The Conscious Complexity of the Narrator-Reader Relationship

Schopen, Bernard A. “‘They Rode On’: Blood Meridian and the Art of Narrative.’” Western American Literature 33.3 (1995): 179-194.

Bernard Schopen considers the captivating and profoundly disturbing effects of Blood Meridian in terms of its formal elements, and the “manifold but integrated artistry” (188) of the narrative in particular. Though he sees the narrator as exploring “the mystery of evil in human hearts” (191), Schopen is interested not so much in the themes of Blood Meridian as the way in which those themes are constructed and conveyed, and how the construction is in itself central to the meaning of the novel. The “literariness” of the narrator, his direct addresses, his acknowledgements of uncertainty, and his alienation from the world that he describes (the rarity of internal glimpses) create a sense that the narrator is “a consciousness in search of meaning” (181-182). “Far from formless” (184), Schopen finds that the narrative, this search for meaning, is embedded in the complex structure of the story which is in fact imposed by the narrator (186). This control is exemplified by textual and structural patterns such as repeated images and phrases, recurring shifts in tense and tone, and nesting and echoing dramatic frames. Through “repetition-within-variation” (188), the narrator poses his troubling vision and questions from many angles. Thus the narrative, the great art of Blood Meridian, has such a powerful effect because its language and composition have multidirectional force, ensuring that the reader feels the “recognition” that Schopen asserts is “effected by all great literature” (191), and that this recognition is the awareness of a shared uncertainty rather than some absolute truth.

Schopen’s reading of Blood Meridian offers insights into the power that the narrative exerts over the reader, as well as the effort required by the reader to understand the complexities of the narrative. By stating that “recognition” on the part of the reader is one of the greatest achievements of powerful literature (191), Schopen identifies the reader-narrator relationship as difficult to forge but essential. “Carefully controlled,” the language employed by the narrator “carefully controls the reader’s response, producing contextually appropriate effects ranging from the horrific to the humorous” (181). But if the form of Blood Meridian “nearly becomes” its meaning (183), the reader must not just be controlled but also attend to intricate detail and be comfortable with a large degree of uncertainty in order to understand the narrator’s preoccupations. To think outside of the facts of the story to the method of its telling, the reader must be aware of but avoid intoxication with the language, just as the kid (to some extent) sees through Judge Holden by maintaining a wariness of the judge’s rhetoric. Although Schopen does not discuss the rhetorical power of the judge, dismissing him (or the kid) as a protagonist because of his "lack of agency in the narrated events" (185), Schopen's exclusion of the judge’s worldview from the complexities of the narrator’s voice, and especially his evaluation of the narrator as an authoritative seeker, establish the narrator as distinct and even in opposition to the judge. Schopen asserts that the narrator poses fundamental questions and rejects traditional answer systems (191), but in the “inexorable onwardness” of his inquiry does not try to replace such systems. The judge lacks the negative capability of the narrator, maintaining an uncompromising philosophy of war and destiny (Blood Meridian 248-249) and using his breadth of knowledge and command of language to convert his listeners to submission rather than to convince and confront them into questioning. Schopen’s positing of the narrator as “an atemporal observer of a world gone horribly wrong, a world populated by a species grown so alien to him that their inner existence he cannot assess and so does not access” (182) emphasizes that the relationship between the narrator and reader may be more ethically significant than any existing between characters or between the reader and a character.