The Destructors!

What first jumped out at me about the above prompt is the "3." Mr. Parris included before the prompt. Why 3? What is its relevance to "Hamlet" and "The Destructors"? Perhaps it is indicative of some secret code for the symbolism of numbers hidden within both works? Just kidding, I'm not about to B.S. my way through a whole forum post going on a tangent about Mr. Parris' use of the number 3. Although it is quite compelling.

I suppose the most evident connection between "The Destructors" and "Hamlet" is their parallel main characters: Hamlet & T. Both come from upper class backgrounds, but soon discover that wealth and status have little to do with the truth about reality. When T's father 'comes down in the world' from his presumably high-status job as an architect and T's family moves to a lower-class neighborhood, T seems to realize that although he wishes to believe that "All this hate and love...it's soft, it's hooey. There's only things," he knows that even as he says it, it is false. For him, tangible things have not proven stable. In destroying the architecturally magnificent house of Old Misery, T is also metaphorically destroying everything he once held to be the foundation of reality: physical beauty and status. Yet, even when all that is left is "...the shattered hollowed house with nothing left but the walls," T insists they destroy the walls as well because "...walls could be preserved. Facades were valuable. They could build inside again more beautifully than before. This could again be a home." T understands that it was walls with hollowed insides that tricked him into believing in falsities for most of his childhood, facades of wealth and happiness which ultimately crumbled beneath him. In a way, his insistence that the walls too be demolished shows a level of concern for others--T seems frightened by the idea that others could become so blindly convinced of the same untruths that he had, and thus wants to make sure not even the façade of a home exists. It's all or nothing for T.

Similarly, after the death of his father, Hamlet begins to grasp the superficiality and hidden motives of high-status individuals he had been taught to bow down to. For, within two months of his father's death, Queen Gertrude has already gotten remarried to Claudius, allowing Claudius to take the throne. Moreover, Hamlet suspects (and later we discover it is true) that Claudius murdered his father to gain power and Gertrude. Hamlet, like T, seems to only find one solution to this conflict between his past and present understandings of reality: kill Claudius. Claudius himself is symbolic of facades--his status as King of Denmark and wooing of Hamlet's mother makes it so that Hamlet is completely isolated in his skepticism of the man. In other words, Claudius' exterior appearances and actions are so clever and "normal" that no one but Hamlet notices Claudius' truly malevolent intent--and even if they did, they wouldn't dare speak because of Claudius' power over everyone. Yet, in destroying Claudius, Hamlet believes he can break the façade at its most powerful point--the king. The really unsettling thing about "Hamlet" over "The Destructors," though, is that in "Hamlet," it turns out that Hamlet cannot destroy the façade of materialistic happiness and status without also destroying himself and everything he holds dear. Perhaps it's like in the last "Harry Potter" book--just as Harry had a part of Voldemort within himself, making it so that in killing Voldemort he also killed himself, Hamlet's character is so dependent upon the façade for existence that he literally cannot survive once it is done away with.

Writing this, a haunting question has begun to plague the back of my mind: Is it actually possible to dismiss truths we once wholeheartedly subscribed to, or are we caught within a "Truman Show"-esque bubble where, no matter how far we feel we venture, we are always circling around the same artificial version of reality? Is it possible that if we truly ventured beyond the boundaries of our mental comfort we would psychologically implode as Hamlet does? With that in mind, is "The Destructors" even realistic on a metaphorical level? Can people like T exist, destroy the foundations of their realities, and remain sane despite it?

The biggest parallel I draw between Hamlet and the Destructors lies within the two main characters. The events and damage that take place in both stories emanates from the characters themselves. Outside factors contribute to an initial thought, but T and Hamlet are both ultimately responsible for the demise of the places in which they live. By places I mean the royal house of Denmark and Old Misery's home. Once his father has "come down in the world," T finds the need to destroy something beautiful. T could have "pinched" something from the old house, but instead, he came up with a much more elaborate and conniving plan. Similarly, instead of Hamlet simply killing his murderous uncle, he too comes up with a more intricate scheme. Both Hamlet and T are also very meticulous and careful in their work. This parallel is highlighted by the preciseness in which the two boys carry out their plans. For example, T does not just destroy the house. Instead, he does it methodically, as if his destruction is a form of art work. "T was giving his orders with decision: it was as though this plan had been with him all his life, pondered though the seasons, now in his fifteenth year crystalized with the pain of puberty," (4). Hamlet too, internalizes his plan. Hamlet's lack of action for most of the play is large in part because he wants to make sure it is just right. Hamlet doesn't destroy the house of Denmark in one blow, rather, like T, he takes it apart one floor board at a time. What I'm trying to get at is that although an external factor caused T and Hamlet to do what they did, their actions were of such monumental destruction as a result of their own tantalizing thoughts about the world. They thought carefully about their plans, and therefore the damage they caused was extreme. If they had acted on a whim, both stories would lack the sense of inner turmoil that is so important.

Both plots center around the protagonist seeking revenge against a wrongdoing. For Hamlet it is the murder of his father, for T it is the fall of his family in class. Both characters have conniving and destructive tendencies and use those skills in order to attempt to achieve their idea of justice for the wrongdoing that happened to them.
Destruction is also a reoccurring theme between the two, as noted above. This applies in more than simply the physical sense though. While the characters are indeed destroying the objects and societies around them, they are also destroying themselves in the process. Hamlet's inner turmoil is revealed in his many soliloquies as he ponders the meaningless of his existence and debates whether or not he should kill himself, and T's inner turmoil is revealed when he begs for the gang to finish the job and even says the word "please," which takes away all of his authority.
Despite the inner turmoil though, both characters achieve their goal. They achieve this goal at the crippling expense of others, but they get it done nonetheless. They had doubts and obstacles, but in the end, for better or worse, they obtained their goal.

The world established in The Destructors is a king gang in a bombed working class neighborhood. We're immiediatly introduced to this new member Trevor(or as they call him T.) who comes from a affluent area. T.'s ideas of the world are changed in the very beginning of the short story but the audience isn't aware of that. His father is an architect, so I'm sure he's been surrounded by what his father believes beauty should be. One could assume he lived in a beautiful house and all that was taken away from him. His world is crashed and in order to be validated into this new world he needs to destroy his old world. Hamlet's life was also affluent and he understood his place in the world. Then as his father is killed and his world is destroyed like T.'s he is forced to view the world different. As he tells Horatio, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." He's betrayed by most people around him: his girlfriend is a spy for his mother and father/uncle, his school friends(Rosencrants and Guildenstern) and he doesnt know who he can trust. The posh scholoary life he lived is utterly demolished and there's no way he can go back to that. T. understands that his past is gone, so he creates his own art-as his ideas of beauty are changing.

Whenever I read or experience anything, the first question I ask is “why?” The more I read, the more times I ask it. Why did the author write this? Why did the author choose this word? Why, why why?

One of my favorite “why?”s to ask is “why did the protagonist do that?” Upon asking this question while reading Hamlet and the Destructors, I found the overlap between the two stories. I I were to make a Venn Diagram of the answer to that question, the big overlap between the two texts focuses on one motivation: revenge. T and Hamlet both experience huge losses, the loss of a way of life and the loss of a father (and to some extent a mother), and they both channel that sadness into the need for revenge. For both characters, this revenge is well planned out and intelligent, a reflection of the creators of the revenge, a reflection of the destructors.

Overlooking the brooding, dark demeanor, I think T and Hamlet are very differently wired people. Hamlet hates Claudius. He lets his hate engulf himself and in doing so, this hatred is spread and directed towards everything in his world. T on the other hand, can detach his emotions from what he wants to accomplish. Which is creepy and coldly impressive because he's a kid and can do this while 30 year old Hamlet is still crying over his father's death but still incapable to take immediate action. "'You hate him a lot?' Black asked" "'Of course I don't hate him,' T said. 'There'd be no fun if I hated him…There's only things, Blackie"'

Hamlet lets these "things" that T describes interfere with his plans of revenge. He dabbles in killing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Polonius, and pushing Ophelia into insanity and Laertes into blind hatred. Gertrude's position in her marriage to Claudius has nothing to do with Hamlet's mission to kill Claudius, but as we discussed in class that seems to be ALL Hamlet can talk about. T does not let the cruelty component of his plot take hold on his life, even after his mission of destroying the house is complete. We see this in T's gestures of giving the old man a blanket and food. "'There's nothing personal,' the voice said. 'We want you to be comfortable tonight.'" The major contrast I see is that everything in Hamlet's life is personal. With T, he seems to be immune to what goes on around him, always focused on whatever he decides he wants to accomplish.

Thematically, the obvious parallel between the two works is that of revenge and destruction. A less obvious theme, however, is the power struggle. In both pieces, there is an obvious hierarchy among the characters, and not all are satisfied with it. In Hamlet, the hierarchy comes in the form of the royal family. Claudius kills the king (Hamlet's father) and appoints himself king, against Hamlet's will. In The Destructors, T comes into the gang as a new recruit and quickly takes on a leadership role, although other members of the gang are not entirely satisfied with it. In both works, "lower level" characters are battling to move up in the hierarchy. This serves a way to move the plot forward in both works, but is also a part of the central conflict. In Hamlet, nearly all of the events occur because Hamlet is deciding whether or not he wants to seek revenge or he is actually (finally) seeking revenge. In addition, for most of the novel, Hamlet is contemplating whether or not he will seek revenge on Claudius. In both works, the power struggle among characters drives the plot and serves as a central conflict in how the characters behave around one another.