Billy as a Protagonist

Billy Pilgrim is not what you would expect in a war book. At least, not as a protagonist. I could see him as the comic relief, the guy who is in the war due to some odd series of events and just should not be there. And I think this is why he works as the “hero” of Slaughterhouse-Five. In an anti-war novel, he fits. I think Vonnegut was very smart in his characterization of Billy.

I see Slaughterhouse-Five as a decidedly anti-war novel, obviously. I mean, after Vonnegut’s supposed trip to the O’Hares’ house, and the mention of the Children’s Crusade, I can’t look at it any other way. Due to it being an anti-war novel, it should portray war in a way totally different from pro-war media. In most works revolving around war, even with a reluctant hero, the protagonist is a “good warrior.” He can fight, he can get through the war, he is a survivor. I would not call Billy a survivor. He lets a sniper take another shot when the first one misses. He literally needs to be dragged across the battlefield so that he doesn’t stay there and die. He has no weapons, no training, he doesn’t even have boots or appropriate clothes. This brings me to my main point: Billy should be dead. Logic dictates that the man who wasn’t even trained for battle, who has seemingly no valuable survival skills, and who has no will to live should die in the midst of a war. But he doesn’t. Thousands of real warriors died in horrible ways, not knowing who killed them, not knowing they were going to die, and Billy stumbles through the war, somehow surviving. This brilliantly showcases the terribleness and randomness of war. There isn’t structure or rules or etiquette involved. It is senseless death and destruction. Billy doesn’t survive because he is fitter than everyone else. He survives randomly. It just happened, and many others died randomly. Vonnegut uses Billy as an example of the unrestrained, needless destruction of war. He uses Billy to show one of the ways war is so terrible.