The Dilemma of Billy Budd
Herman Mellville's Billy Budd is and extremely divisive novel when one considers the dissension it has generated. The criticism has essentially focused around the argument of acceptance vs. resistance. On the one hand we can read the story as accepting the hanging of Billy Budd as the necessary ends of justice. We can read Vere's condemnation as a necessary military action performed in the name of preserving order aboard the Indomitable. On the other hand, we can argue that Billy's execution as the greatest example of injustice.
The question has been asked if Vere's conduct is right or wrong. In either case, since Billy Budd is an ethical text, it is very odd that there is an absence of the
…show more content…
This is not the behavior one would expect from someone who had just accidentally killed someone else. On trial Billy has this to say for his actions: "I did not mean to kill him. But he foully lied to my face and in the presence of my captain, and I had to say something, and I could only say it with a blow, God help me!" This statement illustrates Billy's emotional response to his crime; He shirks the full weight of his action by pointing to his accidental nature. Billy is sorry that Claggart was killed, but he states the utterance as a response without truly feeling apologetic. This statement is a plea to save himself more that a eulogy to Claggart, however a feeling of remorse for murdering another human being is nowhere to be found. His concerns lie not with the one he killed, only with himself.
After the hanging of Billy Budd, the story no longer relates the events on board the Indomitable. For this reason we are never shown Vere's emotional reaction to the decision to kill Budd. The only reaction we get is immediately before the death, when Billy cries out, "God bless Captian Vere!" At this moment, Vere "stood erectly rigid as a musket in the ship armorer's rack." Melleville accounts for Vere's emotion at this point by describing it as "stoic self control or a sort of momentary paralysis induced by emotional shock." Either
For this paper, I will critique Wendell Phillip’s speech, “Murder of Lovejoy”, and examine it in relation to its history, audience, speaker, and purpose. It is considered one of the greatest rhetorical successes of the era, and one of the only speeches where the speaker’s goal can be seen taking effect. It is also notable for being both spontaneous and directly after an opposing speech.
It is hard for Billy to find tranquility since he consistently have thoughts and feelings that remind him of his traumatic events. In chapter four, Billy couldn’t sleep on the day of his daughter’s wedding, since “There was a full moon”(Vonnegut 72), a piece of imagery that Vonnegut uses, frequently, as a comparison to the fire-bombing of Dresden, just to yet again show that Billy Pilgrim is thinking of horrific event, disturbing his day to day life. Sometimes a victim of PTSD will fall into the habit of drinking, especially when reminded of the traumatic event. As for Billy, when he heard the phone ring,
The Bible states that "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry." Billy was definitely slow to speak considering that he did not utter a single word to captain Vere after his accusation. However, Billy was not slow to anger which was evident by the way he immediately punched Claggart, which resulted in more than one death. Even though I believe Vere made the right decision by choosing to hang Billy others believe Vere's punishment was way too severe. I believe that Captain Vere did the right thing by hanging Billy because Billy was not acting trustworthy, he was not using common sense, and he was not being a good influence.
John Claggart was filled with anger because of the obsession of desires. Hatred was constantly being poured into John’s heart just like a waterfall pouring into a lake. All of John’s sense was lost in his ocean of hate, which caused him to talk poorly of Billy and make assumptions and stories about Billy that were totally false. Even a workmate warned Billy of John Claggart’s doings, but Billy always thought the best of him and denied it. Discreetly, John Claggart confronted Billy of false stories that John made up in his mind, and Billy was so deeply shocked that he was silent. But silence is the best reply to a fool. Ultimately, Billy crossly punched John resulting in death. What John desired the most was what Billy had, and that turned into hatred for Billy. Hatred is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die, life doesn’t work that
During the war, Billy’s experience as a chaplain is horrid as they are “a figure of fun in the American Army” (Vonnegut), and he has no friends. Despite being out of place as a Chaplain, Billy is still there. It can only be described as fate that Billy is still there because, without a doubt, he would not be in that depressing situation if he had any real choice. Later, during Billy’s time spent in war, enemies “take him captive as a prisoner of war—an act that places him in the underground barracks and ostensibly saves his life yet again” (Lupack). Billy is saved by fate, but at the same time loses his free will. While he is in the prison, a prison guard responds to Billy’s whining by saying, "Vy you? Vy anybody?" (Vonnegut). This response reaffirmed Billy’s position being all based on fate. There wasn’t much he could do to prevent his capture from the enemy. Moreover, one of the effects of war in Slaughterhouse-Five is that “people are discouraged from being characters” (Vonnegut). This is because, in the book, war is turned into “a controlling system” (Babaee). It goes to show as Billy is involved in several war experiences, such as being “held in an underground shelter (slaughterhouse number five) when it was firebombed” (Haney) or where he has no control. Things that happen to him in war are based solely off of
While we think Billy's breakdown probably has a little something to do with the war, we do agree that this scene represents pretty much everything that's wrong with Billy's life in miniature. Billy had no choice about being tossed into the pool and he has no choice about being saved from it much like he has no choice but to go fight in the Battle of the
The last reason that Billy should have not struck Claggart is because Caption Veere was a fair man. He knew what kind of man Billy was, and he had an understanding of what Claggart his master at arms was. One was a loving, responsible, caring young man, and the other was a hating, dark, shadowy man that was not to be trusted with any mans word. When Billy struck out at Claggart, he was punishing Claggart, and striking an imperial officer. Billy then would have to be punished for his misdoings, and nothing would be done about Claggart because he was, well…
It was very unlike Billy to ever do something so rash; he brought out the best in everyone. Captain Vere felt in his heart that Billy’s actions were a mistake, but he could not be sure. The accusation Claggart made was mutiny, and mutiny was a serious crime. Vere had no proof that Billy was not guilty, so for the safety of himself and his crew, he sacrificed Billy’s life.
Billy had no mental problems. He was more than capable of having a conversation and could have explained himself to the captain. Billy let his emotions get the best of him. Billy regretted striking Claggart. Billy was punished correctly for the crime he
There are many ways to interpret a book, one can read it as a character’s adventure, a conflict of ideas or emotions, or a story. For myself, I read the books, Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison and Billy Budd, Sailor by Herman Melville, in an ironic sense; and while doing this, I noticed that both books showed an intuitive sense of sociology. Furthermore, what mattered most by reading the books ironically is that it is easy to see the outcome of a situation which is pleasing to be conscious of. It is easy to see the outcome of a situation because when one is paying attention to a character, one’s attention is toward a character, except when one’s attention is on an entire situation, one’s attention is on the flow of events and then the
After Billy and Weary are caught the German photographer wanted a picture of an American being captured so that it could be published in the papers,“The photographer wanted something more lively, though, a picture of an actual capture. So the guards staged one for him. They threw Billy into shrubbery. When Billy came out of the shrubbery, his face wreathed in goofy good will, they menaced him with their machine pistols, as though they were capturing him then”(Vonnegut 74). Billy blindly follows what the guards tell him to do because he is under their control. Billy does not have the ability to act on his own accord. In the novel it is stated that,“'Saved your life again, you dumb bastard,’ Weary said to Billy in the ditch. He had been saving Billy's life for days, cursing him, kicking him, slapping him, making him move... Billy wanted to quit. He was cold, hungry, embarrassed, incompetent. He could scarcely distinguish between sleep and wakefulness now, on the third day, found no important differences either, between walking and standing still”(Vonnegut 43). Even though Billy is technically free at this moment he is still under the power and control of Weary. He is a Prisoner to Weary’s need to be
A small simple adage is evident; that you don’t know what you have till it is gone. The return of a loved one, who was placed in harm’s way is now standing before you. How can anyone not feel that emotion? Second chances are rare in this life and I believe Billy knew this. A second chance to say I love you, thank you, I missed you. He was home, if even for a short time.
In "A Hanging," George Orwell utilizes the rhetorical appeals of pathos and ethos in historical context to convince the audience that the unjustifiable execution of a person is not only barbaric, but unethical. This is successful because of his sensitive word choice and sympathetic tone.
Billy is innocent in a sense that he has done no wrong which leads to his blind and naïve view of evil. The Dankster tries to warn Billy that ‘nobody’s friend is Jimmy-Legs’ and by saying ‘he is down on you’ but he does not see Claggart to be a threat of any sort. Billy’s innocence and devotion to good do not let him see the evil in Claggart whom is trying to destroy him but eventually conflict resulting in the murder of Claggart from a blow by Billy.
As a result, Adams establishes the British prisoners as those that must be saved, those whose rights are being compromised. This ties Beccaria’s quote to an element of his central argument -- that the protection of rights is the priority -- and clarifies that is the prisoners who are being subjected to tyranny. By appealing to the jury’s pathos and beliefs, who most likely feel that they themselves are victims of tyranny, he invites them to sympathize with this argument. The provocative diction -- words such as “agonies,” “fatal,” and “tyranny” are used -- triggers an emotional response from the jury, and allows them to make a connection between their own fervent defense of liberty and the liberty of the British soldiers (Ellis 2-3). Beccaria’s quote develops the logic of Adams’s argument by supporting the protection of the soldiers’ rights; it effectively plays on the values of the jury to appeal to pathos and make his claim more convincing.