Taser

The Taser is a device of control whose significance in the novel rests on two distinct appearances: it is held ready during a staged episode involving Gao Lian and a captive boy, and later becomes a possible explanation for marks found on Samuel Bai’s chest. The first scene establishes its precise intended effect; the investigation turns that same kind of device into a clue, but not a conclusive identification. Together, these appearances connect physical control to the difficult work of recognizing and linking crimes.

Design and Intended Use

In the captivity scene, the Taser is described as capable of firing two metal projectiles. If they hit the boy, a pulse of fifty thousand volts would pass through his body for five seconds, causing his muscles to cramp and leaving him harmless. The figures make the device’s function unusually explicit: it is presented not simply as a threat, but as an instrument intended to make resistance impossible.

The Taser lies in a woman’s lap beside an electric cable as the boy, chained within a confined area, is kept out of her reach. She gives Gao Lian a signal for the performance to begin. Gao has spent the morning purifying himself and meditating, trying to reduce thought to a minimum before carrying out what he has been trained to do. The scene therefore places the device within an arranged system of confinement and direction. It is ready at the moment the performance begins, though the account does not say that it is fired in that scene.

The Taser as a Forensic Clue

Later, a medical officer discussing Samuel Bai’s body reports two small marks on his chest and says they look as if they may have been caused by a Taser. The examination has found traces of amphetamines, but no needle holes, so the drug appears to have entered his body by another route. The marks offer a separate possible indication of how he was controlled; they do not, by themselves, establish the exact means or circumstances.

The medical officer is careful about the limits of the finding. He cannot be sure that the marks came from a Taser, and he cannot rule out similar marks on the other boys because the condition of their bodies makes comparison difficult. He plans to examine them again. The device thus enters the investigation as a testable possibility rather than a settled fact: a small physical trace that may help distinguish or connect episodes, but whose meaning depends on further examination.

Investigation and Limits of the Evidence

Jeanette Kihlberg recognizes the implication of the suspected Taser marks and thinks that someone is seriously out of control. Her reaction registers the severity of the possible use, while the scene’s forensic details keep the conclusion provisional. The investigation has not yet established whether the Taser was used on Samuel Bai, whether the same device or method was involved in other boys’ cases, or whether the marks can be confirmed through comparison.

That uncertainty matters because the cases contain both similarities and differences. The boys’ bodies have shown evidence of extreme violence, but the medical officer cannot confidently identify comparable Taser marks on the earlier victims. The device may therefore help investigators formulate a connection, yet the available evidence does not allow them to treat that connection as proven. Its value lies partly in directing the next examination, not in resolving the case on its own.

Narrative Significance

The Taser moves between two roles without becoming a complete explanation. In the captivity scene, its specified range and effect show how an object can be incorporated into a planned arrangement for controlling a boy. In the forensic discussion, two uncertain marks transform the device from an instrument present in a scene into a question investigators must pursue. Its material capacities matter in both contexts, but they do not reveal who used it or exactly what happened to Samuel Bai.

This shift from prepared instrument to ambiguous trace gives the object its investigative importance. The Taser makes coercion concrete, while the limits of the medical findings resist a simple solution. The narrative’s distinction between what the device can do and what the evidence can establish keeps the investigation open: the marks may be significant, but only further examination can show whether they belong to the same pattern as the other boys’ cases.