"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.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
...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.
George and Lennie were as close as brothers, wishing to purchase a ranch and live independently. However, Lennie carried a mental disability, not knowing how to control his own strength, which caused him to do “bad things”. These bad things result in both men constantly on the run from authority. Lennie eventually makes a fatal mistake, strangling the boss’s wife, Curley. In the end, George must decide between taking Lennie’s life or letting him live. He peacefully shoots Lennie in the back of the head. George’s decision to kill Lennie was moral because it put Lennie out of misery and harm’s way.
This can be identify George as a good friend or a bad friend to Lennie. In my personal opinion I think that George is a good friend to lennie. Because that I think that george need to kill Lennie, the first reason is that if Lennie get caught by Curly and the others he will still died but he will be torture to death by them. Another reason is that Lennie kills a person so he will get caught eventually and he will end up the same way as he get caught now. So George kills lennie out of caring, out of the relation that they had. that is why I think that George is a good friend to 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
George kills Lennie because he did not want to witness Lennie being hurt or killed carelessly, run off by in his own and not being able to take care for himself, and Lennie’s mental disorder will never change how Lennie reacts to certain situations. Many believe taking the life of another without consent is unacceptable but in certain situations like George’s, he has to decide due to Lennie’s mental disorder that was leading him into unpleasant situations. George is an admirable character who choose to protect and do justice to his distressed friend,
Consistently throughout the story George and Lennie were there for each other; in fact towards the very beginning Lennie and George discussed how they were better off than most guys because they had each other (14). When George killed Lennie a part of him died too, George knew murdering Lennie would hurt him mentally and emotionally. However he did it because he wanted what was best for his friend no matter the cost. His actions were altruistic and that made his decision the more favorable one. Another instance when George was selfless was when he gave up his dream. Throughout the story George and Lennie dreamed of and worked towards owning their own piece of land together. However, after discovering Curley’s wife dead, George returned to reality and informed Candy that they would, “never do her” (94). After losing his friend George understood the impossibility of achieving the American Dream. Beforehand George knew he would not want to live out his dream without Lennie, so by protecting Lennie and giving up on his own dream he put Lennie above himself. Conversely, someone may believe that George's actions were selfish and that he benefits himself by killing Lennie. After George comes after Lennie, the dim-witted man asks if George was going to yell at him. Reluctantly George told him “If I was alone, I could live so easy,” (103). Although George said
In John Steinbeck's classic novella, Of Mice and Men, George makes the decision of killing Lennie because he knows it is in Lennie's best interest. His act of killing Lennie is not considered criminal. George has good intentions in killing his companion. George is trying to prevent Lennie from being tortured and from his constant desire to please George and not cause trouble. Additionally, Lennie repeatedly places himself in difficult situations, and as a result, brings George into the circumstances. There is a close friendship between George and Lennie, and George had carefully thought out whether or not he should destroy his life. George is faced with witnessing the death of Candy's beloved, old dog and Candy's reaction to his death, which helps George to finalize his resolution. After several years of looking after Lennie, George knows what is best for Lennie, as well as the people around him.
Lennie himself had problems such as mental illness which he suffered from causing him to do bad deeds. First in the beginning, George and Lennie was trying to escape weed because, Lennie killed a women from their. Lennie holds small and fragile things in his hand, and does not understand how weak and frail they are, which ends up hurting or killing them.”I like to put things with my fingers, sof’ things”(90). He doesn't have any understanding when he is hurting something when he squeezes it because, he is mentally challenged. The last thing that shows this is he killed Curley's wife as well around the end of the novel.
This is the main conflict. As the two men move throughout the novel, it is apparent they are clinging together in the face of loneliness and alienation. George and Lennie are insecure, with no permanent jobs, no real home, and separated from their families. Also, in the end, it was society which leads to George into killing Lennie. After Lennie gets into the debacle with Curley’s wife, he runs to the oasis described at the beginning of the book. George fears the men will tear Lennie apart and murder him. He also knew he would be institutionalized, or “caged” if he survived the attacks. He had the moral clarity that lets him see that killing Lennie is the what is best for him. When George kills Lennie, it’s a kind of mercy killing. It’s clear that killing Lennie is the right thing to do, and George is manning up by pulling the trigger. We know this because Steinbeck gives a contrasting example of Candy, who says that he "shouldn 't ought to of let no stranger shoot [his] dog" (39). Second, Slim says, "You hadda, George. I swear you hadda" (107), and Slim is the novel 's ideal man. His Struggles against society carry on even after Lennie’s death. He now faces living alone without friendship or hope. It is also the death of his dream; owning a shack on an acre of land that they can call their own.
Spanking is alive and well today despite the antispanking prohibition. In a poll sponsored by Working Mother and the Epcot Center at Walt Disney World in Florida, 7,225 adults and 2,599 kids were surveyed (Hickey 48). When asked ?When should parents spank their children,? 51 percent replied ?When they think it?s necessary,? 30 percent said ?Only in extreme circumstances,? and only ten percent answered ?Never?(Hickey 48). Twelve percent of young adults, ages 18 to 34, which responded to the poll, said spanking should not occur; in comparison with the seven percent of both the 35-49 and 50-64 age groups which responded ?Never? (Hickey 48). The poll asked ?Which of these is (or was) most often used in your family to control children?s behavior?? As the prevalent choice, 37 percent responded ?Taking away privileges,? 23 percent said ?spanking,? 18 percent replied ?reasoning with the child,? four percent said ?bribes? and three percent answered ?ass...
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).
“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.
George also knew that Lennie had dug a hole for himself and could never get out. He knew they were looking for Lennie and wouldn’t stop until they killed him. He decided to do it himself in the kindest way he could. It’s like when Candy said about his dog, “I should of shot that dog myself.'; meaning it would have been kinder to the dog. Lennie was lying down, facing away from George and didn’t know he was going to be shot. He didn’t know what was going to happen, just like Candy’s dog.
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.
I personally do not advocate spanking. I could not imagine losing my temper to a point where I thought I needed to spank my child. While I do anticipate that having children will be a real test of patience, I do not expect that I will lose my patience so much that I will spank my children. I find spanking to be a real contradiction to what most parents tell their children. Most parents do not allow their children to hit, whether they are angry or not. Even when kids think another kid did something wrong, or bad, they are still not allowed to hit. If a parent tells a kid this, and then turns around and spanks the kid when they do something wrong, how will the kid ever learn that hitting is wrong? In my opinion, there has to be a better way to discipline children. I think that sending a child to a room where they cannot interact with anyone else, and then taking away a privilege would be a better way of handling discipline. Also, when I was a child, I can remember that when I was angry, my dad would come in to my room after I had time to cool down and talk to me about why I was angry. I can remember these as really fond times with my dad. It helped me identify why I was so angry, and most of the time it was at my mom for not letting me have my way. When I could identify why I was angry, my dad and I could come up with a solution to solve the problem. I think that rather than spanking, this is a good way to discipline children.