Despite being the end to this story, this last section leaves many thoughts to be analyzed and developed. In the final pages of the book, the kid begins to be referred to as “the man”. During the violence and trials that were experienced in the novel, did the kid change? Could this be seen as a deeper indication of his maturity throughout the story? At this point, he seems to no longer engage heavily in the senseless violence that plagued earlier chapters. An important detail to note is that he wears Brown’s necklace. I see this as a representation of his violent past and how he no longer lets it control his actions. Is it safe to say that the kid has grown into a man maturity-wise and physically, or do you think McCormick had another purpose in changing his title/status?
Was the kid’s “maturity” in vain? In the scene at the bar, the Judge talked to the kid about his fate. The judge talks about the future as if it is inherited, predetermined, and inevitable. The judge says, “A man seeks his own destiny and no other” (McCarthy 344). To come to a conclusion about a change in maturity and nature of the kid, one must consider the previous statement that at birth he possessed “already a taste for mindless violence” (McCarthy 3). This conversation hints that no matter what actions the kid made, he would again be taken into darkness and violence. Could McCarthy be trying to tell us that our nature is who we are and that there is no sense in trying to change or am I simply reading too much into this? If McCarthy is saying that we can’t change our predetermined fate, what is the point of showing us his maturity or trying to overcome violence?
An important scene that really must be discussed that wraps up the whole idea of darkness and not being able to escape it is the scene with the judge in the latrine. It seems that this is the kid’s death, although the whole scene is shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. Despite the incessant violence in the rest of the book, this important moment contains no brutality and happens quite swiftly. McCarthy tells us that the judge enveloped the kid and after, proceeded to do a “victory dance” and claims that “he never sleeps” and “that he will never die” (McCarthy 349). What significance does the lack of violence have? Upon further analysis of this scene, could it have been more than the kid’s death? Maybe it’s the judge’s way of welcoming him back to the darkness and then celebrating it?
As a separate thought, the short and enigmatic epilogue cannot be ignored and should also be looked at as tying up many themes from the last chapters as well as the entire book. Is the man symbolizing the judge? Is it trying to explain us marking our paths with fire? Do we inevitably invite violence into our lives by living? Like the kid, are we influenced by violence from the time of our birth and can we escape the cycle of it? This extremely brief epilogue can be taken to mean many things. What do you think is the message and purpose of it?
I agree with Cristina that the fate of the kid seems inevitable. The scene in the latrines intrigued me as well because the violence was not described. To me, I felt that maybe the kid’s death was so horrific that McCarthy could not write it down. But why stop describing horrific events now? The narrator had no problem relating in grotesque detail the happenings out on the frontier between the Americans and everyone else they met. Is it somehow right that the men who witness the kid’s fate are so appalled that they cannot bear to look at him? I get the feeling that these men are a lot like the kid in that they are accustomed to violence. To have something happen to the kid that is too disturbing to relate to the reader and too gross for the men to bear seems to me to be McCarthy trying to tell us something about the violence that is seemingly inherent in the lives of man. I think that maybe McCarthy is sending us a warning. Since the kid is anonymous, he could be anyone; he could represent all of mankind. As such, maybe this is the fate that awaits us all-something so violent and horrific that men cannot bear to see it, but the judge, who seems to be above or within the violence, revels in it. I have no idea if this even makes sense, but I do think the kid’s death represents a sort of fate that no man would want and maybe that we should take warning from him. If we immerse ourselves into the violence then we will end up destroyed by something even more violent.
I also think that the fate is inevitable, but I’d also like to this: if the Kid’s fate is inevitable, why is that his fate? Why is his fate to be killed in the end by the Judge?
Unlike the other characters, the Judge essentially hunts down the Kid. The others, he could care less about. But the Kid, that’s his primary goal. So is that why it’s his fate? Simply because the Judge wishes it to happen?
I stumbled across one possible interpretation of this while researching for my essay, and this article (“Learning from Art: Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian as a Critique of Divine Determinism” by Dennis Sansom if you’re curious) stated that the Kid is present as a a figure not fully invested in the violence that he commits. That his soul is clean (in a figurative way) when compared to figures like Glanton. The article continues to say that the Judge, the one who revels in violence, could not endure something like that.
Does that sound like a plausible argument? Or is the Kid really completely immersed in the violence, so that his death was McCarthy’s warning to humankind?
I think Kaitlin brings up an interesting point. If we recall the Judge’s statements about his notations in his journal, I think the article’s argument becomes much more plausible. The Judge says, “Whatever exists…whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent,” and later he says, “In order for it to be mine nothing must be permitted to occur upon it save by my dispensation” (McCarthy, 198-9). Perhaps these statements can provide some context for the Judge’s hunt of the kid. As Clare says, the Judge seems to revel in violence, and perhaps he cannot fathom why the Kid’s soul is relatively clean, something that seems to exist without his consent. Maybe the Judge celebrates at the end of Blood Meridian because he has finally extinguished the life of someone who lives without his “dispensation.” It’s just an idea, but perhaps it can help us understand the Judge’s motivation.
Reading through the epilogue the first time, I felt thoroughly stumped, but I think that Cristina is right to say that this scene has something to do with the cycle of violence. Essentially, the passage deals with a man boring holes into the earth and those who follow him. The line that stands out to me concerns the hole maker, who is “striking the fire out of the rock that God has put there” (McCarthy 351). In contrast to the other figures, who seem ignorant in their mechanized movements, the man boring holes possesses some superior ability, which allows him to draw out a kind of divine fire, a proverbial symbol of knowledge. In an essay on Blood Meridian, Petra Mundik relates this scene to Gnostic theology, which focuses upon gnosis, that is, divine knowledge, as a method of escape from an inherently evil world. Thus, the man boring holes is seen as a privileged figure much like a Bodhisattva in Buddhism, one who has remained on earth after having attained enlightenment. If one hopes to escape the violent cycle of existence depicted in the novel, one must do so through special knowledge, at least according to this interpretation. Interestingly, this same essay by Mundik posits the idea that the Kid may have achieved such a special special knowledge in the closing chapters.
Reading through the epilogue the first time, I felt thoroughly stumped, but I think that Cristina is right to say that this scene has something to do with the cycle of violence. Essentially, the passage deals with a man boring holes into the earth and those who follow him. The line that stands out to me concerns the hole maker, who is “striking the fire out of the rock that God has put there” (McCarthy 351). In contrast to the other figures, who seem ignorant in their mechanized movements, the man boring holes possesses some superior ability, which allows him to draw out a kind of divine fire, a proverbial symbol of knowledge. In an essay on Blood Meridian, Petra Mundik relates this scene to Gnostic theology, which focuses upon gnosis, that is, divine knowledge, as a method of escape from an inherently evil world. Thus, the man boring holes is seen as a privileged figure much like a Bodhisattva in Buddhism, one who has remained on earth after having attained enlightenment. If one hopes to escape the violent cycle of existence depicted in the novel, one must do so through special knowledge, at least according to this interpretation. Interestingly, this same essay by Mundik posits the idea that the Kid may have achieved such a special knowledge in the closing chapters.
I agree that the Kid’s fate to die seems inevitable. However, I feel that the lack of violent descriptions and the Kid’s new title represents something about the way we dies. We’ve already seen how certain characters became consumed by their own mindless violence, such as Glanton. The Kid avoids such a downfall by maturing in a sense. In some ways, he has escaped his fate of dying due to his own recklessness, reshaping the way he will die. Although he ultimately gets killed by the Judge by external violence, I think this shows hope to stand up against external violence while regaining an internal peace. The Kid may not have been successful in overcoming external violence since he dies, but he breaks the cycle he has be born into. McCarthy also demonstrates that maintaining internal peace, although difficult, is not impossible. Maybe he wants us to learn from the Kid that it is sometimes more important to sacrifice yourself to defend your values (like the internal peace the Kid seemed to represent) in spite of all the forces working against it (like the Judge and his extreme external violence unto the Kid).
I was also struck by the absence of violence in the Kid’s death. If choosing to go with the idea that this is a result of his death being so violent that it couldn’t even be recounted, its interesting to think about what McCarthy is saying about human reactions to death. When the gang didn’t know or weren’t familiar with the victim, its no big deal to violently scalp and/or kill them, and then portray this action. But when the Kid, who the gang knows more personally, is killed– presumably violently– the characters are less removed and therefore it is harder to portray this action with the passivity that other violence in the book has encompassed. Could McCarthy be commenting on the biases that humans have for their respective “in-groups” by the different portrayals of violence and death for different characters?