Chapter 2 Quiz
Chapter 3 Quiz
Chapter 4 Quiz
Chapter 5 Quiz
There is a grievance I must share with you that has made me re-evaluate the world I live in. I have arrived at this conclusion after having watched your friendship with Lennie and I need to make it known that I do not believe your friendship with Lennie to have been one that upholds true standards of friendship. I believe that you wronged Lennie when you put a gun to his head. Call me a fundamentalist, if you will, but hear me out first.
A friend, no matter what, has the obligation of providing protecting whether by protecting a friend’s integrity or protecting their physical well being. Thus, I assign friendship to those who would not allow another to unjustly stain my name or reputation as well as those who would not allow harm to come on me in any circumstance. Anyone who allows for harm, as harm as an act of benevolence would be difficult to define, is not a friend. Death causes harm. Insult causes emotional harm. Extended and forcibly obtained isolation also causes harm. You, George, I believe, was an agent of harm in George’s life, no matter the false veil of protection that you provided him.
What do I mean, you might ask. Let me elaborate. Although you brought Lennie with you and helped him escape from Weed, one must consider how Lennie arrived in the situation of being in company with a woman he did not know. Especially having known his proclivity towards touching soft items roughly and with it being acknowledged that he had only the mental capacity that of a child or less, why was he left in such a situation? You wouldn’t leave a child with a weapon that had the potential to harm him especially when the child leaned towards touching this weapon. Why would you leave Lennie’s company unmanned and with a woman. As a matter of fact, why would you do that twice? In the case of Lennie’s encounter with Curly’s wife, you had already acknowledged that Lennie was approached by her and that interacting with her could be dangerous. Although you gave that warning to him, if it was so detrimental to achieving your dreams of having a lifelong friendship with Lennie and own private residence together, then why not prevent interaction with her at all costs? Why was he left to his own devices in the barn that fateful day? One might think of your friendship, as conversely a relationship of negligence. A child with lethal or dangerous tendencies needed more attention than you gave and exemplifies weakness of your friendship. Moreover, as stated previously, you isolated him from direct interaction with others assigning yourself as his speaking piece. By conditioning him to respond only to your commands, even to the point of not fighting back with Curly even after he lay blow after blow on Lennie’s defenseless figure, Lennie suffered the attack and then the anguish of having a jarring, delayed reaction to a beating rather than an instinctual reaction to a first attempt at attack. In his forced state of isolation brought down on him by you, he also was robbed of the company of Crooks and moreover, was shown as so very co-dependent on you that the thought of loosing you by some serendipitous route, caused Lennie great distress.
Your relationship with Lennie revealed to me many facets of friendship I did not previously consider, especially the facets of friendship that earmark a friendship that rests on a false façade. You, like the rest of the men on the farm, did not know what true friendship upholds. As Candy’s dog lost it’s value and therefore its life, so did Lennie and was sadly gunned down. The only favor you did, a sentimental gesture, was that it was you who pulled the trigger and not a stranger. Perhaps you should be commended in that, as it was a gentler manner of death than that of what Candy would have inflicted. However, inflicting death was still a irregular gesture of love, wouldn’t you say? There were other options, George that you did not take. And like the men on the farm, when you realized Lennie, in his helpless state of remaining on an unintentional, yet destructive path, would not produce anything valuable for you, you ended his life. You did not run away with him. You did not sacrifice yourself for him, which is the ultimate gesture of love. You sacrificed him and therefore, rendered yourself under the same weight of a companion-less, lonely existence where there would be an absence of the thing that made you and the other guys who go farm to farm different. By taking into your own hands the life of a companion, you have suggested that friendship also include death. And like I said before, call me a fundamentalist, but to such a belief I cannot subscribe. Perhaps when Candy meant that when he was rendered useless, others would not do him the favor of killing him, if you were able to demonstrate the true nature of friendship, you might have rebutted that the central misguided thought that plagued Candy and ultimately brought you to the kill your friend was this: Friendship and utility are disjoint concepts and when a person is rendered useless, a person with a true friend would be able to rest in the notion that their friendship was not threatened.
A concerned citizen,
P.S. How's the cat house been treating you on yours and Lennie's combined wages?