Symbols of Suffering: Abundantly Discovered Viktor E. Frankl had once stated “If there is meaning in life at all, then there must be meaning in suffering.” While John Steinbeck was writing the book Of Mice and Men, he included a large quantity of symbols; However, a plethora of these symbols tie back to the enormity of feelings and scenarios suffering causes or prevents. Throughout the book, Lennie is a strong man with a kind heart. He means no harm, but harm is what he brings. This carries deleterious events his way. Within this novella lies an abundant amount of symbols. Some lay on the surface while others are buried deep within the pages, but one cannot fail to recognize the symbols that are connected to the foreshadowing of Candy’s
…show more content…
As Carlson walks into the bunkhouse he voices his opinion about the suffering he fears the dog is facing and the stench he is creating. “‘That dog of Candy’s is so God damn old he can’t hardly walk. Stinks like hell, too. Ever’ time he comes into the bunkhouse I can smell him for two, three days’” (36). Candy’s dog is obviously suffering, and Steinbeck makes this very clear with well written descriptions. “‘Got no teeth. damn near blind, can’t eat. Candy feeds him milk. He can’t chew nothing else”’ (36). Shortly after stating this Carlson takes the dog outside and puts an end to his pain. After reading the entire book an individual can make an accurate conclusion that Steinbeck attempted and succeeded to make the dog’s death foreshadow Lennie’s death. The dog was plenty old and disheveled and this …show more content…
Firstly, the death happened the same way. Both lives were ended by a single shell to the nape of the neck that ended many years of flourishing existence. Carlson explains how he’d kill Candy’s dog. “‘The way I’d shoot him, he wouldn’t feel nothing. I’d put the gun right here.’ He pointed with his toe. ‘Right back of the head. He wouldn’t even quiver”’ (45). This corresponds with the way George shot Lennie. Secondly, the crew of men that made up the ranch’s work force wanted to not only end the dog’s life but later on wanted to terminate Lennie’s individual . The two situations are different because the dog was old and disheveled, and he was suffering. Lennie was younger, but George ended his life to prevent suffering. While one had already endured excruciating pain the other was saved from it. The dog’s worth was also defined by his age and ability to eat, while Lennie’s worth was defined by his mental handicap and his recent harmful acts. While both of these are unbelievably sad, they do bring up a question that the reader should ponder. Would one rather live a long, meaningful life and go out suffering, or would he/she rather die early in their life while happily looking upon rolling hills and imagining their greatest dream without any suffering present just as Lennie had before he was executed by the unsteady hands of George? “For the rabbits,’ Lennie shouted. ‘For the rabbits’ George repeated” (105). I will
As Carlson walks into the bunkhouse he voices his opinion about the suffering he fears the dog is facing and the stench he is creating. “‘That dog of Candy’s is so God damn old he can’t hardly walk. Stinks like hell, too. Ever’ time he comes into the bunkhouse I can smell him for two, three days’” (36). Candy’s dog is obviously suffering, and Steinbeck makes this very clear with well written descriptions. “‘Got no teeth. damn near blind, can’t eat. Candy feeds him milk. He can’t chew nothing else”’ (36). Shortly after stating this Carlson takes the dog outside and puts an end to his pain. After reading the entire book an individual can make an accurate conclusion that Steinbeck attempted and succeeded to make the dog’s death foreshadow Lennie’s death. The dog was plenty old and disheveled and this …show more content…
Firstly, the death happened the same way. Both lives were ended by a single shell to the nape of the neck that ended many years of flourishing existence. Carlson explains how he’d kill Candy’s dog. “‘The way I’d shoot him, he wouldn’t feel nothing. I’d put the gun right here.’ He pointed with his toe. ‘Right back of the head. He wouldn’t even quiver”’ (45). This corresponds with the way George shot Lennie. Secondly, the crew of men that made up the ranch’s work force wanted to not only end the dog’s life but later on wanted to terminate Lennie’s individual . The two situations are different because the dog was old and disheveled, and he was suffering. Lennie was younger, but George ended his life to prevent suffering. While one had already endured excruciating pain the other was saved from it. The dog’s worth was also defined by his age and ability to eat, while Lennie’s worth was defined by his mental handicap and his recent harmful acts. While both of these are unbelievably sad, they do bring up a question that the reader should ponder. Would one rather live a long, meaningful life and go out suffering, or would he/she rather die early in their life while happily looking upon rolling hills and imagining their greatest dream without any suffering present just as Lennie had before he was executed by the unsteady hands of George? “For the rabbits,’ Lennie shouted. ‘For the rabbits’ George repeated” (105). I will