Thesis: In “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “Young Goodman Brown” by Nathaniel Hawthorne. imagination and word picture are employed to exemplify the of all time present interior darkness of humanity. However. the writers set really different subjects in how their supporters reflect upon and react to being faced with it. Both work forces must take whether they will reject and face immorality or merely stay it with apathy.
I. The dark imagination used in both narratives convert evil into a about touchable entity. a. The deficiency of visibleness in these narratives corresponds to the fright felt by both work forces. B. The dense jungle/forest instills a sense of pandemonium that disallows either adult male to step a safe way.
II. The adversaries of these narratives are both characterized as bodied immorality. nevertheless. each exhibit deceivingly sympathetic traits. c. General Zaroff and old Goodman Brown are both really friendly. suiting. intelligent and good spoken. d. Rainsford and immature Goodman Brown are both wooed and encouraged by their several scoundrels to fall in them volitionally.
III. Rainsford and immature Goodman Brown both resist the at hand darkness. yet the concluding temperament of each set really different subjects. e. Both work forces attempt to fly from their dark comrades until they realize the futility of their attempts. f. Rainsford is house in this disdain of the immorality presented to him and demonstrates how a individual can face and get the better of immorality. g. Young Goodman Brown chooses to accept man’s dark nature with a sense of inevitableness and unease.
The Short Story: A Comparison and Contrast of “Young Goodman Brown” and “The Most Dangerous Game”
In “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “Young Goodman Brown” by Nathaniel Hawthorne. imagination and word picture are employed to exemplify the of all time present interior darkness of humanity. However. the writers set really different subjects in how their supporters reflect upon and react to being faced with it. Both work forces must take whether they will reject and face immorality or merely stay it with apathy.
The dark imagination used in both narratives gives awful feelings a close touchable quality. The hero’s of both narratives are discerning of the inkiness around them right from the oncoming ; as if they non merely feel the danger they are nearing. but can about experience it every bit good. Young Goodman Brown begins his trek with a strong feeling of purdah. The inability to see far in forepart or behind sends him into a fearful harangue. “What if the Satan himself should be at my really elbow! ” ( Hawthorne. 263 ) Likewise. the inkiness that Sanger Rainsford finds himself in is about impenetrable. “‘You’ve good eyes… but even you can’t see four stat mis or so through a moonless Caribbean night’ said Whitney. ‘Nor four paces. ’ admitted Rainsford “ . ( Connell. 1 )
In add-on to the deficiency of visibleness. both work forces find that the several dense forest or jungle which surrounds them adds to their sense of despair. Goodman Brown sets off down “…a drab route. darkened by all the gloomiest trees of the wood. which hardly stood aside to allow the narrow way weirdo through…” ( Hawthorne. 263 ) . So unstable is his path that he really worries about concealed predators along the manner. “There may be a diabolic Indian behind every tree” ( Hawthorne. 263 ) . Similarly. Rainsford. in his frenetic efforts to hedge General Zaroff. struggles through the “…trackless wilderness…with custodies and face lashed by the branches…” ( Connell. 10 ) .
Other than the sedate imagination in their milieus. the scoundrels in these narratives are characterized as bodied immorality. However. both old Goodman Brown and General Zaroff are introduced as really sympathetic chaps. Hawthorne describes immature Goodman Brown’s comrade. who is subsequently revealed as Lucifer by mention to “his one time beatific nature” ( 270 ) . as one who “would non hold felt abashed at the governor’s dinner-table. or in King William’s court” ( 264 ) . From the beginning of their walk together. old Goodman Brown is really suiting. He offers the younger his staff to assist rush his gait ( Hawthorne. 264 ) . He even portions a reasonably raillery with Goody Cloyse. an aged adult female whom immature Goodman Brown recognizes. and similarly. offers his staff to help her ( Hawthorne. 266 ) . Old Goodman Brown besides gives an articulate counter for every statement immature Goodman Brown has to cut their walk short and return place. For illustration. when immature Goodman Brown boasts the honestness and goodness of his male parent and gramps. the traveller responds that “I have been good acquainted with your family… They were my good friends” ( Hawthorne. 264 ) . The fact that immature Goodman Brown had ne’er heard of such a Communion spoken of in his household is about convincing to him of its plausibleness.
Connell besides masks General Zaroff’s evil nature with an air of friendliness and reputability. From the minute that Rainsford appears at the front door. the general is welcoming and sort. He gives Rainsford nutrient. shelter. and offers his ain apparels for Rainsford to have on ( Connell. 4 ) . During the class of their conversation. General Zaroff explains to Rainsford that they are akin liquors as fellow huntsmans. Having dominated every quarry he has of all time stalked. Zaroff has become bored with traditional hunting and extols the virtue of a new game that he has devised. “it supplies me with the most exciting hunting in the universe. No other runing comparisons with it for an instant” ( Connell. 6 ) . The general is certain that. as a fellow partisan. Rainsford will be inspired by the mastermind of fiting human runing accomplishment against the resourcefulness of human quarry.
Rainsford and immature Goodman Brown are both immune to the suggestions and progresss of their dark comrades. They attempt to get away from the immorality they perceive until they realize the futility of their attempts. Young Goodman Brown. after thought of his married woman. Faith. proclaims. “…my head is made up. Not another measure will I do on this errand” ( Hawthorne. 266 ) and sits down by the wayside. It is merely after he hears the voices of two of his most sure wise mans going on to the witch’s meeting and that of his beloved Faith being taken at that place forcibly. that Brown resigns himself to his destiny and continues.
Similarly. Rainsford makes several level house demands to go forth the general’s island. He places his trust in the fact that Zaroff is a gentleman and will honour his petition despite his cognition of the homicidal game that takes topographic point at that place. It is merely after the general turns the tabular arraies and suggests that Rainsford take part. non as a huntsman but as quarry. that he has full realisation of his quandary. The general solidified his purposes by stating. “I drink to a foeman worthy of my steel – at last” ( Connell. 9 ) .
The cardinal difference in the implicit in subjects of these narratives is illustrated in the concluding temperament of each supporter. Young Goodman Brown. after seeing the dark nature that is present in all humanity is described as “a sad. a darkly meditative. a distrustful. if non a despairing man” ( Hawthorne. 271 ) . He looks at the universe and people around him with contempt despite any good that might be externally apparent. The inevitableness of immorality was so pressed on him that. “… they carved no hopeful poetry upon his gravestone ; for his deceasing hr was gloom” ( Hawthorne. 271 ) .
On the other manus. Rainsford sets out from the general’s gate madly at first. but shortly resolutenesss to crush Zaroff at his ain game. Rainsford’s methods and devices become more complex as the Hunt continues and the will to last takes clasp. His finding is made clear as he tells himself. “I will non lose my nervus. I will not” ( Connell. 11 ) . Rather than consigning himself to the looking inanity of hedging the general and giving up. Rainsford manoeuvres until he additions the upper manus and finishes the game on his ain footings. The satisfaction of triumph over impending darkness is summed up in Connell’s stoping. “He had ne’er slept in a better bed. Rainsford decided” ( 13 ) .
A cardinal pick is presented in these two short narratives. Even though immorality is existent and present in the universe. does one accept its being or get the better of it? The authors’ concluding statements sing immature Goodman Brown and Sanger Rainsford are first-class word pictures of the virtue. if any. of both options.
Plants Cited
Hawthorne. Nathaniel. “Young Goodman Brown. ” Literature: An Introduction to Fiction. Poetry. Drama. and Writing. Sixth erectile dysfunction. Ed. Kennedy. X. J. and Dana Gioia. New York. New york: Pearson. 2010. 263-71. Print.
Connell. Richard. “The Most Dangerous Game. ” ENGL 102: Composition and Literature. Liberty University. n. d. Web. 05 Oct. 2011
