Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Ch. 4-6: What would you have done?
So as not to give anything away, I'll be as vague as possible. I really hope that no one told you how it ends...After you finish the novel, respond to the ending. Was it the right thing to do? What would you have done? Were there other alternatives? Why do you think it happens this way? What is Steinbeck's message? Hmmm. I know that we'll have lots to talk about on Thursday. A fulmination may erupt in response to the controversial conclusion. Complete a log/blog for Thursday's discussion, then we'll take the test on Friday. There's a trial sort of thing that we'll start on Monday. I'd tell you more, but it will ruin the ending if you're not there yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The end was spoiled for me because I read the questions ahead of time so I would know what I was looking for.Also, I had someone from a regular english class tell me. It was not that big of a deal to find out early. Obviously there was several cases of foreshadowing. George really had no choice. He knew Lennie and understood all of his circumstances. Killing isn't right, but I believe that in Lennie's situation there should have been some remorse and considerations. Everybody was mean to Lennie because he was DIFFERENT. I mean, what is so bad about being unique? Everyone is different. The others should havbe known more about Lennie, but there is the fact that he would be regarded differently because of his mental disability. I believe that Lennie did what he did because he was scared and out of his mind, that is to say that he wasn't all there at the moment.Soft objects and dashing colors attract Lennie. It is not cool to have somebody just come and touuch you, but Lennie is a different case. I believe that he liked the puppy and mouse because they were soft as well as some sort of comfort object. If Lennie/George's case would have happend today maybe the circumstances/outcome would have been treated differently. George was afraid to tell the others about Lennie's condition. I don't blame him;I agree and disagree with his closed mouth on Lennie's half. It was a positive and negative thing. George was right in that he knew Lennie and he was the one to put him done. The others would have been cruel, but at least George got to spend time with Lennie during his last breaths of life.
ReplyDeleteI along with Katie also had the ending spoiled by the questions. I sort of pieced together in my mind what I thought would happen and it was pretty close to the novel. I remembered after Candy's dog died Candy told George that he should have been the one to do it. I think George took this into consideration when he realized what he must do to Lennie. Instead of having the other men kill Lennie out of anger for their reasons, George ended Lennie's life knowing that Lennie could never live the fair life he deserved because of his mental disability. I think George definitely proved to have some hidden strength after killing Lennie for the good of the others he may have hurt.
ReplyDeleteThe ending was not a surprise to me at all. I agree with Katie about the different foreshadowing that happened throughout the novel. I believe that the murder of Candy's dog was leading up to Lennie's death because Carlson killed the dog the same way that George killed Lennie. I agree with Sam that George wanted to be the one to kill Lennie rather than angry men like Curly kill him. However, there could've been different ways to handle the situation other than murder. For example, the two men could've ran away from town and look for a different job, just as they did at the start of the novel, or, what George wanted, Lennie could have just went to jail because it's better than loosing his life.
ReplyDeleteTo be completely honest I had someone tell me the ending of the story because I don't really like surprises! Aside from that I thought the ending was justified. George was put in a situation in which he knew the outcome would not be in his or Lennie's favor. I had emotionally connected with Lennie through his child-like manner and his unconditional admiration for George. Lennie was just so hard not to love, so you can imagine with reading the ending how heartbroken I was!I don't think there were any alternatives for this situation. If George didn't shoot Lennie, someone else would have. That someone would have also shot Lennie out of fear and rage, whereas George did it out of love and understanding. Considering all of this, I think I would have done the same.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I didn’t know about the ending beforehand I figured Lennie would end up dying somehow and everyone knew that the thing with Curley’s wife was bound to happen sometime. What surprised me was that George killed Lennie, but after reading other people’s thoughts on the situation, I realized it was one of those things he had to do. I hated how he tried to make himself look good while killing Lennie, he didn’t need to tell Lennie he wasn’t mad when he was getting ready to kill him. Although he was trying to make Lennie happy when he died, I think George could have done something else instead.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that I thought of after reading the ending was, as Sam mentioned in her post, how Candy said that he wished to have been the one to put his dog down. This ties the parallels together nicely, as George figured that he should be the one to kill Lennie. I believe that George thought it better to take Lennie out of a world that was ignorant and cruel, and be the one to do it, as to make Lennie as comfortable and unaware as possible. If any of the others had reached Lennie first, Lennie's death would have been inhumane and performed out of hate. From how I see it, George didn't want to run away with Lennie again; this would only continue the cycle of conflict and strain that the pair endured. And, if they had run, both would probably feel the emotional effects of Lennie's murder. George wouldn't want Lennie's innocence to bring about any more harm to Lennie himself or to others. Jail would be out of the question as well; it's filled with hardened criminals who would feel no sympathy towards Lennie at all. Either situation would cause Lennie suffering.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, I loved this book. It was kept short and simple, and the story was driven along by such realistic and magnetic characters. I'm glad we were able to read it :]
When Curley's wife first walked into the barn where Lennie was, I knew there was going to be trouble. All in all I feel the ending happened for the right reasons, but then again I do feel there could have been another option opposed to Lennie being shot. George had the right mind set by killing Lennie before the others did out of hate, but I do wish there could have been a better option. When George told Lennie to describe their dream land/farm, it almost seems as if George was letting go of his dreams with Lennie and surrendering his perfect life. With Lennie gone I think George does not have the same motivation for his own life. Overall, the book was really good and I'm happy with how it ended.
ReplyDeleteWow. The ending made me want to cry! I really was genuinely sad that Lennie was killed, and in such a violent situation. I can't decide if I think it was the right thing to do or not. I definitely think that it was better for George to kill him painlessly and quick then for him to suffer when Curley shot him. Although I do think that George could have at least tried to get him out of there. He could told the men a lie about where George would have been. However, I think that if George had saved Lennie, the book would have drug on and on. The author had to end it somewhere
ReplyDeleteI didn't read the questions so I was genuinely suprised, it was so depressing that George chose to kill one of his closest friends. I know that he was always harsh with Lennie but the fact of the matter was that Lennie was a loyal friend of his and he had to do it. You really got to connect with Lennie throughout the book, his child-like mentality and demeanor makes it really easy to connect with him. It was even more sad considering Lennie's purity. He didn't even understand what he did wrong all he wanted was to live with the rabbits without a care in the world. There was definatly a lot of foreshadowing in the book with Candy's dog and how he should of put it down himself. What angered me the most is how that other men treated George after he shot Lennie. They knew that the workers are loners so obviously these two had some kind of connection considering that they always traveled together. It really shows how thick people can be about things that go on around them. For the shooting itself, I felt like it was a neccesary evil. If Curly would have caught up with Lennie then he would of been practically tortured and would of died in a lot of pain. On the other end. if he was caught by the authorities he would have been put into a mental institute where they would have kept him caged up and would have treated him terribly. So in the end, what George did would have proven to be the most humane choice.
ReplyDelete* Sorry about the grammatical errors!*
I will also say that the questions ruined the ending for me but I kind of saw it coming. All throughout the book, you could foreshadow that Lennie was going to do something that gets him in a lot of trouble. For example, when George told him that if he gets in trouble or something goes wrong, to go back and hide in the brush, I had an inkling something was going to happen. As for George having to kill his best friend, I think I agree with it. I have the same view as Chelsea, that if George would not have and Curley would have the pain for Lennie would be a lot worse. George treated Lennie as if he was George's own son. I think that it was a really hard thing for George to have to face and the end made me really sad. Overall, I liked the book. It was one that i didn't dread reading!
ReplyDeleteI was so shocked by the ending. I was not expecting anything to happen the way it did. I sort of saw foreshadowing about the death of Curley’s wife by Lennie because of what he accidentally did to the other girl. I did not however, expect that George would be the one to kill Lennie. I expected Curley or maybe one of the other guys to go off after him. I think George did it because he knew that Lennie would be ran out of town and he wanted to kill him in a way that was less harmful and less scary to Lennie. It still isn’t much of an excuse to kill a person for no reason. You would expect George would want to help him but I think he just got tired of tending to Lennie’s needs. Instead of killing him, he could have set off to a new town. I think Steinbeck might have been trying to teach about human existence. Sometimes what we want or think may not happen. Some people will consider the end of the novel to be cruel, harsh, and murderous. I agree with Lennie’s bold decision though because with Lennie’s mental problems and the death of a woman, even through a court trial, I feel he still would have been executed. There is also the point that maybe if he was set to trial, he would have came out without the death penalty due to his mental instabilities. I feel like Lennie’s death at the end of the novel was also foreshadowed by the death of Candy’s dog. That doesn’t become clear until the end. I liked the novel, however, it will spark many arguments among many people I feel.
ReplyDeleteEven though I did not know the ending I kind of suspected something like that to happen. One thing that foreshadowed this was how the author spent so much time describing the killing of Candy's dog. Lennie's death was in the same sense as Candy's dog. There was no other alternative to death for both the dog and Lennie. It is sad that George killed Lennie only because they were best friends and knew each other basically their whole lives. However, George did not want anyone else to kill him so he thought it was his responsibility. George knew Candy regretted not killing his own dog so he took that into consideration. Another thing that struck me was how George made sure Lennie was happy before he killed him. I could not do something like that, but I feel George had no other choice.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, how depressing. But I have to say that it was the right thing for George to do. Lennie would have ended up being shot by the other men, and his last moments would have been full of panic and in fear. Instead, George had Lennie think about what made him most happy in his life and shot him the way Carlson shot the dog, so he wouldn't feel anything. Lennie never even knew what hit him, but the left the world peacefully with his best friend by his side. I don't think George had any other alternatives. The only other thing he could have done was run and hide again, but I don't think George could have gone on telling Lennie this fantasy he had been feeding to him this whole time. I think the message Steinback wanted to prove was how the strong eliminate the weak in this world, and do not understand an emotional relationship that people have. Slim was possibly the only person in the book who could understand George's attachment to Lennie, and Steinback shows the confusion of the men with Carlson's ending statement.
ReplyDeleteI also had the ending ruined for me by the questions. However, once I knew what was to become of Lennie, the foreshadowing of his demise became much more clear. As others have said, the way George killed Lennie mirrored the way Candy killed his dog. I believe George took the regret Candy felt by not killing the dog himself into consideration. George took the situation into his own hands and did what he felt he had to do. I believe there could have been alternative ways to handle the situation; however, with Lennie's mental disposition and the lack of acceptance by others for his disability, Lennie would have been exposed to the same outcome but with much more pain. I think George knew this and decided to make his death as painless as possible. I do admire George for making Lennie comfortable and happy one less time before his death, though. Overall, the ending was very despairing, but I liked the book a lot!
ReplyDeleteI read the back of the questions, so this ending was not a surprise for me. I also saw it coming, especially when Lennie was alone with Curley's wife in the barn. I knew that something terrible would happen. Even though Lennie had the child-like manner and was easy to connect to and love, I knew that many of his actions were out of his own control and that he was bound to cause others harm. As I already mentioned, I saw the ending coming, but it shocked me that it occured quite as violently as it did! I believe that George believed that he had to get Lennie off of his hands, but by no means do I believe that he had the right to take Lennie's life. I believe that if George hadn't shot Lennie, someone else would have, and it would have been out of rage and spite other than just trying to protect him. Nevertheless, George could have found a different alternative to protect Lennie once again. I agree with Amanda, the ending was heartbreaking, but I loved the book.
ReplyDeleteThe ending of the novel, Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, was very predictable in the sense of all the foreshadowing that happened earlier in the novel. It was clear that Lennie was going to get killed as soon as Candy's dog was killed, because they ranch workers thought it was useless. The symbol that the death of Candy's dog portrayed, mirrored the capitalist society and social darwinism of the early to mid 1900s. A society where the not as smart or not as useful members of society are outcast or pushed away, in a "survival of the fittest" kind of manner. Steinbeck mirrors the evils of the industrial capitalist society and social darwinism through the death of Lennie. George kills Lennie because he believes he will not be able to take care of himself if he were in jail or on the run. As a result he kills Lennie himself, in fear that Lennie will not be able to do anything or end up dying in fear from Curly killing him. George had many other options of what he could do about what Lennie did, but he chose to go with the one that was stereotypical of the society he was living in. The robotic society that neglects feelings of love and connection to other people. George, living in the industrial capitalist society, chose to ignore the feelings of love and friendship that he felt for Lennie, and kill him, like the societal pressures suggested was right. Lennie, was the only character in the book that truly knew what love was, and stayed true to the people he loved until his death.
ReplyDeleteI would have been completely shocked by this ending had I not read the question on the back by total accident. I am probably one of the few that will defend George on what he did. Curley was looking for a reason to get back at Lennie for breaking his hand, and Lennie's accidental murder gave him perfect reasoning. The way it was worded to me was that Curley was going to just shoot to wound and then probably beat him while he was hurt. George did the humane thing by giving Lennie a quick and painless death. There may have been other ways of escape, such as running off like they did in Weed. However, this seems to be a more frequent occurrence as George has to tell Lennie after every conversation to stay out of trouble. George obviously does not want to kill Lennie either, but he just feels so drained after caring for him and he doesn't want Lennie to have to go on living in the same way they have been. I disagree with Elizabeth on George killing out of socialistic pressure. I believe George killed out of mercy and love for Lennie, for as you could tell reading the book, the only time Lennie was happy was when he was with the animals. I did enjoy the use of foreshadowing as Crooks predicted the lifestyle George would eventually succumb to, and as Candy told George "I wished I'd shot him myself" when he's talking about Carlson killing his dog. Overall a very well written book, that was full of twists and turns and kept the reader yearning for more information.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I personally believe that George did the wrong thing by killing Lennie. It was made apparent throughout the book that Lennie was mentally unstable through his many acts throughout the book including him killing the animals. I believe there was another way to solve this without George trying to kill Lennie. It seems to me that George knew all along that he didnt want to have to "lug" Lennie around with him. I also think it was very inconsiderate of George to sooth Lennie into his death by lying to him about their very hopeful future, then just pulling the trigger when he had just used Lennies mental instability against him. Since Lennie didnt know throughout the book how much strength was "too much", he should not have been killed. The capitalistic ideas in Of Mice and Men showed no sympathy for how through Lennie's mental state, he did not realize with the same logic that most people would have that Curly's wife was just trying seduce him. And, taking George's instructions literally as he understood knew he needed to protect himself. In my opinion there were other solutions than to kill Lennie.
ReplyDeleteIt was right to put a stop to Lenie, i love his character to death he is like a giant teddy bear, but he is a harm to not only animals but people (as we saw in the ending) he doesn't understand right from wrong, even when he saw Curly's wife dead, he doesn't really focus on killing someone just how George wont allow him to tend the rabbits. It however was not right for him to die. In this day and age he would have been taken to court in front of a jury and most likely would have been sent to either prison or an asylum where he could be watched carefully. If i was in Georges position i would have told Lenie to go into that cave for a few nights, i would bring him food throughout the day being as sneaky as possible and then after a few days (to allow Curly to calm down) i would give word to a sheriff where he would lock him up (thats if he is accepting of Lenie, not like the rest of society) each scenario isn't a good one for Lenie and either way i would feel bad.If i knew Lenie was going to die like George did, i would have taken the same route as him, i would make sure that he was happy in his last moments and it went as fast as possible. Steinbeck wanted to end the story like this to show not only the messed up minds of people who convert to society but also to show the distortion in the American Dream, at the end of this story no one received the patch of land that was spoken throughout the whole story, kind of stating that the american dream is a far-fetched idea for the ones who deserve it the most.
ReplyDeleteI believe that George had very good intentions when he killed Lennie. It was right to take him in the most peaceful moment, hearing of his favorite story and being with the only person who ever truly loved him. At the ending of the book I had a lot of mixed feelings. I thought Lennie died in a beautiful way, but the death of sweet, misunderstood Lennie broke my heart. The book overall was an easy, interesting read.
ReplyDeleteLoved the ending. Not because Lennie died or anything, but just because it was good. George could easily have gotten Lennie to safety, but I think the murder would have caught up with them before too long. There was really no way Lennie could have lived, but by being the one to shoot him, George prevented his involvement in the killing. Merely by being Lennie's companion, George is put in a position of fault. He is, after all the one who brought Lennie. Steinbeck could mean anything by Lennie's death. Maybe he's showing the strength of true friendship. George stays with Lennie despite all the trouble he causes. He might mean to show the need to be useful and profitable in the world. Candy's dog was beyond its use. Though it was suffering, I think Steinbeck meant for its death to be about his uselessness other than its pain. While Lennie was very capable of working, it took even more work to take care of him due to his disability.
ReplyDeleteAlthough very tempting, I was able to refrain from reading the questions on the back before the completion of the book. Due to everyone's announced surprise as they read/talking about accidentally reading the questions on the back, I expected that George kills Lennie. But honestly, I did not think that he would kill him out of love or protection, I thought the book was out to bring/show the darkness that comes out in humanity when strain and uncomfort is sometimes imposed. Logic and emotions are very different, and very rarely do they agree. Logically, George's decision was the best of the evils. If George didn't kill Lennie, he would've been locked up, lynched, tortured, and eventually killed (just unhappily). Now the third and final choice was George and Lennie running away again (which is probably the only option I would have been able to live with, although it may not have been the best). Running away together causes a few problems. First, Curley isn't an easy guy, cops would have gotten involved, and Lennie and George would have been hunted down. Second, unfortunately, Lennie would have continued to accidentally hurt other people. The only reason those are the only three options is because of the time period in which this story took place. Today, mental hospitals are very popular, humane, and allow the patients to live a happy life as well. I love that George really tried to make Lennie feel happy, loved, and innocent before he died. It really showed the love George had for him. George is honestly an amazing person/character. I know people criticize the way he was protrayed as he talked to Lennie throughout the whole book, but honestly, almost anyone would speak that way after having to take care of someone like Lennie for years on end. George gave up aiming for success, family, and stability; the few things that everyone works his/her whole life to achieve. I also noticed one more thing, the last few lines of the book really protrayed the harsh and creul people/aspect of humanity. Slim understood what George was feeling and sacrificing when he killed Lennie, and was very sympathetic and supportive. As they were walking inside sadly, Carlson said, "Now what the hell ya suppose is eatin' them two guys?" Lennie was George's friend, that was known. Yet here they are showing absolutely no sadness or remorse. And even if they didn't want to express any sadness or remorse, they actually couldn't comprehend that anyone else could feel sadness or remorse for someone that was just shot and killed. That last chapter left me sad, but that last sentence left me with a mix of anger as well.
ReplyDeleteI think that George did the right thing in the ending of the novel. He knew that if he didn’t shoot Lennie someone else was going to. I think the main reason that George killed Lennie is because he didn’t want someone else to kill him out of hatred. If I were George I probably would have made the same choice. Even though I had already heard the ending of the book, I still enjoyed reading it. However, I wish that there would have been some other way for George and Lennie to escape the situation they had to deal with. Overall, I really enjoyed reading the novel.
ReplyDeleteThe ending wasn't the happiest of endings at first glance, but after I thought about it, George killing Lennie the way he did was the right thing to do in that situation. Without George there to get Lennie calm and reasure him everything was alright, Lennie would have died upset and painfully. Based on the reaction of Curley to finding his wife dead, Curley would have made Lennie's death long and painful. George was there to "do the duty", allowing Lennie to leave the world in a fast and (I'm assuming) painless way. Lennie left the world thinking of his favorite things, with his best friend, and was overall happy. As far as what I would have done, I think I would have tried to figure out a way to hide Lennie, make it so that he could stay somewhere safe for about a month, then I would have been able to scrounge up the money for the shack and land and left the area. Then Lennie, Candy, Crooks and I would have lived peacfully out of the social scene. Lennie would not longer be a threat to others and would have been able to live in peace in his dream life. I still get George's decision though, based on how well he knew Lennie and his view of the situation, maybe George felt deep down their dream wasn't going to come true, and there was no other way to keep more people from getting hurt. I personally think that Steinbeck was hinting at the thought of selflessness, doing what will benefit the many over the few. How, sometimes people need to put aside their own selfish feelings (keeping Lennie in harms way just so that George could have a friend) in order to keep others from getting hurt (killing Lennie to prevent any further injuries or deaths).
ReplyDeletePoor George! He had to make one of the hardest humanity choices anyone can ever make, whether or not to kill you friend for the better. It is true, he could have tried to escape with Lennie or tried to defend him against Curley, but in reality any other attempt at a happier ending would have ended in a complete failure or another tragic repeat of human injury or death. I personally could not have done it, no never, God forbid, but in the eyes of a ranch worker, there was no other choice. Put the poor creature out of its misery.
ReplyDeleteOh no! I did see the ending coming but I didn't want it to happen. Unfortunately, I must agree with what George did. It is almost impossible to not love Lennie, but he was so dangerous, and the fact that he didn't hurt animals and people on purpose made him more dangerous due to the unpredictability. In my opinion, George did the right thing; he comforted Lennie and calmed him, and when he killed him, he did it in a very painlessly humane fashion. Over being brutally murdered by Curley, being locked up for the rest of his life, or running until more and more trouble occured, I feel George took the best path. I don't think I could ever preform what George did, I'm definitely not that intrepid.
ReplyDeleteWow. What a powerful ending to a powerful book. I just finished mere seconds ago and I was genuinely sad. Although the ending was spoiled for me by reading the questions, I thought it was inevitable after reading. Lennie was either going to be killed slowly by Curley or quick and painlessly by George. This further shows George's love for Lennie; he cared for him so much that he wanted to be the one to show mercy on him. It is a truly moving act of friendship and human spirit, an act that made my eyes water! Steinbeck's writing is so brilliant but to the point that it makes me wonder how he could write such a classic and well rounded novel and make it barely 100 pages. If I was in George's situation, I would've done the same thing. I would never want to see the person I love most in life suffer, even if it means having to end his life. The foreshadowing of Carlson killing his dog was brilliant, barely hinting at Lennie's death, but still creating a stark image that stays in the reader's mind. The fact that the same gun killed both Candy's dog and Lennie is very symbolic of one of the novel's theme; that people view the old and incapable as inferior to others and that the only way to deal with those types of humans and animals is to purge them and replace with something new. This theme is very compelling in the novel; I am thinking about this aspect of it and trying to connect it to my own life--this book is that compelling to me. Overall, Of Mice and Men is one of my all time favorite books, and Steinbeck emerges as a favorite author. I can truly see why this novel is regarded as a literary classic!
ReplyDeleteOkay, so WHOA! Giant crazy ending!!! Well, in retrospect, I was not entirely surprised at the ending of this book. I'm sad to say that all of this "Hush, hush, don't give away the ending," mumbo jumbo kind of led me to be suspicious as if there was a twisted outcome. I was quite saddened to see how the ending of the story played out. This isn't due to the fact that I would have preferred something else less...how do I say...DEPRESSING than what actually happened. In my mind however, I still think that the ending of the book tied the plotline together, and made for a good read in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the decision made by George in the ending of the book, I am a bit torn. Basically I read the last few pages with the same mindset that (I believe) George did. I desperately wanted Lennie to live. After all, he wasn't at all near mental stability, and the poor man did not mean to kill those that he ultimately had. He (from what I believe) was a good-hearted man that did not have an evil bone in his body. But, I think that George's final decision was one that was very humane. George didn't want Lennie to suffer, whether it was at the hands of the angry, disillusioned, farm mob, or by the lonely confinement of a jail cell. So yes, I do believe George made the right decision.
Curly's wife ruins everything! Poor Lenie. I truly feel that he didn't know what to do and panicked when she started to scream. But I must say, I wasn't feel to warm towards Lennie after the puppy incident. It was very sad. I completley agree with George's course of action when he meets Lennie in the brush, knowing that the other men are looking for him and are about to find him. George was looking out for Lennie's best interest, and sadly, the way he killed Lennie was probably substantially more humane than what Curly and the guys would have done to him. It was truly a great book. It was very easy to read and had a great plot and story line.
ReplyDeleteSo about the ending..Very intriguing and also I wasn't really surprised George did what he did to Lennie in the end. I thought that while Candy and George were contemplating on what to do, I thought either George or Candy would sacrifice themselves and say that they killed Curley's wife. The foreshadowing with the rat, along with the puppy dying really didn't surprise me that Lennie would wind up with another "victim". I think what George did was honorable, as well as being justified. I really did not see any viable alternatives of Lennie getting killed by Curley's mob. It would've been better for Lennie to die in George's hand then to Curley's wrath. Curley would've induced suffering to Lennie, which would've made the situation much worse. There was no negotiating with the mob once you get them riled up. This is especially so with Curley, since Lennie took his hand, and now his wife. I'd be furious too if I was in Curley's position. Curley would not have taken any sort of explanation at this point, since he already had a complex toward big guys and his pride stomped to the ground when he lost his, "fight". Those two combinations, I think bring an unbreakable mentality bringing harm to the other person.
ReplyDeleteI am probably one of the few people who did not read the questions ahead of time or have someone else tell me the ending, but I still saw trouble comming for Lennie before he ended up dying. I knew right away that there would be trouble when Curley's wife came into the barn to talk to Lennie, especially when she wanted him to feel how soft her hair was. As soon as she mentioned her hair, I knew that Lennie's child-like fascination with soft objects would kick in and she would be injured or killed. As for George killing Lennie, I have mixed feelings on weather it was the right thing to do or not. On one hand, He knew that if he did not do something, Lennie's fate would fall into Curley's hands and Curley was looking for revenge for not only his wifes death, but also his crushed hand. George displays his love for Lennie by telling him the story as he was trying to gather the strenth to pull the trigger. George wanted Lennies last moments to be full of happiness and hope instead of sadness and dispair if he let Curley get him. George knew that Lennie was not mean, and that the deaths were all accidents, but that makes him even more dangerous and unpredictible because he doesnt think before he acts. On the other hand, George seems to be clever and could have probably thought of an alternative plan. His cleverness is shown because of his plan to meet in the brush if there was any trouble and also how he got them out of the mess in Weed. I think that George remembered how Candy wished he could have been the one to put his dog down, and this is something that swayed his decision to kill Lennie. George would rather be the one to quickly end Lennies unpredictible accidents instead of Curley getting his slow revenge. All in all, the book was very good. It defanately earned the title of a classic.
ReplyDeleteThe ending to Of Mice and Men might be the most controversial ending of a novel that I have ever read. There was defiantly a lot of foreshadowing leading up to the conclusion: the killing of the dog, the reminder of Lennie’s past troubles; you knew that he was going to get into trouble sooner or later. Now asking to take a side on this is a bit of a loaded question. I have always been a firm believer in that taking another person’s life against their own will is never justifiable. I think the only way that such an act could be considered would be either the person wants to be killed or you are protecting your own or someone else’s life; neither of which were George’s reasons. However, if George does not kill Lennie, Curly and the ranch hands would have lynched him; which would have made Lennie and George’s lives much more miserable. Therefore, the way I look at it, George’s decision, although a painful one, was the right chose. The message that I got from the novel was “it’s easy to say that you would do anything for your friends, but when push comes to shove, following through is never easy”.
ReplyDeleteI had mixed feelings for the ending of the story. Even though killing is wrong under any circumstances, I think George did the right thing. Lennie wouldn't have survived much longer as it was, he was mentally too weak. If George wouldn't have killed him, then Lennie would have faced a more cruel death than from George. This story ended with the idea that only the people with power can achieve their dreams. The weak can only imagine such things. When I read the last sentence of the story, I noticed how Carlson repeated himself from earlier in the story when he asked why George and Slim were so depressed. He had the same exact attitude when he killed Candy's dog.
ReplyDeleteUnlike most people, I would disagree with George's choice to kill Lennie. Although Lennie obviously had mental problems, he was still a human and should have been weighed as one. The choice whether or not Lennie was worth living was not George's choice to make, regardless of Lennie's mental condition. I also found this novel sad because everyone wanted the American Dream, a pursuit of happiness. And none of them achieved it.
ReplyDeleteokay, since i have read the book, and had time to mull over the ending, i have come to a conclusion about a few things. First, i do think that the book is too short. It doesnt feel like a story to me as much a news article in a paper. Second, i also had trouble seeing the point of the novel that we disscused in class. I recall somewhere in my brain that Steinbeck wrote the novel to display the unfair treatment of migrant workers, and the story of the american dream. All i saw however, was a sad story about the companionship between two friends, and how one must kill the other.If the point is to look at the unfair treetment of workers in acheavement of the american dream, then i would suggest a Dear America book about a subjet during the early 1900's. There are much better referances in these books than in Of Mice and Men. If i am wrong on any of these points please feel free to correct me. I also do not feel anything for the characters in the novel by the end of the book. while true, there is room for debate as to wether what George did was wrong or fair, i felt no emotional ties to any of the characters at all. This possibly could be the result of my first complaint of the novel being too short. i had no way of connecting with these characters and, in turn, feeling no sadness or anger at the events that took place by the end of the novel.
ReplyDeleteOne element that i did like in the novel was the element of foreshadowing. Steinbeck was very good in this regard.i liked it when he would give tantalizing hints about Lennie and George's past. i like it even more when we would actually get to find out about it later in the book. I really enjoyed that part of the novel.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question 'what would you have done?' i think i would have done something very controversial. i would have put Lennie on trial and tried to get him off on the murder on the grounds of Mental disease or defect. This means that he might be able to go to a place where his mental needs would be taken care of and he might lead a happier life. however, since this cannot be done, i would have to be put on the defense in George's faver. i will have to defend him to the best of my ability and try to get him off on a reduced sentence or a lesser charge. This, i believe, is the best thing to do.
ReplyDelete