Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analytical essay of mice and men
Opening of of mice and men analysis
Of Mice and Men analysis essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analytical essay of mice and men
To take someone’s life; is it truly wrong? This is not that simple of a question, because every time a life is taken it isn’t out of cold blood. Sometimes it is just the opposite of that thought. The portrayal of George and Carlson in the book Of Mice and Men is of life takers. They differ by moral standings; the bonds they share with the character is life they take, and how take that character's life affects them. While George takes a life out of mercy, Carlson did what he thought was necessary. They made the same decision for different reasons and different understandings of why it had to be done. George is hot tempered older brother figure to Lennie who is a big and gentle but deadly guy; on the other hand, Carlson is a ranch hand with no really close connections. George was asked by Aunt Clara to promise to take care of Lennie. He sees Lennie as a kid brother that doesn’t know any better; George is life bound to Lennie, not just thought the promise he made, but George’s own love for him. When Lennie is sad to calm him down, he invented a story of a ranch with bunnies with the promise that they leave, and go there when they are old. He cares for Lennie so much he starts to believe his own story; Skip town leaves jobs just for Lennie sake. Carlson is a selfish man. If something no longer has a use, he gets rid of it “that dog was a great sheep dog in it prime” is something Candy would have said to Carlson. If something has no value there’s no need for it to exist anymore. Basically Carlson cutting himself off from others, so he won't get attached to them once they are no longer usefully. He will shed them like a snake shad’s skin, but while it may soun... ... middle of paper ... ...f a question, because every time a life is taken it isn’t out of cold blood. As we see with George, your moral character may say that it’s wrong, but if it’s a family member, your brother, your sister, even your best friend who was in trouble, and a group was after them, and there was no other choice: they’re going to die if the group got to them; they were going to be torched. Like Clarkson, we also understand the means of necessity; if something doesn’t work you throw it out, or in his case, kill it. For George taking a life is hard, even harder when the life you’re taking is closer to you, and to put that responsibility in someone else hand is cruel to those you care for .Carlson has no problem with taking life; it is not he doesn’t care about life, just to him it is necessary for life to be taken, and the outcome is not different no matter who pulls the trigger.
In Cold Blood addresses a variety of issues including questions of whether a person's upbringing plays a role in criminal activity, and whether the death penalty is right or wrong. It also deals with issues such as prejudice and religion. I feel as if the disposition of the case was fair, but I also feel bad for them.
He does not really understand the meaning of having a companion. He is confused on why George and Lennie travel together and why Candy cares so much about his old “No good” dog. This archetype is portrayed in many different books and movies, there is usually a character that knows nothing else but to have nobody but themselves to care for them. This causes the character to not have always a positive attitude but a rather negative one considering they are very lonely. This archetype was described very well for this character. Yes, authors are coming up with more unique stories. One of the most unique thing about this book was Steinbeck took a different approach with Carlson’s character. He was a big part of this story from just being a confused, angry man but to later shoot Candy’s dog which caused him to be a part of the dream with Lennie and George. Which had a HUGE impact on the book because it gave the men hope that they could achieve the dream. The biggest part Carlson had in Of Mice and Men was that
A friendship is not all they have together, Lennie and George have dreams. Lennie and George have worked up the idea of owning their own piece of land together. Lennie wants to tend the rabbits (Steinbeck 11) and George just wants to be his own boss (Steinbeck 14). The only problem with their dream is that it is unrealistic. They cannot buy land to tend and just go days without tending it because they do not want to. Like many traveling farm hands during the 1930s, George and Lennie think they could work up enough money to buy their own place and not give a “hoot” about anyone but their selves. Although their dream is unattaina...
The issue of loyalty is embodied in the character of George. He is an intelligent man who could make a successful living for himself on his own. He chooses to stay beside his friend Lennie. George can never get a steady job to fulfill his long-term goal of having his own farm. The first job that Lennie and George have together goes well for a while. Eventually Lennie ruins everything that is going good for them. Lennie sees a pretty dress that a girl is wearing. Without thinking about what he is doing, he goes up and grabs the dress to feel the nice fabric. This scares the girl and she tells the boss. Soon the whole town is after Lennie. This is the perfect time for George to start a new life, without Lennie. However, because of his loyalty to Lennie, he chooses to help Lennie escape from the town. Lennie needs George to survive. It is this that propels George to make the sacrifice that he does. After Lennie kills Curley’s wife, George knows that this is the end for Lennie. No matter what, someone will eventually kill Lennie. And if Lennie gets away this time, there will be another time, and eventually the inevitable will happen. He truly loves Lennie, so he shoots Lennie painlessly in the back of the head. Lennie dies with the happy thought of the dream of the farm they want to own some day.
George and Lennie need each other to achieve their dream of their own farm with rabbits to tend. Lennie could not take care of his rabbits or even survive without George.
Although some might disagree.You might think how does he deserve sympathy if he wasn’t willing to show sympathy towards others? Well Carlson didn’t know how to and refused to because he’s never had anyone to count on. Whenever Candy’s dog appeared Carlson would always disrespect it for being old and smelly. “Why’n’t you shoot him, Candy (44).” Carlson mentioned this because he hates how the dog smells, but he didn’t take the time to understand Candy’s reason of keeping this old stinky dog around. For him it was pointless to keep an old dog so might as well kill it and get it out of its misery. Little does he know that by saying this proves how lonely he is and doesn’t know the meaning of friendship. Candy had this dog since it was a pup and they’ve been together so long therefore he couldn’t just shoot it like it meant nothing to him Carlson not caring says “He ain’t no good to you, Candy. An’ he ain’t no good himself (44).” It’s so hard for him to understand all he needs is someone to knock some sense into him. Especially at the very end of the book George shot Lennie, his best friend, the person who he was always there for. Slim knows that George made such a hard decision and they are both affected by it and all Carlson said while looking at them was “Now what the hell ya suppose is eatin’ them two guys (106).” This is such a frustrating part because how would Carlson feel if he had to shoot his best friend?
George and Lennie have to continue to move around the country looking for work until Lennie screws up again. The instability of work only makes it that much harder for them to complete their dream of a farm of their own. Candy’s participation in the dream of the farm upgrades the dream into a possible reality. As the tending of rabbits comes closer to happening fate curses them with the accidental death of Curley’s wife. The end of their wishful thinking is summed up by Candy’s question on page 104, “Then-it’s all off?”
When a person takes another person's life, then that person should have his own life taken as well. Beautiful dark-haired Gina and her sweet brown-eyed babies, did not ask for, nor want, their precious live...
These two men, both coming from different backgrounds, joined together and carried out a terrible choice that rendered consequences far worse than they imagined. Living under abuse, Perry Smith never obtained the necessary integrity to be able to pause and consider how his actions might affect other people. He matured into a man who acts before he thinks, all due to the suffering he endured as a child. Exposed to a violent father who did not instill basic teachings of life, Smith knew nothing but anger and misconduct as a means of responding to the world. He knew no other life. Without exposure to proper behavior or responsible conduct, he turned into a monster capable of killing an entire family without a blink of remorse. In the heat of the moment, Perry Smith slaughtered the Clutter family and barely stopped to take a breath. What could drive a man to do this in such cold blood? The answer lies within his upbringing, and how his childhood experiences shaped him to become the murderer of a small family in Holcomb, Kansas. ¨The hypothesis of unconscious motivation explains why the murderers perceived innocuous and relatively unknown victims as provocative and thereby suitable targets for aggression.¨ (Capote 191). ¨But it is Dr. Statten´s contention that only the first murder matters psychologically, and that when
One point that Koch tries to address is the value of human life. Koch is noted as believing that “life is indeed precious.” He feels that the death penalty helps to establish this fact by demonstrating that if a person commits a heinous crime such as murder, they will suffer the worst of consequences (476). How, though, does the taking of another life demonstrate that life is indeed so precious? All other facts aside, is it not simply the end to another life? Most citizens would be in agreement that such inhumane crimes deserve severe ramifications, but ending a life to make up for an unlawful death would contradict these principles of the value of life. Bud Welch supports this theory. His daughter, Julie, had her life viciously taken from her in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Welch, although enduring the greatest pain of all, concluded that Timothy McVeigh’s execution “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie.” Welch understood the true value of all human life and was able to put his natural emotions away and theorize that vengeance has ...
Attention Graber: Everyone knows that in the United States killing is wrong and if you do kill you get punish for it. Holly Near an activist tells us “Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?”
In Truman Capote’s famous non-fiction novel, In Cold Blood, there is evidence that supports the injustices of the trial: death penalty. The final outcome of the trail was never to be any different than death. “Of all the people in all the world, the Clutters were the least likely to be murdered” (Capote 85). We know the two men who killed the Clutter family, Perry Smith and Bill Hickock, preplanned the crime with malice and forethought. Although the actions were crul and grusome, does Death Row fit what they did if their pasts, childhood environments and situation, are bad. Capote shows the effect of childhood on the killers and if the death penalty is fair. Capote gives the killers a voice to show their humanity by giving childhood accounts of their lives. He questions the justice of is the death penalty fair, and if inherent evil is a product of childhood or society. Is it nature or nurture? Capote gives a look into the minds of the killers and the nature vs. nurture theory. The detailed account the killers’ childhoods makes the reader sympathize with the Clutter family’s killers Smith and Hickock. Should they reserve the death penalty? Did Truman Capote take a stand on the death penalty? By giving the readers a detailed accounting of Perry Smith’s and Dick Hickock’s childhood, Capote sets up the reader for nurture vs. nature debate on the death penalty. The question then becomes, do the effects (if any) caused by environment in childhood make for a trained killer or a natural born one?
He states, “In Arizona on July 23rd, prison officials needed nearly two hours to complete the execution of double murderer Joseph Wood. Our long search for the perfect mode of killing-quiet, tidy, and superficially humane-has brought us to this: rooms full of witnesses shifting miserably in their seats as unconscious men writhe and snort and gasp while strapped to gurneys” (Von Drehle, 2015). He attempts to strike an emotional chord in his audience by using this statement to provide imagery while at the same time attempting to raise questions on how necessary the death penalty is. By including this statement, Von Drehle helps strengthen his claim by including another flaw that may contribute to the potential fall of capital punishment, and by using this quote he attempts to make his audience feel and realize these flaws as
The author realizes the wrongfulness in killing someone who’s living a healthy life, we see this when the author states, “I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide.” Even though he does not object to these actions he does not agree with them.
“There are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent", argues the ...