Barbara Johnson has a very interesting analysis of the story Billy Budd. Johnson connects the characters to the type of readers they are. Billy who is innocent and harmless is describes as an illiterate because of the fact that he’s dumbfounded and that “language can be taken at face value”. Claggart on the other hand is complex, he’s intellectual but also seen as this evil guy. Lastly is Captain Vere who’s identity is connected to his books. Johnson describes him saying that, “Vere, then, is an honest, serious reader, seemingly well suited for the role of judge and witness that in the course of the story he will come to play.” Vere then is different form the other two characters because while the other two are represented by their actions, Vere is shaped by his reading. However Johnson does connect Billy and Claggart to reading as well and in a very interesting way.

The story is focused around good and evil and irony, however when one connects it with the type of reader the character is, there’s more to talk about. Billy is considered illiterate due to the fact that he doesn’t question appearance. He doesn’t seem to look more deeply into stuff, just accept it as it is. Whereas Claggart is complex, described as, “…the separation between being and doing…” However Claggart is perceived as evil. Where irony plays in is when Billy is the one to do harm.

Something that’s interesting that Johnson brought up is the whole idea of signified and signifier. She takes Billy as an example saying that, “…his inner self (the signified) is considered transparently readable from the beauty of his outer self (the signifier).” I think this is why she also considers Billy an illiterate because he’s exactly how he is. In language there’s a lot of complexity and thinking, not everything is as it seems and Billy is how he looks like. However irony comes into play and that’s when we could see the turning point of Billy as a character and as a reader. There’s now a difference between the signifier and the signified.

Johnson also questions a man’s nature vs his actions. Melville’s twist in his story where the good does something bad and the bad lives the fate, doesn’t really focus on good vs evil but more so on being vs doing. It questions society and what if a person is good by nature however his one action is evil. Johnson says that, “…Melville is preoccupied here is less the static opposition between evil and good than the dynamic opposition between a man’s “nature” and his “acts”…” Johnson shows that Melville’s work isn’t just about evil and good but the actions of a man. This then relates back to reading, where Vere is the only one who is how he seems, a judge while Claggart and Billy are changing and questioning for their actions.

In conclusion, a person’s action don’t just focus on good and evil on the outside but also within the person as well.