For example, it was previously mentioned that one of the main differences between the two men is their different levels of respect for human life. However, this statement can be easily contradicted, as the ending of the story leaves enough evidence to suggest otherwise. To cite one example, there is the argument that by killing Zaroff and then subjecting him to the fate of dog food, Rainsford contradicts one of his personal truths, the value of human life. By killing Zaroff, he sinks to the level of the one he despises. Instead of ending the game with a simple victory by complying with the general's rules, he deliberately attempts to kill his opponent. Although many would argue that this may be an act of justice, as a sort of impromptu execution, it ultimately comes down to an act of unnecessary hypocrisy and not typical of the original image of the protagonist. By killing a murderer in an act of justice or revenge, you do not become better than that individual. To expand on this point, one might also pay close attention to Rainsford's character after Zaroff's murder. The last line of the story makes it clear that Rainsford slept comfortably, even after supposedly killing his opponent. This surprisingly cool and relaxed reaction can be attributed to the simple physical exhaustion Rainsford felt after his trials; However, it can also be said that Rainsford could