TRWR: Discuss the theme of innocence throughout the novel

Two different understandings or meanings of the word.

For Scott and Del, it refers to a sense of naivete, inexperience or cluelessness. They are curious adolescents, trying to understand an adult world they will soon enter and haven’t figured out. That is why they are willing to hide in Kyoko’s barn loft to watch her shower. At the end of the story, they have figured out very clearly the malice and danger of Creasy. For Scott, the innocence of naivete ends when he faces the realization he must shoot Creasy or watch his friend be killed.

For Noah, innocence is the opposite of guilt not a matter of unfamiliarity or being clueless. In fact, he and Kyoko have direct experience with the prejudice and hatred of others. The absolutely understand the world and community around them and have created a life for themselves. They are anything but clueless. It is not clear to me that the larger community of Jewel really appreciates that their condemnation of Noah was wrong and based on assumptions and prejudice.But, the people who count do. Brody and Connie do, Charlie had figured itout before they did. Sam Wicklow does and turns that knowledge into editorials and eventually a novel.

Scott is sheltered and protected by his mother and grandmother because of the hole in his heart. Movie and books give Del and Scott a view of a broader world, usually war movies, Westerns or grade-B horror films, possibly reinforcing their naivete. Del has had a rougher life and is more world-wise. He is a year older than Scott and delights in anything that is forbidden, such as sexually descriptive passages in Peyton Place and shooting guns. Del draws Scott into his world. That summer was their rite of passage. Scott shoots Creasy, one of a string of regrets and if onlys.

“Murderer, Scott thought as he walked with the tray toward the county jail, and he wondered what that meant. He’s seen John Wayne and Audie Murphy kill Indians and Japanese and Germans by the thousands on the screen at the Rialto, but that wasn’t called murder. There was glory in what they did, or pretended to do for the camera. Noah Bluestone had killed only one man, the kind of man who, when speaking about him, a lot of good people used a lot of bad language.” For most people, Jimmy Quinn is one of them; that excludes Noah because he is Indian which makes him guilty. In spite of having been a Marine for 20 years, Connie thinks that because Noah killed men in a couple of wars, “killing one more wouldn’t be much of a stretch.” Some even want to lynch Noah. Colleen and Bridget don’t believe that Noah killed their father. Neither does Tom, Brody’s brother. They played football together. Noah was a fearless competitor, someone you wanted on your side. He took a lot of crap for being Indian, but once the team started winning, “him being Indian wasn’t a big deal anymore.” Sam Wicklow publishes an editorial of Noah’s innocence in support of Charlie defending Noah.

I love what you both wrote, Jane and Nancy. It’s in keeping with what I thought about Scott and Del’s coming of age. Scott primarily has women as his caregivers and they protect him and nurture him. As a result, he is a decent and respectful person with an open mind and curiosity about the adults around him. His interactions with Felix and Noah give him a different perspective on men who have been in the war from what he’s seen in the movie theatre and how he imagines his father might have been. I think they give him a view into the adult world and the complexities and pain of it.

Del, on the other hand, has grown up in a broken home, one that is the opposite of nurturing. Booze, violence, and violating others are lessons he learns. Scott is a good influence on him, but Del pulls him into his violent world. Creasy isn’t the only father inflicting harm on his kids as we later discover Fiona and Colleen have also been harmed. And Angie has experienced violence in her family too. Violence takes away innocence – it is the common thread throughout the book whether it be at the hands of family or society at large.

Noah Bluestone, being Native American, experiences societal violence his entire life and lives with the knowledge that that violence has preceded him for generations. So he can’t afford to be naive or innocent. It’s interesting to note that Tom tells Brody that no one saw him as being “Indian” when he helped the football team win. So the prejudice recedes when he is of benefit to them, but comes back when Jewel residents are looking for a scapegoat and to vent their pain and frustrations. I think Noah’s military career mirrors this same attitude – that the military is fine with him when he is of use to them, but when he marries Kyoko , he is no longer seen in the same light (just as when he cuts his hair in mourning in high school) and therefore is rejected because he is not conforming to what they want from him.

I think it’s telling that Del goes into the army and is KIA. Scott goes into law to help others and seek justice, much like Charlie.

Well said, Jane, Nancy, and Tara. I think between you all, you’ve covered the main points! I love that you pointed out the two different definitions of the term “innocent” in regards to Del and Scott as opposed to Noah, Jane. That is indeed pertinent to the discussion.

In the general concept of coming of age, when you consider that every human being starts out innocent, and pretty much every adult has at some point lost that innocence, it’s a theme that we can all connect with. Some, like Fiona, Angie, and Del, have it ripped from them traumatically when they are young and defenseless. Scott loses his more gradually, seeing the world under more kindly circumstances despite the loss of his father; he has mentors and protectors that the other three lacked. Such a difference that can make in a person’s perspective and ability to adjust! When Scott has to make the decision to shoot Creasy, it affected him, but he was able to move on and create a productive life, in no small part to having people that he could rely upon to give him unconditional love and support.

Angie was eventually able to find that mentor in Farrah, and she taught her how to survive, and then she found love and protection in her husband. She also used her diaries as a sort of self-therapy, something that helped her sort out her experiences. She became a strong person, a good mother, and a loving partner for Brody. Her early loss of innocence didn’t sink her; she rose above it.

So did Fiona. She got away from her abuser, and was able to find love and a decent life afterwards. She would never have gotten away, though, if Marta hadn’t come on the scene. She, essentially, sacrificed what was left of her own innocence to set Fiona free. Her wartime experiences had already exposed her to so much, but she was still just a young girl when she was put into the Quinn household, and had to leave any innocence behind when she made her decisions there.

It would have been interesting to know how, exactly, Del fared after all that occurred in the book. He may have found the perfect home for himself in the military, but I wonder. He would have had structure, food, and place to live, and perhaps he would have taken to that environment and truly found his home and calling. However, he may also have become disillusioned. He may have found a discipline that tempered his wilder instincts and taught him maturity, or he might not have tamed those instincts at all, and may have been a soldier who lost control. We weren’t told, and his life was cut short, but I wonder what his war experiences would have been, and what he would have had to share with the other vets in Jewel if he’d come home.

As far as Noah’s innocence, and how it was perceived, I like your point, Nancy and Tara, about how people’s opinion of him ebbed and flowed, depending on if he was being useful to them or not. A lot of people love a good athlete on the field, but, like they did with Jackie Robinson, often treat them like dirt when the spotlights go out. Not everybody sees the real human being behind the skills. They say a person is a “good ___” (fill in your own minority, race, or other marginalized group) but still qualify that by feeling deep inside that they are still not as “good” as their own particular race/religion, etc.; it’s damning them with faint praise, basically. The prejudice still exists, even if the person doesn’t think they have that in them, simply because they will go that far in approving of them. Noah, I think, did have some true advocates, but not many. He understood his world, and he did his best to navigate it. He understood what he was up against, and had no illusions about it. He knew there were some battles he just wasn’t going to win, and accepted that. He stayed true to who he was, even unto the end. When Sam wrote about him after his death, some people probably had enough consciences to feel guilt and remorse about how they’d acted towards him and what they’d thought, but I’m betting there were still some who never allowed themselves to see that they were wrong about Noah, and should do some serious self-examination. Their prejudices would never allow them to see the truth.