Lois Greiman once said, “false hope is better than no hope at all.” In the novel “Of Mice and Men” written by John Steinbeck, the author conveys a point directly opposing Greiman’s. Steinbeck's lesson about hope is shown through the death of Candy’s dog, the foreshadowing of Lenny’s demise, the difficulties of friendship, and the negative side effects of meaningless hope. There are many factors that contribute to the death of hope, such as broken dreams of living off the fat of the land, and peaceful but depressing deaths.
Steinbeck shows that there is no hope through the death of Candy’s dog. Candy keeps trying to delay the death of his dog, while living in denial of an imminent future. “Maybe tomorra. Le’s wait till tomorra.”(Steinbeck …show more content…
Right after Candy let Carlson shoot his dog he immediately regrets it, because he believed that he has a responsibility to at least give his close friend a peaceful death. “‘I oughtta shot the dog myself, George. I shouldn't oughtta of let no stranger shoot my dog.’”(pg 61) Candy had hoped meaninglessly that he would of had enough courage to see his friend to a peaceful Afterlife, but he couldn’t man up and help his dog have a tranquil death. Steinbeck's lesson is that hope won’t always save people’s friends, People have to do something for their friends to make their friend’s lives easier, even if it is the last thing a person wants to do to a friend. Candy tells George not to make the same mistake he did. George listened to Lennie and decided to write Candy’s wrongs. When George finds Curley’s wife’s dead body, he denied that he had to kill Lennie, but slowly he realized that killing Lennie was the best option for Lennie. “‘Maybe they’ll lock ’im up an’ be nice to ’im.’…‘Curley’ll get ’im killed.’[said Candy] George watched candy’s lips. ‘Yeah’ he said at last. ‘Thats right Curley will.’”(pg.94) George has finally stopped hoping for the best scenario and he now knows what he has to do to make sure Lennie doesn’t have a painful death due to being shot in the gut. Steinbeck's lesson is shown here through the actions of …show more content…
This applies to everybody‘s life, not just this book. There are a lot of things that a person can rely on, for example homework. A person can ask another person for help with homework, but when it comes time for the test people better know how to do it. They can't just hope to do well. People have to do more than just hope. The American population just witnessed an example of this last weekend, when Aaron Rodgers broke his collarbone. The packers relied on him too much and hoped that he was gonna carry the team to their dream of winning the super bowl, but because of their dependency on him they are now reduced to absolute garbage. This is the same thing that happened with George and Lennie. George hoped that Lennie would stay out of trouble, but hoping wasn’t enough. Now that Lennie is dead George cannot buy the land he wanted with Candy. George was too dependent on Lennie’s work ethic that would help them “live of the fad of the land”. Lois Greiman once said, “false hope is better than no hope at all.”, but Steinbeck couldn't disagree more and neither can the real
Steinbeck shows that there is no hope through the death of Candy’s dog. Candy keeps trying to delay the death of his dog, while living in denial of an imminent future. “Maybe tomorra. Le’s wait till tomorra.”(Steinbeck …show more content…
Right after Candy let Carlson shoot his dog he immediately regrets it, because he believed that he has a responsibility to at least give his close friend a peaceful death. “‘I oughtta shot the dog myself, George. I shouldn't oughtta of let no stranger shoot my dog.’”(pg 61) Candy had hoped meaninglessly that he would of had enough courage to see his friend to a peaceful Afterlife, but he couldn’t man up and help his dog have a tranquil death. Steinbeck's lesson is that hope won’t always save people’s friends, People have to do something for their friends to make their friend’s lives easier, even if it is the last thing a person wants to do to a friend. Candy tells George not to make the same mistake he did. George listened to Lennie and decided to write Candy’s wrongs. When George finds Curley’s wife’s dead body, he denied that he had to kill Lennie, but slowly he realized that killing Lennie was the best option for Lennie. “‘Maybe they’ll lock ’im up an’ be nice to ’im.’…‘Curley’ll get ’im killed.’[said Candy] George watched candy’s lips. ‘Yeah’ he said at last. ‘Thats right Curley will.’”(pg.94) George has finally stopped hoping for the best scenario and he now knows what he has to do to make sure Lennie doesn’t have a painful death due to being shot in the gut. Steinbeck's lesson is shown here through the actions of …show more content…
This applies to everybody‘s life, not just this book. There are a lot of things that a person can rely on, for example homework. A person can ask another person for help with homework, but when it comes time for the test people better know how to do it. They can't just hope to do well. People have to do more than just hope. The American population just witnessed an example of this last weekend, when Aaron Rodgers broke his collarbone. The packers relied on him too much and hoped that he was gonna carry the team to their dream of winning the super bowl, but because of their dependency on him they are now reduced to absolute garbage. This is the same thing that happened with George and Lennie. George hoped that Lennie would stay out of trouble, but hoping wasn’t enough. Now that Lennie is dead George cannot buy the land he wanted with Candy. George was too dependent on Lennie’s work ethic that would help them “live of the fad of the land”. Lois Greiman once said, “false hope is better than no hope at all.”, but Steinbeck couldn't disagree more and neither can the real