More handpicked essays just for you.
Of mice and men george character development
Analysis on the movie of mice and men
Analysis on the movie of mice and men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
"Ain’t No Good to Himself nor Anybody Else"
“You seen what they did to my dog tonight? They says he wasn’t no good to himself nor anybody else. I wish somebody’d shoot me when I ain’t no good no more.”(60) Candy spoke these words implying that death is better than being no good to himself or anybody else. The same is true for Lennie. Lennie wasn’t good for himself because he couldn’t survive on his own. He can’t stay out of trouble and without George he would have been dead a long time ago. He’s no good to others because he doesn’t now his own strength and can’t control himself. He had murdered a woman because of his curiosity and his self-uncontrollability.
“I ought to of shot that dog myself, George I shouldn’t ought let no stranger shoot my dog.”(61) As Candy said he had the choice of saving his dog from himself and others. So did George but unlike the regretful Candy, George made the right decision in saving Lennie from himself and others. Candy’s dog was no good to itself and was going to be shot by strangers. It would have been better for Candy to shoot him himself. It would have been better for Candy’s dog to be saved from himself by a friend than by a stranger. George was in the right by ending Lennie’s life himself.
There was no stopping the inevitable. The workers would have gotten the dog killed any way they could. The same is true for George. Curly and the workers no matter what would have killed Lennie. George could not stop them from killing Lennie. He could only save Lennie from the fear and loneliness he would feel if a stranger killed him. Who knows what they might have done to Lennie if George wouldn’t have saved him from them? They might have shot him in a place where he would have died slowly or they might have hung him or a combination of both and he would have died alone and afraid.
In discussing the guilt of George you have to consider the time setting of this novel. It was set in the 1930’s. The reason you must consider the time setting is because things change with time. What may have been allowed then may not have been allowed now. What happened then may not have happened now.
“I killed my best friend,” was the exact thought that hovered in George as he watched his best friend, Lennie, recumbent, cold, and still, on the grass by the riverbanks. In the book of Mice and Men, George faced the dilemma of knowing that he had killed the one he loved the most. Though it was no accident, it was for the good of Lennie. If Lennie had been allowed to live, he would only face the worst of what life has to offer. So instead of having to watch his best friend in pain, George took the initiative to end all of the cruelty of the world and send Lennie to a better place. Therefore, George was justified in killing Lennie.
That ain’t no good, George.’”(Steinbeck 97). Because Lennie killed Curley’s wife, he committed a felony. George wanted Lennie to be thrown in jail at first. He wanted Lennie to be arrested because he thought it was the best thing for Lennie but then Slim told him it would not be good for Lennie. It would be bad for Lennie because Lennie would not understand his rights because he’s mentally challenged and locking him up in a cage would just hurt Lennie. George then realized he needed to kill Lennie so nobody would mistreat him. George is protecting others from Lennie.”’Lennie-if you jus’ happen to get in trouble like you always done before…’”(Steinbeck 15). George has been with Lennie for many years and he knows how Lennie will never learn and he will keep committing bad stuff. George knew something was going to happen at the ranch because Lennie has always done something wrong. George tried to prevent something from going wrong but he couldn’t. As a result he had to put down Lennie so he would not hurt anyone ever again. George felt the hard choice of killing Lennie was the right decision for George because Curley wanted to get his revenge, Lennie would be mistreated in prison and he was
This shows throughout the book with the many different mistakes Lennie makes. Lennie starts off by killing mice, then he kills a puppy and finally a woman! After Lennie kills Curley’s wife George responds by saying “I should of knew… I guess maybe way back of my head I did.”(Steinbeck 94). George knew it was gonna come to this and he probably also had a feeling Lennie was going to continue to kill more people or animals. Plus, when the character in the book; Candy asks who did it, George says “Ain’t you got anr idea?”(Steinbeck 94). That shows that George knew he was gonna have to do something about Lennie. George was going to have to do something about Lennie sometime, and after George killed a woman he knew there would be no other choice that to kill Lennie through non voluntary
The movie of Of Mice and Men had many differences while still giving the same message that the book was portrayed to have. One of the major differences was that Candy never came into the room when Lennie and Crooks were talking to each other. This was major because Crooks never found out that the plan was true about the little house. In the book after he heard Candy talk about it he wanted to get in on the deal. Also the movie it never showed Lennie have his illusions of his Aunt Carla and the rabbits when he was waiting by the pond.
The mob of the ranch workers want more than to just kill him, they want to torture him to death. Before George kills him, he makes Lennie visualize the land and bunnies, they were supposed to buy. As he is telling him about their future together " George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head . The hand shook violently , but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger"(Steinbeck 106). George by the end of the story has no more optimism left to take care of Lennie because no matter how many times George tells him not to do something he does it anyways. He knows that his best option is to kill Lennie even though this would be considered a heartless act. George has no other alternative because he cannot run away with Lennie, since he assassinated someone they would look for them and Lennie might just commit the same felony wherever they go. After George kills Lennie the ranch workers come and find Lennie dead and they ask George how he did it and “[when he replied] George’s voice was almost a whisper. He looked steadily at his right hand that held the gun” (Steinbeck 107). Somewhere deep down George knew that killing Lennie was the best option for Lennie's sake.
In the novel Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck brings out the themes of Lonliness and companionship, and strengths and weaknesses through the actions, and quotations of the characters. Irony and foreshadowing play a large roll on how the story ends. Lennie and his habit of killing things not on purpose, but he is a victim of his own strength. George trying to pretend that his feelings for Lennie mean nothing. The entire novel is repetitive in themes and expressed views.
The daily struggle of the working class, fear of loneliness and the reality of putting all your energy into plans that fail are the different themes relating to John Steinbeck's novel, "Of Mice and Men". The characters depicted by the author are individuals who are constantly facing one obstacle after another. The book illustrates different conflicts such as man versus society, man versus man, man versus himself and idealism versus reality. The book's backdrop is set in the Salinas, California during the depression. The two main characters include two men, George and Lennie. Supportive characters include a few ranch hands, Candy, Crooks, Curly, Slim and Carlson.
I have been analysing the novella ‘Of Mice and men’ by John Steinbeck, which was published in 1937. Steinbeck wrote the novel based on his own experiences as a bindle stiff in the 1920’s, around the same time when the great Wall Street crash happened, causing an immense depression in America. Throughout the novel he uses a recurring theme of loneliness in his writing, which may have reflected his own experiences at this time. This is evident in his writing by the way he describes the characters, setting and language in the novel.
Spanking, a fictitious form of child abuse, is an appropriate action toward unruly children. It is a popular practice used to instill discipline and values in children, and is more effective than talking to or yelling at the child or placing the child in “time out” sessions. In the long run, spanking causes no damage to the child’s mental or physical health. Instead, it creates a basis for good behavior.
First of all, spanking does not lead to violence. Our surrounding world and media do. "The average sixteen-year- old has watched 18,000 murders during his formative years, including a daily bombardment of stabbings, shootings, hangings, decapitations, and general dismemberment" (Meier 34). It seems unjust to blame parents who are trying to raise their children properly for today's violence. If a child touches a hot stove he does not become a more violent person because of it, he just learns not to do it again because he learned a valuable lesson from the pain (Meier 34).
...their child while obviously angered, that emotion is likely to be very noticeable to the child. Unfortunately, that anger is all too likely to become attached to the punishment, resulting in the unwanted link of: mad parent = pain. A serene, calm parent is very much less likely to turn out to be an active part of the negative memory. Obviously, this is completely up to the judgment of the parent, but I have a tendency to concur that not only is spanking less likely to be abused if lightly applied, but also it maintains a better influence when it is applied. I would declare only when there clearly doesn't seem to be any other way of getting through to the child. Spanking is unquestionably not the only effective punishment, and perhaps not even the best, nevertheless I consider it to be effective, when applied carefully, in relation with other teaching mechanisms.
Spanking has several effects on the children which build many opinions among the people. Researchers have shown many positive and negative sides of physical punishment. There are several people that agree with spanking their children and there are others who are against punishing the children. Many of the parents who spank their children believe that spanking is sometimes okay because they think it will make a positive effect on their behavior. Spanking is used to correct children’s behavior, but, many people think that instead of bettering the child’s behavior it makes it worse. Spanking has been a huge issue in the past decades. Many children have been physically abused and many others have never experienced any physical harm. However, several people have been fighting so that spanking becomes against the law and so that the children have more rights and security. On the other hand, there are other parents that want spanking to be legal because they believe spanking has helped them correcting the child's behavior.
While many parents are still spanking their children when they are being naughty, they do not stop to consider how effective this method is. Is this method really working? A question Dr. Phil McGraw asks is: what does a child learn by being hit?(Three Questions to Ask Before Spanking, online) The answer to this question is different for every child, but in many instances you are telling your child that violence is acceptable and that it is an okay way to react when you’re mad .(Three Questions to Ask Before Spanking, online) Although commonly used throughout households with children, not much can be said for spanking’s long term success. To begin with, the only way to maintain the original effect of spanking, is to increase the force with which it is delivered. This can quickly escalate into abuse. (Guidance for Effective Discipline, online) Using spanking as a method can turn into a quick fix whenever the child misbehaves, rather than using other rational techniques for each scenario. Finally, positive reinforcement and other discipline techniques are more difficult to implement when spanking has been used as a primary method of discipline. (Guidance for Effective Discipline, online) As might be expected, the lack of effectiveness also leads to negative consequences and more problems.
Some people believe spanking a child is child abuse, and that it causes the child to grow up aggressive and violent. This would mean that every child that is spanked during their developmental stages will grow up to be an example of bad behavior. However, there is no actual data or information that can confirm that spanking a child will cause a child to grow up to be violent or too aggressive. Children have been trained to obey rules or a set code of behavior for centuries. It is the best way to mold a child to be a respectable adult, and they can pass on the behavior to their future children. It may not always happen, but its pretty effective.
Even though most people are split on the issue, the fact still stands that spanking and child abuse tends to go hand-in-hand with violence in the future. When you hear of someone disciplining a child, you typically assume the child got a spanking. It’s actually really sad that we, as humans, assume that. Think about it though - if it actually came down to it that there were real laws set in place against spanking, what would come next? There are no true ways to put a halt to spanking as a form of punishment considering it would be too difficult to actually enforce such laws. In conclusion, spanking may or may not have a direct correlation to violent futures, but it can definitely be a huge factor to it.