Fate, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility Theme Analysis

“The Blue Hotel” tells the story of an ill-fated night at a hotel in Romper, Nebraska, which ends in the death of one of the hotel’s guests. Author Stephen Crane narrates a clear but complex set of events that precede the Swede’s murder. Early in the story, upon his arrival at the Palace Hotel, the Swede predicts that he will die that night; this fear produces a distinctly irritable, antagonistic sense of paranoia that ruffles those around him and plays a large part in spurring his being stabbed later that evening at a saloon. Though this appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, Crane is ambivalent about whether the Swede's death is truly fated—that is, whether his actions, and those of the men he encounters throughout the evening, were inevitable, or if they all could have made better choices that would have spared the Swede’s life. Crane gives evidence for both interpretations of the story and ultimately leaves readers without an answer, suggesting that it’s beyond a person’s capacity to understand whether outcomes are fated or freely chosen.

Throughout most of the story, Crane steers readers towards a deterministic interpretation of its events (that is, one in which the outcome is destined to happen). He does this primarily by depicting the men’s actions as shaped not by free will, but rather by their surroundings and instincts. Many of the character names, for instance, suggest that the men are more products of their backgrounds than they are individuals making conscious choices. The Easterner, the Swede, the farmer, the gambler, and the cowboy are all referred to by their place of origin or their social role, suggesting that each is defined by his environment and can only act in in accordance with the way that environment has shaped him.

Crane further suggests that the men are acting on instinct by frequently characterizing them in animalistic terms. After the Swede begins drinking, for example, his expression becomes a “wolfish glare.” This glare accompanies his descent into violence; his tone becomes threatening and menacing and eventually leads to physical conflict with the hotel proprietor’s son, Johnnie. In this moment, it seems the Swede can control his aggression no more than could a wolf. Later in the story, when men at the town saloon don’t want to drink with the Swede to celebrate his victory in the fight at the Palace Hotel, the Swede’s ire and pride lead him to “ruffle out his chest like a rooster.” The Swede then “explode[s]” and “snarl[s],” escalating the confrontation with the gambler, who then kills him. By depicting humans as beholden to their animal instincts in key moments that lead to violence, Crane undercuts the sense that they’re completely responsible for their choices.

If the story had ended with the Swede’s death, then it might seem a straightforward tale of the unavoidable nature of destiny. However, Crane appends a final scene in which the Easterner suggests that the Swede’s death was never fated, but rather the result of a series of poor choices—leaving all of the men at the hotel morally responsible for the Swede’s murder and the gambler’s imprisonment. When the cowboy idly speculates that, had the Swede not accused Johnnie of cheating at cards, he would still be alive, the Easterner takes this possibility—and its moral implications—seriously.

Although he, too, had seen Johnnie cheat, the Easterner didn’t say anything in the moment. He later admits, “I refused to stand up and be a man. I let the Swede fight it out alone.” The Easterner believes that, since the fight indirectly led to the Swede’s death, and because the Easterner could have prevented the fight by corroborating the Swede’s accusation that Johnnie was cheating (thereby making the fight unnecessary), the Easterner bears some moral responsibility for what happened.

Furthermore, since all of the men seemed to be spoiling for a fight throughout the evening, the Easterner believes that they all bear responsibility for the death. The gambler—the man who actually killed the Swede—took all the legal blame, but the Easterner does not think this is fair. “Every sin is the result of a collaboration,” he says, noting that the gambler was merely “the apex of a human movement”—the final collaborator in a death that could have been prevented had all of these men made different choices.

The Swede dies looking upon a sign above the saloon's till that reads, “This registers the amount of your purchase.” Though the Swede has professed a belief in the inescapability of his death that night, and as such implicitly rejected responsibility for his actions, the sign could be interpreted as in keeping with the Easterner’s commentary on free will and moral responsibility—that is, an acknowledgement that people’s actions determine their fate, since the price they pay is a direct result of their choices. The story ends without taking a position on whether the Easterner is right, however. Instead, the cowboy asks the Easterner indignantly, “Well, I didn’t do anything, did I?” This question provides no answers about the validity of fate versus free will, but it does suggest a human aversion to assuming moral responsibility.