Arthur Beaucarne: The Pastor, the Perpetrator, and the Prey

Overview

Arthur Beaucarne serves as the primary human chronicler of The Buffalo Hunter Hunter. A Lutheran pastor stationed in Miles City, Montana, in 1912, he begins the novel as a seemingly neutral confessor to the Blackfeet creature Good Stab. However, his journal—discovered a century later by his great-great-great-granddaughter Etsy—gradually reveals that Arthur himself participated in the Marias Massacre of 1870, an atrocity against the Amskapi Pikuni (Blackfeet). By the novel’s end, Arthur is transformed into a giant prairie-dog monster, punished by Good Stab for his role in that genocide. His character arc moves from observer to perpetrator to victim, embodying the novel’s themes of colonial violence, guilt, and the impossibility of absolution.

Plot Role

Arthur is the author of the 1912 journal that forms the novel’s historical layer. His entries document Good Stab’s weekly confessions—a series of revelations about the creature’s origin as a Nachzehrer and his revenge against buffalo hunters. In the present-day timeline, Arthur’s journal becomes both Etsy’s academic project and a literal trap: the journal’s binding is later discovered to be human skin (likely that of Arthur’s own son, Benjamin Flowers). Arthur’s narrative voice controls what the reader learns about Good Stab, but his unreliability—his attempts to rationalize the supernatural—creates tension. His role shifts from confessor to conspirator when Good Stab forces him to admit his presence at the Marias Massacre and to acknowledge that the soldiers killed women and children “because you were just Indians.” Ultimately, Arthur is not merely a witness; he is a participant in the violence that Good Stab seeks to avenge.

Motivations and Traits Shown Through Actions

Arthur’s motivations are layered and often contradictory. On the surface, he seeks to serve as a dutiful pastor, offering absolution to Good Stab. Yet the text shows him acting out of vanity, guilt, and a desire for control.

Vanity: In Chapter 8, Arthur buys bacon to barter with a Blackfeet man after Good Stab compliments his teeth (“feeling vain after Good Stab’s remark about his teeth”). This small act reveals a preoccupation with appearance, which contrasts with his supposed humility.
Guilt: His decision to abandon his parish in May 1912 stems from “confessing his guilt for past crimes including the death of the white buffalo and Weasel Plume.” He plans to walk to the site of his greatest sin—the Marias Massacre—to die seeking absolution. This shows a conscience that he cannot silence, even as he tries to flee.
Control: Arthur initially tries to rationalize Good Stab’s story as the product of isolation and starvation, a psychological defense that maintains his sense of order. Only when Good Stab fills the church with corpses does Arthur’s control shatter and he is forced into a literal confession.

His character traits include a tendency toward self-deception (he sees his own “romanticized notion” of the warrior on the prairie), cowardice (he wishes he had fled before Good Stab’s approach), and a deep, unacknowledged racism. He refers to Native people with paternalistic condescension, calls Amos Short Ribs “savage,” and expects to be respected for his pastoral authority. These traits are not merely personal flaws; they are the reflexes of a colonial mindset that enabled him to participate in a massacre.

Chronological Arc

Arthur’s arc unfolds across two timelines:

1912: In March, Arthur writes the first journal entries, describing a skinned corpse and his encounter with Good Stab. Over the next weeks, he listens to Good Stab’s story while growing increasingly fearful. By April, he has confirmed Good Stab’s presence to Amos Short Ribs and is interrogated by Pinkerton Dove. In May, Good Stab captures Arthur, ties him to the church cross, and forces him to confess to the Marias Massacre. Arthur’s final diary entry, dated June 2, 1912, describes fleeing the church after seeing the dead fill the pews. He notes that his “pipe has been empty since the Marias Massacre on January 23, 1870.” He hides the journal and disappears from the historical record.
2013: Etsy discovers the journal in a parsonage wall. As she transcribes it, she uncovers Arthur’s secret. She learns that the journal is bound in human skin—her ancestor’s skin. In a climactic confrontation, she finds Arthur transformed into a giant prairie-dog monster, a punishment imposed by Good Stab. Etsy kills him at the massacre site using a nail gun and cable saw, then destroys the journal with her father’s ashes.

This arc shows Arthur moving from recorder to confessor to damning evidence—his words literally become a weapon that Good Stab uses to secure retribution across generations.

Relationships

Good Stab: The central relationship. Good Stab uses Arthur as a confessor, but also as a tool to document his story and as a vessel for punishment. Arthur fears Good Stab yet is drawn into his orbit; he calls him “Three-Persons” (a name Good Stab gives him) and eventually admits his own guilt. Their dynamic is one of unequal reciprocity: Good Stab reveals his story, Arthur reveals his crime.
Etsy Beaucarne: Arthur’s descendant, Etsy represents the present-day reckoning with his legacy. She experiences his journal as both scholarly artifact and personal curse. Her act of killing the transformed Arthur closes the cycle—she becomes the agent of his final punishment, a direct consequence of his actions at the Marias Massacre.
Amos Short Ribs: A Blood Indian who tricks Arthur into confirming Good Stab’s presence. Arthur views him with suspicion and condescension, yet Amos outwits him easily, illustrating Arthur’s vulnerability.
Pinkerton Dove: A detective who interrogates Arthur about the missing San Francisco family. Arthur’s interactions with Dove show his anxiety and complicity: he knows more than he admits, and Dove sees through him.
Livinius Clarkson: A townsman who regales Arthur and the sheriff with tales of old buffalo hunters. Arthur finds him repugnant but says nothing; this silence suggests his complicity in the town’s racist culture.

Key Decisions and Consequences

Decision	Consequence
Agreeing to serve as Good Stab’s confessor	He becomes trapped in a supernatural relationship; the journal becomes evidence of his own crime.
Buying bacon to barter with Amos Short Ribs	He inadvertently reveals Good Stab’s presence, leading Amos and later the Pinkerton to the church.
Hiding the journal in the parsonage wall	The journal survives to be found by Etsy, ensuring Arthur’s secret is exposed a century later.
Attempting to flee Miles City in May 1912	Good Stab captures him and forces him to confess; he is tied to the church cross.
Confessing to the Marias Massacre under duress	He admits killing women and children “because you were just Indians,” sealing his moral condemnation.
Leaving the parish to die at the massacre site	His death is forestalled; instead, Good Stab transforms him into a prairie-dog monster.
Etsy’s decision to kill Arthur in 2013	The cycle ends, but only through violent repetition—she becomes what she feared.

Theme and Symbol Connections

Colonial Violence and Genocide

Arthur’s participation in the Marias Massacre is the novel’s central historical wound. He represents the church’s complicity in colonial violence: a Lutheran pastor who records confessions but also bears arms. His transformation into a monster—a giant prairie dog—is a grotesque symbol of how the colonizer is unmade by the land and the people he destroyed.

Vampirism as Consumption

Good Stab’s vampirism literalizes the consumption of human bodies. Arthur is not a vampire, but he is a consumer of narrative—he takes Good Stab’s story and uses it for his own ends. His journal becomes a relic that consumes descendant lives. The novel suggests that historical violence is a kind of undead hunger that devours across generations.

Justice and Revenge

Good Stab’s vengeance extends beyond the buffalo hunters to Arthur, a man who participated in genocide but escaped prosecution. Arthur’s transformation—eternally bound to the massacre site as a creature—serves as a form of supernatural justice. The novel questions whether such justice can ever be fair when it punishes the perpetrator alongside the innocent descendants.

Identity and Cultural Erasure

Arthur’s name, “Beaucarne,” translates to “beautiful meat,” a moniker that foreshadows his literal transformation into flesh for punishment. His grandson was renamed “Flowers” due to a mishearing, erasing the family’s French origin. Arthur’s identity is unstable—pastor, soldier, perpetrator, prey—echoing the novel’s theme of cultural erasure through forced assimilation.

Guilt and Absolution

Arthur seeks absolution through his diary, but his confession is coerced; he never truly repents. The novel suggests that absolution cannot be earned when the crime is part of a larger system of genocide. Arthur’s empty pipe—a sign he stopped smoking after the massacre—is a quiet symbol of a life hollowed by guilt.

5 Key Questions and Answers

1. Why did Arthur Beaucarne agree to hear Good Stab’s confession?
Arthur was a pastor operating under Lutheran doctrine, which compels clergy to offer absolution to those who ask. However, his motivation likely also included curiosity and a desire to minister to the “other.” Over time, this duty became a trap—once he heard the story, he was implicated in it.

2. What was Arthur’s specific crime in the Marias Massacre?
Arthur was present as a soldier (likely a cavalryman or attached civilian) and participated in the killing of women and children. Good Stab forces him to confess, “We killed them because you were just Indians.” The exact number of victims is not given, but Arthur’s guilt is comprehensive.

3. How does Arthur’s transformation into a prairie-dog monster relate to his sin?
The transformation is both punishment and symbol. Prairie dogs are creatures of the Plains, associated with the Blackfeet landscape. By turning Arthur into a burrowing animal that gnaws and hides, Good Stab reduces him to a lower form—a literalization of the dehumanization Arthur practiced during the massacre.

4. Why does Arthur’s journal bind itself in human skin?
The journal is bound in the skin of Arthur’s son, Benjamin Flowers (also known as the first “hump” Arthur mentions). Good Stab uses the skin as a cover, ensuring that Arthur’s confession literally wraps the evidence of his crime—the body of his own descendant. This is a symbolic act: the record of violence is inseparable from the flesh of the victims.

5. Does Arthur ever achieve absolution?
No. He seeks it by walking to the massacre site to die, but instead is captured and transformed. Good Stab’s punishment is eternal—Arthur becomes a monster that haunts the prairie. The novel implies that colonial perpetrators cannot be absolved through individual acts; only by ending the cycle (as Etsy does) can the wound be closed.