Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck || books
Mar. 8th, 2025 11:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bookishghostI read this book in 2019 for my 11th grade English class. Now, amazingly, I'm about to teach an 11th grade English class, so I read it again. It's just as good the second time around. The writing is so beautiful and straightforward simultaneously. I love the fairly quick pacing, yet it still describes certain scenes or people in vivid detail. Despite the 1930's slang, I find it a very easy read.
I described this story to my mother, and she said: "But there's a problem with this. Won't it make your students believe that people who are stupid or disabled, like Lennie, deserve to die? Doesn't it send a message that George did the right thing committing a murder?"
And I want the answer to be a clear, obvious no. But I can't quite find an explanation to support a no. Lennie should not have had to die, yet I don't know what kind of life he could live that would allow him to be both safe and happy. I know that we assign this book in English class because we want students to ask important moral questions like this. We want students to wonder whether George really did do the right thing murdering his friend, or whether there were better solutions for Lennie. My mother suggested keeping him in a mental hospital, giving him a job to do, and cutting off all contact with other people so he can't hurt them. That's an awful solution. That's worse than ending his life, in my opinion. Would you rather be dead or be permanently, forcibly lonely?
But if neither death nor isolation are good solutions, what is a good solution? Maybe I'm just not creative enough to find it. I hope somebody will help me find it, whether here or in my classroom next week.
I described this story to my mother, and she said: "But there's a problem with this. Won't it make your students believe that people who are stupid or disabled, like Lennie, deserve to die? Doesn't it send a message that George did the right thing committing a murder?"
And I want the answer to be a clear, obvious no. But I can't quite find an explanation to support a no. Lennie should not have had to die, yet I don't know what kind of life he could live that would allow him to be both safe and happy. I know that we assign this book in English class because we want students to ask important moral questions like this. We want students to wonder whether George really did do the right thing murdering his friend, or whether there were better solutions for Lennie. My mother suggested keeping him in a mental hospital, giving him a job to do, and cutting off all contact with other people so he can't hurt them. That's an awful solution. That's worse than ending his life, in my opinion. Would you rather be dead or be permanently, forcibly lonely?
But if neither death nor isolation are good solutions, what is a good solution? Maybe I'm just not creative enough to find it. I hope somebody will help me find it, whether here or in my classroom next week.
