Reader Reaction to Billy Budd
I approached Melville's Billy Budd with a mixture of trepidation and determination. I read the Introduction first, because I thought its purpose was to introduce the author, and place the selected stories in context and I thought this would be an aid to understanding. I was correct, but too correct, because Joyce Carol Oates, without warning of the spoiler, casually references Billy's death.
I think this knowledge influenced my reading, because I was aware of the ultimate outcome, I read with the purpose of understanding why that came to be. However, I am still a little angry with her for ruining the climax because Billy Bud is not such a generally well known story that it is fair to assume that the reader is familiar with the plot; her Introduction should have been Afterword. It did, however, provide some useful information that I was glad to know beforehand.
For example, explaining that the work was published posthumously, based on unfinished manuscript was helpful in understanding that the sometimes sloppy diction and overdone prose was not the work that Melville intended for the audience--had he lived and published it himself, he would have edited and refined it. Knowing this I approached it by reading for the ideas he was trying to convey rather than trying to find meaning in each line.
Billy Budd is written in a style that is intimidating and at times the prose can overwhelm the concepts. It is unfortunate that the first few chapters are the best example of this because it alienates readers and this story requires several readings to fully appreciate the work. Melville's use of double negatives, and just generally phrasing sentences in the negative makes the work harder to read because it is contra to the reader's expectations, i.e., the author will relate what a thing is as opposed to what it is not. This in combination with technical asides about the nautical details, the proliferation of allusions, and abundance of SAT quality words prevents the novel from developing a flow as well as intimidating the audience.
I think that Melville was aware this apparent `flaw' because he ascribes to Captain a similar propensity to use allude to things past and present without regard for the audience's knowledge. Although this personality trait subjects the Captain to some criticism, the narrator attributes it the man's honest and direct nature, which to me, sounded like a subtle rejoinder to the his own critics in the literary world. It seems like the narrator and Melville as an author, identify with the Captain until the final scenes, where I think they would have taken a more flexible, and even spiritual, position.
I am frankly rather fearful of commenting on this work because I am worried that I did not really understand it as Melville intended and perhaps have projected my own thoughts or created themes. It is a strange and novel feeling because I was much more confident relating my reaction to the other works that we have read, which I think is largely due to being more confident that I understood the point of the works and what the authors wanted to convey.
I am not sure that Melville had a specific idea that Billy Budd was meant to illustrate, to me the work seemed to be an exploration of law and justice rather than an answer. I think that Melville would concur with Socrates' philosophy regarding the need for questioning but not in the introspective vein or purpose of understanding and bettering oneself--Melville seems to propose that the justice system itself requires questioning of the rules in order to achieve actual justice.
The scene discussing lawyers and religious prophets, the ship's minister reaction to Billy, and his inability to question the Captain's judgment seem to suggest that justice may have been better served had the minister been allowed to participate. However, I am not certain that I agree with Melville's implication that knowledge of the world is somewhat mutually exclusive with knowledge of human nature. I think that Coke and Blackstone were more knowledge about human nature than Melville gives them credit for, and that many prophets with knowledge of human nature were not reclusive.
I think that the Captain himself is not so limited, that he understood human nature and the political reality, and that is why he made the choice that he did. He was aware that Billy intended no harm, but understood human nature effects the authority of the law, were he to make an exception, the crew would question the authority and validity of the law, and this presented a threat to the existence of authority and maintaining because of the political climate surrounding the mutinies. I do not agree with his assessment of the situation, I think the crew was capable of understanding the application of justice as opposed to the strict application of the law, but I do believe that he considered more than just the law, i.e., he considered as informed by human nature.
I think that he decided the question too quickly, which is interesting because Creon also decided quickly but I was not as upset by his actions. I think there are several factors that make me more judge the Captain more harshly. The most important one is that Creon was willing to take responsibility for his choices, and although the Captain states that final responsibility lies with him, he is not willing to take full moral responsibility for his decided course of action. The drum court is really a farce or perhaps his moral sounding board. He had already determined the result and persuaded the to give that sentence.
I would have respected his method of interpreting law more had he taken full moral responsibility by overturning the decision rather than tampering with the jury. Another large factor is that I do believe he was in as much of Catch 22 situation. He had time and could have waited until he they landed. I feel as if he wanted to make a point, if Billy Budd can be executed, then so can you all, there will be no mercy or excuses. I also think that part of it is that Melville did not write about the Captain internal deliberations, he decided almost instantly and the justifications were all read in the context of him persuading the court so I did not feel like it was a true moral deliberation.
I have thought about Melville's style of writing a lot, debating on whether it is good or bad, because I feel like he alienates a large audience. I have come to the conclusion that the problem is not his style but the audience itself. As a society, we have become very lazy readers, we want soundbites and great literature in a nutshell. His writing disrupts our expectations and you really have to work to read and understand each of his sentences. But when a reader does so, you come to appreciate what a truly great writer he is--he packs so much meaning into just a few lines, and you start to savor his truly artful turns of phrases.
Partner sites: Rottweiler, Spanish immersion program Spain, and Free Death of a Salesman Essays