First, you have to look at the definition of "protagonist". According to our dear pals at Google, the word protagonist can be defined in many different ways.
-the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.
-an advocate or champion of a particular cause or idea.
"a strenuous protagonist of the new agricultural policy"
I don't know about you, but when I look at Billy Pilgrim, I don't consider him "leading" in any way. He kind of gets dragged along through his life without a care. If you take Vonnegut as a character in the first chapter (after all, it is a chapter and not a prologue), and you say that the rest of the story is a roundabout way of Vonnegut, the character in chapter one, telling his story of Dresden, then I think a strong case can be made advocating Vonnegut as the "leading character" in the novel. Sure, he doesn't appear as much in the novel as Billy, but should that disqualify him as a protagonist.
I also believe that if the latter definition is used, then Vonnegut, if not the protagonist of the novel, is clearly a protagonist for the themes that the novel is trying to represent. But maybe the answer isn't that simple. One could also argue that there isn't a traditional protagonist. There are no true heroes in this novel. There are some good people, there are some bad people, but for the most part, they're all just people. And maybe that's the point. It seems pretty clear in chapter one that Vonnegut didn't want anyone to be a hero in this novel because he didn't want to show support for any reason to go to war. He wanted the war to seem childish, and I think he accomplished that goal.
It's definitely an interesting point that Vonnegut didn't want there to be a protagonist or "hero" in the novel because that promotes/glorifies war, and Slaughterhouse 5 maintains a very negative outlook on war.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that the second definition applies to any fictional protagonist, except coincidentally. I can't even recall hearing the word used in that way. I suppose a novel could conceive its main character explicitly as a proponent of an "idea," but my sense is that this definition applies to nonfictional contexts (close to the word "proponent").
ReplyDeleteThe Greek origin of "protagonist" has it as "one engaged in struggle," and Billy is clearly an anti-protagonist in this sense. He *refuses* to struggle, at all, and instead sees himself as the "listless plaything of enormous forces." Indeed, the novel's larger view seems to be that none of us are *ever* really protagonists at all--we only think we are. Notably, the Tralfamadorian novel seems to have no concept of protagonist, in Vonnegut's description--just "scenes," isolated for our consideration. Protagonism implies movement, tension, and expectations for a significant outcome of some kind. Tralfamadorians would say those expectations represent us being "stupid."
I still do think Billy Pilgrim acts as the "protagonist" to the novel. While he may not be "leading", he is the main character of the novel with the novel focused around him being unstuck in time. One could argue that Billy characterizes Vonnegut but still Billy is the actual character in the novel.
ReplyDeleteI think that Billy is the protagonist of the novel. Although he may not really dictate his life throughout the novel, I think his experiences in the novel drive the plot. In addition, I think Vonnegut as the author is trying to use the book as an outlet to understand his experience in the war.
ReplyDeleteI think that if we are able to make a distinction between "main character" and "protagonist" then I definitely agree with you. Billy is the main character and we mostly follow him throughout the novel, but you're right in saying that he is in no way "leading." In fact Kurt Vonnegut the character could ver possibly be "leading" us through all of this and making sporadic appearances into the narrative. I see him as a background character that is orchestrating the story that appears in the foreground.
ReplyDeleteI also find it pretty hard to see Billy as a protagonist in any way. There's part of me that, because of his general lack of action in the novel, considers him to be a tool used by Vonnegut to be present everywhere to tie the story together, a sort of narrator. Billy's resignment to the fact that he can't change the experiences in his life makes it seem like he's just telling stories, not participating in them.
ReplyDelete