What types of characterization are used in "The Most Dangerous Game"?

In his short story "The Most Dangerous Game," Richard Connel uses indirect characterization to describe the two main characters in the story. The reader also finds that by the end of the story the protagonist, Rainsford, is a dynamic character, meaning he changes over the course of the story.

Writers usually choose between direct or indirect characterization to reveal the traits of the characters in a story. With direct characterization the writer unequivocally tells us what the character is like. Indirect characterization shows things that reveal the personality of the character such as what the character says, what others say about him, his actions and how others react to him. 

The two main characters are Rainsford and General Zaroff. Both reveal themselves through what they say and their actions. In the beginning of the story Rainsford, who is a big game hunter, doesn't care about the feelings of the animals he hunts. In his discussion with Whitney on the yacht:

"Don't talk rot, Whitney," said Rainsford. "You're a big-game hunter, not a philosopher. Who cares how a jaguar feels?" 

Later, however, when Rainsford actually becomes "a beast at bay" we understand that he is rethinking his philosophy of hunting. This change in character also reveals him to be a dynamic character, or one who goes through an important change during the course of the story. 

The other character, General Zaroff, remains static. He never changes. From the beginning he is a remorseless sociopath. His character is revealed during his dinner with Rainsford when he tell his guest he hunts men, explaining:

"Life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong, and, if needs be, taken by the strong. The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure. I am strong. Why should I not use my gift? If I wish to hunt, why should I not? I hunt the scum of the earth: sailors from tramp ships--lassars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels--a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a score of them." 

This is the clearest statement of Zaroff's diabolical nature. He feels morally and intellectually superior; therefore, it is perfectly logical that he hunt those who are not his equal. Later, after he thinks Rainsford has committed suicide to escape the hunt, he relaxes at his chateau feeling no guilt:

General Zaroff had an exceedingly good dinner in his great paneled dining hall that evening. With it he had a bottle of Pol Roger and half a bottle of Chambertin. Two slight annoyances kept him from perfect enjoyment. One was the thought that it would be difficult to replace Ivan; the other was that his quarry had escaped him; of course, the American hadn't played the game--so thought the general as he tasted his after-dinner liqueur. In his library he read, to soothe himself, from the works of Marcus Aurelius. At ten he went up to his bedroom. He was deliciously tired, he said to himself, as he locked himself in. There was a little moonlight, so, before turning on his light, he went to the window and looked down at the courtyard. He could see the great hounds, and he called, "Better luck another time," to them. Then he switched on the light. 

Zaroff can also be considered an ironic character. Even though he is criminally insane, he displays all the mannerisms of a well cultured and highly civilized man. He drinks fine wine and reads from the annals of Marcus Aurelius. It is particularly incongruous that he would read Aurelius because the Roman emperor/philosopher preached stoicism, a philosophy which stresses ethical behavior. It is impossible to match the ideas of Aurelius with Zaroff's murderous behavior.