Toward the end of Blood Meridian, Judge Holden says a curious thing to the kid when the two are hunting each other in the desert:

There's a flawed place in the fabric of your heart. Do you think I could not know? You alone were mutinous. You alone reserved in your soul some corner of clemency for the heathen.

Then, shortly afterwards when the kid is in prison the judge visits him and says:

You came forward, he said, to take part in a work. But you were a witness against yourself. You sat in judgement on your own deeds. You put your own allowances before the judgements of history and you broke with the body of which you were pledged a part and poisoned it in all its enterprise.

It seems reasonable to suppose that the judge is referring to several moments in the book when the kid showed mercy to members of the gang when others would not. He helps David Brown pull an arrow from his thigh and, later, refuses to execute a dying man, Shelby. There are other examples.

In one of her lectures on the book, Amy Hungerford makes the case that the judge is wrong. There is no moral difference between the kid and the rest of the gang. Her argument is that these moments of goodwill are meaningless against the staggering brutality of the gang's acts, the literal piles of innocent corpses they stack up, which the kid participated in without showing any degree of mercy or remorse, at least that we are told about in the narration. Indeed in showing mercy to members of his own gang, he is, in fact, making things worse by storing up yet more suffering and brutality for those unfortunates they encounter.

Correct or not, she clearly has a point here, which made me wonder: what, then, is McCarthy trying to tell us in having the judge set the kid apart like this?

1 Answer 1


There's a scene near the end of the book where the kid is captured, and he speaks of his experience with the scalpers:

In his cell he began to speak with a strange urgency of things few men have seen in a lifetime and his jailers said that his mind had come uncottered by the acts of blood in which he had participated.

I saw it as proof that he felt guilt at the actions he had taken and things he'd seen. The smaller moments earlier where he helps fellow members of the gang also set him apart from their number; it's clearly stated that the other members would not have done the same.

All this to say that these small acts are not nothing. He is with, but not a part, of the group. He sits in judgement of himself.

In my mind, he's both literally and metaphorically the kid. He's simply along for the ride, with little agency, absorbing the world as he encounters it. I mean, he's barely mentioned for 2/3's of the book, presumably just following along with Glanton and the Judge.

New contributor
dramorak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.