"The Most Dangerous Game" is the story of Seager Rainsford's accidental trip to a small island known as Ship Trap Island shortly after World War I. The isle is owned by a Russian general and Cossack named Zaroff and is used for his unique style of hunting. The general's vast hunting experiences left him bored with all forms of big game including Jaguars and Tigers, thus leaving him with only one more animal to hunt… man. Zaroff holds shipwrecked men hostage and lets them condition themselves into superb condition before giving them a three-hour head start in the hunt. If they "prey" evades him for three days then he agrees to let them go, but up until Rainsford's visit, that was never a situation because Zaroff had never lost.

Rainsford, himself a world-renowned hunter, used many clever tricks and traps that confused, but never stopped Zaroff. In the end, Rainsford dove into the sea and Zaroff took him for dead. Rainsford later appeared in the general's bedroom and challenged him to be the prey. So, Rainsford turned down his free passage to the mainland for a chance to continue the hunt.

From both an escape and interpretive standpoint, "The Most Dangerous Game" is a fantastic story. From the first thing we see, the title, we have an interpretive angle. The title has a double meaning; regardless of which the reader starts out with, the other will come into play later on. The double meaning is in the word "game", meaning either a sport or alternately an animal to be hunted. Man is the most dangerous game as an animal and hunting him is the most dangerous sport.

The setting is ideal for the peace, though the situation could really happen anywhere at any time. The small, secluded isle controls the conflict by maintaining the one-on-one confrontation and allowing no outside force to interfere as it would almost anywhere else. The time at which the story takes place is even more ideal. Shortly after World War I, big game hunting reached its peak. This combined with General Zaroff's fugitive status with mother Russia lends itself to Zaroff's murderous ways; the Cossacks were violent people.

We are introduced to Rainsford, the protagonist, right away and immediately his character is drawn. He is a hunter of extraordinary skill and has the outlook on those "inferior" and "unfeeling" animals that most of the world had at the time. This is not an evil characteristic, just a glimpse at his mean streak and his natural human tendencies of superiority. It is interesting to watch this character grow and learn from his experiences and change his outlook. One could argue that, given the outcome of the story, Rainsford didn't learn anything except how to be as cruel and evil as Zaroff. I don't believe this to be true. I believe that Rainsford decided to hunt Zaroff for the sake of poetic justice; it seemed only right that he should fall to a hunter, as did so many of his prey.

The antagonist Zaroff enters the story as a kind and benevolent man helping his fellow hunter. His peculiar nature is quickly revealed to the reader to be more like cool-headed insanity when he describes his hunt. Zaroff is perhaps the victim of circumstances beyond his control that molded him into a natural killer and psychopath, but the reader is not asked to make excuses for him; the reader must only understand the what, not the why. What we do know about Zaroff is that he is the best. In his dining room Rainsford saw the finest specimens he had ever seen. So, how did Rainsford beat him? The first day that Zaroff hunted Rainsford the prey was found in the tree, but Zaroff opted not to kill him and save him for another day's hunt. This arrogance threw away the only clear opportunity Zaroff ever had at his prey. His own arrogance at being the best caused him to miss this chance. One could say that Zaroff defeated himself.

Although the purpose of the story seems to be interpretive, one would hardly realize it if they were not looking for it. With its ease in reading and the good, fast-paced action-packed story, it would be easy to read it for pure enjoyment and ignore entirely the themes and morals to be gathered from it. Whether the story is read for enjoyment or education, the reader cannot fail to pick up the purpose of the piece unless they intentionally avoid it. It serves as an illustration of the cruelty of game hunting and brings the reader to question whether or not the hunted really do have feelings and can experience the hunt with the panic that Rainsford did. The reader raises these questions with Rainsford who even said early in the piece that animals don't have feelings. If we look more deeply into the piece, the overwhelming theme jumps at us. The theme of this piece is to show that even humans are capable of falling to the basest instincts and conduct of predator and prey when either driven to insanity or put under severe survival pressure. Those instincts consumed the general and could arguably have overwhelmed Rainsford as well, trapping him in the same lunacy that devoured Zaroff. This is not certain, because we do not know what becomes of Rainsford and the hunt.

What happens next is left for the reader to decide. Did Rainsford kill Zaroff? Did he abandon the island and leave Zaroff behind? What fate befell the main characters? We have no way of knowing. It is an intriguing end to an intriguing tale, as well written as the rest of the story.