I’ve found a website discussing facts and myths regarding Billy the Kid. This is doubly fascinating, because not only can we uncover some of the real facts about the man (or maybe he should be called “boy”), but we can also learn of some of the untrue things that are thought about him. These untruths are not random. They do not come merely from failures in historiography, but rather are the product of what people wanted to believe about the Kid. An analysis of the misconceptions should give us some clues about why the Kid became a legend in the first place.
One interesting myth is the idea that Billy, at age twelve, killed his first man because the man insulted his mother. It is easy see how this idea came about: Around that time, Billy did flee as a result of a crime he committed. But the crime was simple shoplifting. Somewhere in the train of history, someone made a leap of logic to conclude that Billy fled his hometown to escape the consequences of a murder. It is true that somebody had to make an error, but it is too much of a coincidence that so many of the “errors” in the history of the Kid tend to increase, not decrease, his mythic aura. This particular error suggests that the Kid firstly had an extremely rash temper and secondly had an immense devotion to his mother, so much that he could not stand to see her insulted. These are both, in a way, mythic traits. From Homer’s Achilles to Shakespeare’s Romeo, we see the appeal of characters blinded by passion who pursue their goals in spite of the social norms that object. Billy killing the offender of his Mom makes a good story.
Sometimes negative traits can work to make a character legendary. Other myths surrounding the Kid involve his ugliness, his illiteracy, and his drunkenness. Unlike the story regarding the killing of the man who offended Billy’s mom, these ideas of the Kid are less grounded in fact: There was no evidence to suggest he drank heavily, and the letters that the Kid wrote in jail attest to his literacy. If any of the bad traits has some basis, it might be the ugliness, considering the only authentic picture of the Kid in an only moderately appealing ferrotype photograph. However, contemporaries of the Kid described him as being reasonably attractive.
Without basis in fact, why jump to the conclusion that the Kid was an ugly, illiterate, drunkard? I think the main reason is because these “facts” put the Kid into a narrative. I imagine the story of a courageous boy who loves his mother. Despite these admirable traits, his lack of attractiveness and education lead society to scorn him. What’s more, some bad luck leads him to exile, so he drinks to cope with the pain. The distortions of fact make the Kid into a tragic hero, which in turn makes him legendary.