The Fall of Billy Budd in Billy Budd, Sailor
Herman Melville passed away in 1891 before finishing his final novel. Melville’s granddaughter had the unfinished work published in 1924 over thirty years after he had last worked on it. His work entitled Billy Budd, Sailor has been widely recognized as a great success and a riveting story. Critical interpretations may vary, but a common view on the inspiration behind Billy Budd is an unexpected allegorical meaning drawn from the story of creation and the fall of man. After the Publication of Melville’s most famous work, Moby Dick, Melville turned to a darker side of story writing that expressed a deeper meaning than what lies on the surface often questioning the nature of good and evil. Whether or not intended, Melville’s story is quite reflective of the story of man’s fall from grace.
Even though the book of Genesis and Billy Budd are two stories not normally thought to be similar, Melville was known to draw inspiration from such books and stories and incorporate them into his novels. Such interpretations can bring a new meaning to this timeless tale. “The ground common to most discussion of Billy Budd is the assumption that the story is allegorical-a narrative representation of some universal truth or law or balance of contraries, a parable of Good and Evil.” (Berthoff, 32) There is plenty of evidence that suggests that Billy is the prelapsarian of his story, or the Adam. Both young men are kindhearted, innocent, and unfortunately drawn into a scheme which endangers their livelihood. Both Adam and Billy never had any ill intentions, but were blindly falling into a plot of their demise. “In chapter 2, rife with references marking Billy as prelapsarian, Melville makes clear that elements of Billy Budd echo the biblical story of the fall.” (Sterling, 266) Similarly, as in the book of Genesis, the story begins by introducing the main character as an innocent and naïve young man tempted by someone who only means him harm and misfortune. Billy is just a young boy unexperienced with the reality of the world, just like the biblical Adam.
The tale begins as Billy is taken away from his simple happy life on the merchant ship, “The Rights of Man.” He is described as a handsome sailor with “masculine beauty” and almost perfect except for an occasional stutter which will help to propel him into the trap that is set for him by the antagonist. The innocent boy is pressed into military service on the navy ship the Bellipotent and thrown into the middle of the Napoleonic war. He is a good sailor, but quite inexperienced in such a strict and unfamiliar environment. Although his innocence causes him difficulties with regulation, it seems to make him more likable to his fellow crewmembers and especially the captain who takes a special liking to him. This warship is a small confined space where it’s difficult to avoid conflict when Claggart out of his deep jealousy of Billy decides he does not like him and becomes determined to destroy his innocence. This concept coincides with the serpent’s temptations in the Garden of Eden.
Besides Billy Budd, the other characters in the story are quite allegorical as well. The story of the fall would be incomplete without the almighty and powerful one, and the tempting serpent. “It is shortly after this Eden reference that Melville introduces into the narrative the other main characters, both of whom recall their counterparts in Genesis.” (Kirby, 49-50) Captain Vere and Claggart both represent something allegorical. Captain Vere presides over the crew as a godlike figure, distant from the action. Claggart falls under the category of a serpent, tempting Billy and being the ultimate cause of his downfall. “The narrator’s language and symbolism make it clear that Billy is aligned with Adam, Claggart with the serpent, and Vere with God.” (Kelley, 308)
Captain Edward Fairfax Vere is a noble and just leader who has compassion for his crewmembers. He takes special notice of Billy most likely because of his innocence and naiveté. He seems to have a fatherly affection for him. Although he understood why Billy did what he did, he had to adhere to military rule to keep from making a dangerous precedent. Much in the same manner that God loves mankind, but there is a price to pay for sin. Claggart on the other hand had the outwardly demeanor of a calm and composed individual, but would later prove to be the ever clichéd, “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” He showed these characteristics by his underhanded actions against Billy. His poisonous schemes rival those of the serpent himself.
Another point where Melville shadows the fall in the Garden is when Claggart accuses Billy of being the ringleader of an attempted mutiny and conspiring against the captain. Billy is unable to defend himself. He is dumbfounded at this confrontation and is unable to speak properly, only stammering. This is where the character of Claggart has pulled Billy in his web of hate and angers him to the point that he lashes out at him in a manner uncharacteristic to Billy, but very much so present in the personality of Claggart. As in the Garden when Adam is confronted and could not accept the blame, in both these instances the once cherished protagonist stands accused as a malefactor and consequences follow.
The biggest takeaway from Billy Budd that links it to an allegorical meaning is the loss of innocence by the protagonist himself. “Billy’s action carries the double burden of the lessons of scripture and modem political history. Consider its biblical background: if Adam’s act of disobedience in eating of the Tree of Knowledge resulted in his expulsion from Eden, it also led to his loss of innocence, his acquisition of moral knowledge and acceptance of the existence of evil.” (Goodheart, 82) Billy Budd is likely the most innocent of the crew and it is only when Claggart claims mutiny that Billy loses his temper and strikes out against him losing his innocence. However, after the ensuing trial and ultimate conviction, Billy accepts his punishment as the consequences of his actions. No grudge is held as the last thing Billy does is forgive the captain proclaiming, “God bless Captain Vere.” Similarly, Adam accepted that it was his disobedience which led to his fall. “The symbolic resonances of the novel do not depend upon strict correspondence. Characters may depart from as well as reenact their symbolic roles—otherwise allegory would be mechanical and uninteresting.” (Goodheart, 82)
All of these points make a brilliant case for the allegorical meaning behind Billy Budd. “While all these factors may have played a role, the writing of Billy Budd was undoubtedly also based on Melville’s obsessive preoccupation with the problem of evil and the Judeo-Christian tradition of the fall.” (Cook, 178) Melville may have died before Billy Budd, Sailor was published, but he most likely would greatly appreciate the intense studies, numerous essays, and countless theories all surrounding one of his greatest works.
The Vanity of the Pursuit of Justice in Billy Budd
The course Herman Melville charts in his novella, Billy Budd, Sailor, is long and convoluted, perhaps surpassing even that of Captain Ahab and his crazed pursuit of the white whale. Published nearly three decades after Melville’s death, the author’s last work of prose is set aboard H.M.S. Bellipotent in the wake of The Great Mutiny at Nore. Due to the gravity of this particular insurrection, the vessel’s cramped atmosphere is thick with the paranoia of its commanding officers, who fear the same plight. It is an inopportune moment for master-at-arms John Claggart to falsely accuse a simple sailor named Billy Budd of mutiny, saddling Captain Vere with an agonizing legal and moral decision. The entirety of this novella is told through the eyes of an unknown narrator, granting the reader an excellent perch from which he can observe how Captain Vere makes his judgment. In Billy Budd, Sailor the flawed omniscience of the narrator is shared by Captain Vere, emphasizing the limitations of narration, which Melville argues produce a negative effect on the passage of justice.
If a reader were to examine the cover of Billy Budd, Sailor he would soon find the subtitle, ‘An Inside Narrative’ housed in parentheses below the true title (Melville 1). The presence of this lesser title manufactures a sense of intimacy that is soon bolstered by the third-person narrator, who classifies the novella as a tale concerning the “inner life of one particular ship and the career of an individual sailor’ (12). With all this in mind, a reader might reasonably expect Billy Budd, Sailor to be told in a bold, personal style much like the “Call me Ishmael” that opens Moby-Dick (1). This judgment, however, is inaccurate, for the narrator remains oddly distanced from the story which he claims to be so close to. Building the expanse between the teller of the novella and his reader is the fact that he says virtually nothing about himself or how he came to know Billy’s story in the first place. Yet despite his foggy background, the novella’s obscure narrator claims an extraordinary access to the minds of the characters in his narrative. For instance, early in the story, when Billy witnesses a shipmate’s flogging, the narrator knows that he “was horrified” and as a consequence ‘resolved that never through remissness would he make himself liable to such a visitation’ (25). Later in the story, after Billy declines an afterguardsman’s request for assistance in plotting a mutiny, the narrator miraculously knows that “it never entered his [Billy’s] mind that here was a matter which, from its extreme questionableness, it was his duty as a loyal blue-jacket to report’ (40). What is so unusual about the content of these passages is how an unknown third-person narrator has access to Billy’s present thoughts as well as those which are not yet available to the sailor himself.
In a similar fashion, the thoughts of Captain Vere lie exposed to the narrator’s prying eyes. After Claggart falsely accuses Billy of plotting a mutiny, Vere is so astonished that for a moment he becomes mute. Instead of speaking, the Captain contemplates images of Billy’s time aboard the warship, doubting Claggart’s claim. It is only ‘after a brief pause, during which the reminiscences above mentioned passed vividly through his mind’ that Vere’s lips issue a response (50). The events of the story at this time are presented in an interesting manner. There is a “brief pause” during which the reader experiences a difference in the actual time the events of the story occur and their representation in the narrative. This impressive display of omniscience, however, does not remain consistent.
The reader first sees a shift in the narrator’s omniscience during a scene in which Billy unintentionally spills soup on a portion of deck occupied by Claggart’s feet. In the surprisingly calm aftermath of this incident, the narrator describes Claggart’s temperament as “protectively secretive, which is as much as to say it is self-contained, so that when, moreover, most active it is to the average mind not distinguishable” (32). At the words “secretive,” “self-contained,” and “not distinguishable” it is clearly evident that the narrator has lost his power to freely enter the minds of other characters. In other words, the thorough mental evaluations that the reader has become accustomed to are done away with and replaced with the foreign tongue of conjecture. However, the most complete lapse in omniscience occurs at precisely the moment during which a thorough documentation of events is crucial: when Captain Vere himself delivers the sentence of the Drumhead Court to Billy. It is in the tension of this moment that the narrator finally notifies the reader of his present blindness, that ‘beyond the communication of the sentence, what took place at this interview was never known’ (68). How strange it is for readers to find the narrator who otherwise enjoys a complete access to both Billy and Vere’s thoughts unable to eavesdrop on a simple conversation where privacy is not explicitly enforced. This moment is especially frustrating, because as Walter L. Reed observes, the hungry reader is not satisfied; rather he is left to starve on meager scraps sourced from a insufficient grasp of basic events (233). How then could one begin to understand the narrator’s inconsistency?
Perhaps one might reason that the narrator occupies the same space as his characters and is thus forced by the confines of his setting to theorize about words he could not possibly overhear. However, this supposition is incorrect, because in scenes where characters enforce privacy, the narrator continues to practice omniscience. When Vere arranges for Billy and Claggart to discuss the rumored mutiny for example, he transfers them to “a place less exposed to observation than the broad quarter-deck’ (51). Yet Vere’s attempt to ensure confidentiality fails because it does not inhibit the narrator from recording the events that transpire in this “less exposed” place. This presents a question about how the narrator’s ability to overstep the bounds of privacy is reconciled with its failure during the interview between Captain Vere and Billy in which the events were “never known”. Benjamin Britten suggests that this inconsistency is a deliberate attempt to make the narrative feel more realistic by varying the methods through which it is reported (175). Alternatively, Wayne Booth proposes that these fluctuations in narrator omniscience may simply constitute a gap in Melville’s technique (284). In a more productive mode of speculation however, one can explore how these jarring shifts in narrative representation are similar to Vere’s dilemma between legal and moral judgement, which also seems to echo the narrator’s inconsistency.
When Captain Vere first appears in the novella, he is described as a man who “loved books, never going to sea without a newly replenished library’ (19). In a literal sense, Vere is a reader. It is a quality that alienates him from his officers and crew, earning him the nickname “Starry Vere”. Yet the Captain also presents himself as a reader in other senses than the literal. During chapter nineteen when Vere simply commands Billy to “Speak” so that he might defend himself from Claggart’s mutinous charges, the Captain chances upon a case of unintentional mutiny, when the sailor’s stutter renders its owner mute (53). Fortunately, Vere understands the nature of Billy’s silence and does not interpret it as a true sign of defiance. The Captain demonstrates an ability to read the psychology of his crew in a way similar to the narrator practicing omniscience on the minds of his characters: ‘Though at the time Captain Vere was quite ignorant of Billy’s liability to vocal impediment, he now immediately divined it, since vividly Billy’s aspect recalled to him that of a bright young schoolmate of his whom he had once seen struck by much the same startling impotence’ (53). In this moment of understanding between Vere and Billy, the Captain also presents himself as a competent judge in that he draws reasoning from the similar case of the ‘bright young schoolmate’ and applies it to the welkin-eyed sailor who shares his same “vocal impediment”. Moreover, Vere divines the meaning of Billy’s silence and communication still transpires. The Captain reads Billy’s silence as a rejection of Claggart’s charges, shifting from his harsh ordering of “Speak, man!” to a gentle consoling of “There is no hurry, my boy. Take your time, take your time” (53). The former addresses a “man” who is held fully accountable for his actions, whereas the latter addresses a “boy” who is not held fully accountable for his actions. In this scene, Vere and the narrator are symmetrical — Vere reads Billy’s predicament at the same moment the narrator reads Vere’s thoughts. In other words, the judge shares the narrator’s omniscience and is subject to it at the same time. On the very next page however, the reader watches this beautiful symmetry devolve into chaos. Although Vere can read Billy, Billy is unable to reciprocate, which prompts him to feel so overwhelmed by the false accusation that he strikes Claggart dead. Then at Billy’s subsequent trial under the Drumhead Court, Vere argues against lessening his sentence, reasoning that ‘However pitilessly the law may operate, we nevertheless adhere to it and administer it’ (64). So, although Vere believes Billy not to be fully responsible for the killing, he issues a sentence that suggests the opposite. This behavior is intriguing because despite his ability to read and understand Billy, Vere claims that he cannot incorporate his understanding into the basis for his judgment.
The ruling at Billy’s trial seems to belong to a man who embodies the complete opposite of a man who is “no lover of authority for mere authority’s sake’. Indeed at first glance, Vere seems to cling to the law even in situations where enforcing it becomes unjust. The Captain’s almost religious observance of a legal system void of natural and spiritual connections, as Robert Ferguson claims, provides the plot’s central conflict. Similarly, Michael Rogin finds in Vere the image of a legal system drained of religious meaning and opportunities for redemption (316). However, with a closer examination of Vere’s argument, its more subtle complexities begin to surface. The first of these is the image that Vere, as Captain, must present his crew. Vere’s concern about his image is most apparent in his observation that “The people (meaning the ship’s company) have a native sense; most of them are familiar with our naval usage and tradition” of the law (66). Vere then questions how these sailors would react to the quarterdeck mitigating Billy’s sentence, saying that “Even could you explain to them — which our official position forbids — they, long molded on arbitrary discipline, have not that kind of intelligent responsiveness that might qualify them to comprehend and discriminate’ (66). The purpose of Vere’s rather cynical speech is to further convince other judges on the Drumhead Court that any attempt to communicate to the crew the need for leniency is doomed to fail. Due to how well versed the crew is on matters of discipline in the British navy, they would interpret a single lenient punishment amongst a sea of harsh punishments as weakness and, to the fear of the court, incite a larger insurrection in response. Additionally, regardless of how well-worded a lenient sentence might be, the crew would distrust it when it is announced because they are ‘Molded on arbitrary discipline’ (66). Essentially, Billy and his shipmates have learned from Captain Vere and his officers that the language of the law is unchanging. Indeed, Vere reminds the officers on the Drumhead Court that the very nature of their ‘official position forbids’ them from attempting to speak with the crew since it would produce a myriad of misinterpretations because an officer choosing to associate himself with those of lower rank is almost unheard of and therefore suspicious. The act would go against the intimidating and distanced reputation that Captain Vere and his officers have worked hard to build, and to which the crew has become accustomed. Here, the similarities between Captain Vere and Billy’s predicaments are readily apparent: Billy, who is forced to act instead of speak, effectively robs the quarterdeck of its strength, forcing it to execute a partially innocent man so that it does not look weak. Vere, as a member of that quarterdeck, finds himself trapped by his own authority and must also act instead of speak in order to follow the law and preserve his authority. As Lawrence Douglas laments, Vere is barred from using words to bridge the great moat between the judge and his subject (150). The story that Vere then tells to legitimize his unjust use of force serves as a cautionary tale about the limitations on communication that are latent in the law and its courts.
With the common thread of communication between narration and judgement, Billy Budd, Sailor weaves a tapestry in which the vulnerabilities of judgement, performed by Captain Vere, and narration, performed by the narrator, are depicted in a similar manner. Both men play a central role within the novella yet remain distanced from the reader and their fellow characters. The narrator reveals nothing about his identity to the reader, preventing himself from being classified as an officer or a member of the crew. Meanwhile, Captain Vere is so occupied by his interest in literature that the small fraction of men aboard the Bellipotent whom his rank deems appropriate to socialize with, find him a “dry and bookish gentleman…lacking the companionable quality” (20). Although Vere and the narrator are capable readers, who demonstrate an ability to peruse the thoughts of their subjects with an omniscience described as ‘divine,’ they both encounter limits upon their omniscience that prevent their extensive knowledge from becoming part of the narrative. Lastly, both men claim the ability to ‘read’ and judge the motives of other characters. However, the content of their judgements ultimately does not matter since “justice” aboard the Bellipotent during a time of mutiny is unchangeable, because all outcomes conform to a single mold that anticipates and prevents the feared collapse of authoritative control. The sentences, therefore, are always the same regardless of what the Captain and the narrator know.
Of course, there is one sizeable difference between the narrator and Captain Vere. The narrator’s predicament appears to be a crisis of omniscience, a conflict between his total knowledge of events at some points in the story and his total lack of knowledge at other points in the story. In essence, the narrator grapples with what he knows and what he doesn’t know about his own story. Vere’s predicament, however, seems to be rooted in the conflict between knowing and saying. The Captain wrestles with what he alone knows about the events surrounding Claggart’s death, and the manner through which he would attempt at presenting Billy’s mitigated sentence to the crew in a language they would understand. By planing away at the knots in these dilemmas, it is possible for one to glean a new understanding of the narrative hole that spans Captain Vere’s conversation with Billy about his sentencing under the Drumhead Court. After the narrator confesses that ‘what took place at this interview was never known’, he tries to make up for his lack of knowledge by cultivating various conjectures about what Billy and Vere might have said to each other (68). For instance, the narrator makes the observation that Vere was ‘old enough to have been Billy’s father,’ a detail that is intended to evoke the image and sentiments of Abraham during his preparations to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, at God’s request (68). Yet the narrator’s conjectures prove merely to serve an aesthetic purpose because alluding to a Biblical father and son does not reveal anything about what Vere and Billy actually said to each other. Perhaps the presence of these conjectures serves to remind the reader about the impossibility of communication in this moment. With this in mind, the narrator’s silence becomes revealing because it indicates how the judge and his subject, in a sense, exist in separate spheres which no degree of communication is capable of uniting, since there will always be something that prevents the judge and the subject from sharing a united perspective. In Billy’s case, two items are responsible for this divide: what Captain Vere cannot communicate to his crew, and a court that is“forced” to rule against the him in order to maintain its authority over the masses. Or, as Robert Cover eloquently states, ‘The ‘interpretations’ or ‘conversations’ that are the preconditions for violent incarceration are themselves implements of violence’ (1608). In other words, total communication between the prisoner and the judge is impossible so “true justice” is unattainable. As a result of this imperfect communication, violence is usually inflicted upon the prisoner, who will lose his freedom or even his life, as in the case of Billy Budd. In a similar sense, the narrator, like Vere and Billy, also finds himself in an impossible situation. Up until the moment of Billy’s sentencing, the narrator has the capacity to trespass on the thoughts of both Billy and Vere. However, the very act of Vere passing his judgement onto Billy creates a dilemma in the structure of the narrative. Just as Vere finally understands that his words cannot span the divide of power and rank, the narrator, in his failure to tell Vere’s thoughts is forced to recognize how his claimed omniscience is unattainable.
The Importance and Controversy of Moral Values in Herman Melville’s Billy Budd
“Struck dead by an angel of God! Yet the angel must hang!” Captain Vere, although having moral values, primarily focuses on the political correctness over the religious or moral correctness. Because of this belief, Vere does not trust himself alone to make the right decision, and instead puts together a small court to make the ultimate decision for Billy’s fate. However, although not directly taking blame for the decision, he does attempt to sway the court by giving his personal opinions, based entirely on the law.
In layman’s terms, the adjudicators want to nullify the law and set Billy go, similar to how courts can set guilty victims free for crimes they deem immoral or unlawful. To such a man as Vere, this path cannot be taken, as he values the law above all else. To prevent this outcome, he first gives the full, honest testimony of Billy’s murder, trying to deny all possible doubts the court may have. This may not seem like a big deal, but if Vere really wanted Billy to live, he could have lied, saying claggart attacked first. By giving the full testimony, here demonstrates his ability to lead a lawful life over a moral one.
But even Vere knows this won’t be enough to sway them. After Billy’s departure, Vere begins to really sway the officers. He begins by defining the situation they are in, saying they are “acting not as caustic or moralists, it is a case practical, and under martial law practically to be dealt with”. He portrays the situation not as a moral case of good vs evil, but a simple, no doubt, practical murder case of a superior officer for which the punishment is clear and the correct solution. Vere next characterizes Billy’s actions, stating that if “we are bound to regard the death of the master at arms as the prisoner’s deed, then does that deed constitute a capital crime whereof the penalty is a moral one”. Even more clearly to the court, Billy’s actions are indefensible under strict law that they all are here to judge.
Continuing on morality, Vere brings a religious context into the situation, understanding that they will feel morally obligated to set a man defending himself in the only way he could, who is “innocent before God”. To counter argue these thoughts, Vere states that they are not servants to Nature and God in this situation, but to the King and Justice.
After these arguments, one man brings up a point of convicting with a milder penalty. Seeing the reasoning and login in this thought, he counter argues it with more reasoning. If he were to set an example by setting free a suspected mutineer and higher officer murderer, the consequences could be unforeseeable. He again pits at the recent mutinies as proof that the situation they are in, and the decisions they make very soon could affect the entire future on this ship.
By accepting these logical arguments, you essentially put aside all your personal feelings on moral correctness and condemn and arguably innocent man to death. By giving up your rights to choose to a law system that only benefits those at the top, you give up some kind of right, to judge your laws your self. This case bears mind to the act of Jury Nullification, the act of setting a guilty man free despite the evident against him and the laws that must be followed. In American court systems, the Jury holds full responsibility for the laws. Lawyers want to get rid of such ideas, because this type of thinking strongly opposes the nature of laws and justice. However, in the case of Billy, nullification is a moral responsibility for the men, so accepting Vere’s arguments would go against many moral statues society obeys.
“Now something such an one was Claggart, in whom was the mania of an evil nature, not engendered by vicious training or corrupting books or licentious living, but born with him and innate, in short, ‘a depravity according to nature’.” Citing Plato, Melville uses this statement as a characterization of Claggart, mostly because no other description could fit. Claggart’s evil is rooted not for justifiable reasons. The narrator of Tell-Tale Heart claims that the old man “… has never wronged me. He had never given me insult.” So it goes with Billy and Claggart. Billy had never directly wronged Claggart, as the old man had never directly wronged the narrator. However, in both Claggart and the narrator’s minds, the indirect result of their being present is enough reason for the seeking of justice, except for Claggart it is the envious nature of his popularity and good looks, while the narrator simply hates the old man’s eye. Both of these could be considered an evil that lies beneath the character, which is what Melville refers. Natural depravity is the evil rooted within everyone, and the evil that Claggart cannot suppress.
Aside from the fact that they contradict such moral basis, Vere’s arguments are all valid and somewhat persuasive. However, finding myself in this situation, I would certainly acquit Billy on moral grounds. I do not value unjust laws over my own sense of morality, which is something Vere would disagree with on all accounts. He would rather see an angelic figure hang for an unjust law than see a defensibly innocent man walk free.
Billy Budd Movie Analysis
Priorities are always difficult to manage. This theme is especially apparent in Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. In this movie, the main character, Billy Buddy wants to save the world from itself, to enact social change, but Penny, the love of his life, is constantly a distraction. He struggles to balance his two desires, thus creating the movie’s plotline. Billy’s desires for love and social change create a conflict in order to prove that neither can survive when they exist in the same place.
Dr. Horrible wants to change the world. He wants to treat the problems that plague society. Dr. Horrible understands that change is necessary, and he wants to be the one to enact it. He is sickened by the “filth and lies” apparent in the world, and specifically in the façade Captain Hammer puts on. Because Hammerman takes Penny for himself only to anger Dr. Horrible, Billy realizes that the superhero, who is supposed to be the city’s symbol of goodness, is just a prideful, arrogant, and unintelligent jerk. These facts lead to Dr. Horrible’s desire to change the system that take precedence in the beginning, since they have the greatest effect on the world and Billy’s own reputational power.
This precedence is shifted to love once Dr. Horrible and Penny start to get to know each other. Because this happens at the same time that Penny and Captain Hammer meet, Billy’s jealousy and love grow stronger simultaneously. Billy’s personal life pushes his desire for social change aside once he decides that Captain Hammer must die. This shift of priorities is demonstrated in the song “Brand New Day,” in which Dr. Horrible throws away his morals and his attention to creativity to plot Captain Hammer’s death. This is purely a way to act on his jealousy and does not necessarily benefit humanity. Though Captain Hammer is not an ideal citizen, Billy did not want him to die before Penny became involved, which means that Billy did not originally think Captain Hammer was the source of humanity’s misery and is now serving his own motives. In “So They Say,” Dr. Horrible is busy building his death ray, while Penny is left alone at the Laundromat. Since Billy is ignoring Penny to confront Captain Hammer, he is avoiding both love and social change, which leads Dr. Horrible to something truly evil: jealousy. In that kind of environment, nothing beneficial can live.
In this environment of jealousy, Dr. Horrible becomes less merciful, though he still cannot justify murder. He prepares to kill Captain Hammer, but hesitates. He does not want to have blood on his hands, proving that he still cares about his morals. But, when Penny dies instead, he loses his love and feels that the good in the world is lost. In the final song, Dr. Horrible says sarcastically “you think justice has a voice.” In this statement, Billy assumes that there is no hope for justice, so he gives up on his hope for social change and takes on the traditional role of a super villain. Thus, neither love nor social change can survive when they are pitted against each other.
Throughout the movie, Dr. Horrible struggles with the things he wants, and in the end, he does not get either of them. Though he does get into the Evil League of Evil, he is not enacting the social change he wanted, and Penny is dead. With this outcome, it is apparent that love and desires for social change cannot work in conjunction with one another, especially if you are a super villain.
Consequence of Choice: Faith Versus Rationality in ‘Billy Budd’
In the novel Billy Budd, Sailor, Herman Melville attempts to convey underlying truths regarding human nature through the people, whom grow to represent a larger aspect of society. The story revolves around the titular character, a virtuous and naïvely incorruptible young seaman who finds himself in a regrettable situation due to a flaw that surfaces when faced with threatening situations. The author employs an extended comparison dealing with the essence of faith versus circumstances and choosing between the two through the three main characters in the novel. Billy Budd’s moral purity is contrasted with the malicious character of John Claggart and the middle ground between the two ultimately becomes the intelligent and objective Captain Vere and his ethical dilemma. The outcome of the situation, arguably, represents society’s concept of “divine justice” and elucidates the archetypes of the good, the bad, and the balanced. Therefore, by juxtaposing the moral standards of Billy Budd, John Claggart, and Captain Vere, Melville is able to examine the constant battle between rationality and faith.
Billy Budd, from the very beginning of the story, is portrayed as the pinnacle of rectitude. His Rights of Man shipmates praise his ability to “[sugar] the sour ones” with virtue (6) and the author makes Billy Budd’s innocence very clear when he states that “to deal in double meanings and insinuations of any sort was quite foreign to [Billy’s] nature”(9). Furthermore, through the narrator, Melville details his exceptional goodness when he declares that “his simple nature remained unsophisticated by those moral obliquities” (12). Through this implication that Billy Budd lacks the intelligence to formulate any sort of vindictive thought, the author reveals how someone who is such a paradigm of purity can assemble into the real world. If the Bellipotent is society, then Billy Budd represents the remaining naïveté and decency that ultimately becomes not his downfall, but his legacy. He is the personification of acting by faith, as he blindly accepts authority and never succumbs to his own will. His lack of personal courage is illustrated in his blatant acceptance of death and faith, shown even in his actions before the fatal moment. The ship’s chaplain, as expressed through the narrator, states how fearlessly committed Billy is to his own “dogma” (78) and the way in which he confronts death without abandon, even “bless[ing]” (80) Captain Vere upon the moment of his execution, disregarding ration and instinctively relying on his own belief in the moral integrity of Vere.
John Claggart, on the other hand, is the epitome of a malicious man whose motivations are cruel and vengeful. The author portrays him as “the mania of an evil nature, not engendered by vicious training or corrupting books or licentious living, but born with him and innate, in short ‘a depravity according to nature'” (34). His internal “depravity” confines him to live without faith, as everything Claggart does seems to spur solely from his own conscience and entirely distrusting of those around him. He acts by ration, but not by any defined set of rules. Instead, he relies entirely on his selfish desires and volition, vastly different from Billy Budd’s blind trust, in that his reasoning is that everyone is out to get him. Therefore, Claggart’s conscience is really “the lawyer to his will” (39) and he is unable to escape this “innate” evil because it is the basis for his rationale and decision-making. Claggart can justify his wrongdoings, such as framing Billy Budd, because his resentment and envy towards Billy translates to a necessity to be punished and he “[makes] ogres of trifles” (39).
Melville utilizes his character to portray the dangers of an overly self-reliant and one-sidedly rational mind, because Claggart’s inability to sympathize will be his fatal flaw. Melville utilizes the character of Captain Vere to form the perfect balance between Budd and Claggart as well as emphasizing the division between injustices and mistakes. Captain Vere is established as a heavy rule-follower since his introduction as the practical, intelligent philosopher of the ship. In deciding what to do with Billy Budd, Vere concludes that “he [is] not authorized to determine the matter on [a] primitive basis”(61). Nevertheless, he settles on the more “rational” option after debating with both himself and the court for quite some time. Vere declares that he will rule solely based on “the prisoner’s overt act,” (67) even though he “[believes]”(63) in Billy Budd. Melville uses Vere’s definitive decision, in which the captain settles on ration and ignores his “gut feeling” and natural justice, to elucidate the tangible struggle between law and belief, and Vere’s refusal to incorporate faith into his decision becomes his downfall as well. Despite his strong feelings against choosing the “[pitiless] law,” (68) he still hangs Billy Budd, yet cries before the trial that Claggart was “struck dead by an angel of God,” (59) acknowledging the sincerity of faith and even displaying signs of remorse. However, his disregard for instinctive belief will eventually kill him in battle. Melville employs the other ship in the conflict at the end of the novel (not coincidentally named “Atheist”) to indicate that Vere’s unwillingness to consult his faith is his most significant hamartia.
Melville creates these characters of Billy Budd, John Claggart, and Edward Vere in order to contrast the difference in principles between faith and rationality and how, ultimately, faith is the more honorable choice. Melville deliberately manifests Billy Budd as both the most morally sound character as well as the most faithfully reliant and driven by impulse. The implication that relying strictly on rules invokes some sort of cowardice is an interesting lesson taught by the narrator, if not Melville, and could even be interpreted as Melville following his own beliefs and disregarding “natural law” by writing this book.