animalistic impulses of humans
In 'The Most Dangerous Game" Connell uses the development of General Zaroff to illustrate that the animalistic impulses of humans lurk beneath our civilized veneers.
Zaroff's opinions on human life differed greatly from Rainford's. Zaroff viewed the belief that human life has value as "romantic ideas" and become shocked finding out that a "so modern and civilized young man" like Rainford "[seemed] to be [harboring]" such ideas. It presents to the reader a few things about Zaroff. He thinks the value of life shouldn't be taken so seriously, or that it has no value to him at all, and that his idea of a civilized person is misconstrued. Even though Zaroff thought this way, he still tried to act in a civilized manner towards Rainford when they weren't playing his game. It was all an act he put on so he would be perceived as being civil. The fact that he "Half [apologised]" rather than fully committing to his apology really proves that he didn't actually feel bad about the current state of his dwelling, Zaroff just thought it should be said.
[Contributor] - / 9,363 2888
Damaria, I find that your analysis is too straightforward. It immediately provides a direct opinion of both characters without performing an individual analysis regarding the background, mindset, and circumstances of each man. Thus, when you present "romantic ideas" and "a modern civilized young man", the reader, who may not have read the story yet, could find himself confused. The analysis should first look into who these men are individually, then, based on their common beliefs, begin to discuss their differences in relation to their view about life. You have to remember that Rainford is the prey in this story and Zaroff is the hunter. So their mindsets truly differ about life and how to treat it. By first analyzing what or where their beliefs about life are based upon, then you can begin to discuss their differing animalistic impulses beneath the civilized veneers.