Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Lo 1

Danielle Lo

Ms. Mann

AP Literature - Block 3

8 October 2018

Best of Three - Open Question: Murder in Malice or for More?

In every comic book or TV show, there always seems to be some sob story to create

sympathy for the villain. Perhaps it’s because we find it too bland to have a character circling

around a character of pure malice and evil. Justification for actions manifests itself everywhere,

from pop culture to daily life. John Steinbeck’s ​Of Mice and Men​ features the seemingly abrupt

murder of Lennie Small. Steinbeck explores the idea of whether George Milton’s actions can be

justified, exposing the ability for us to delude ourselves beyond our own moral compass and

beyond our own intentions.

Before George’s murder of Lennie, Steinbeck seems to spend the entirety of the novel

establishing George and Lennie’s relationship, immediately presenting George as hotheaded and

impulsive. Irritated easily by Lennie’s childish behavior and his forgetfulness, George often

berates Lennie, “[scowling], … ‘Jesus Christ, you’re a crazy bastard’” (4). And after Lennie asks

George for ketchup that they’re too poor to afford, George irately responds that Lennie “can’t

keep and a job … and loses [George] ever’ job [he] get … [keeping George] in hot water all the

time” after Lennie had attempted to “feel that girl’s dress” which had caused them to run away

from the law (11). But Lennie’s “timid” and meek lack of retaliation melts George’s explosive

attitude, causing him to quickly reassure Lennie that his “Aunt Clara wouldn’t like you running

off by yourself,” a facade for the genuine care he holds for Lennie, a bond that connects both of
Lo 2

them to their dreams of owning their own place — their American Dream (12). Despite George’s

tirades, he still continues to indulge in Lennie’s naive fantasies, despite both George and the

audience recognizing that “if [he] was alone, [he] could live so easy” (11). Though George is

annoyed easily and frequently by Lennie, he also forgives easily. But beyond all, George feels

responsibility to care for Lennie, despite the burden that Lennie adds with his unknowingly

jeopardizing actions. And that is what serves as Steinbeck’s first layer that lays beneath George’s

murder of Lennie. Steinbeck delivers a complex characterization of George, juxtaposing his

violent anger with his care for Lennie. By expressing the duality of the love-hate relationship that

George has for Lennie, Steinbeck invokes a deeper examination into George’s motives for killing

Lennie. Was it out of love or was it for his own gain? While George does seem to genuinely care

for his and Lennie’s future, Steinbeck also exposes the underlying current of George’s weary

grasp of Lennie, waiting to boil over.

After Lennie breaks the neck of Curley’s wife — the wife of the boss’s son, Curley — in

an inadvertent attempt to touch her hair, George recognizes that Curley would “get ‘im lynched

[and] get’im killed” (47). Even defending Lennie to the other workers that he wouldn’t have

killed Curley’s wife out of malice, it is never explicitly stated whether George killed Lennie to

prevent him from such a future, or whether it was that George, after running away from the law

and protecting Lennie, was selfishly tired of Lennie. And with this, Steinbeck aims to challenge

our own perceptions of whether this act of killing could be considered “good.” Murder —

despised by the law, by religion, by social standards — could something so inherently “evil”

become “good?” George may have reasoned that he was delivering Lennie from perishing in a

lifetime of pain and suffering by ending Lennie’s life quickly while Lennie was far away in his
Lo 3

whimsical dreams of rabbits and their own land. When Slim assists George in processing and

rationalizing his actions, he tells him “‘You hadda, George…” in a final closing remark (54).

Steinbeck inserts this as a critique on our own attempts to rationalize every action, and yet also

portrays that every decision extends beyond a single dimension.The pair of George and Lennie

emblematized both of their aspirations — for George to own his own independent established

and for Lennie to have a rabbit farm. And without Lennie, George ultimately realizes that their

dream could not have been accomplished regardless. While it can be reasonably inferred and

indeed the audience desires to infer that George killed Lennie out of love, Steinbeck dissolves

the barriers of morality, of “good” and “evil,” but most importantly, he questions if we are

deluding our own moral compasses, much like George had.

Throughout the novel, Steinbeck develops the likable pair of characters George and

Lennie. And throughout the novel, he consistently causes the audience to rationalize the actions

of George and Lennie. Though Lennie had killed a woman and run away from the law before,

can he still be “good” because he does not understand his own actions? Can George still be

considered “good” despite having murdered Lennie while Lennie trusted him? By writing a

novel to critique both the American Dream’s tantalizing nature and our own delusions, Steinbeck

uses moral ambiguity to develop George to remind his audience that sometimes things may not

be as black-and-white as they seem, but simultaneously not to rationalize actions beyond what

they are.

Account of Revisions:

Revisions I Made: Rationale:


Lo 4

Intro: Intro:
1. I changed the thesis to be more 1. Everyone who read my essay agreed
concise and flow with the hook. I also that the thesis was difficult to
separated it into 2 sentences to keep it comprehend, so I revised it into more
from becoming wordy. understandable terms and to more
accurately reflect the essay’s topic.

First Body Paragraph: First Body Paragraph:


1. I changed the beginning of the 1. I changed it to flow smoothly from the
paragraph from being manufactured intro into the body paragraph without
and bland: “George’s moral ambiguity detracting from what the paragraph
peaks at his murder of Lennie.” itself would be about.
2. I reorganized the evidence that I had 2. In the timed draft, the quotes were
written on a sheet before starting the sometimes awkwardly placed in areas
essay, and incorporated them into the that did not exactly flow well. I added
essay to provide specific accounts for context for the quotes and its purpose
the dynamic between George and in relation to the prompt. I added in
Lennie. some quotes that better illustrated the
3. I consolidated the all information on specific connection of moral
George’s love and hate for Lennie into ambiguity to George as a character.
one section of the essay. 3. Rather than having individual
4. I revised some colloquial language in circumstances surrounding the
this paragraph like “George is good.” instances in which George displayed
his care for Lennie and where he
became tired of Lennie’s presence, I
put them all in one section, so it would
seem less disjointed throughout the
essay.
4. Sometimes the language would cause
the point to fall off and weaken as it
progressed through the paragraph.

Second Body Paragraph: Second Body Paragraph:


1. I focused this paragraph specifically 1. This was necessary to clarify what
on the murder of Lennie rather than specifically I wanted to draw about
shifting to talking about Lennie and George’s potential motives for killing
then reverting to various points within Lennie and how it tied into
the first body paragraph. Steinbeck’s question of whether or not
we are deluding ourselves into
believing that something bad might be
good.

Conclusion: Conclusion:
1. I did not have a conclusion for the 1. The rhetorical questions flows well
most part, so I drew some of the with my points but seemed to be more
Lo 5

misplaced rhetorical questions from apt for the conclusion rather than the
the second body paragraph to tie the second body paragraph, so I moved
conclusion together. them there to inspire some ending
2. I added a “so what” portion to my thoughts.
conclusion. 2. The “so what” portion creates
meaning for the reader.

I think this circuit of essays was a little cramped for time, but even then, my Writer’s

Workshop group was able to provide insight into how I could better organize my points rather

than having them be in a pile of rabble slapped onto a piece of paper. In addition, Nicole and

Elliott both pointed out how it was hard to understand context of all the different situations I

mentioned when they had not refreshed knowledge on the novel. Eliana pointed out some of the

more structural issues with the essay especially between the first and second paragraph. Overall,

I was able to get a more rounded picture of how my essay was progressing and which areas I

could use improvement on, compared to my own perspective which had filled in the gaps

between evidence and analysis. Beyond that, they were all able to help me see where my

wording was strange and helped me fix it.

S-ar putea să vă placă și