Themes Blood on Her Tongue Johanna van Veen

Moral Compromise and Violence: Lucy’s Descent in Blood on Her Tongue

Thematic Claim

In Blood on Her Tongue, the line between protective love and monstrous violence erodes as Lucy Goedhart progressively accepts murder and cannibalism to keep her twin sister alive. The novel argues that moral compromise is not a single fall but a series of small steps—each rationalized as necessary—until the protector becomes indistinguishable from the monster she fears. Through Lucy’s journey, Johanna van Veen questions whether any bond can remain unbroken when survival demands the destruction of others.

The First Compromise: Feeding the Starving Sister

The initial moral breach occurs in Chapter 11, when Lucy witnesses her sister Sarah—now inhabited by the parasite Not-Sarah—desperately drinking blood from a cup. Lucy’s horror is immediate: “Horror took Lucy by the throat with such force, she squawked.” Yet she does not stop the feeding. Instead, she comforts her sister, touching her shorn head and promising not to send her to an asylum. This moment establishes the pattern: Lucy prioritizes the bond over ethical revulsion. The symbol of blood and feeding becomes the first point of compromise—an act that feels both intimate and transgressive. By keeping Sarah’s secret, Lucy becomes complicit in the very hunger that will demand far greater sacrifices.

The Moral Debate: Justifying Murder

In Chapters 18 through 20, Lucy, Not-Sarah, and Katje explicitly debate whether killing a human being is acceptable to provide food. Not-Sarah insists, “You’ll be committing murder if you don’t feed me.” Lucy initially resists: “I don’t think I can commit murder.” But Katje proposes targeting criminals or the suicidal, and Lucy begins to rationalize: “Maybe we can find someone who isn’t so bad to kill.” This shift reveals the core of moral compromise—the willingness to dehumanize potential victims. Lucy’s identity as the “submissive twin” (as the author explains in the conversation with the author) makes her especially vulnerable to this logic. She cannot conceive of a self separate from her sister; therefore, any act that preserves the twin bond is justified. The debate highlights the contradiction: Lucy wants clean hands while feeding a predator.

The Final Act: Killing Michael and Arthur

The culmination of Lucy’s moral descent occurs in Chapter 26, where she murders both Michael and Arthur. The killing of Michael is particularly calculated: she uses the technique of eye-gouging she had once learned as self-defense, stabbing her thumbs into his eyes. The act is described with clinical detachment: “She thrust her thumbs hard into his eyes. … as easy as puncturing a grape.” Lucy later kills Arthur to prevent him from manipulating her. These murders are not impulsive; they are premeditated to protect Not-Sarah. The silver pen eye-gouging recurs here—a symbol of her transformation from victim to aggressor. Lucy no longer hesitates. She has fully internalized the belief that violence is necessary for love.

Complexity and Contradiction

The novel does not present Lucy’s compromise as simple damnation. Several complexities complicate the reader’s judgment:

  • The nature of Not-Sarah: Is she still Sarah? Lucy decides that a parasite wearing her twin’s consciousness is “still infinitely better than having no sister at all.” This identity question makes the moral calculus ambiguous—if Not-Sarah is Sarah, then Lucy is saving her sister; if not, she is aiding a monster.

  • The mercy-kill inversion: Van Veen notes in the author conversation that mercy kills assume death is better than becoming Other. Here, Lucy rejects that premise; she chooses life for Not-Sarah even at the cost of others’ lives. The question becomes: when does mercy to the loved one become cruelty to the world?

  • Systemic violence: The novel contrasts Lucy’s choices with the historical murder of the bog woman, Marianne, as recounted in the J.W. trial transcript. That husband killed his wife because she was “strange” and “unnatural.” Lucy’s violence, while also arising from fear of the Other, is aimed at protecting the Other. Yet the structural parallel—men killing women they cannot control—is inescapable.

  • Katje’s role: Katje, the maid and Not-Sarah’s lover, actively facilitates the feeding. Her devotion mirrors Lucy’s, showing that the willingness to compromise one’s morals is not unique to Lucy but emerges from intense love.

The novel refuses to let Lucy be a pure heroine or villain. She is both protector and murderer, and the reader is left sitting with that discomfort.

Study Questions and Answers

1. How does Lucy’s relationship with Michael influence her willingness to kill?
Lucy’s affair with Michael makes her complicit in the deception that isolates Sarah. When Michael threatens to institutionalize Not-Sarah, Lucy realizes she must kill him to protect her sister. Her prior emotional entanglement with him adds a layer of betrayal—she uses his lust to get close enough to blind him. The murder is both practical and personal.

2. What role does Katje play in rationalizing the violence?
Katje normalizes the idea of killing by suggesting they target “someone who isn’t so bad to kill, like criminals.” She also physically helps by leaving Not-Sarah alone with Mrs. van Dijk (a fatal mistake). Katje’s love for Not-Sarah mirrors Lucy’s, but she lacks Lucy’s guilt, making her a foil who shows that even gentle devotion can enable atrocity.

3. How does the J.W. murder trial foreshadow Lucy’s actions?
The trial of J.W. describes a husband who killed his wife believing she was a changeling—a story that echoes Lucy’s situation in reverse. Lucy kills to keep her changeling sister alive. This parallel suggests that violence is endemic to how society treats those deemed Other; Lucy merely inverts the target.

4. Is Lucy’s killing of Arthur a mercy or a convenience?
Arthur has just tried to manipulate Lucy by claiming he can help Sarah. Lucy kills him immediately after killing Michael, presumably to silence him. The act feels more strategic than merciful. However, Arthur is also a representative of the patriarchal medical establishment that would have institutionalized Sarah. By killing him, Lucy removes a systemic threat, but the novel offers no justification beyond survival.

5. How does the novel challenge the reader’s sympathy for Lucy?
The author’s note and the reading group guide encourage readers to examine their own ethical boundaries. Lucy’s actions are framed with intimate detail—her fear, her love, her rationalization. Yet the novel does not gloss over the horror; the bog body serves as a constant reminder that violence leaves real, decaying remains. By the end, Lucy is not redeemed; she is merely free. The ambiguity forces readers to ask themselves: how far would you go for the one you love?