One would have to say, that Slaughterhouse 5 is a novel about Billy Pilgrim. Billy is Vonnegut's vehicle in which he shares his experience over the firebombing of Dresden. However, Billy himself doesn't do a lot of thinking or, really anything. He could best be described as apathetic and disinterested. This begs the question: is he a compelling and effective main character? I personally believe that this can only be decided individually by each reader.
Personally, I do not like Billy as a main character. The leads in novels which I find most interesting are much more introspective, and charismatic, and just overall compelling. I know the whole point is that Billy is supposed to be kind of a clown, but he's a little bit boring, and while his struggles are profoundly sad and he has obviously been through a lot, as a character he is not someone that ropes me in. I don't find myself being interested in him, because he seems sort of like a blank slate. Also, the time travel, and nihilistic vibe diminish him even more as an effective character in my eyes. I would have much rather heard this story told through someone else's eyes.
I agree. I guess my major critique with Slaughterhouse Five is that Billy just doesn't act how a reasonably realistic person would act. I really dislike reading books as a "oh this all happened inside of his head" story, so I don't like reading it as completely because of PTSD. He just seems like an unrealistic character who doesn't react in realistic ways.
ReplyDeleteI guess I agree that Billy isn't the most agreeable character, but I think to an extent that is the point. Billy's failure to function in society is a very intentional trait created by Vonnegut. He has suffered through something horrible, and has in response completely torn down his connection to society, by breaking his connection with time.
ReplyDeleteI'm more prone to thinking that Billy was the best choice Vonnegut could have made for a protagonist in his "anti-war" novel. A hero who liked the war would be problematic, as that's the exact narrative Vonnegut is trying to avoid. A hero who disliked the war is also a horrible idea, because then the novel just becomes a book about the harshness of fighting and gritty survival, another war narrative that Vonnegut really doesn't want to fall into. So instead, he opts for a protagonist who simply doesn't feel anything about the war. We get the sense that Billy doesn't want to be there, but he's along for the ride anyway. Vonnegut is just trying his hardest not to make Billy an endearing protagonist, and it seems like he did the trick.
ReplyDeleteI feel like billy isnt even a real person. He barely has emotions, is a clown, and overall doesnt seem to have much depth. This makes me wonder if the true character is the narrator who sometimes speaks on his own experience, and its as if we watch billy (a secondary character) from his eyes.
ReplyDeleteBilly doesn't seem like a character at all. He's kinda just there. As far as I could tell, he only showed emotion in two places in the book. I think vonnegut had a purpose for the way billy was, conveying something about the futility of war or the inexpressibility of war or just something about war. Maybe billy represents Vonnegut's own difficulty connecting with the world now, or appealing to us as readers.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Billy seems to be a completely blank person. He has barely any personality and seems to have absolutely no care about anything. It sounds like he has never truly enjoyed his life and is just letting everything play out. I agree with what Ethan commented though, that this blank personality is perfect for the "anti-war" hero, someone who doesn't want to be there and has nothing to gain or lose.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Vonnegut wanted Billy to be a perfectly like-able, healthy, fit, and relatable character. I think Billy is there, with his strengths and flaws to create this anti (war novel)
ReplyDeleteI agree that Billy isn’t the most interesting and can be rather dull at times but considering what he’s been through its hard to imagine him as anyone else. If Vonnegut was writing any other novel, I would completely agree that the Billy was a horrible choice for a main character, but he’s trying to talk about Dresden. And for that, Billy is the perfect character. He’s supposed to be practically shattered by what he witnessed and is also supposed to somewhat reflect Vonnegut and his experiences during the war. If this is what Vonnegut was like, then who are we to judge. Part of the point of this book is that it doesn’t romanticize war and having a main character who’s more upbeat or cheerful than Billy might ruin that.
ReplyDeleteWhile Billy's character seems to do a successful job of being the "anti-war hero" who no one can glorify, I do agree that he is not a very likable main character. I wonder if his story would have more of an impact if it were told from the perspective of someone close to Billy, such as his daughter, who was constantly trying to care for him.
ReplyDelete