What would it be like to be in Billy's place? What would it be to be unstuck in time? Well I have no idea. I don't know if I'd be like Billy, who is basically just a bystander throughout the entire book, especially if I had the knowledge about time/the lack of free will, etc. that he had.
A few days ago we talked about Billy's position in the wars scenes and how he seems very passive. When we see him in the war, all he does is stand around and miraculously not get killed, despite being probably one of the worst people you could have behind enemy lines. So is he an anti-hero? Or maybe even an anti-war hero? Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Like we discussed in class, Billy isn't necessarily being malicious or evil in any way, so he probably can't exactly be considered an anti-hero. He's the protagonist in this novel, which is an anti-war novel, so maybe he's an anti-war hero, but it's not like he's done anything that exactly goes against war besides being a useless protagonist in Vonnegut's novel? I don't know, I'm not really sure how to classify Billy. I want him to be more active in his life, not just stand in the background and watch it go by him. But at the same time, I don't know if I can blame him.
An idea that was drilled into his head by the Tralfalmadorians was that there is no free will. Billy's life is already decided, nothing he does will change anything, he will always get the same outcomes. Plus, with being unstuck in time, it's not like anything is a surprise. He knows what's going to become of his life. So maybe standing around while the war is literally happening right before his eyes isn't irresponsible. Maybe not working more to stay safe isn't a flaw. He knows he's going to live through it, so technically, doesn't he have nothing to worry about? If it were me, I would probably be more relaxed about the whole thing too (although maybe not quite to the degree that Billy is). While I don't think that he should be so passive about the rest of his life (his marriage, etc.), I can see why this would be the case during World War II.
Billy's a strange character with a strange story, and some of his actions definitely annoy me, but with is unique situation, I guess some of it makes sense. Do you see him as an anti/anti-war/anti anti-war hero? Or is he just a reasonable guy?
I definitely see Billy as a reasonable guy, especially given the fact that he knows pretty much what's going to happen to him and he thinks the world is deterministic. In such a scenario, I could easily imagine myself giving in to a sort of lazy apathy, given that no matter what happens, in the grand scheme of things, my life is pretty much meaningless. Considering the difficulties of his situation, I would definitely call him a hero. The mere fact that regardless of his world view, even in his old age, he still has the motivation to think back and write a book about WWII is impressive. Admittedly, he is not a hero in the classical sense, but I think he just a hero from a very different perspective
ReplyDeleteBecause Billy's story doesn't really follow the standard criteria of what defines a typical hero, I would say I don't think Billy can be considered a hero. However trying to put myself in his shoes, I do have a lot of respect for Billy for managing to stay alive even though he has every reason to end his life. I feel like knowing all the horrible things and lives he could potentially save with his knowledge of the future would drive him crazy with no power to stop them or make a change. So even though Billy isn't your typical hero, I give him a lot of credit for everything he's been though and the isolation he must constantly feel.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see him as either. I see him as more of a bystander who just happened to be part of this larger scheme that he didn't have a full understanding of. After Dresden got bombed, Billy's reaction was just "too bad it was a nice place." So an anti-hero? Kind of? Depends on how you define that, I guess.
ReplyDeleteI think he's both, in a way. He's an anti-hero in the sense that he's the protagonist but doesn't have normally "heroic" qualities like courage, etc. In his situation, though, his behavior makes sense because he knows there would be no point in, say, trying to warn the people of Dresden about the bombing.
ReplyDeleteBilly undoubtedly went through some form of psychological trauma during the war, sort of automatically making him a hero in one way or another. I think this novel is essentially the distorted reflection of his past with his newfound Tralfamadorian ideas, that free will does not exist. His battle seems to be very much still going on as his damaged mind copes with his experiences in Dresden through these fictitious beings' philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that Billy is a hero, anti-hero, or even anti-anti-hero, as I don't believe that he is even a hero. To me, being the hero of the novel implies some form of agency that Billy doesn't have. In fact it is hard to imagine a single time where Billy "chose" to make a decision rather than just having it happen to him.
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean, but I guess this all comes back to Billy knowing he doesn't have free will. So I think this book is a little different in terms of the hero dynamic since it's very clear that there's not really any agency due to the unstuck in time thing and all that.
DeleteBilly seems to be a reasonable guy given that he knows what's going to happen to him. For this same reason he lacks heroic qualities as he comes off as incredibly detached from what is going on around him, which is not typically characteristic of a "hero".
ReplyDeleteWhen you believe that you have no free will, that no matter what you do the result will be the same, it does lead to a bit of complacency. I don't know if Billy really can help but be passive at this point, during the war or even during any point in his life. He's been jumping around in time for a while and at some point, given the pointless of his actions, it may get a little boring.
ReplyDeleteOne way that Billy's extreme, nearly suicidal passivity connects to the novel's anti-war aspect is that he dramatizes, through his indifference to his own survival, one of Vonnegut's main ideas: there is no place for "heroism" in war, because individual actions are reduced to meaninglessness within the insane/incoherent context of war, and any story that depicts heroic soldiers taking control of their fate in some way gives a distorted and even dangerous picture of war. Billy doesn't survive because he "deserves" to--he just survives; it's random. Likewise, the scouts *don't* "deserve" to die--they know what they're doing, on patrol, wielding their weapons like real soldiers--but they are unceremoniously dispatched with "three inoffensive bangs." There's no rhyme or reason to it, and Billy's absurd obliviousness just drives the point home.
ReplyDelete