Vulgamore 1

Patrick Vulgamore
Professor Singleton
ENG 252
13 March 2015
Determinism and Responsibility in The Blue Hotel
The Blue Hotel by Stephen Crane is a short story that takes place at the Palace Hotel in
Fort Romper, Nebraska. The story begins as three strangers arrive at the hotel during a harsh
blizzard. Shortly after arrival, a man nicknamed the Swede due to his nature and visage, begins
acting vehemently based on his assumption that the West is a dangerous place. The events that
followincluding altercations with a cowboy, an easterner, a gambler, the hotel owner, and the
hotel owners teenage son Johnnieinexplicably lead to the Swedes death. The story then poses
a question: who is morally responsible? While each character contributed to the final outcome in
some way, moral responsibility falls on one. In the following paragraphs, I will show how the
gambler is the only character morally responsible for the Swedes death by examining each
candidates role in the story.
In the beginning of the story, a hotel owner named Scully collects three travelers off a
train and brings them to his Palace Hotel. Among the travelers is a rough and quiet cowboy, a
thoughtful and even quieter easterner, and a shifty Swede. Scully, whose attitude is friendly and
hospitable, attends the guests with food, games, and shelter from the blizzard outside.
Throughout the night, the Swede becomes increasingly nervous. In the midst of a card game, he
bursts outright with claims that he will die inside the hotel. Confused and curious, the other
players watch as Scully approaches the Swede hoping to calm him and discern the reason for his
misbehavior. Soon, the Swede collects his luggage and prepares to leave, but Scully offers him a

Vulgamore 2
drink of whiskey. As a result, the Swede relaxes and rejoins the others a new man. He is
comfortable and boisterous; an obnoxious shadow of his former cautious self. This can be
considered the first controlling factor that helps lead the Swede to his death. Had Scully refrained
from stopping and reassuring the Swede, then the Swedes cautious attitude would not have
provoked the gambler to the point of murder. Therefore, technically, Scully is responsible for the
Swedes death. However, Scully had no way of knowing the end result, and one could argue that
the Swedes rude manners are to blame. This deterministic viewpoint can be stretched
indefinitely: every action made by the Swede and all other characters is wholly dependent on
previous events. This idea can then be extended to each other character in question, so I will
discuss the characters based on their respective proximity to the Swedes death.
The next character, Johnnie, has a large part in sending the Swede to his death. During a
game of cards, Johnnie cheats and the Swede catches him. Johnnie denies the claim, and the two
agree to fist-fight in the snow. After the Swede wins the fight, he leaves the bar in an even less
agreeable manner, causing him to pick the fight with the gambler. One could argue that Johnnies
cheating at cards resulted in the death of the Swede, but Johnnie never meant to lose the fight,
and the outcome could have been completely different had Johnnie won. If Johnnie was to be
held morally responsible, then who is to say another character in Johnnies backstory, perhaps the
person who taught him to cheat, would not be equally responsible? Furthermore, would the
person that taught Johnnies teacher also be responsible? This way of thinking would potentially
track all the way to Johnnies birth, to the birth of Johnnies great grandparents, to Homo erectus,
and beyond. Thus, moral responsibility must be placed on the person of closest proximity to the
fatal event. The next two characters, the easterner and the cowboy, have the farthest proximity
from the Swedes unfortunate death.

Vulgamore 3
The easterner and the cowboy each had largely observational roles in the story. They
were not exceedingly confrontational, like Johnnie or the Swede, and they acted mostly kind
toward the other guests. In fact, the easterner went so far as to insert himself between the fistfight. These two men had the least to do with the death of the Swede; however, in the determinist
point of view, they are still guilty. Perhaps a word from the easterner or a table-slap from the
cowboy contributed in some way to the Swedes state of mind, inadvertently causing his death.
Though slightly farfetched, these variables cannot be ignored by determinists, who must, by
definition, take into account all details leading up to the event. This means that every mumbled
word and subtle expression from any and all characters play a role in the Swedes death.
Therefore, because the easterner and the cowboy had very little influence in the events, they are
not in close enough proximity of the death to hold responsibility. Having examined the four
characters farthest from the Swedes death, I will now discuss the two characters in closest
proximity.
The Swede and the gambler were both present at the time of the Swedes death. After a
particularly annoying outburst from the Swede, the gambler quickly stabs him to death. At first
glance, one could say that the Swede is responsible for provoking the gambler, but this is not the
case. Between the gambler and all other characters, the gambler is the only one who chooses to
kill the Swede. He could have spoken to the Swede, wrestled the Swede to the ground, or
escaped and evaded the Swede. Instead, the gambler decides to draw his knife and commit
murder. The difference between the gamblers actions and those of all the other characters is that
the gambler consciously chooses to kill the Swede. While each other characters actions
contributed to the final situation, the gamblers close proximity grants him responsibility.

Vulgamore 4
In The Blue Hotel, the actions of six characters lead directly to one of their deaths. To
determine the responsible character, we must look to each of their proximity to the Swedes
death. After careful consideration, the gambler appears closest. Of all the characters, the gambler
is the only one with murderous intent. This murderous intent is not present in any of the other
characters, making it a distinguishing characteristic of the gambler. The designation of the
gambler as morally responsible is also consistent with the easterners evaluation at the end of the
story. The easterner claims that they all hold moral responsibility because the sum of their
actions led the Swede to the murderous gambler. While this is true, the characters should not feel
guilty. The easterner then speaks to the cowboy: that fool of an unfortunate gambler came
merely as a culmination, the apex of a human movement, and gets all the punishment. The
easterner is saying that the gambler bears not only the legal punishment, but also the moral
punishment. Because the gambler committed the deed, he must suffer the legal consequences and
bear the guilt of murder. His intentional murder of the Swede, however, was arguably avoidable.
While the cowboy or Scully would say that the gambler could have simply not killed the Swede,
the determinist easterner would say that the outcome was just an inevitability of the universe, and
that the sum of all actions and events everywhere were always going to lead to this conclusion
for the Swede.