In chapter three of his novel Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck presents the shooting of Candy's dog by the selfishly motivated Carlson as a humane and morally right act. It is true that Carlson's motives are largely selfish: he wants to get rid of the awful smell of the dog. However, Steinbeck goes to some trouble to make clear that there are very good reasons why killing the old dog is the right thing to do. First is the fact that it really is very old; as a result, it is in poor health, "suffers hisself all the time" (2006, p. 50), and can't even eat solid food. Everyone, even Candy, agrees that this is true, that the sick old dog no longer enjoys its life but is in constant pain and suffering. To candy's objection that "maybe it'd hurt him" (p. 51), Carlson points out that he would do it so that there would be no pain from the shooting to the back of the head. Again, all the workers, including Candy, accept this. In his last desperate effort to avoid his dog being shot, Candy appeals to Slim, whose answer finally ends the discussion. Slim says that even for humans, such as himself, it is better to die or even be killed when life has reached such a miserable state. Yet again, everyone agrees to this. Steinbeck's novel presents no disagreement to the idea that killing a dog, or even a person, can be the kind and decent thing to do under some circumstances. Finally, Candy himself immediately afterwards comes to realise that shooting his dog is the right thing to do, except that "[He] ought to of shot that dog [him]self," (p. 69) rather than passing that responsibility to his loyal and loved companion to the stranger Carlson, as he admits to George. Apart from Carlson's selfish initial motivation, everything in chapter three, the dog's condition, the men's responses and the consequences, show the shooting of Candy's dog as a kind and just action.
But do you agree with Steinbeck's presentation of the shooting?
If you have looked at many internet sources, you probably already know that a lot of people have wanted Steinbeck's novel banned ever since Of Mice and Men was first published in 1937, making it the current number 5 entry on the American Library Association's list of most often challenged books of this century, more than 70 years after it was first published (2010)! (Those evil Harry Potter books currently top the list of books that people want banned.)
One reason for these challenges is the violence in the story, and there is plenty of violence in the action packed chapter 3. A second reason is that Steinbeck presents some things that some people dislike in a positive or at least neutral way. My question concerns the first act of physical violence there, the killing of Candy's dog (Steinbeck, 2006), which is a crucial event in the novel, one which we need to understand, and an act which is therefore worth discussing, which is the reason for the exam question today: as in our discussion of how Steinbeck presents prostitution yesterday, which was preparation for today's question, it's important to understand this element of the novel.
Add your ideas in response to anything here as a comment below, or if you prefer, make a new post to present and explain your ideas.
_________________________________
But do you agree with Steinbeck's presentation of the shooting?
- Was Carlson really right to shoot the dog?
- Should Slim have endorsed it as a humane and necessary act?
- Was Candy right to agree to it?
- Should Candy really have done it himself?
If you have looked at many internet sources, you probably already know that a lot of people have wanted Steinbeck's novel banned ever since Of Mice and Men was first published in 1937, making it the current number 5 entry on the American Library Association's list of most often challenged books of this century, more than 70 years after it was first published (2010)! (Those evil Harry Potter books currently top the list of books that people want banned.)
One reason for these challenges is the violence in the story, and there is plenty of violence in the action packed chapter 3. A second reason is that Steinbeck presents some things that some people dislike in a positive or at least neutral way. My question concerns the first act of physical violence there, the killing of Candy's dog (Steinbeck, 2006), which is a crucial event in the novel, one which we need to understand, and an act which is therefore worth discussing, which is the reason for the exam question today: as in our discussion of how Steinbeck presents prostitution yesterday, which was preparation for today's question, it's important to understand this element of the novel.
Add your ideas in response to anything here as a comment below, or if you prefer, make a new post to present and explain your ideas.
__________
References
American Library Association. (2010). Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000-2009. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedbydecade/2000_2009/index.cfm
Steinbeck, J., (2006). Of Mice and Men. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Steinbeck, J., (2006). Of Mice and Men. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
For example, if someone you knew had a much loved pet in a similar condition to Candy's dog, would you advise them to:
ReplyDelete1. kill their pet (dog, cat, horse, or whatever)
or
2. keep it alive for as long as possible?
Slim, Candy, Carlson and all of the other men in Steinbeck's novel, except perhaps Lennie, would advise killing the beloved pet.
Would you agree with them?
Although Candy's dog was old and useless, I don't agree with those people in this novel to kill Candy's dog. This action has influenced George to kill Lennie at the end. I expect George to be more patient and bring Lennie to go far from this place. Lennie has a right to live.
ReplyDeleteI agreed this book should stay away from library or school, the kids or teenagers can't read this book. As a mom, I don't let my children to watch movies from true vision. We decide what movies or books that they can read or watch.We want them to have more love not violent.
But I totally agreed that he is good writer and he wrote the story that it was real in the past. We as an adult can read and need to know this situation for people who are uneducated in order to help them.
ReplyDeleteI had pet before when I was young. My bird died because a cat hurt him. I was sad and angry to cat. I don't like cat until now. I had hen before and my grandma killed her. I can't stop he to kill my hen because I was 7 years old. Now I don't have any pet any more. I want to protect myself from hurt. To have pet again, is equal to have third child. I don't have time and commitment to take care of it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mur's opinion about Candy's dog. As peter said, Slim, Carlson, and Candy agreed to kill the dog.I think that Steinbeck deliberately wanted to show the point of view which only human thinks reasonable. From the situation where he still stays near Candy,It is possible that the dog doesn't want to die even though he feels a lot of pain. Of course, when Carlson suggests killing the dog, he mentions the dog's bad health condition, but the major reason he thinks of is the stinky smell of the dog. If the dog doesn't smell bad, Carlson won't care about Candy's dog at all.I don't think that it is just and kind that because a living thing isn't the same as before, it has to disappear, especially a pet that has been a companion for a long time.
ReplyDeleteIf I answer peter's question, it is not easy to say simple words because I think that it depends on the states of the sick animals and the relationships between people and the animals. However, the obvious thing is that I won't advise killing the animals because they are old, sick,and smells bad.
If I were there as George, I would go with Lennie.
ReplyDeleteLennie actually want to go already after met Curley. Carlson has influenced George although he didn't mean it. Killing animal looked like small thing but it really affected lennie's life.
Mur's comments remind us that the rest of the novel is important for our understanding of earlier events, including the shooting of Candy's dog, which very directly foreshadows the tragic end to the story.
ReplyDeleteYou have already finished reading chapter 4. I strongly suggest you finish the whole novel over the next couple of days.
And since Mur has now raised that question, is George right to shoot Lennie?
ReplyDeleteAlso, how does Steinbeck present this final tragic event in his story? Is it presented as something that should or should not have been done? As morally right or wrong?
i agree with Mur's opinion because i think nobody can decide other life that whose life are useful or useless and everyone love their life.
ReplyDeleteAomsin, and everyone else who seems to agree,
ReplyDeleteIf it's wrong to kill Candy's dog in order to end its suffering and misery, it must be much more wrong to kill animals simply because we want to eat them. Killing an animal because we selfishly want to eat its flesh seems morally much worse than killing an animal to relieve its suffering with no benefit to ourselves. As we have seen, most of the men in the bunkhouse, such as Slim, and even Candy, are concerned not for any benefit to themselves but to benefit the unhappy dog by ending its suffering.
So is eating meat always immoral?
It seems to me that if you accept the argument Aomsin and others have suggested, then it can not be right to kill any animal just to satisfy a lust for meat, which is a very selfish motive, unlike the reason for killing Candy's dog. The argument applied in the case of Candy's dog continues to be true and applicable in other situations unless there is some good reason why it does not. I can't see any such reason, so if you accept that argument, it seems to me you must refuse to kill, or have killed for your benefit, any animal.
What do you think? Is eating meat be morally wrong, much worse in fact than killing Candy's dog?
I think that Steinbeck presents George's shooting of Lennie as the right and necessary thing to do, exactly as the earlier killing is presented.
ReplyDeleteIf you think I'm wrong, as at least two people do, how is the action of George killing Lennie really presented in the novel?
Don't worry, I am prepared to support my idea that at the end of the novel the shooting of Lennie by his loving friend is presented as the right and necessary action. But disagreement and the resulting discussion are very good things - it forces me, and those who disagree, to look at and deal with reasons we might not have considered, and to perhaps revise our ideas accordingly.
And the voting seems a bit odd to me: not a single persons seems to think that shooting Lennie was wrong, but 5 people think that shooting candy's dog was wrong.
ReplyDeleteAre dogs more important than people?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteFirst,the meat that we eat is not a pet.
If we have pet, it means we have a relationship with the pet and have feeling for it.
Second,
Killing Candy's dog is not a small thing where this have influenced George to kill Lennie.
How about parents who have a child with down syndrome?
Should parents kill the child to stop the suffering?
George always protect Lennie before, why he has to think by killing Lennie can stop his suffering?
ReplyDeleteNo wonder Candy has fear that one day if he can't contribute anymore, his love is in danger.
In some country where the people have to work, they send their parents to the home stay for elders.They only pay monthly fee and let the people in charge to take care them. This case is only for the parents have nothing and expect the children to give them money or to take care them. FYI, this kind of parents sometime feel lonely and can have more quality time with children and grand children.
ReplyDeleteFor the parents who are rich, they don't need to join the people in the home stay for elderly, they can pay nanny and nurse to take care them at home. This parents have no problem and the children really summit to them.
Mur,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the responses @ October 13, 2011 7:45 PM and @ October 13, 2011 7:48 PM. Both are strong opposing arguments that anyone who agrees with me must answer.
I'm hoping that someone will come to my aid and answer them.
Since a few people have disagreed with me that the novel presents George's shooting of his friend Lennie as the right thing to do, I need to support my opinion there, to show that the contradictory opinion really is wrong. (We cannot both be right - either the novel presents the killing as right or it does not.)
ReplyDeleteI assume everyone agrees that in the novel, the killing of Candy's dog is presented as the right thing to do: every character, including Candy, agrees with this. And Candy explicitly tells George that he "ought to of shot that dog" himself almost immediately after the event (Steinbeck, 2006, p. 69). This killing of a dog in chapter three clearly foreshadows the more serious killing of a human being at the end of the novel.
Let's compare the two events.
First, in both cases, the events are awful; however, in both cases, some characters want to do the act. Who wants to kill Candy's dog? Carlson wants to kill it, and he really doesn't care about anything else. He expresses no opinion on it, but we can also imagine Curley favouring killing the dog. Similarly, in the case of killing Lennie, Carlson is keen to kill, he runs out of the barn where Curley's dead wife has been discovered to "get [his] Luger", and shows no hesitation at using Crooks's shotgun in place of his missing Luger to kill Lennie. Curley is perfectly clear that he wants to kill Lennie: "I'll kill the big son-of-a-bitch myself. I'll shoot 'im in the guts" is pretty clear(p. 109). And even Whit, who we don't much about, but who seems a decent, normal sort of guy, is eager to join in the killing of a human being he has been working with, complaining in his excitement that "I ain't got a gun". Clearly, all the bad characters are in favour of killing Lennie for selfish reasons, just as they were or would have been in favour of killing Candy's dog for the bad reason that is stank and was useless.
But what about the good characters? What is the view of the characters who represent the voice of reason, of justice, of what is morally right?
In both cases, these characters, George and Slim, also think that it was right to kill Candy's dog, but their reasons have nothing to do with being useless or annoying. On the contrary, as Slim clearly says, the loving and caring decision is to kill the dog. And this is the reason that Candy admits is true - Candy agrees that if he loves his pet and really cares about it that he should kill it to end its suffering and save it from a much worse future. In his argument on page 51, Slim directly applies this same argument to human beings: that if he were in a similar hopeless condition, it would be right, kind and loving for someone to kill him painlessly to end his human life. This powerfully parallels the situation with Lennie, so it is not surprising when George and Slim, the characters who speak with reason and justice, not selfish, or irrational motives, decide that although it is terribly sad and awful, the best thing to do is to kill Lennie to save him from the much worse future that would be inevitable were he to live.
Shooting his long term companion was the last thing George wanted to do; he only forced himself to do this extremely painful and unwanted act because he knew it was the right thing to do if he truly loved and cared for his friend, and George does care for and love Lennie as a life long friend.
This is my effort to explain why I think that the novel presents the shooting of Lennie as the right thing to do. If you still think I'm wrong, please argue your case - if I'm wrong, I want my false beliefs corrected.
And this then leaves us the more important question: was George really right to kill his friend?
The voting so far suggests that everyone thinks he was, which seems a bit odd to me since so many think that shooting Candy's dog was wrong. Some explanation is needed. Please.
First, was the shooting of Candy's dog really the right thing to do? Are Slim's arguments morally right?
ReplyDeleteIf it was right (or wrong) to kill Candy's dog, is there any good reason to think differently about George shooting Lennie?
Is is better or worse to shoot a human being than a dog?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteAfter I read and read again the three chapters because of Candy essay. I decided to be in your side. Candy's dog is in pain and there is nothing that Candy can do to help him gets better like visit the vet and get medicine. To stop the suffering and disturbing people around him is to kill him. What Slim said is right too. It takes courage to accept the truth! Honestly Who is ready to die?
Shooting Candy's dog and shooting Lennie is not the same. Candy's dog is done by Carlson who has no relationship with him and Carlson isn't sad at all but happy. Goerge is very hurt when he shoots Lennie. He loves Lennie so much and he decided to stop Lennie from getting trouble. Do you think George knows where is Lennie after died? Do you think they can meet again one day in some where?
ReplyDeleteMur,
ReplyDeleteThank you for that clear explanation of the situation which makes it right to shoot Candy's dog.
The same applies to George shooting Lennie: Steinbeck makes it clear that George has no other option. He cannot run again to another job in a new place, because Lennie has already killed one person and might just as easily kill again in future. Worse, if the others catch him, Curley will definitely shoot him so that Lennie dies a cruel, long and painful death. Curley does not allow prison as an option. And Slim's comments to Goerge emphasize this, as well as showing that putting Lennie in a psychiatric hospital is not an option.
George shoots Lennie only because he loves him and has no other option, just as the weak and selfish Candy should have shot his dog himself instead of handing it over to the stranger Carlson to shoot in hate.
George did the right thing for the being he loves and is responsible for. Candy badly failed his dog when it needed him.