A Deconstructive Reading of Billy Budd
Billy, who cannot understand ambiguity, who takes pleasant words at face value and then obliterates Claggart for suggesting that one could do otherwise, whose sudden blow is a violent denial of any discrepancy between his being and his doing, ends up radically illustrating the very discrepancy he denies.
- Barbara Johnson, p. 86
With Barbara Johnson's splendid Critical Difference we are willy-nilly plunged into deconstruction. At the moment I shall not attempt to explain this radical and highly subversive critical mode, except to say that what you are about to see is an example of it. At the moment you may well ask (being, as you undoubtedly are, still very impressed by Dryden's splendidly anti-naïve reading), "you mean it is possible to be even more intelligent about Melville's story?" I remember asking myself the same thing when I first noticed the chapter in Barbara Johnson's book on Billy Budd. But I began to read it anyway and I soon found myself in the throes of a critically different excitement! The first thing that truly grabbed my attention was a remark Johnson makes apropos of the following quotation from Melville's story: "innocence and guilt personified by Claggart and Budd in effect changed places" (62). The narrator says this apropos of Billy having killed Claggart. This is what Barbara Johnson says apropos of the passage in question: "Interestingly enough, Melville both invites an allegorical reading and subverts the very terms of its consistency when he writes of the murder: 'Innocence and guilt . . .'" (83). Now that's deconstruction, folks! "Both invites . . . and subverts"? Wow!
Needless to say, ALL CLAIMS JOHNSON MAKES FOR HER READING ARE SUPPORTED BY MELVILLE'S TEXT. What does Johnson, then, claim? I shall try to be as brief as possible about this splendidly anti-naïve reading. Johnson's first item on the agenda is to put into question Billy's innocence. (Melville himself tells us that "innocence was [Billy's] blinder" 49.) She asks us to consider Billy a kind of "reader" (Johnson calls him a "literal reader" 85). Billy is a "literal reader" in that he seems to take things at face value. He seems to believe, in fact, that things are what they seem to be. If Claggart appears to be nice to Billy (and he does) then Claggart must be nice to Billy (he isn't, of course).
This world and its beliefs provide Billy with a way to escape the mental prison of his mind where even the sound of sirens caused him great distress. From the chronology to the diminishing reaction to the important moments in his life, Billy’s life becomes completely chaotic and meaningless, but he would not prefer any other alternative because this was the only one which was mentally
Melville interjected a positive feeling into the narrative, White Jacket, by introducing three humanitarians. These included: Mad Jack, Colbrook, and Jack Chase. Each of these characters spoke out against corporal punishment in the narrative; however, the ultimate decision to punish the men remained in the hands of the unforgiving captains at sea. The main character of the novel occurred as White Jacket. Unfortunately, he committed an unwitting offense and was to be subjected to flogging. In his frantic last moments prior to flogging, White Jacket envisioned himself grabbing Captain Claret and flinging them both over the side to the more forgiving sea. Fortunately, humanitarians, Colbrook and Chase, both stepped forward at great risk to themselves and saved White Jacket from humiliation and abuse. White Jacket's desperate attempt to elude punishment conveyed to society the drastic measures needed to induce change. In the end, it remained obvious that Melville likened the ship to a working model of society. He observed that naval discipline was not compatible with democratic ideology. Author Eleanor Simpson stated in her essay, "Melville and the Negro," that Melville attacks all forms of arbitrary government and legalized brutality. Though his immediate target is the military machine as codified in the Articles of War, his whole stance is one of democratic rebellion against the law or act of government, which undermines or simply ignores the dignity and rights of men.
In portraying Hale as a naïve outsider, Miller uses the four methods of characterization to describe him as a misled str...
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.
...f one defies the natural law and strives to recover the loss, he or she is already on the road to a tragic end. More ironically, the efforts draw the character farther from what they wanted; the rape made Blanche even less credulous, the funeral made Willy even less respected, the request made Gatsby less favorable by Daisy. All three modernist pieces presented false beliefs about life and showed the consequences of obeying those believe. The consequences revealed a bloody truth – the loss of the hope cannot be recovered. What is lost is already the past; only the future can be earned by the hard work done in the present.
To some, this argument may seem the most blatant form of mistruth, horrendous, even, in its lack of taste, a kind of literary sacrilege, in fact. Surely we have reached the end, one might say, when one can considerer comparing the immortal Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, with the adolescent protagonist of Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. Salinger’s hero has been compared to many literary figures, from Huckleberry Finn to David Copperfield. So many different attitudes have been taken toward him. Let’s stop talking about him and write something else. Isn’t the subject getting boring? Perhaps so, but Holden will not go away. He continues to pester the mind, and while reading A.C. Bradley’s analysis of Hamlet’s character, it was hard to resist the idea that much of what Bradley was saying about Hamlet applied to Holden as well. Perhaps the comparison is not as absurd as it first appears. Of course, there is no similarity between the events of the play and those of the novel. The fascinating thing while reading Bradley was how perfectly his analysis of Hamlet’s character applied to Holden’s, how deeply, in fact, he was going into Holden’s character as well, revealing, among other things, its potentially tragic nature.
One of the literary elements that Melville uses that convey the narrator's attitude towards Bartleby is diction. The author's diction in this short story is very descriptive and is also slightly comical. One of the ways this is used is when the author gently mocks the narrator by having him expose his flaws through his own words. For example, when the narrator talks of John Jacob Astor, a well respected man who complemented him, we find out how full of himself he is and how highly he thinks of himself. "The late John Jacob Astor, a parsonage little given to poetic enthusiasm, had no hesitation in pronouncing my first grand point…I will freely add, that I was not insensible to the late John Jacob Astor's good opinion." (Page 122, Paragraph2) Another example of the author's use of diction appears on page 127 in paragraph 2; "At first, Bartleby did an extraordinary quantity of writing. As if long famished for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on my documents. There was no pause for digestion. He ran a day and night line, copying by sunlight and by candle-light. I should have been quite delighted with his application, had he been cheerfully industrious. But he wrote on silently, palely, mechanically." Here the narrator's description of Bartleby's writing habits in the office, at first, tell us that he is very pleased with his progress and the work he has done but then it tells us that he is not very enthusiastic but...
Everyone’s seen the classic cartoons. Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner around a bend, only the Roadrunner turns, but our comedic--and usually stupid--villain doesn’t. So, he falls from a height of what looks like about 500,000 feet, only to become a small puff of smoke at the bottom of the canyon. After all, if what happens to you when you fall from that height were to have happened to Mr. Coyote, that would have been a very short lived cartoon series. Maybe this example is an exaggeration, but the idea is the same: violence comes streaming into our homes every single day through our TVs not to be viewed, but to be devoured. It’s been proven that sex and violence sell. For those of us who can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, the effect of TV violence is miniscule. But for our children--who think when the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers come to the local shopping mall, that it’s the biggest event since Bert told Ernie he snores too loud--the violence seen on TV seems like a logical reaction to life’s problems. And that’s a problem within itself. The impact of televised violence on children is only a slice of the pie that is the problem with the endless stream of violent acts on TV.
Herman Melville uses a first person point of view to show the narrator’s first hand fascination with his employee Bartleby, as well as Bartleby’s strange behavior and insubordination.
Through Bartleby’s flat and static character type, it is amazing how many different types of conflict he causes. From the first order to examine the law copies, to the last request to dine in the prison, Bartleby’s conflictive reply of “I would prefer not to” stays the same (Melville 150). In this way, he is a very simple character, yet he is still very hard to truly understand. Even ...
addition the average American child will witness over 200,000 acts of violence on television including 16,000 murders before the age of 18 (DuRant, 445). Polls show that three-quarters of the public find television entertainment too violent. When asked to select measures that would reduce violent crime “a lot”, Americans chose restrictions on television violence more often than gun control. Media shows too much violence that is corrupting the minds children, future leaders of our society. In a study of population data for various countries sh...
Wilson, Sarah. "Melville and the Architecture of Antebellum Masculinity." American Literature 76.1 (2004): 59-87. Duke University Press. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.
Television programs that generate a great deal of concern among parent and educators are those that contain violence. The questionable violence, sex and language on television have caused the nation to find methods of censoring these problems. Due to television violence, censorship should reduce the ability for children to view violent content.
Herman Melville, like all other American writers of the mid and late nineteenth century, was forced to reckon with the thoughts and writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson celebrated the untapped sources of beauty, strength, and nobility hidden within each individual. Where Emerson was inclined to see each human soul as a beacon of light, however, Melville saw fit to describe and define the darkness, the bitter and harsh world of reality that could dim, diffuse, and even extinguish light. Each man wrote about life in specific terms, while pointing toward human nature in general. The problem of evil paradoxically separates and unites both authors. Emerson looked inward and Melville pushed outward, each searching, each trying to effect change. The problem of evil remains ever-present, driving both men to reinvest in understanding the interconnectedness, the interdependency of human relations. Though "Melville alternately praised and damned 'this Plato who talks thro' his nose' ", Emerson's influence direct or indirect helped to shape Melville's ideology and thus his fiction (Sealts 82).
Television is a central feature of contemporary American life. American children spend more time watching television than they do in school. In 1989, the average child in the United States spent more time watching television than performing any other activity, except sleeping. In 1989 The Nielson Report on Television commented that children age 2 to 5 viewed approximately 27 hours of television per week. Children 6 to 11 years of age viewed more than 23 hours of television per week, and adolescents between 12 to 17 years of age viewed 22 hours of television per week (Sege 32). During the past several decades, violent programs have been steadily increasing in numbers on television screens. Many believe that there could be the possibility that a direct relationship exists between the violence witnessed on television and the increasingly violent behavior of children and adolescents (Palermo 23). Coming at a time when the homicide rate is