Comparative Essay Though one could argue that Wolff’s “Hunter’s in the Snow” and Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game” share an aspect of higher insight that can be classified in literary fiction, Hunter’s in the Snow allows the reader to develop a deeper understanding of human nature by presenting three dynamic characters. The three characters distinguish “Hunter’s in the Snow” as literary fiction through the author’s attempt on to make a statement about the human condition. “Hunters in the Snow” does not aim at simple entertainment, but rather tries to get us to see deeper into the three men’s personal characters.
Many devices used in literary fiction are present in “Hunters”. The story does not end in a way that is either “good” or “bad”; it ends in a gray tone, almost doubling back where the story began. Weather is used throughout the work to emphasize the hostility between individuals who are foreign to any concept of altruism (rather than being a particularly nasty winter day). Contrast between the seriousness of Kenny’s injury and Tub & Frank’s devolving concern also helps show that there is more at work here than a hunting accident. That these people are so self-centered provides an insight into the human condition by comparison.
Furthermore, instead of just randomly throwing in details, the author had a purpose for each event. Rather than Tub randomly shooting Kenny without any cause or effect to it, Wolff builds up the suspense by using acts such as Kenny picking on Tub because of his weight — which is sadly a real life problem — or Kenny seemingly getting angry and losing it over a bad day of hunting. Wolff adds effect to each event by using real life issues such as bullying, or maybe even having a bad day, to act as a catalyst for each event and to serve as something for each character to learn from and reflect upon.
By contrast, “The Most Dangerous Game” describes enough of General Zaroff’s life and demeanor for the reader to realize he is crazy, but those observations take a back seat to the physical hunt and the action that occurs within that. After the General allows small glimpses into his psyche, the fact that he is a disturbed person is temporarily forgotten about as the battle between him and Rainsford begins. In “Hunters in the Snow”, the situation with the shooting occurs early on, but the main focus of the story then transfers to the characters’ and their issues for the remainder of the story.
Rainsford is the typical hero: He is clever and moral, as opposed to Zaroff who is immoral. Though he claims to be “a beast at bay,” Rainsford has now fully reverted to hunter mode, swimming across a small bay to Zaroff’s chateau to arrive there before the general can make it back through the jungle. … out the shadowy outlines of a palatial chateau; it was set on a high bluff, and on three sides of it cliffs dived down to where the sea licked greedy lips in the shadows”.
Rainsford claims that no animal can reason and when he realizes what Zaroff is doing, he calls it cold-blooded murder. Zaroff retreats to the chateau, assuming he has won the game. The General explains, “hunting was beginning to bore him,” and reveals that he had to invent a new animal to hunt, one that must have “courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason. Rainsford survives, winning the game. A story, which relies on action, coincidence and surprise, is precisely the motivation that Connell needs to create a memorable commercial fiction.
Rainsford is given the impression that General Zaroff is a wealthy and prominent hunter. ” Rainsford thought it was all a hallucination but is hit with “reality” when he meets Zaroff the owner of this island. Zaroff invites Rainsford into his huge mansion stocked with all amenities fit for a king. Once the hunt begins, Rainsford becomes aware that “the general was playing with him and saving him for another day’s sport. Richard Connell demonstrates commercial fiction with ongoing suspense and an unexpected ending.