On the Nature of Innocence
I was looking at The Catcher in the Rye earlier for a Creative Writing project due on Friday, and it sort of provided me the impetus to write this.
I've had the thoughts swimming lazily around in my head for the past couple of days, and, while I absolutely adore the book (seriously, it's one of my favorite books ever), I feel the need to disagree with Mr. Holden Caulfield about innocence.
Holden is all about preserving innocence. That much is evident, even if you didn't have to write a paper about it in high school like I did. It's a worthy cause, but at the same time, utterly pointless and futile. Which I guess is the point of the book, but I digress.
When one thinks of the word 'innocence', does one get a good feeling, or a bad one? What are the connotations associated with the word? Generally speaking, it's good across the board. All babies and butterflies and rainbows. Everything perfect and as it should be.
But innocence is deceptive and fragile. Perhaps that is all the more reason to protect it, to guard it and keep it safe. Fair enough. But I have to ask you something... why?
It's come to my attention that innocence, though continually played as beautiful and wonderful and glorious... is really not all that it is cracked up to be. In fact, I'm going to be so bold as to say that innocence is really nothing but trussed up ignorance. I mean.... what separates the two? Where does one end and the other begin? They're just basically shades of the same thing.
And, call me a jaded college student (you won't be too far off) but I'd rather know than remain innocent. Because, really, if you think about it... when, in the long run, has ignorance ever been real bliss?
Just something to think about. Thanks for reading.
Posts
5 Comments:
I think...that innocence is good, but information is also good. I think there needs to be a balance between the two. You need a healthy amount of information while at the same time not dwelling on some of the horrid things you learn. Does that make sense?
I agree with you totally and completely. I mean, I don't advocate letting young children knowing all the dirty little secrets of the world because they're not ready, but there comes a time when you can't ignore the world and what happens in it. You don't have to dwell on it, but you have to just acknowledge that it exists and move on. You can't really *ignore* it and deny that it exists. Especially teenagers. One of my pet peeves is overprotective parents who think they have the right to go around banning books because of content and they don't get that teens either already know or need to know. Protecting "innocence"...is trying to deny the evils of this world and seriously, you just can't.
And this is coming from a girl who'd rather not know but realizes that sometimes, she has to.
So yeah, "innocence" in that sense (not in the legal sense :P) totally gives me a bad feeling and has for a while. Except this post pretty much cleared up why that is. Thanks. :-)
This just sprang in my head, and it's not the same concept at all, but I remembered Switchfoot's "Innocence Again" and how they portrayed it as a good thing. Then again, it's about how you screwed up and how you're given a clean slate, not about being protected from the world. I dunno, just something to throw in there.
Still wholeheartedly agree with your post, though.
Q: I'm all for balance. Balance is my new buzz word. And yes, I agree with what you're saying, but I think there's a difference between knowing something and dwelling on it, you know?
Anilee: Yes, exactly! I'm glad someone else agrees. And you're quite welcome. :)
Clone: I totally forgot about that song until you mentioned it. It's the wrong sense of "innocence" though. ^_^
I disagree, but understand your viewpoint. Think of the other end of the spectrum- immorality, lust, greed, etc. It also probably depends, as you pointed out, on how you define "innocence".
Post a Comment