Innocence isn't a virtue in The Quiet American. It's a contagious disease. The novel is a story of well-meaning American intelligence officer who believes he can spread peace and democracy with ease. His naivety isn't cute; it's deadly. He's taken superficial, nice-sounding ideas he read in a book and implemented them without question. The results are disastrous to everyone but him, and he genuinely cannot fathom that what he's doing is harmful. Even blood on his hands doesn't rob him of his innocence. Those who can see the harm he's caused are compelled to ask how they can protect themselves and others from his innocence. Their answer isn't pretty.
Questions About Innocence
- Do you agree with Fowler that Pyle would understand human beings better if he were less innocent?
- What does Fowler mean that innocence is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell? (1.3.1.62)
- Is there a similarity between Pyle's innocence and the innocence of civilians caught in the war? Why or why not?
- Why doesn't Pyle seem to feel guilt about the bombing of civilians?
Chew on This
In The Quiet American, Pyle is a figure of extreme innocence while Fowler is a figure of extreme cynicism. The novel sides with Fowler over and against Pyle.
In The Quiet American, Pyle is a figure of extreme innocence while Fowler is a figure of extreme cynicism. The story doesn't take sides with either man.