I’ve read Blood Meridian only once. But I do plan on reading it once again to really dive into the story now that I’ve adapted to the prose.
The question in the title is a conversation I’ve had with my friends. It seemed to be about 50/50 among them.
Personally, I think The Kid was more than a willing participant. While he may be deadpan, it does muddy the water as to whether he participated in the gang’s actions or not. The Kid was with the gang for quite a bit, and I can’t imagine that kind of gang with that level of sadism (including The Judge) would ever let someone like the kid just tag along to simply witness their actions without him pulling his own weight. Especially in the time and setting the story takes place.
I think an early indicator that the kid was more than willing is his introduction to Toadvine. Especially Toadvine telling him to “Kick Him Honey”. We know The Kid can surely handle himself, and you can chalk it up to him doing what he needs to do to survive. But I just don’t think it’s that simple with him. To me he seems impressionable, despite his dryness. It’s only fair to think that he did participate in the gangs actions to an equal amount as everyone else. (Excluding The Judge who has done much worse).
What do y’all think? Was he just simply a witness, or was an active participant of the violence?
by Dirtiest_Dancer
3 Comments
I think it was in the opening paragraphs that the story establishes the Kid has a penchant for violence. Though he didn’t play an active role in the more graphic scenes, I think it was to keep the reader’s image of him as a relatable protagonist… >!so that the ending hits harder. I wouldn’t have felt as shocked by the ending if I had seen him as a purely villainous type. !<
It’s like the passage when he mistakenly adresses the skeleton of the old lady, urging her to leave together. It’s a show of humanity you wouldn’t see from other characters.
I think any explicit description of The Kid’s participation in the violence is omitted intentionally. His participation in the events might be ambiguous but he, like all those who profit from violence, is guilty by association. Even if he is only a witness to the events, he shares in the spoils of conquest and does nothing to mitigate the carnage wrought by the gang.
The Judge at one point says “Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge, exists without my consent.” Conversely, the gang’s evil deeds exist with The Kid’s knowledge, and their persistence is evidence of his permissive consent.
Aside from that, I think his participation is key to the narrative arc of the book as a whole. At least the way I like to think of it.
I think it is intentionally left ambiguous to provoke thought on themes like the blurry line between being complicit and being present during moments of brutality. The conflict and hesitation of human nature in the face of evil. The inconsistency and impossibility of moral decisions in an immoral environment. Etc. Leaving it open also forces the reader to engage and grapple with these themes for themselves.
So while a fine question to ask and conversation starter, it would be a lesser book if we were given enough information to fully know or understand the kid’s inner or outer reality one way or the other.