Blood Meridian, or, the Evening Redness in the West
question
Is The Kid a Good Guy?
James
Oct 27, 2019 10:18PM
I have a question or two I would like to pose to this very erudite forum.
Is The Kid a Good Guy?
The Kid does not satisfy the usual criteria to be a protagonist in that McCarthy does not write the story from his point of view. In other words, we are not immersed in The Kid's head, in his sense world, hearing, seeing, feeling what he is dealing with. In fact, we get inside nobody's head in this book. Probably, this is what gives the book its strange, detached quality. The violence, as horrendous as it is, stays one step away from any one character. No one reacts to it in any emotional way whatsoever. However, although no violence (apart from survival stuff at the start) is attributed directly to The Kid, we can only assume he took part in the chaos, otherwise, Glanton and The Judge would have done away with him.
So, here are my questions:
Is the The Kid involved, but comes to a slow realisation that their anarchy is wrong?
Is The Kid a spectator, but kept alive by The Judge because his aim is to corrupt The Kid?
Does The Kid restrict his violence to a framework of morality all of his own? He sets his own moral parameters within the carnage?
Why doesn't McCarthy depict acts of violence perpetrated by The Kid?
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, it has been gnawing at me.
Is The Kid a Good Guy?
The Kid does not satisfy the usual criteria to be a protagonist in that McCarthy does not write the story from his point of view. In other words, we are not immersed in The Kid's head, in his sense world, hearing, seeing, feeling what he is dealing with. In fact, we get inside nobody's head in this book. Probably, this is what gives the book its strange, detached quality. The violence, as horrendous as it is, stays one step away from any one character. No one reacts to it in any emotional way whatsoever. However, although no violence (apart from survival stuff at the start) is attributed directly to The Kid, we can only assume he took part in the chaos, otherwise, Glanton and The Judge would have done away with him.
So, here are my questions:
Is the The Kid involved, but comes to a slow realisation that their anarchy is wrong?
Is The Kid a spectator, but kept alive by The Judge because his aim is to corrupt The Kid?
Does The Kid restrict his violence to a framework of morality all of his own? He sets his own moral parameters within the carnage?
Why doesn't McCarthy depict acts of violence perpetrated by The Kid?
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, it has been gnawing at me.
No. The Kid is just a wandering soul, a blind soul, good and bad are alien things to him. And not that he's unable to understand, but, he has no stake in any of it. He never really has anything genuine in his life to sustain any rhyme or reason. You might think he does what he does to survive. I don't even think that. If the kid had any sense of self preservation or worth, question, would he get himself into half the craziness that he does? He's a pinball in the machine, banging into things, being bounced around with no sense of itself. Until he's dead. The Judge is the only character that invests any interest in him, but, ultimately, he's disappointed. Hoping the kid would adopt his ways. But, he doesn't. And he kills him. And that's that.
McCarthy holds back little in the way of depravity, so it's hard to imagine that he is shielding us from the Kid's worst actions.
I think your second question is closest to the truth. The Judge sees something in the Kid that is not present in most of the others--if not a principled, direct opposition to the goings-on, at least a vague reluctance. I subscribe to the "let's not overthink this, he's totally the devil" interpretation of the Judge. If that's the case, it makes good sense that he'd want to corrupt the Kid above all else, that he'd derive more meaning and satisfaction from destroying one barely intact soul than slaughtering a million helpless villagers. He'd even risk his life to do it.
I think your second question is closest to the truth. The Judge sees something in the Kid that is not present in most of the others--if not a principled, direct opposition to the goings-on, at least a vague reluctance. I subscribe to the "let's not overthink this, he's totally the devil" interpretation of the Judge. If that's the case, it makes good sense that he'd want to corrupt the Kid above all else, that he'd derive more meaning and satisfaction from destroying one barely intact soul than slaughtering a million helpless villagers. He'd even risk his life to do it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
One of the first descriptions of the Kid says he has a taste for mindless violence. He is no hero. I suppose if McCarthy wanted to ...more
Aug 23, 2020 07:38PM · flag