Essay on the Dilemma of Billy Budd

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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,

Before there had been conflict between them, because Helen looked down on Billy for being a cripple, and Billy was hurt by how she treated him. In this exchange, we can see that Billy is realizing that this kind of rough talk is part of Helen’s personality. He realizes that he will have to accept this part of Helen and remember that it is her form of tough love. Helen is also learning in this exchange. She starts out being very harsh and almost cruel to Billy, however, she relents and begins speaking kinder.

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…

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

He resorts to a political argument because his convoluted legal arguments are failing. In another article entitled “How Judges Speak: Some Lessons on Adjudication in Billy Budd, Sailor”, Weisburg contends “so effective is his pattern of argumentation that the critics, as well as the drumhead court, have largely granted it credence…Vere’s articulated reasons for hanging Billy do not withstand the analysis of even his junior officers” (Weisburg, “How”). Vere convinces the men that it would be in their best interest to execute Billy so that their ship does not rise in mutiny. Because Vere is the Captain, his speech and rhetoric are so persuasive that both the panel and the readers of the novella do not question it, hence another form of how considerate communication is being used in different areas of the novella (Weisburg, “9”, 162). Vere’s communication in chapter 21 is result-oriented, thus he cleverly uses specific language for his own motivations. Not once did he let the jury know that Billy had an intense stutter; because he omitted this detail, his argument was considerate in the sense that he selectively relayed information to the jury, as Minda further reasons. In Vere’s final argument, he exercises the same form of deception he advises the officers to use on the people of the ship.

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.

Claggart has often been described as a serpent like creature, he looks at Billy with "serpent fascination" (Melville 449), and when Billy helps Captain Vere to lift the corpse of Claggart, "it was like handling a dead snake" (Melville 478). It would also seem that Billy did not intend or want to kill Claggart as he did, but that due to what Claggart had done, he was unable to react in a different way. "But he foully lied to my face and in presence of my captain, and I had to say something, and I could only say it with a blow, God help me!" (Melville 482). Here Billy actually says that his killing of Claggart was not intentional, and if Claggart never lied to Billy and Captain Vere, Billy would never have reacted as he did. His exclamation of "God help me!" clearly displays that he knows what he did was his loss of innocence as did Adam as soon as he bit the apple.