In "The Most Dangerous Game," is the principal emphasis on escape or interpretation?

The answer to this question will depend on the reader's
interpretation of the text. For me, I would tend to lean toward interpretation. Yes, the
story "The Most Dangerous Game" is about escape- Rainsford's escape from Zaroff's island
and the hunt, but the more interesting aspect of your question (interpretation) leads me
to want to explore another more hidden
emphasis.

Interpretation takes many forms in the
text.

-What Zaroff considers a
challenge.

-What Rainsford considers a
challenge.

- The concept of "The fear of pain and the fear
of death", as well as, "No animal can reason".

These are a
few of the ideas that lead me to believe that interpretation is a much more relevant
topic of the story.

Zaroff considers hunting people a
challenge. I could not interpret this as a reality in
life.

Rainsford considers hunting "big game" a challenge.
Again, I cannot relate to this mindset either. For me, animals (especially big game) are
meant to be admired for their raw and natural beauty.

The
most intriguing aspects of the test are the quotations mentioned. Whitney discusses the
pain and death, while Zaroff discusses the concept of
reasoning.

According to many scientific theorists, man is
indeed an animal. Does that make us, therefore, unable to actually reason?  Are we, as
mankind, unable to fear pain and death in the same way that an animal
can?

While I hope that I have given you some insight into
my interpretation of the principle emphasis of the story, interpretation, I hope that I
have not confused you more.

I simply believe that the
deeper, more hidden, emphasis in any story is the one worth examining
more.