“Not guilty of a crime or offense.” When you think of what innocence is, that’s the definition that pops in most people’s heads. However, as is with most words in the English language, there are multiple definitions of a word that can come into play depending on the context it is being used. Robert Cormier’s After the First Death, is a prime example of how knowing the context behind the characters in the novel, gives a different side to innocence that isn’t as straightforward as simply being not guilty. This theme of the ambiguity of innocence is traced throughout the novel. The most obviously notable example of innocence in the novel is Kate and the children on the bus who aren’t responsible for the terrorism taking place, but suffering the
…show more content…
It would appear easy to label him as the antagonist and the villain. However, when understanding how young he is and how he has been trained for this terrorist group the majority of his life, it starts to bring to light that his motives and brain aren’t wreaked with evil like the other terrorists. This zealous patriotic mindset for his homeland is how he has been taught to think and isn’t completely by his own fault. This makes him a walking paradox, being both innocent and a monster. When Kate listens to him explain what he’s done she too realizes, “But innocence, she saw now, could also be evil. Monstrous.” (130). His innocence blinds him to how immoral kidnapping and killing children is, regardless of his belief that he is standing up for his country. This naïve outlook does actually give this antagonist an innocent aura, which supports the thematic idea of the ambiguity of innocence. This novel opens the mind to many interpretations of innocence and how innocence doesn’t secure safety and a happy ending. The most innocent characters: Ben, Kate, and the children, end up dead or their well-being unknown at the end of the novel. Miro ends up taking his first life. This theme of innocence proves that innocence isn’t always good and it doesn’t always win in the
It would appear easy to label him as the antagonist and the villain. However, when understanding how young he is and how he has been trained for this terrorist group the majority of his life, it starts to bring to light that his motives and brain aren’t wreaked with evil like the other terrorists. This zealous patriotic mindset for his homeland is how he has been taught to think and isn’t completely by his own fault. This makes him a walking paradox, being both innocent and a monster. When Kate listens to him explain what he’s done she too realizes, “But innocence, she saw now, could also be evil. Monstrous.” (130). His innocence blinds him to how immoral kidnapping and killing children is, regardless of his belief that he is standing up for his country. This naïve outlook does actually give this antagonist an innocent aura, which supports the thematic idea of the ambiguity of innocence. This novel opens the mind to many interpretations of innocence and how innocence doesn’t secure safety and a happy ending. The most innocent characters: Ben, Kate, and the children, end up dead or their well-being unknown at the end of the novel. Miro ends up taking his first life. This theme of innocence proves that innocence isn’t always good and it doesn’t always win in the