The loss of innocence is a universal and somewhat eternal idea that stems from, arguably, the oldest creation story in the Old Testament's book of Genesis. In this book the first few chapters deal with the creation of the world and the Garden of Eden. The garden is a sanctuary and separate from the world at large, but this is where God houses his two creations made in his own likeness.
Gen 2:25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
You are all aware that the serpent that creeps in is the devil, he tempts Eve who shares her discovery with her husband and both lose their understanding of innocence.
Gen 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Each was good and perfect in the eyes of God, but through their pursuit of knowledge their innocence is stripped away and ironically they cover themselves up. They then hide from their maker out of shame. They are then sent into the world away from Eden and the way back is hidden and guarded from them.
Gen 3:23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
The movement from one state of being to another is universal. We all share that transition in a variety of ways, from childhood to adulthood. s you know Aristotle saw children below the age of 14 as sub-human, it wasn't until they were able to take hold of reason that the acquistion of this faculty permitted them access and recognition in the world of the adult. One of the big questions hanging over Holden is whether he loses his sense of innocence at all. he literally stands at the cliff edge.
Should we fell sympathy for Holden, understanding, pity (which is more objective than sympathy)? Holden is indeed a foolish character. It is interesting that he continually fails in the education institutions he is plunged. These schools are there, not to treasure childhood, but to prepare children for the adult world. His frequent rejection of this system and its, in turn, rejection of him arguably suggests he is aware of what it is preparing him for and he actively seeks to escape this by 'flunking'. He is also thwarted by his evident distaste for phonies, yet in many ways he too is a phony. He toys with elements of the adult world and is also rejected by these - he struggles to get a drink, to impress women not his age as well as an inability to see a sexual encounter through.
In Hartley's novel, The Go-Between, Leo too is trapped entirely by his function, between two worlds. He is trapped between the adult and child's world as well as his class. He is a middle class child with aspirations towards a world he little understands and is very much out of place in. The manner in which the two authors deal with sympathy for their characters is very interesting and I find myself trying to decide who I feel more attachment towards. They are both awkward characters, at different ages struggling to come to terms with the world, but held apart from it. Both author's adopt a position of hindsight, which arguably gives them power over memory - they may remember whatever they desire, however is this the function of memory? As Hartley states 'the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there'. Both characters are passive protagonists in many ways because their story is told through recall, rather than from a present position. Had the author's used a third person narrative then they could arguably called active protagonists.
These texts ultimately appeal to a universal understanding that at some point everything will change, maybe not for the better, but how aware these two characters are, of the world at which they tread the edge of, is a fantastic point for discussion.
