Red Harvest is structured around a series of bloody confrontations as four local gangs compete for power. There are no less than twenty-five dead bodies that pile up over the course of the story, and we don't even know the names of all the people who are killed. The Op believes that he has to use violence in order to contain violence, but this raises some obvious moral dilemmas. Is it morally acceptable to kill off mobsters to prevent them from killing other people? How is the reader supposed to keep track of who's getting knocked off and why? All this blood and gore has the effect of canceling out our interest. We stop taking note of who killed whom, and it becomes less a question of "Who is going to die?" and more a question of "When will he or she die?" And as the circle of violence keeps expanding, the Op gets swept up in the bloodlust and it becomes harder and harder for us to distinguish the heroes from the villains.
Questions About Violence
- What is the effect on the reader of seeing so many people die? Does the high mortality rate heighten the suspense or numb our senses?
- Why is it such a challenge to keep track of who killed whom in the novel? Why does the Op believe that violent action is the only way to prevent future violence?
- Is the Op morally responsible for any of the deaths that take place in the novel? Does he feel any guilt for causing so much bloodshed?
Chew on This
The title of the novel, Red Harvest, refers to violent bloodshed that the Op sets into motion.
The Op should be held morally accountable for his role in the deaths that take place in the novel, regardless of the fact that he never pulled the trigger.