The Most Dangerous Game: Horror or Not?

I first encountered "The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell as a freshman in high school. While I thoroughly enjoyed the story, I must admit that I did not initially view it as a member of the horror genre. So, as I began to read it for a second time, I fully expected to come to class with many Carroll-supported arguments as to why this short story simply didn't make the cut. To my surprise, however, I soon realized that "The Most Dangerous Game" fulfills nearly all of the genre requirements that we have established in class and, unlike "Leiningen versus the Ants" and "The Boarded Window," actually introduces some relatively scary concepts! (haha.)

But why, you may ask, did I not view this story as a work of horror to begin with? After all, what can possibly be scarier than the concept of becoming human prey to a deranged Russian hunter? As Carroll would undoubtedly make note of, "The Most Dangerous Game" lacks a monster. While Ivan and General Zaroff are certainly monstrous in their own right, crazy Cossacks certainly are allowed to exist within the laws of nature. However, although Ivan and Zaroff are not typical monsters per say, Connell does a very good job as portraying them as such. Perhaps the image that struck me the most occurs early in the story when Rainsford first arrives to the mansion:

"'A Cossack,' said the general, and his smile showed red lips and pointed teeth."

While Zaroff is simply a human being, Connell's use of imagery depicts him as a man that is certainly vampire-esque. Furthermore, we established in class that a new trend in the horror genre is that of the use of serial killers. While Zaroff is not a traditional serial killer, there is no doubt that he would fall into the same category. For this reason, I tend to disagree with Carroll's stipulation that horror must include a monster. While Zaroff might be allowed to exist by the laws of nature, I certainly would horrified if I ever encountered him.

We also agreed in class that, above all, a work of horror must inspire fear (what Carroll calls art-horror). While it may not involve ghosts, vampires, zombies, or killer ants, the plot of "The Most Dangerous Game" is particularly terrifying to me. Nothing scares me more than the atrocities of which the human race is capable, and the concept of a deranged hunter who enjoys using humans as prey is not altogether impossible. I feel that the most unsettling point of the story occurs on the first night that Rainsford is hiding in the woods.

"But the sharp eyes of the hunter stopped before they reached the limb where Rainsford lay. A smile spread over his brown face. Very deliberately he blew a smoke ring into the air; then he turned his back on the tree and walked carelessly away along the trail he had come."

The very thought of hiding in a tree, more or less waiting to be slaughtered, while a malicious and incredibly intelligent hunter waits below is understandably unsettling to me. "The Most Dangerous Game," more than any of the stories we have read thus far, inspires true art-horror. I could feel my heart beating in time with Rainsford's in that jungle, was nervous throughout the duration of the plot, and felt great relief upon reading the final sentences. That, to me, is horror.