The author states that, “an unbroken front of snarled and ragged jungle fringed the shore.” The jungle, as characterized by many, is a place that is wild, ungovernable, and dangerous due to the uncertainty it presents.
The jungle mirrors the personality of one of the characters in the story, General Zaroff, who is equally as unpredictable and abides by no law but that of his own. Readers soon find out that he hunts captured humans in this jungle, as it is the only thing that he finds pleasure in. He is able to control the hunt and the chase, something he could not do in the real world as a Cossack (a Russian mercenary, until the empire collapsed.) The jungle impedes all influence of civilization, and there, General Zaroff lives as he desires. Ironically enough, General Zaroff is described as a well mannered man, who dresses in his military uniform and lives in a large castle. Yet, despite his notions that he is a man of class, he hunts his own species for enjoyment. This further emphasizes the claim that man and animal are not as different as we assume. What once was thought as a wide difference, really is more of a fine line.
Furthermore, by selecting an island as the larger setting for the piece, Connell’s characters can emulate the literal conflict of an island’s location. For instance, it is known that islands are secluded, small, and surrounded on all sides by water. A large percent of islands are uncharted, so naturally human influence and interaction are not present. Therefore, just like the jungle, the island is uncontrollable and a realm of the wild.
This similarly characterizes Rainsford, the hunter that General Zaroff has challenged. Rainsford, who washed up on the island after his boat was sunk, is also a hunter. Before he washed up on the island, Rainsford was making fun of how his partner claimed that the animals had emotion, specifically fear. Upon hearing this, Rainsford stated that animals “have no understanding [of fear.]” However, he soon realizes that his partner is correct, as Rainsford becomes the hunted, not the hunter. As General Zaroff is chasing him across the island, Rainsford feels this very fear that he once denied. This not only embodies the idea that the island characterizes fear, but shows the internal conflict that explains how humans are no different than the animals that they claim they are above. Both experience fear, and the preconceived notion that humans are superior due to their ability to reason is destroyed.
Overall, Richard Connell’s “Most Dangerous Game” draws on the differences between instinct versus reason to show how humans and animals are not as emotionally and intellectually separated as previously assumed. While society originally associates instinct with the wildness of animals, the same instinct can consume humans as well. Reason does not propel humans to a higher moral code, as evident with General Zaroff and Rainsford’s actions. Just as easily as we distinguish ourselves from the primitive instinct of animals, we too can just as easily become prey.
This analysis really intrigued me and made me want to go read this short story. I really like how you did some research on the author and discovered his personal motivations for writing such an interesting piece. I never would have thought about the war being such a big inspiration for the conflict between instinct and reason, but now that you brought it to my attention, it makes a lot of sense. This extra piece of background knowledge is definitely important in understanding the complexity of the plot.
Jake, I really liked how you focused on the idea of instinct and reason and how they are not exclusive of each other as we tend to think. The way you describe the General in your essay really punctuated that point nicely. I agree with your opinion on how the two are not as separate was we may like to think. In psychology, we learn about the id and the superego, and how the ego has to forge a balance between the two. The id is the more instintual, animalistic side of us, while the superego is more similar to the side of reasoning. In these terms, I would say that the General has a very strong ego, as he is able to balance his two sides very well. I also really liked how you ended your post with a sort of thought inducing statement, about how easily we as humans can fall back into becoming animals again.
I really thought your analysis of instinct and reason with humans and animals was intruiging. The part of the story you talked about when Rainsford finally came to realize the idea that humans and animals are more alike than we think was the perfect example to back up your thesis. It also shows how Rainsford had to come full circle to understand this.
Hi Jake, I really like that you put this story into historical context. When I read it, I did not think about what the historical implications might be. You mention that in modern times we tend to favor reason over instinct because we view reason as superior and more evolved, and while this may be true I think it’s also important to consider that modern humans don’t have very much instinct left. Modern humans just don’t have instincts besides the very primal urges to survive and reproduce, which many do not adhere to. Instincts are less necessary in society today, and as a result we have lost a lot of the instincts of humans twenty or thirty thousand years ago. Also, I like how you make it clear that humans are no different from other animals, and definitely not superior because of the ability to reason.