Of Mice and Men Agumentative Essay
Mackenzie Deschenes Argumentative Essay November 29th, 2013
The ending of the novel “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck is very thought provoking and is very controversial, and it also raises many questions like “Did Lennie really deserve to die at the hands of his only friend?”, “Why didn’t George give Lennie up to the authorities to prolong his life?”, “What would have happened if Curley and Carlson found Lennie before George did?”
Audiences remain split in George's decision to kill Lennie. On one hand, there are those that support Georges decision and they say that Curley and/or Carlson would have killed Lennie, making him suffer, so it was right on Georges part, and he did not want to see Lennie his only friend suffer so he took the liberty of doing it himself ensuring that Lennie does not die in vain. Like when he told Lennie to look off in the distance and told him to imagine what their future farm would look like, and he told Lennie that he could tend the rabbits “Which were his primary concern throughout the entire story”, so truly George wanted to spare Lennie the pain so he made sure Lennie died with happy thoughts. It is evident that if Lennie had escaped he would've died anyways. This is mainly because it is obvious that good hearted Lennie was a danger to himself and others, even if he did not intend to hurt anyone. Earlier in the novel he says (Steinbeck pg.12) "Well, I could. I could go off in the hills there. Some place I'd find a cave." then George says (Steinbeck pg 12) "Yeah? How'd you eat. You ain't got sense enough to find nothing to eat." this argument proves that Lennie cannot sustain life without the aid of other people like George because of his mental issue.
Although he was a gentle man, Lennie had previously killed mice, broke Curley’s hand, killed a puppy all before he broke Curley’s wife’s neck. Earlier
The ending of the novel “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck is very thought provoking and is very controversial, and it also raises many questions like “Did Lennie really deserve to die at the hands of his only friend?”, “Why didn’t George give Lennie up to the authorities to prolong his life?”, “What would have happened if Curley and Carlson found Lennie before George did?”
Audiences remain split in George's decision to kill Lennie. On one hand, there are those that support Georges decision and they say that Curley and/or Carlson would have killed Lennie, making him suffer, so it was right on Georges part, and he did not want to see Lennie his only friend suffer so he took the liberty of doing it himself ensuring that Lennie does not die in vain. Like when he told Lennie to look off in the distance and told him to imagine what their future farm would look like, and he told Lennie that he could tend the rabbits “Which were his primary concern throughout the entire story”, so truly George wanted to spare Lennie the pain so he made sure Lennie died with happy thoughts. It is evident that if Lennie had escaped he would've died anyways. This is mainly because it is obvious that good hearted Lennie was a danger to himself and others, even if he did not intend to hurt anyone. Earlier in the novel he says (Steinbeck pg.12) "Well, I could. I could go off in the hills there. Some place I'd find a cave." then George says (Steinbeck pg 12) "Yeah? How'd you eat. You ain't got sense enough to find nothing to eat." this argument proves that Lennie cannot sustain life without the aid of other people like George because of his mental issue.
Although he was a gentle man, Lennie had previously killed mice, broke Curley’s hand, killed a puppy all before he broke Curley’s wife’s neck. Earlier