Theme comparison between ‘the destructors’ and ‘the most dangerous game’
Introduction
Authors utilize literature to pass message to the intended audience. While each story/ work of literature focuses on a similar occasion, character or event, the similarity in the themes, motifs and characterization indicate a similarity in the nature of the human condition. Different occasions and experiences when presented through literature, reveal that while the location, characters and motivations might be different, the persevering nature of the themes reveal similarities in the experience of between people in different settings.
Thesis statement
This essay seeks to; Compare the themes between the short stories, ‘the destructors’ and ‘the most dangerous game’ with relation to the themes they represent. Theme analysis in literature is an important skill in understanding the full meaning the author intends. Theme is the underlying status or condition implied by the express narration. The literature betrays the condition the author is trying to make by putting the various characters in given situations. That is, the theme becomes apparent by understanding the consistency with which the prevalence of the idea permeates the story. The theme of a story is the most pervasive view throughout the story, while it may be accentuated by other themes and subplots, it is the enduring impression made onto the reader, a one sentence summary of the story.
Destruction for the fun of it
In the works, the destructors and the most dangerous game, the most apparent theme in common is the apparent knack for destruction by man, and for no apparent reason. The nature of man comes across in the two works as sinful. In both stories, evil confronts the characters all round, either by being its perpetrators or by being their hapless victims. The Wormsley common gang, created by Greene, commits widespread acts of terror in the neighborhood. While their actions are deplorable, the youngsters have grown up in an atmosphere of war, where everything they were previously familiar with comes to ruin by the ravages of war. The violence in which these children grow up in contributes to their being violent and destructive. Similarly, in the dangerous game General Zaroff and Rainsford are both violent men, albeit to varying degrees. While Rainsford is indifferent to the plight of the game the hunts down, general Zaroff is a more violent preferring what he refers to as the natural progression of their sport, hunting down man. The degree of each man’s violence is dictated with their individual past experiences. General Zaroff, being a former soldier, is used to the sight of dying men, and derives great pleasure in hunting a man once more. Rainsford, through the opening conversation with Whitney, displays his indifference for the prey he hunts. While the prey in this case is game, it is a form of violence manifesting itself, as he does not hunt the prey for meat, rather as a sport. This activity of hunting game for the fun of it draws a parallel with the ‘destructors’ where the boys destroy Mr. Thomas’s house for no apparent reason. In this case, General Zaroff and Rainford engage in their hunting expedition for pleasure.
Destruction as an act of creation
In both stories, while the actions of the perpetrators can pass as violent, there is a careful attempt by their perpetrators to offer a justification for them. The general, in his sadistic hunt for men, describes men of lower social standing as scum of the earth, and of no higher worth than a well-bred dog or horse. His disregard for these men gives him the idea that his is a service for the betterment of society by removing its unwanted impurities. This idea grows by his willingness to release Rainford, for he held a higher regard for him than for his other victims. The boys in the story, ‘Destructors’ have a justification for their destruction too; they reason that destruction is a form of creation, through renewal. Old misery (Mr. Thomas) eases off from his misery by eliminating a reminder of his former affluent position in society. Mr. Thomas, who was previously an architect before the war, and therefore a builder of things, reduces to the level of clerk in the post war era. The act of the boys, pulling down his house is an act of violence that supposedly creates a new frontier for both Mr. Thomas and the society of viewing things.
Destruction as an act of selfishness
Decisions made by the antagonists in these stories, in this case the general and T, while being masked by layers of philosophical justifications and hypocrisy, emerge as acts of selfishness and self-centeredness. The general while marketing his policy of cleaning up the world chooses to live in isolation in an island where his actions would go against the law. The position of the island is perfect for his purposes, of experiencing pleasure in the hunt for men, while conveniently keeping him out of reach from authorities. Trevor, similarly, chooses to manipulate a group of formerly disillusioned and poor boys to accomplish his goal of avenging his fall down the social class. It is his explicit disregard for wealth, as signified by his burning of the pound notes, and pulling down Mr. Thomas’s house that betray his resentment of having lost those things. He is nostalgic of his former life when he remarks that there was nothing there, in his former life, thus his need to move on.
Summary
Both stories while chronicling different events have a similar theme. The theme protagonists in the stories retain the same trend throughout the story, while appearing to be under different motivation at varying stages of the story. The reader is treated at the attempt to justify and cleanse their destruction through reason, but in the end, it still is destruction. The theme perseveres throughout the stories, which makes it an instant association for readers who have interacted with the story.
