I could not disagree more. First, Candy's dog is more than just a dog. Here is a man who has absolutely nothing in the world. Not in the sense many of use feel that we don't have anything; he has nothing at all -- no house, no possessions, nothing. More importantly, Candy has no family or friends. As George repeats, "Guys who work on ranches are the loneliest guys in the world." Candy is old and has been lonely for decades, and the only thing that even resembles a friend is that dog. So, to glibbly argue that Carson was right to put the dog out of his misery is akin to saying that putting a bullet in grandma's head is good for her. No, we don't want to let go of our loved ones, even if it means suffering is a part of it.
Secondly, Lennie and that dog are connected. Do we really think that life is better without Lennie? I think that the decision stinks, even if it is the best of two or three nightmare choices. Steinbeck doesn't allow George a viable option, so he chooses one that sucks. Put yourself in his place, would you be able to say, "Yeah, I hated to kill my only friend in the world, the one person who kept hope in his heart for a better life, but it was in his best interest." No, George will suffer for his decision for the rest of his life. Was it the best of the options? Perhaps. But in no way is it "good".
So, I think that if you take Candy's relationship to the dog in consideration, as well as the symbolic relationship between the dog and Lennie, I would say that the "solution" would have to be evalauted as flawed, crappy, and sucky. Even if one was necessary.
2006-12-08 14:50:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by shaketeachmd 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
it seems cruel at first, but really it's the most humane thing to do because the dog will no longer suffer...it's like Slim drowning the puppies...it seems mean, but if he hadn't they would have slowly starved to death (because their mother couldn't make enough milk for all of them) ...and of course it's analgous to Lennie's death...it seems cruel at first glance, but truly it will prevent even greater suffering
2006-12-08 22:39:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by jcresnick 5
·
0⤊
0⤋