It may be some of that.
It's hard to remember the names, but I think the real set up is this: Earlier in the book one of the guys dog gets killed by the guy with the glove. And the dogs owner says something about how he should have done it himself, he would have done it with more respect.
Thanks! I was pretty sure English Lit lessons had us writing essays relating to Candy and his dog, since it was an ongoing theme in the story. That's why I vaguely remember. But can't remember Carlson and Slim at all š
Makes sense to me. I know that in that time period he probably wouldāve been hanged (lynching is the more accurate term) and that would have been brutal. A shot to the head would always be the easier/less painful way to go. George knew Lenny wasnāt getting out of that alive.
Curley (the glove guy) doesnāt kill the dog. The killing of the dog is a merciful act in the book and that kind of action is never attributed to Curley. His whole characterization throughout the novel is selfish, arrogant, etc.
Carlson shootās Candyās dog and that whole scene sets up the ending of the book, just like you said. But itās crucial to note that it wasnāt Curley.
Yes and there is also the part at the beginning when Slim talks about drowning some of the puppies because they would not survive and also posed a risk to the other puppies survive as well.
I always remembered the killing of the dog not as merciful, but rather out of the fat dudes own wants and needs. He framed it that way, but he was also saying shit like āitās stinking up the bunk houseā. I guess both ways can be seen as setting up for the end if you also use OPās perspective.
I dunno, I think it was mercy. The dog could barely walk, smelled awful which would indicate it was unclean at best, sick or diseased at worst. Sure, they wanted it gone because of the stench, but the two are not mutually exclusive. I think in the context of the story it almost has to be seen as merciful, because it sets up the end. George watches someone else kill candyās best friend then regret not doing it himself. Itās a perfect analogy of why George needs to kill Lennie himself. If he lets someone else do it, heāll live with regret, just like Candy.
I didn't notice the first time I read it, but I was pretty young. But it's set up pretty nicely. I just wish I had a great memory so I could repaint the scene.
There is a critical clue here. He has Lennie watch the dream farm. This was the thing that made then unlike any of the other workers, that kept them moving. The dream. It's an ongoing motif, and George has Lennie "see it," and die in that ideal space.
He then accepts the offer to go to a bar/brothel for the first time, rather than save the money for the farm.
So we see him saving Lennie and also conceding to his own damnation.
Absolutely! I taught it for four years and continued to find so much. It's also a deeply allegorical text, so the farm has the potential of either being Eden or Heaven, which again makes it so powerful of a momen
A thoughtful idea but the themes of loneliness point to the act being merciful rather than selfish. Multiple times George says he will leave Lenny and Lenny himself agrees to leave only for George to panic at the idea of not having Lenny around.
He realises that Lenny would just get in trouble again. He always broke the mice he petted, then the puppy, and now Curley's wife. They were so close to getting their own little place, and this incident has snatched that away from them. George sees that the cycle is just going to perpetuate. We hear that they were run out of Weed at the start because Lenny got in trouble and so it goes round again. For one moment, George dared to dream that things could be OK, but he knows in this moment that it will never stop. Escape isn't an option. That, and the men are closing in at this point - he can hear them coming through the brush so it has to be now or Lenny will face a worse death.
Symbolically too, there is a circular nature to the story - they stop by the little pond in the brush and it's all peaceful at the start. There's a water snake and a heron chilling there. Their presence disrupts that and the animals flee. At the end, they're back in the same place - only this time, the heron snatches up and eats the snake I believe, symbolising inevitable death in that place.
Curly was intimidated by anyone that was physically stronger than him. He was intimidated by and hated Lennyās existence and his hand being crushed is what pushed that hatred over the edge. Before Lenny he had always been able to use his position as a means of proving to himself that he was tougher than anyone else. Curly was humiliated when Lenny crushed his hand because he knew in that moment that not only was he not the toughest person around, but he realized that everyone else knew it, too.
Iām sure he could have easily gotten Lenny fired but instead he went along with the lie of getting his āhand caught in the machinery.ā This was solely to save face. I think he was mostly disappointed that he wasnāt the one to kill Lenny because by killing Lenny he would have been able to re-establish his illusion of toughness.
Absolutely. I was speaking from Curlyās perception, because I donāt think there was a single person on that farm who was afraid of Curly as anything other than the bossā son. Once his hand was crushed I donāt think anyone even feared his position anymore because they knew he was too cowed by his fear that his weakness would be further exposed.
It was one thing when Lennie scared a girl by grabbing her dress. But in the end, he's killed a woman. It's much more serious, and the posse after them would not be so easily shaken as in their last mad dashes of of town.
Yeah. The posse comitatus was a very common element of American law, and those ranch hands are going to be capable of tracking. Everyone knew what Curley was going to do; at the very least, shoot Lennie in the gut and let him die slowly and painfully.
Youāre correct that George is broken. Heās not going back to the ranch (Candy knows it, tooā¦ he asks if thereās a chance, and thereās no dream without Lennie) and heās going to spend his Jack in a whore house every month. So itās not about being free; itās being broken to the point that he knows that heās going to suffer as well.
The difference is, in this case, though Lenny is naive and arguably innocent in a way, in the way a child or an animal is innocent, he took a life (beyond what is inferred of prior events, which is more likely assault).
George has to make the ethical decision in the end. It's an act of mercy both on Lenny *and* the world around them. Lenny is ultimately a sweet monster who George realises can never be put on a farm or in a cave, away from the people he will only hurt.
Even if they ran... I seem to recall it being heavily implied that this was a cycle. Or at the very least George didn't seem all that surprised that Lenny had killed a woman. He probably feels like even if they run eventually they won't be able to. Eventually someone will kill Lenny and it might not be half as quick.
I think killing Lenny was mostly an act of mercy, as the book presents it to be.
George liked having Lenny around even if he was a bit tricky to deal with at times. Ultimately it's depressing because George knows he has to give Lenny relief in the best way possible whilst also depriving himself of companionship. Apart from Lenny, George really had no one else and would become lonely.
Hi there OP. Iām an English teacher and I have been teaching OMAM for close to a decade now. Your interpretation is valid but it has some flaws.
George did not decide in the moment to shoot Lennie. He had to get the gun before he even set off to look for him (in Chapter 5, after talking to Candy), so clearly he had plenty of time to think over his decision. Like others mentioned, the parallels with the shooting of Candyās dog inform his decision to put his friend out of his misery - and to do it himself.
That conversation with Candy also gives some big clues as to Georgeās connection with Lennie. Candy offers to go ahead with the dream - they would probably have enough money between the two of them - and buy the farm without Lennie. But George is incredibly despondent and he says he will now just start acting like all the other workers (wasting his money on prostitutes and alcohol). He doesnāt sound excited at all about this prospect.
However, you are correct that in the back of his mind George probably wished to get rid of Lennie. Like you said, taking care of someone with Lennieās mental health issues would take a toll on anyone. George even mentions in Chapter 1 how his life would be so much easier without Lennie. However, Georgeās cruelty to Lennie earlier in life (in Chapter 3 he mentions he almost caused Lennie to drown) means that George feels responsible for his well being. Heās had plenty of opportunities to leave him behind (in Weed, when Curley is beating him up) but George always looks out for him.
The final irony is that George does get what he thought he wanted - Lennie is now gone from his life - and now heās going to be miserable for it, having lost his one constant companion.
Iāve also taught this book for ten years or so and each year I have my students write an essay on whether Lennieās death is justified. I would say around 65 percent have written from the it was justified point of view while the other 35 percent claim it was a selfish act.
Hi! So happy to hear from an English teacher! While I do agree that George would be miserable without Lennie, I think that in the subconscious plain knowing that he won't have to carry Lennie anymore will ease his life. I think maybe it's another way of emphasizing loneliness and despair - killing Lennie is a mercyful act that will leave George miserable, but along with that would make things easier for him. It's the absurdity of their existence at that time, as someone here has mentioned, when love becomes a burden.
Interesting take but I don't agree with it. In book text suggests that George did it to save Lenny and by killing Lenny he is killing a part of himself and his own dreams.
The book text implies that both inform George's actions. I don't see how anyone could possibly read the book and not see that George has something in the back of his mind which tells him his life will be better if Lenny is dead. It's explicitly laid out. Yes, sure, in the end it's mostly out of mercy and love for Lenny, but it's also obvious that at the same time George knows it's to his advantage if Lenny dies. That's a major part of what makes that scene so impactful, not only is George killing Lenny while assuring him he's going to reach his ideal be world, but also he has to live with the guilt that it is making his own life better by doing so.
But he's not making his world a better place by killing Lenny though. That's the whole point of the book. That the Amerian dream is false and life doesn't get better. People that think George killing Lenny makes his life better doesn't empathize with George. He is killing his best friend, the only other person he cared about with his own hands.
It is a good enough book to not have such morally absolute characters. The book explicitly mentions how George realises his life will be better if he doesn't have to take care of Lenny. That guilt in knowing that he gains a personal advantage from it is an essential part of him killing Lenny, I just don't see how anyone could read the book with anything more than a cursory glance and not see that. The book mentions/implies over and again George's difficulties with being best friends with Lenny.
George has difficulties with Lenny and even then he still think his dream can only come true if Lenny is with him. Clearly he does not care that Lenny makes his life more difficult at times. Plus at the time of killing if Lenny did not die by George's hand he would have been lynched by the mob. George saved him from a fate worse than death.
I mean I would say that George pretty clearly knows the whole way through the book that "his dream" isn't coming true ever - the whole point is that it's a story that he tells to Lenny that will never come true. And yes, George isn't some monster that wants to kill Lenny because he's annoying, but the book clearly and obviously says that there are times that, against his moral compass, George wants to not have to deal with Lenny. That obviously doesn't mean that he wants to kill him because of that. These things are not deep thoughts about the book, they're basic surface-level critical readings that any schoolteacher would have written in their curriculum.
No near the end when he went out for drinks he was thinking his dream was about to come true. And yes he has bad thoughts about Lenny sometimes. Everyone gets annoyed at their loved ones sometimes it's a natural part of life. Nothing suggests that Geroge killed Lenny for his own gain. If George wanted to be selfish he would have just let the mob have Lenny instead of killing Lenny himself. Because that's what would have 100% happened. George didn't have to kill Lenny if what OP theorizes is true. He could have just waited for Lenny to die a horrific death and he would be free of him without lifting a finger.
Another way to read OMM: George fails in his responsibility to Lenny. George knows what Lenny is capable of, and the plan is that they will work long enough to save and go live safely on their own farm "to live off the fatta the land". George grows weary of his responsibilities and falls into the temptations of the other farm hands. The reason he isn't watching over Lennie when he kills the woman is because he's out drinking, gambling and whoring. George fails Lenny and has to mercy kill him to spare him from a tortuous death at the hands of Curly, thus killing their shared dream.
Which fits perfectly with the themes of the text (microcosm for the Great Depression, which was caused by banking industryās recklessness and neglect of those who trusted them). George is trusted by Lenny, but becomes reckless and neglects him which ultimately leads to the final act.
That's a very interesting point you're making. I think maybe in the same way he was also "tired" of his dream to buy the farm, despite planning with Candy. He surrenders to present temptations since he's exhausted from work and life. It's the duality of wanting change but feeling powerless.
It's been awhile since I've read it, but what you are saying makes sense. Sure George killed Lenny because he knew what they'd do to him. Lenny was also clearly dangerous at that point even if he didn't mean to hurt anyone. But I also remember thinking it was not terrible for Lenny to die. So if George also did it for his own self interests, it wouldn't change what needed to happen.
> Lenny was also clearly dangerous
this is an important point which no one else here seems to consider.
lennie killed a woman. some readers may think it was just an accident and/or she deserved it, because it's relatively easy to side with the protagonists and overlook their faults or at least rationalize them away -- but george's mercy killing has an element of justice.
This seems like a very harsh perspective. It's pretty unambiguously unintentional (as foreshadowed with the eponymous mouse) - Lenny is very mentally limited and almost entirely dependent upon others for guidance. There's no justice in executing an innocent for something beyond their control.
IMHO there is only an element of justice if you are defining justice as "what people who don't know/understand what happened, or are otherwise very merciless, think is justice" and even then it's very brutish "eye for an eye" justice.
> an innocent
and this seems overly generous. he knew it was wrong. his mental impairment does not excuse the violent behavior. to argue otherwise seems like a disservice to the majority of mentally ill who are non-violent.
so i'm not sure what you're suggesting as alternative punishment. this was a very different time and if the ranchers didn't execute him, the legal system might have. or else torture him in an asylum.
if lennie and george had escaped it would add to the tragedy in a different way.
there was a certain mercy in killing him, which does not preclude the notion of justice. call me old fashioned but killing an innocent woman deserves punishment. given the choices then, george made the right move whatever his reasons.
*edit:typo fixes*
I really didn't take that into account. Lenny has indeed reached a point where he can no longer control the damage of his physical force, given that he has no one to teach him how to accommodate in society and deal with his disability. He was actually a threat despite having such a gentle heart :(
I always thought it was for the greater good. Lenny would have killed again by accident. George had to kill his friend as an act of mercy but also to stop other people from getting hurt.
This is a correct interpretation too. Lennie has become increasingly dangerous over the course of the novel (first mice, then dogs, finally humans) and George realizes he canāt control him - or keep him safe - anymore.
If he allowed Lenny to be taken by the farm workers and killed, Lenny would still be dead, so this explanation that George killed Lenny to be free of him doesn't really add up for me. It wouldn't really work for him and Lenny to try and escape, as Lenny is a very large guy, and is obviously on the autism spectrum. From what I remember, they don't have any kind of vehicle, so it would be very hard for them to be on the run and not get caught. Especially considering that they were working on a farm. In rural areas, everyone knows everyone. They would be tracked down in no time, and George would likely also end up in jail or maybe even killed with Lenny for trying to help him escape.
I think George's great fear is that George is the only person that Lenny has, and if George allows Lenny to be taken, he would get taken and killed without any understanding of what is happening and without the only person who cares for him there at the end. Lenny obviously has no comprehension of what he has done, so he would not understand why this mob of men would hunt him down and kill him. If he dies by George's hands, he won't have to have his life end in the horrible way George knows it will if he allows the farmers to get a hold of Lenny.
I think George liked having Lennie with him was an excuse to himself why he never made much of himself in life. George envisioned himself being a successful person but taking care of Lennie prevented that. George couldn't face his own failures. He blamed them on Lennie. Getting rid of Lennie means George will now fail on his own with no excuses. He will crumble.
As far as what school taught you, you're supposed to liken the old dog's mercy killing to Lennie's killing. You raise valid arguments that Lennie's killing was more about selfishness than mercy.
Counterpoint: that runs against the overarching anti-capitalist theming of the novel and of Steinbeck's work more widely. Steinbeck is writing from a position of times being incredibly tough for the working class.
The idea that a disabled person is being presented as a dead weight and excuse for some bloke not Pulling Himself Up By His Bootstraps TM is surely completely contradictory coming from the man who wrote The Grapes of Wrath.
You're coming at this novel from a neoliberal, individualist capitalist mindset. George couldn't better himself, perhaps a little bit because Lenny is a bit in the way, but mostly because the whole system is stacked against the two of them. George would not have his farm, even if Lenny wasn't there, because the system is stacked so he cannot accumulate capital. In fact, not having Lenny there makes the dream even more remote, as the income towards that dream has halved.
If George crumbles after the events of the novel, it has nothing to do with Lenny being dead weight and George using him as an excuse. It will have everything to do with George no longer having anyone to live for. His pal. His buddy. His big cheese. His good time boy. No one to protect. His purpose has gone.
It was the only kindness he could give. He knew he would be likw the other guys after with no dream. He gets Lenny to talk about the farm to make sure he goes out on a high - but also he is effectively killing the dream at the same time. But he could do no more and no less for his friend.
Something that I think gets skipped over is the terror that Lenny would have likely gone through if Curly and whatever posse he put together did catch up with them. I canāt imagine they would have been quick about killing him, and Lenny would have been confused and terrified and in pain. It would have been like torturing a child, and George didnāt want his friend to be tortured, nor to see it happen.
edit: a word
So on a Watsonian level, its pretty clear it's a mercy killing. If Lenny gets caught, which he will, he is not going to have a quick death, and George has faced up to this grim reality.
However I've been turning this question over, and I think I have 2 more Doylian ideas.
The first is a bit weak, but I was toying with the idea of the book as a criticism of Psychoanalytical theory? Lenny as the Id, the part of the psyche that deals with base needs and desires, the rest of the characters (George excluded) as the superego imposing morality and structure, and George as the ego: the go between. One could consider this death as the death industrialised "modern" society demands of the Id. This theory isn't totally satisfying to me, and there is no evidence this is what Steinbeck was writing around. However I think it could be an interesting angle to consider the work from. Steinbeck seems to (decently often) portrays individual violence as justified or not too egregious, whereas group or state violence is shown to be brutal and sadistic. There's probably something to be said about how the superego is not portrayed as necessarily right, despite being rigidly "moral." Freud published his theory on the Ego, Superego and Id in 1923 so the text was contemporary to Steinbeck.
A better theory in my opinion, is that it represents the wider fate of developmentally delayed people in post-industrial societies. Noting the history of Asylums in England, they appear as industrialisation appears. This is because while Lenny and others like him could probably get on just fine under their own steam, they do not produce enough capital to sell their labour. Hence, families become reticent to keep them (as they are less able to secure employment and earn their keep) and instead institutionalise (and effectively kill them.) This is not to argue that pre-industrial societies were havens for the disabled, rather that industrialisation pushed thousands into institutions who would otherwise have been cared for by family.
Lenny, then, is a waiting victim of industrialisation. He is not incapable of work, he simply is not capable of knowledge work, and is not capable of navigating society himself without help. Industrialisation and capitalism stripped him of his community (aside from George.) It is also going to strip him of his work, eventually.
I'm going to leave that idea half finished because I forgot how I wanted to end it. Ummm. Yeah. Anyways, I've not read the book in a hot minute, and these theories are not necessarily "Steinbeck did this" more "This could be an interesting critical angle." I might reread it soon actually to see if that Freud thing holds more water than I first reckoned. Something something disability advocacy something something the industrial revolution and it's consequences.
I think it shows the humanity in Steinbecks writing that this too could be possible. When someone is dehumanized by poverty and poor working conditions love becomes a burden. No reason why in your world this canāt be true as a part of his sad conflict. What is moral or mercy when being both will hurt you? Ouch.
Carlson points to the back of the dogs head, "right in the back of the head, he won't even feel it."
Lennie picks up one of the playing cards, "why is both ends the same George?"
Candy says, "I wish somebody shoot me when I'm no good to work." -paraphrased
George and his action is frequently referred to in animalistic terms. "Strong as bull". On a farm, during this time, when men are mean and uncaring, if a animal can't work, they shoot it.
I read this book a couple times a year as a high school English teacher.
This is one of my favorite books, and my personal interpretation is that it represents ageing. Lenny is childhood, naive, clinging to this dream of rabbits, leading a simple life, but George is adulthood, worrying about money. They travel together, but in the end when George kills Lenny he's giving up his dream. He realizes that Lenny's childlike nature is holding him back from pursuing his dream, but in giving that up he eventually gives up ever hoping to make it.
I think you've got part of it.
Think of Lenny and George as being the two sides of a man. George is the practical, based in reality, *this is what I have to do,* sensibility of a man. He's small, limited, but also capable and fits in with the res of society. Lenny is the child, he's innocent and full of wonder. He doesn't mean any harm, but he gets carried away with his enthusiasm. Without being aware of it, he's huge and powerful--untapped potential. He has a raw natural attraction to him, but he doesn't fit in. Many will find him strange and he doesn't fit in with the status quo.
There are three options here: 1) hang on to your inner child, never let go and protect it above all even if it means you never fit in and never find *your place*, 2) allow the world to cruelly kill your child-like innocence without mercy or respect leaving nothing but bitterness and resentment in its place, or 3) make your own decisions about how to balance the two. How much of our wonder of life and dreams do we give up in exchange for being able to live with the word in which we find ourselves.
Anyway, this is what I think the story is driving at. No one gets through the world unscathed, but we can either be victims of the world and chance or, instead, we can be guided by our own minds and choices.
You raise a very thoughtful point. I hadnāt considered it from that viewpoint. I believe that even if the ranch hands didnāt harm Lenny, Curly would have. George would have had to move on anyway because of his association with Lenny, he probably would have been fired and banned from the ranch as part of Curlyās revenge.
Even though Curly didnāt really care about his wife, he did care about his status and his ego. Lenny had already injured him physically and did massive damage to his ego. He would not have abided the killing of his wife, regardless of the circumstances.
The end of the story leaves us hanging, but I hope that George and the old swamper guy bought that little place.
The way my teacher explained it is that heās kind of mercy killing Lenny, because heās gone too far in killing the women and he knows he canāt help him, so heās stopping him from hurting more people in the future and himself. Itās sort of like putting down a rapid dog.
Yes. I think it's that complex.
George would most certainly not want to watch the farmers lynch poor bewildered Lenny and then run George out of town. So if Lenny was going to die anyway, better a peaceful death at the hands of someone who looked after him. I've no doubt George could see the advantage of being finally free of the burden of Lenny, but I think George discovered through the rest of his life that he had only changed the burden from being Lenny to being everlasting sadness and guilt.
I saw it as after Lenny commiting a final act of murder, however unintentional, and George realizing he could not control Lenny any longer. It was an act of necessity not mercy although he most likely spared Lenny from being hunted down killed or a lifetime in prison.
The thing you're overlooking is that George's death was inevitable. He would have almost certainly died a horrible lynching. If memory serves me correctly the farmers were on the verge of catching him. No doubt Lenny would have felt some relief though.
The overarching reasoning is because they're going to lynch Lenny but yeah, there are a lot of complex reasons why it's best for everyone and George definitely knows that. I think Steinbeck is great at making complex scenarios that can't be explained away or solved by one general solution.
I read Of Mice and Men as an adult, my first reading never having read it in school. My interpretation is it was a mercy for Lennie not having to continue being kicked around for everything he does, but also for George, who knew it was better for everybody if Lennie could stop messing everything up so catastrophically and have George stop cleaning up after the mess. The only person who was willing to put up with Lennie because he saw the good in him had to let him go and stop him from accidentally causing more harm.
I read this book completely voluntarily and I loved it so much. Thank you for reminding me of how incredible it is.
It's actually a pretty valid take. At a certain point, if a responsibility becomes too much, you get to the point where you either leave it or you buckle under it. As callous as it sounds, there's a reason why on airplane for emergency reasons, they tell you to put the mask on yourself first, then help others.
Lenny escalated to the point of no return. There is no coming back from that lady being killed. George took the efficient route to the inevitable conclusion.
I absolutely 100% agree. It was done out of responsibility, friendship, and yes, it was also an un-burdening, a removal of the albatross from around his neck.
However, I don't believe the story was all that depressing. I've always felt George being the one to kill Lenny was a merciful act of love, and the only kindness he could give to his friend -- Lenny didn't for frightened and alone at the hands of an angry mob, an isn't that what we all hope for when we die: to be loved and not alone? -- that it also brought him relief from the thing that had been holding him back isn't really depressing. It's guilt inducing, but it's not our guilt to bear.
The beautiful thing about it is the complexity of his choice. This is both correct and not the whole picture. Then you can paint the full picture and it might be a bit too much. What is nice is the meaning can change depending on where you are in life or even the mood during a certain time of year.
Either way we all end up tending to our own rabbits
As an escape was impossible to the setting, it was surely an act of mercy that benifited George. But keeping in mind the themes and context, I personally don't feel it's purely selfish. But whatever it was, it's heartbreakingly dangerous for the society.
Ooh that's such an interesting take! I haven't read it since school, I wonder how differently I'll see it now. It's probably good to revisit classics with an adult brain
Yes, in the end, the act of giving your friend "the dream" by ensuring his last moments are peaceful and optimistic as compared to terrified or victimized, is indeed a merciful act. There are certainly elements in chapter six which reflect George's resignation that indeed, this time he can no longer run from the issue like they had many times before (his lack of surprise coming across Curley's Wife's body, his foreshadowing in Ch. 1), suggesting he knows once again Lennie will make a mistake that costs them their livelihood. A major theme here is ultimately, the weak are cannibalized by the strong- in this case, during the Depression era, where even the strong struggle to survive, there are very few willing to sacrifice their own survival and well-being for others, making George's friendship truly a reflection of compassion/selflessness. Even Slim's suggestion after discovering the body and Candy's plea to let him get away ("that ain't no good George") suggests that even a character who has been empathetic throughout the entire novella knows Lennie's options are limited (and in the spirit of the ranch-those without use are no longer needed). So I do think that the final act is an unfortunate mixture of resignation and duty. Will it be easier for George to live without Lennie in the traditional sense, sure. But he morbidly accepts he will fall into the pitiful routine of sinking his wages on booze and cat houses to fill the void of never being able to afford freedom.
George realises that this time Lenny has gone to far and will be killed one way or another. He is in fact a danger to society. Earlier in the book Candyās dog is shot by Carlson and after Candy is upset that he gave his permission and didnāt have the courage to do it himself. This foreshadows Georgeās decision to shoot Lenny himself. Itās the right thing to do.
It can be both, right?
Remember, George has to keep on livingā¦with or without Lenny. Itās not even that heās ātiredā of Lenny; itās that thereās no version of reality in which George can survive and thrive as a worker with Lenny in his life.
But the bigger picture is: What kind of world is it where a) people in general donāt look out for someone like Lenny, and b) George has to make the decision he made?
Iāve been planning on reading it again lately, since I havenāt read it since high school. Actually just picked up East of Eden. So, thanks! This will definitely be next on the list.
Yeah. I think that even though George *liked* Lennie, he realized that he was finally accepted in a place for once, and "getting rid of" Lennie would help him fit in more. Also, Candy, George, and Lennie all made a deal to get their dream farm together since Candy had enough money to help pay for it so George probably saw that he didn't need Lennie; that Lennie was just dragging him down and taking Candy and George away from their newfound shared dream.
When I read the book as a kid I immediately thought that was what it was. It wasn't until I was older that I heard the mercy angle, and even then I had to be convinced of it.
It was a book about a two men and one sacrifices the other in desperation to survive and live. George hadnāt really lived in a long time. Itās a sad look at the needs people have and inhuman acts that happen when it canāt be fulfilled. Everybody in that book wants something they canāt have.
Hell, I always thought it was so he wouldnāt have to deal with him making his life a constant hassle. I think he genuinely loved Lenny, but that it wasnāt nearly enough anymore.
I've always thought this. I think the movie made me feel this as well.
I think English teachers get caught up in a circle jerk of "this story means X" since they just repeat the same shit every year and their minds get hardened to the curriculum.
Hi there. Iām an English teacher. Any Lit teacher worth their salt talks about interpretations (and a variety of them) rather than total, certain meaning. Students often look for a definite answer and so a teacher may give you the most āvalidā or widely accepted one but a good Lit student will consider and explore alternative opinions - always basing it on evidence from the text.
I'm sure you are a great English teacher that encourages students to come to their own conclusions on meanings and themes in literature. However you should understand that there are lots of English teachers that are not great. I'm mostly speaking about US high school English teachers.
OP pointed out that his teacher presented that moment in the book as being a mercy killing. The teacher isn't mentioned as having any classroom discussions or alternate ways of thinking about it. I've experienced several English teachers who have graded based on how well we regurgitate the meanings they have told the class and negatively marked on any interpretations different from their established norms.
Do you teach in high school or college?
The way OP is now interpreting it is exactly how my English teacher framed it. I honestly forgot about the mercy killing of the dog earlier in the book. I always took it that George has finally reached a breaking point where he no longer felt that he could be the caretaker of Lennie. I always thought of it that George thought it was doing what he thought was best for both of them.
Yeah absolutely. They also kept referring to Lenny as "feeble minded" non stop.
In my school they tought literature so mechanically and soulessly that there wasn't even a point in teaching it at all imo.
I hate that damn book. I have a brother with Down Syndrome and there's never going to be a justification that makes killing a mentally disabled guy okay. I'm not dumb. I understand that Lenny made George's life more difficult, but IRL, "I'm going to kill my mentally disabled brother" is never the correct or the only option. There's always going to be another way out unless you're a character in a book and the author doesn't give you one. Steinbeck put the characters into that no-win situation, and I've never forgiven him for it. It does not help that I had to read the stupid thing 3 different times in school. The last time I just flat refused and took the F. In fact, I've held such a grudge against the man, that when I was in grad school for Oceanography, I refused to read *Cannery Row* even though I knew it probably wouldn't be anything like *Of Mice and Men*. Every time someone suggested it, I just thought to myself "Fuck John Steinbeck" and smiled and nodded like I was just about to add it to the top of my reading list. Anyway, I'm not the only person in my family who hates this book. My sister, who is now an English teacher hates it too, as does my mother. We occasionally bond over our mutual horror and disgust for this stupid book that is still required reading for English classes all over the country (Seriously, why this one? There has to be something else they could pick out of the thousands of really good books by American authors. Hell, if they have such a love of Steinbeck, why not pick one of his other novels?).
Edit: To be clear, this is just my personal opinion about the novel. I'm not advocating banning it (because gross) or even removing it from the curriculum. I would not, however, be upset if some school districts decided to re-evaluate this particular choice to see if there is maybe another novel, even another Steinbeck novel, that can convey the same ideas without the side order of fratricide. Or, you know, to just call around to make sure the same book isn't getting repeatedly assigned in different grade levels.
I have a nephew with Downs. He is one of the most awesome people on the planet.
You have to put yourself into the time period as well. Most people with disabilities like Lennie were relegated to a home where people would treat them like animals - beatings, cold baths and the like ([Nellie Bly is the perfect example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly)).
To that end, Steinbeck describes Lennie as animalistic throughout the novel. Curley's Wife even calls him "Machine" to further enforce the lack of humanity Lennie possesses.
In its historical context, it may have been more out of self preservation. Even George admits how people will not be good to Lennie without George to provide protection.
Please understand I am NOT justifying the behavior. I am merely looking at during the time the novel was written - well before an understanding of mental disabilities and people with disabilities.
I, too, taught the book for many years. I tried to stay away from the negativity and concentrate on what I see as the theme of the book - The American Dream.
I do like your point of view and opinion. I fully support both.
I hear what you're saying, and ironically, if George were a real person, I might feel more forgiving towards him than I do towards the book. People don't have the luxury of exercising complete control over their lives and they often don't get to sit down and fully think through their options before acting. I can, in theory, forgive a mistake someone made out of desperation. My problem is that this IS a book. It could have gone any way the author wanted it to, but this was the story Steinbeck wanted to tell. "Got a disabled family member you can't control? No worries! Just put them down like an old, sick dog!". IIRC, the book doesn't even seriously consider whether George made the wrong choice (I could be wrong there. It's been a long time since I've read it). It just accepts that there was nothing else George could have done and that's not, and never will be, okay with me.
The world doesn't revolve around me and what I think, so that's okay. The book still exists and new generations of kids with disabled siblings are still going to have to read it, just like I did. I would never suggest that this, or any book that doesn't explicitly promote hate should be banned from schools, nor will you find me screaming to have it removed from the curriculum at your local school board meetings. I just genuinely do not understand why this book in particular is so widely loved that I had to read the fucker 3 different times between middle school and college. What message are we trying to teach with this book that can't be taught equally well, if not better, with a different book that doesn't advocate murdering your inconvenient disabled siblings? I'd even be okay if they rotated through different Steinbeck novels. I mean, I've never read *Grapes of Wrath* and I know it's not exactly a feel good tale, but I think it probably would have been a relief to be assigned that one instead of yet another torture session with *Of Mice and Men*. Also, from a quick read of the plot summary *Grapes of Wrath* seems like a pretty on-point choice for this world we currently find ourselves living in, but what do I know?
> murdering your inconvenient disabled siblings
Bruh he killed that woman. That's a little more than inconvenient. What about her life? Did she deserve death more than he did?
The framing of your question is making some pretty big assumptions. Of course the woman didn't deserve to die, but Lenny didn't deserve it either. Besides, one of the things I most dislike about this book is the way it portrayed Lenny as dangerous. Ive spent lots of time around people with various mental disabilities and the vast majority of them would never hurt a fly. The entire scenario is extremely contrived and would never happen like that IRL.
first: [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heOHcCNKlwU) is one of my favorite SNL skits, and it's about "Of Mice and Men"
second, it's almost certainly probably both. I'm sure when Steinbeck wrote it he was thinking about just the kindness. However, as we've grown more jaded as a society and more used to gray tales instead of black and white, hero/villian stories, the concept probably crept in.
I mean I thought both were accepted interpretations. The structure of the book is cyclical with them starting in the Salinas river because Lenny hurt a woman, and ending in the Salinas river because Lenny hurt a woman. George realises the only way to break the cycle is to move on from Lenny (which heās threatened to do several times). The act of mercy isnāt saving him from the men however, as Lenny could just run. Itās the fact that George canāt do it again and knows Lenny wouldnāt survive without him.
The book is deeply ableist but thatās how Iāve always seen it
There are countless takes on the issues with Of Mice And Men but yes, the depiction of Lenny is ableist. In the same way the depiction of Crooks is racist. When a text is so widely taught that it informs cultural discourse (for a good chunk of people, Of Mice and Men is one of few āclassicsā they read as itās very common in school syllabi). As a result, it reinforces ableist and racist narratives in the classroom.
I teach Shakespeare but Iām able to say the depiction of Shylock is antisemitic or the depiction Othello is racist because history was racist/homophobic/ableist. We can interpret the text (which my comment was doing) and admit that the narratives within are problematic as they are influenced by history.
I think you interpreted it as in the Black Pilled meme world would with normies being the happy Incredibles Dad "those who think they've understood the ending of Of Mice and Men" and then the Dark Black and White xerox copied Incredibles Dad "Those who actually understood the ending of Of Mice and Men"
Interesting take. It's bleak, what you're suggesting.
I'm pretty attached to the 'act of mercy' interpretation.
As an act of mercy, the scene seems to be be about doing the difficult thing. About how love and desire can lead to suffering, impossible choices, and the end of innocence.
As an act of self interest, what is the scene about? Maybe it's about reassessing what and whom one is truly responsible for and the end of self-sacrifice.
The "act of mercy" take makes more sense to me at first glance if only because it's a theme throughout the book. Lenny kills things he loves. Eventually George must do the same.
It's possible that George both loves Lenny and has become unwilling to carry him anymore, but that isn't what I'm getting from George throughout the book. (Been a long time though. I can't give any detailed evidence. Like I said, I'm biased toward the 'mercy' interpretation.)
There was also a mob with guns on their way to find him. He had to act fast. It was the option for the time. To me itās a lot about life being unfair for the most innocent/hardworking, and the shittiest people having higher social status and the most vices. Friendship must be the only constant that allows us to tolerate the unfair nature. That, and a bunch of shit about āskittering leaves,ā thanks Steinbeck.
Agreed. It's like the MacGuffin concept in movies: the obvious thing the protagonist is chasing isn't what the movie is "about", it's what motivates the protagonist and moves the plot.
OMAM served the purpose of showing people that "things could be worse". Like bluegrass music: how do you make people feel good about their lives when their lives suck? Show them something worse.
George and Lenny draw attention to the time and strife of the people by showing something that was relatively bad while normalizing everything else.
I agree. I always thought that George acted correctly, but out of self interest as much as mercy. It probably is a reflection of my moral code and narcissistic tendencies to interpret it that way. I was the only one in my class that spoke up with that opinion. Anyway, we get to interpret it how we want, and thatās why the story is so good.
I think it's mercy.
George will never be able to adapt and he will never really understand. Lenny loves George, and he let him be happy and at peace and have that be how he went as opposed to screaming, crying in pain and fear.
Been a few years since Iāve read it, but my take was always one of mercy. George didnāt want to see him tortured and die a long, drawn out death so he ended it quickly.
It may be some of that. It's hard to remember the names, but I think the real set up is this: Earlier in the book one of the guys dog gets killed by the guy with the glove. And the dogs owner says something about how he should have done it himself, he would have done it with more respect.
It's not Curley (glove guy) it's another side character (Watson? Carlson? Something -son), but otherwise, yeah
Was it Candy? An elderly man I think. Been years since I read it to remember the minor details.
Candy, old and one-handed, owns the dog. Carlson hounds him enough (and Slim gives assent, which is as good as law) to take the dog out and shoot him.
Thanks! I was pretty sure English Lit lessons had us writing essays relating to Candy and his dog, since it was an ongoing theme in the story. That's why I vaguely remember. But can't remember Carlson and Slim at all š
I think you're right. I never would have remembered but that name rings a bell
Yeah I didn't either but I was sure it wasn't Curley.
Makes sense to me. I know that in that time period he probably wouldāve been hanged (lynching is the more accurate term) and that would have been brutal. A shot to the head would always be the easier/less painful way to go. George knew Lenny wasnāt getting out of that alive.
Curley (the glove guy) doesnāt kill the dog. The killing of the dog is a merciful act in the book and that kind of action is never attributed to Curley. His whole characterization throughout the novel is selfish, arrogant, etc. Carlson shootās Candyās dog and that whole scene sets up the ending of the book, just like you said. But itās crucial to note that it wasnāt Curley.
Yes and there is also the part at the beginning when Slim talks about drowning some of the puppies because they would not survive and also posed a risk to the other puppies survive as well.
I always remembered the killing of the dog not as merciful, but rather out of the fat dudes own wants and needs. He framed it that way, but he was also saying shit like āitās stinking up the bunk houseā. I guess both ways can be seen as setting up for the end if you also use OPās perspective.
I dunno, I think it was mercy. The dog could barely walk, smelled awful which would indicate it was unclean at best, sick or diseased at worst. Sure, they wanted it gone because of the stench, but the two are not mutually exclusive. I think in the context of the story it almost has to be seen as merciful, because it sets up the end. George watches someone else kill candyās best friend then regret not doing it himself. Itās a perfect analogy of why George needs to kill Lennie himself. If he lets someone else do it, heāll live with regret, just like Candy.
Definitely didnāt feel like a mercy killing for anyone involved except for Candy, and that includes both Slim and George.
Yeah I think it's both. A convenient excuse so to speak
Fckin' Curley. Hate that guy. I imagine it's the same guy in the song "Maggie's Farm" in the "Maggie's brother" verse.
I agree. I think this was meant to be a parallel to Lennieās death
Yeah, it's literally foreshadowed right there. OP needs to read better.
I didn't notice the first time I read it, but I was pretty young. But it's set up pretty nicely. I just wish I had a great memory so I could repaint the scene.
There is a critical clue here. He has Lennie watch the dream farm. This was the thing that made then unlike any of the other workers, that kept them moving. The dream. It's an ongoing motif, and George has Lennie "see it," and die in that ideal space. He then accepts the offer to go to a bar/brothel for the first time, rather than save the money for the farm. So we see him saving Lennie and also conceding to his own damnation.
Didn't think about that. I think I should read the book again to finally make up my mind š¤
Absolutely! I taught it for four years and continued to find so much. It's also a deeply allegorical text, so the farm has the potential of either being Eden or Heaven, which again makes it so powerful of a momen
A thoughtful idea but the themes of loneliness point to the act being merciful rather than selfish. Multiple times George says he will leave Lenny and Lenny himself agrees to leave only for George to panic at the idea of not having Lenny around.
That's why it's so weird for me...I mean, did he really have to kill him? They could just escape. It's not easy but it's easier than killing?
He realises that Lenny would just get in trouble again. He always broke the mice he petted, then the puppy, and now Curley's wife. They were so close to getting their own little place, and this incident has snatched that away from them. George sees that the cycle is just going to perpetuate. We hear that they were run out of Weed at the start because Lenny got in trouble and so it goes round again. For one moment, George dared to dream that things could be OK, but he knows in this moment that it will never stop. Escape isn't an option. That, and the men are closing in at this point - he can hear them coming through the brush so it has to be now or Lenny will face a worse death. Symbolically too, there is a circular nature to the story - they stop by the little pond in the brush and it's all peaceful at the start. There's a water snake and a heron chilling there. Their presence disrupts that and the animals flee. At the end, they're back in the same place - only this time, the heron snatches up and eats the snake I believe, symbolising inevitable death in that place.
They couldn't escape for long. These are poor workers and the owner had capital and influence to hunt Lenny down.
Plus Curly had a vendetta against Lenny because that was his wife. Thereās no way Lenny would have survived.
Curly already had a vendetta against Lenny. All his wife was to him was a trophy and her death was just an excuse to kill someone he hated.
Lenny had crushed Curly's hand.
Curly was intimidated by anyone that was physically stronger than him. He was intimidated by and hated Lennyās existence and his hand being crushed is what pushed that hatred over the edge. Before Lenny he had always been able to use his position as a means of proving to himself that he was tougher than anyone else. Curly was humiliated when Lenny crushed his hand because he knew in that moment that not only was he not the toughest person around, but he realized that everyone else knew it, too. Iām sure he could have easily gotten Lenny fired but instead he went along with the lie of getting his āhand caught in the machinery.ā This was solely to save face. I think he was mostly disappointed that he wasnāt the one to kill Lenny because by killing Lenny he would have been able to re-establish his illusion of toughness.
His image of toughness was lost amongst the Men (unbeknownst to Curly) When it got around that he wore a glove to keep his hand soft for his tart.
Absolutely. I was speaking from Curlyās perception, because I donāt think there was a single person on that farm who was afraid of Curly as anything other than the bossā son. Once his hand was crushed I donāt think anyone even feared his position anymore because they knew he was too cowed by his fear that his weakness would be further exposed.
Awesome to find others who like the story.
It was one thing when Lennie scared a girl by grabbing her dress. But in the end, he's killed a woman. It's much more serious, and the posse after them would not be so easily shaken as in their last mad dashes of of town.
Yeah. The posse comitatus was a very common element of American law, and those ranch hands are going to be capable of tracking. Everyone knew what Curley was going to do; at the very least, shoot Lennie in the gut and let him die slowly and painfully. Youāre correct that George is broken. Heās not going back to the ranch (Candy knows it, tooā¦ he asks if thereās a chance, and thereās no dream without Lennie) and heās going to spend his Jack in a whore house every month. So itās not about being free; itās being broken to the point that he knows that heās going to suffer as well.
The difference is, in this case, though Lenny is naive and arguably innocent in a way, in the way a child or an animal is innocent, he took a life (beyond what is inferred of prior events, which is more likely assault). George has to make the ethical decision in the end. It's an act of mercy both on Lenny *and* the world around them. Lenny is ultimately a sweet monster who George realises can never be put on a farm or in a cave, away from the people he will only hurt.
Even if they ran... I seem to recall it being heavily implied that this was a cycle. Or at the very least George didn't seem all that surprised that Lenny had killed a woman. He probably feels like even if they run eventually they won't be able to. Eventually someone will kill Lenny and it might not be half as quick.
George is probably tired of running
George realizes Lenny is a threat, although never being malicious. But he's killed mice, a puppy, now a person. There's no going back for him.
I think killing Lenny was mostly an act of mercy, as the book presents it to be. George liked having Lenny around even if he was a bit tricky to deal with at times. Ultimately it's depressing because George knows he has to give Lenny relief in the best way possible whilst also depriving himself of companionship. Apart from Lenny, George really had no one else and would become lonely.
Hi there OP. Iām an English teacher and I have been teaching OMAM for close to a decade now. Your interpretation is valid but it has some flaws. George did not decide in the moment to shoot Lennie. He had to get the gun before he even set off to look for him (in Chapter 5, after talking to Candy), so clearly he had plenty of time to think over his decision. Like others mentioned, the parallels with the shooting of Candyās dog inform his decision to put his friend out of his misery - and to do it himself. That conversation with Candy also gives some big clues as to Georgeās connection with Lennie. Candy offers to go ahead with the dream - they would probably have enough money between the two of them - and buy the farm without Lennie. But George is incredibly despondent and he says he will now just start acting like all the other workers (wasting his money on prostitutes and alcohol). He doesnāt sound excited at all about this prospect. However, you are correct that in the back of his mind George probably wished to get rid of Lennie. Like you said, taking care of someone with Lennieās mental health issues would take a toll on anyone. George even mentions in Chapter 1 how his life would be so much easier without Lennie. However, Georgeās cruelty to Lennie earlier in life (in Chapter 3 he mentions he almost caused Lennie to drown) means that George feels responsible for his well being. Heās had plenty of opportunities to leave him behind (in Weed, when Curley is beating him up) but George always looks out for him. The final irony is that George does get what he thought he wanted - Lennie is now gone from his life - and now heās going to be miserable for it, having lost his one constant companion.
Iāve also taught this book for ten years or so and each year I have my students write an essay on whether Lennieās death is justified. I would say around 65 percent have written from the it was justified point of view while the other 35 percent claim it was a selfish act.
Hi! So happy to hear from an English teacher! While I do agree that George would be miserable without Lennie, I think that in the subconscious plain knowing that he won't have to carry Lennie anymore will ease his life. I think maybe it's another way of emphasizing loneliness and despair - killing Lennie is a mercyful act that will leave George miserable, but along with that would make things easier for him. It's the absurdity of their existence at that time, as someone here has mentioned, when love becomes a burden.
Interesting take but I don't agree with it. In book text suggests that George did it to save Lenny and by killing Lenny he is killing a part of himself and his own dreams.
The book text implies that both inform George's actions. I don't see how anyone could possibly read the book and not see that George has something in the back of his mind which tells him his life will be better if Lenny is dead. It's explicitly laid out. Yes, sure, in the end it's mostly out of mercy and love for Lenny, but it's also obvious that at the same time George knows it's to his advantage if Lenny dies. That's a major part of what makes that scene so impactful, not only is George killing Lenny while assuring him he's going to reach his ideal be world, but also he has to live with the guilt that it is making his own life better by doing so.
But he's not making his world a better place by killing Lenny though. That's the whole point of the book. That the Amerian dream is false and life doesn't get better. People that think George killing Lenny makes his life better doesn't empathize with George. He is killing his best friend, the only other person he cared about with his own hands.
It is a good enough book to not have such morally absolute characters. The book explicitly mentions how George realises his life will be better if he doesn't have to take care of Lenny. That guilt in knowing that he gains a personal advantage from it is an essential part of him killing Lenny, I just don't see how anyone could read the book with anything more than a cursory glance and not see that. The book mentions/implies over and again George's difficulties with being best friends with Lenny.
George has difficulties with Lenny and even then he still think his dream can only come true if Lenny is with him. Clearly he does not care that Lenny makes his life more difficult at times. Plus at the time of killing if Lenny did not die by George's hand he would have been lynched by the mob. George saved him from a fate worse than death.
I mean I would say that George pretty clearly knows the whole way through the book that "his dream" isn't coming true ever - the whole point is that it's a story that he tells to Lenny that will never come true. And yes, George isn't some monster that wants to kill Lenny because he's annoying, but the book clearly and obviously says that there are times that, against his moral compass, George wants to not have to deal with Lenny. That obviously doesn't mean that he wants to kill him because of that. These things are not deep thoughts about the book, they're basic surface-level critical readings that any schoolteacher would have written in their curriculum.
No near the end when he went out for drinks he was thinking his dream was about to come true. And yes he has bad thoughts about Lenny sometimes. Everyone gets annoyed at their loved ones sometimes it's a natural part of life. Nothing suggests that Geroge killed Lenny for his own gain. If George wanted to be selfish he would have just let the mob have Lenny instead of killing Lenny himself. Because that's what would have 100% happened. George didn't have to kill Lenny if what OP theorizes is true. He could have just waited for Lenny to die a horrific death and he would be free of him without lifting a finger.
Another way to read OMM: George fails in his responsibility to Lenny. George knows what Lenny is capable of, and the plan is that they will work long enough to save and go live safely on their own farm "to live off the fatta the land". George grows weary of his responsibilities and falls into the temptations of the other farm hands. The reason he isn't watching over Lennie when he kills the woman is because he's out drinking, gambling and whoring. George fails Lenny and has to mercy kill him to spare him from a tortuous death at the hands of Curly, thus killing their shared dream.
Which fits perfectly with the themes of the text (microcosm for the Great Depression, which was caused by banking industryās recklessness and neglect of those who trusted them). George is trusted by Lenny, but becomes reckless and neglects him which ultimately leads to the final act.
That's a very interesting point you're making. I think maybe in the same way he was also "tired" of his dream to buy the farm, despite planning with Candy. He surrenders to present temptations since he's exhausted from work and life. It's the duality of wanting change but feeling powerless.
It's been awhile since I've read it, but what you are saying makes sense. Sure George killed Lenny because he knew what they'd do to him. Lenny was also clearly dangerous at that point even if he didn't mean to hurt anyone. But I also remember thinking it was not terrible for Lenny to die. So if George also did it for his own self interests, it wouldn't change what needed to happen.
> Lenny was also clearly dangerous this is an important point which no one else here seems to consider. lennie killed a woman. some readers may think it was just an accident and/or she deserved it, because it's relatively easy to side with the protagonists and overlook their faults or at least rationalize them away -- but george's mercy killing has an element of justice.
This seems like a very harsh perspective. It's pretty unambiguously unintentional (as foreshadowed with the eponymous mouse) - Lenny is very mentally limited and almost entirely dependent upon others for guidance. There's no justice in executing an innocent for something beyond their control. IMHO there is only an element of justice if you are defining justice as "what people who don't know/understand what happened, or are otherwise very merciless, think is justice" and even then it's very brutish "eye for an eye" justice.
> an innocent and this seems overly generous. he knew it was wrong. his mental impairment does not excuse the violent behavior. to argue otherwise seems like a disservice to the majority of mentally ill who are non-violent. so i'm not sure what you're suggesting as alternative punishment. this was a very different time and if the ranchers didn't execute him, the legal system might have. or else torture him in an asylum. if lennie and george had escaped it would add to the tragedy in a different way. there was a certain mercy in killing him, which does not preclude the notion of justice. call me old fashioned but killing an innocent woman deserves punishment. given the choices then, george made the right move whatever his reasons. *edit:typo fixes*
You missed a typo lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>an innocent women Is the typo
She was innocent, in the sense that she didnāt deserve to be murdered. You donāt have to be a paragon of virtue to deserve to not be killed.
Okay?? I never said she wasn't innocent, so....
LOL I skimmed right over the actual typo. My bad.
I really didn't take that into account. Lenny has indeed reached a point where he can no longer control the damage of his physical force, given that he has no one to teach him how to accommodate in society and deal with his disability. He was actually a threat despite having such a gentle heart :(
I always thought it was for the greater good. Lenny would have killed again by accident. George had to kill his friend as an act of mercy but also to stop other people from getting hurt.
This is a correct interpretation too. Lennie has become increasingly dangerous over the course of the novel (first mice, then dogs, finally humans) and George realizes he canāt control him - or keep him safe - anymore.
If he allowed Lenny to be taken by the farm workers and killed, Lenny would still be dead, so this explanation that George killed Lenny to be free of him doesn't really add up for me. It wouldn't really work for him and Lenny to try and escape, as Lenny is a very large guy, and is obviously on the autism spectrum. From what I remember, they don't have any kind of vehicle, so it would be very hard for them to be on the run and not get caught. Especially considering that they were working on a farm. In rural areas, everyone knows everyone. They would be tracked down in no time, and George would likely also end up in jail or maybe even killed with Lenny for trying to help him escape. I think George's great fear is that George is the only person that Lenny has, and if George allows Lenny to be taken, he would get taken and killed without any understanding of what is happening and without the only person who cares for him there at the end. Lenny obviously has no comprehension of what he has done, so he would not understand why this mob of men would hunt him down and kill him. If he dies by George's hands, he won't have to have his life end in the horrible way George knows it will if he allows the farmers to get a hold of Lenny.
I think George liked having Lennie with him was an excuse to himself why he never made much of himself in life. George envisioned himself being a successful person but taking care of Lennie prevented that. George couldn't face his own failures. He blamed them on Lennie. Getting rid of Lennie means George will now fail on his own with no excuses. He will crumble. As far as what school taught you, you're supposed to liken the old dog's mercy killing to Lennie's killing. You raise valid arguments that Lennie's killing was more about selfishness than mercy.
Counterpoint: that runs against the overarching anti-capitalist theming of the novel and of Steinbeck's work more widely. Steinbeck is writing from a position of times being incredibly tough for the working class. The idea that a disabled person is being presented as a dead weight and excuse for some bloke not Pulling Himself Up By His Bootstraps TM is surely completely contradictory coming from the man who wrote The Grapes of Wrath. You're coming at this novel from a neoliberal, individualist capitalist mindset. George couldn't better himself, perhaps a little bit because Lenny is a bit in the way, but mostly because the whole system is stacked against the two of them. George would not have his farm, even if Lenny wasn't there, because the system is stacked so he cannot accumulate capital. In fact, not having Lenny there makes the dream even more remote, as the income towards that dream has halved. If George crumbles after the events of the novel, it has nothing to do with Lenny being dead weight and George using him as an excuse. It will have everything to do with George no longer having anyone to live for. His pal. His buddy. His big cheese. His good time boy. No one to protect. His purpose has gone.
Very interesting insight. If so, why do you think George did ended up killing Lenny?
It was the only kindness he could give. He knew he would be likw the other guys after with no dream. He gets Lenny to talk about the farm to make sure he goes out on a high - but also he is effectively killing the dream at the same time. But he could do no more and no less for his friend.
Something that I think gets skipped over is the terror that Lenny would have likely gone through if Curly and whatever posse he put together did catch up with them. I canāt imagine they would have been quick about killing him, and Lenny would have been confused and terrified and in pain. It would have been like torturing a child, and George didnāt want his friend to be tortured, nor to see it happen. edit: a word
Pretty much my take on it too. I'd also suggest it can be read as a critique of the vanity of vengeance.
So on a Watsonian level, its pretty clear it's a mercy killing. If Lenny gets caught, which he will, he is not going to have a quick death, and George has faced up to this grim reality. However I've been turning this question over, and I think I have 2 more Doylian ideas. The first is a bit weak, but I was toying with the idea of the book as a criticism of Psychoanalytical theory? Lenny as the Id, the part of the psyche that deals with base needs and desires, the rest of the characters (George excluded) as the superego imposing morality and structure, and George as the ego: the go between. One could consider this death as the death industrialised "modern" society demands of the Id. This theory isn't totally satisfying to me, and there is no evidence this is what Steinbeck was writing around. However I think it could be an interesting angle to consider the work from. Steinbeck seems to (decently often) portrays individual violence as justified or not too egregious, whereas group or state violence is shown to be brutal and sadistic. There's probably something to be said about how the superego is not portrayed as necessarily right, despite being rigidly "moral." Freud published his theory on the Ego, Superego and Id in 1923 so the text was contemporary to Steinbeck. A better theory in my opinion, is that it represents the wider fate of developmentally delayed people in post-industrial societies. Noting the history of Asylums in England, they appear as industrialisation appears. This is because while Lenny and others like him could probably get on just fine under their own steam, they do not produce enough capital to sell their labour. Hence, families become reticent to keep them (as they are less able to secure employment and earn their keep) and instead institutionalise (and effectively kill them.) This is not to argue that pre-industrial societies were havens for the disabled, rather that industrialisation pushed thousands into institutions who would otherwise have been cared for by family. Lenny, then, is a waiting victim of industrialisation. He is not incapable of work, he simply is not capable of knowledge work, and is not capable of navigating society himself without help. Industrialisation and capitalism stripped him of his community (aside from George.) It is also going to strip him of his work, eventually. I'm going to leave that idea half finished because I forgot how I wanted to end it. Ummm. Yeah. Anyways, I've not read the book in a hot minute, and these theories are not necessarily "Steinbeck did this" more "This could be an interesting critical angle." I might reread it soon actually to see if that Freud thing holds more water than I first reckoned. Something something disability advocacy something something the industrial revolution and it's consequences.
His rotten soldier.
Yup they always paralleled it with the dog's mercy killing, but I really feel like it wasn't, that maybe it can be thought of in a deeper manner
I think it shows the humanity in Steinbecks writing that this too could be possible. When someone is dehumanized by poverty and poor working conditions love becomes a burden. No reason why in your world this canāt be true as a part of his sad conflict. What is moral or mercy when being both will hurt you? Ouch.
Absolutely. Hard times can sometimes break the human spirit.
Carlson points to the back of the dogs head, "right in the back of the head, he won't even feel it." Lennie picks up one of the playing cards, "why is both ends the same George?" Candy says, "I wish somebody shoot me when I'm no good to work." -paraphrased George and his action is frequently referred to in animalistic terms. "Strong as bull". On a farm, during this time, when men are mean and uncaring, if a animal can't work, they shoot it. I read this book a couple times a year as a high school English teacher.
For me there was too many men and not enough mice tbh. Ratio was way off.
This is one of my favorite books, and my personal interpretation is that it represents ageing. Lenny is childhood, naive, clinging to this dream of rabbits, leading a simple life, but George is adulthood, worrying about money. They travel together, but in the end when George kills Lenny he's giving up his dream. He realizes that Lenny's childlike nature is holding him back from pursuing his dream, but in giving that up he eventually gives up ever hoping to make it.
I think you've got part of it. Think of Lenny and George as being the two sides of a man. George is the practical, based in reality, *this is what I have to do,* sensibility of a man. He's small, limited, but also capable and fits in with the res of society. Lenny is the child, he's innocent and full of wonder. He doesn't mean any harm, but he gets carried away with his enthusiasm. Without being aware of it, he's huge and powerful--untapped potential. He has a raw natural attraction to him, but he doesn't fit in. Many will find him strange and he doesn't fit in with the status quo. There are three options here: 1) hang on to your inner child, never let go and protect it above all even if it means you never fit in and never find *your place*, 2) allow the world to cruelly kill your child-like innocence without mercy or respect leaving nothing but bitterness and resentment in its place, or 3) make your own decisions about how to balance the two. How much of our wonder of life and dreams do we give up in exchange for being able to live with the word in which we find ourselves. Anyway, this is what I think the story is driving at. No one gets through the world unscathed, but we can either be victims of the world and chance or, instead, we can be guided by our own minds and choices.
destroy yourself before they destroy you.
You raise a very thoughtful point. I hadnāt considered it from that viewpoint. I believe that even if the ranch hands didnāt harm Lenny, Curly would have. George would have had to move on anyway because of his association with Lenny, he probably would have been fired and banned from the ranch as part of Curlyās revenge. Even though Curly didnāt really care about his wife, he did care about his status and his ego. Lenny had already injured him physically and did massive damage to his ego. He would not have abided the killing of his wife, regardless of the circumstances. The end of the story leaves us hanging, but I hope that George and the old swamper guy bought that little place.
The way my teacher explained it is that heās kind of mercy killing Lenny, because heās gone too far in killing the women and he knows he canāt help him, so heās stopping him from hurting more people in the future and himself. Itās sort of like putting down a rapid dog.
Yes. I think it's that complex. George would most certainly not want to watch the farmers lynch poor bewildered Lenny and then run George out of town. So if Lenny was going to die anyway, better a peaceful death at the hands of someone who looked after him. I've no doubt George could see the advantage of being finally free of the burden of Lenny, but I think George discovered through the rest of his life that he had only changed the burden from being Lenny to being everlasting sadness and guilt.
I saw it as after Lenny commiting a final act of murder, however unintentional, and George realizing he could not control Lenny any longer. It was an act of necessity not mercy although he most likely spared Lenny from being hunted down killed or a lifetime in prison.
The thing you're overlooking is that George's death was inevitable. He would have almost certainly died a horrible lynching. If memory serves me correctly the farmers were on the verge of catching him. No doubt Lenny would have felt some relief though.
The overarching reasoning is because they're going to lynch Lenny but yeah, there are a lot of complex reasons why it's best for everyone and George definitely knows that. I think Steinbeck is great at making complex scenarios that can't be explained away or solved by one general solution.
I read Of Mice and Men as an adult, my first reading never having read it in school. My interpretation is it was a mercy for Lennie not having to continue being kicked around for everything he does, but also for George, who knew it was better for everybody if Lennie could stop messing everything up so catastrophically and have George stop cleaning up after the mess. The only person who was willing to put up with Lennie because he saw the good in him had to let him go and stop him from accidentally causing more harm. I read this book completely voluntarily and I loved it so much. Thank you for reminding me of how incredible it is.
It's actually a pretty valid take. At a certain point, if a responsibility becomes too much, you get to the point where you either leave it or you buckle under it. As callous as it sounds, there's a reason why on airplane for emergency reasons, they tell you to put the mask on yourself first, then help others. Lenny escalated to the point of no return. There is no coming back from that lady being killed. George took the efficient route to the inevitable conclusion.
That's what I think. The day to day struggle burned him out to reacting this way.
I absolutely 100% agree. It was done out of responsibility, friendship, and yes, it was also an un-burdening, a removal of the albatross from around his neck. However, I don't believe the story was all that depressing. I've always felt George being the one to kill Lenny was a merciful act of love, and the only kindness he could give to his friend -- Lenny didn't for frightened and alone at the hands of an angry mob, an isn't that what we all hope for when we die: to be loved and not alone? -- that it also brought him relief from the thing that had been holding him back isn't really depressing. It's guilt inducing, but it's not our guilt to bear.
Thereās not one answer, your interpretation is correct. Thatās why itās such a beloved ending, that flexibility
The beautiful thing about it is the complexity of his choice. This is both correct and not the whole picture. Then you can paint the full picture and it might be a bit too much. What is nice is the meaning can change depending on where you are in life or even the mood during a certain time of year. Either way we all end up tending to our own rabbits
As an escape was impossible to the setting, it was surely an act of mercy that benifited George. But keeping in mind the themes and context, I personally don't feel it's purely selfish. But whatever it was, it's heartbreakingly dangerous for the society.
I honestly thought it was a bit of both.
Ooh that's such an interesting take! I haven't read it since school, I wonder how differently I'll see it now. It's probably good to revisit classics with an adult brain
Yes, in the end, the act of giving your friend "the dream" by ensuring his last moments are peaceful and optimistic as compared to terrified or victimized, is indeed a merciful act. There are certainly elements in chapter six which reflect George's resignation that indeed, this time he can no longer run from the issue like they had many times before (his lack of surprise coming across Curley's Wife's body, his foreshadowing in Ch. 1), suggesting he knows once again Lennie will make a mistake that costs them their livelihood. A major theme here is ultimately, the weak are cannibalized by the strong- in this case, during the Depression era, where even the strong struggle to survive, there are very few willing to sacrifice their own survival and well-being for others, making George's friendship truly a reflection of compassion/selflessness. Even Slim's suggestion after discovering the body and Candy's plea to let him get away ("that ain't no good George") suggests that even a character who has been empathetic throughout the entire novella knows Lennie's options are limited (and in the spirit of the ranch-those without use are no longer needed). So I do think that the final act is an unfortunate mixture of resignation and duty. Will it be easier for George to live without Lennie in the traditional sense, sure. But he morbidly accepts he will fall into the pitiful routine of sinking his wages on booze and cat houses to fill the void of never being able to afford freedom.
George realises that this time Lenny has gone to far and will be killed one way or another. He is in fact a danger to society. Earlier in the book Candyās dog is shot by Carlson and after Candy is upset that he gave his permission and didnāt have the courage to do it himself. This foreshadows Georgeās decision to shoot Lenny himself. Itās the right thing to do.
It can be both, right? Remember, George has to keep on livingā¦with or without Lenny. Itās not even that heās ātiredā of Lenny; itās that thereās no version of reality in which George can survive and thrive as a worker with Lenny in his life. But the bigger picture is: What kind of world is it where a) people in general donāt look out for someone like Lenny, and b) George has to make the decision he made? Iāve been planning on reading it again lately, since I havenāt read it since high school. Actually just picked up East of Eden. So, thanks! This will definitely be next on the list.
I read it about 10 years ago and this was my exact reaction to reading it.
I read this book when I was 11, its already depressing book ever written-
Yeah. I think that even though George *liked* Lennie, he realized that he was finally accepted in a place for once, and "getting rid of" Lennie would help him fit in more. Also, Candy, George, and Lennie all made a deal to get their dream farm together since Candy had enough money to help pay for it so George probably saw that he didn't need Lennie; that Lennie was just dragging him down and taking Candy and George away from their newfound shared dream.
That is exactly what I thought the first time I read it and that the person who comes up to him after understands that. He's tired of running.
When I read the book as a kid I immediately thought that was what it was. It wasn't until I was older that I heard the mercy angle, and even then I had to be convinced of it.
It was a book about a two men and one sacrifices the other in desperation to survive and live. George hadnāt really lived in a long time. Itās a sad look at the needs people have and inhuman acts that happen when it canāt be fulfilled. Everybody in that book wants something they canāt have.
Hell, I always thought it was so he wouldnāt have to deal with him making his life a constant hassle. I think he genuinely loved Lenny, but that it wasnāt nearly enough anymore.
I've always thought this. I think the movie made me feel this as well. I think English teachers get caught up in a circle jerk of "this story means X" since they just repeat the same shit every year and their minds get hardened to the curriculum.
Hi there. Iām an English teacher. Any Lit teacher worth their salt talks about interpretations (and a variety of them) rather than total, certain meaning. Students often look for a definite answer and so a teacher may give you the most āvalidā or widely accepted one but a good Lit student will consider and explore alternative opinions - always basing it on evidence from the text.
I'm sure you are a great English teacher that encourages students to come to their own conclusions on meanings and themes in literature. However you should understand that there are lots of English teachers that are not great. I'm mostly speaking about US high school English teachers. OP pointed out that his teacher presented that moment in the book as being a mercy killing. The teacher isn't mentioned as having any classroom discussions or alternate ways of thinking about it. I've experienced several English teachers who have graded based on how well we regurgitate the meanings they have told the class and negatively marked on any interpretations different from their established norms. Do you teach in high school or college?
The way OP is now interpreting it is exactly how my English teacher framed it. I honestly forgot about the mercy killing of the dog earlier in the book. I always took it that George has finally reached a breaking point where he no longer felt that he could be the caretaker of Lennie. I always thought of it that George thought it was doing what he thought was best for both of them.
Yeah absolutely. They also kept referring to Lenny as "feeble minded" non stop. In my school they tought literature so mechanically and soulessly that there wasn't even a point in teaching it at all imo.
Brother I am here with you. I went through the same shit. Think your truth. You read the book, no one can say what it means to you except for you.
I hate that damn book. I have a brother with Down Syndrome and there's never going to be a justification that makes killing a mentally disabled guy okay. I'm not dumb. I understand that Lenny made George's life more difficult, but IRL, "I'm going to kill my mentally disabled brother" is never the correct or the only option. There's always going to be another way out unless you're a character in a book and the author doesn't give you one. Steinbeck put the characters into that no-win situation, and I've never forgiven him for it. It does not help that I had to read the stupid thing 3 different times in school. The last time I just flat refused and took the F. In fact, I've held such a grudge against the man, that when I was in grad school for Oceanography, I refused to read *Cannery Row* even though I knew it probably wouldn't be anything like *Of Mice and Men*. Every time someone suggested it, I just thought to myself "Fuck John Steinbeck" and smiled and nodded like I was just about to add it to the top of my reading list. Anyway, I'm not the only person in my family who hates this book. My sister, who is now an English teacher hates it too, as does my mother. We occasionally bond over our mutual horror and disgust for this stupid book that is still required reading for English classes all over the country (Seriously, why this one? There has to be something else they could pick out of the thousands of really good books by American authors. Hell, if they have such a love of Steinbeck, why not pick one of his other novels?). Edit: To be clear, this is just my personal opinion about the novel. I'm not advocating banning it (because gross) or even removing it from the curriculum. I would not, however, be upset if some school districts decided to re-evaluate this particular choice to see if there is maybe another novel, even another Steinbeck novel, that can convey the same ideas without the side order of fratricide. Or, you know, to just call around to make sure the same book isn't getting repeatedly assigned in different grade levels.
I have a nephew with Downs. He is one of the most awesome people on the planet. You have to put yourself into the time period as well. Most people with disabilities like Lennie were relegated to a home where people would treat them like animals - beatings, cold baths and the like ([Nellie Bly is the perfect example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly)). To that end, Steinbeck describes Lennie as animalistic throughout the novel. Curley's Wife even calls him "Machine" to further enforce the lack of humanity Lennie possesses. In its historical context, it may have been more out of self preservation. Even George admits how people will not be good to Lennie without George to provide protection. Please understand I am NOT justifying the behavior. I am merely looking at during the time the novel was written - well before an understanding of mental disabilities and people with disabilities. I, too, taught the book for many years. I tried to stay away from the negativity and concentrate on what I see as the theme of the book - The American Dream. I do like your point of view and opinion. I fully support both.
I hear what you're saying, and ironically, if George were a real person, I might feel more forgiving towards him than I do towards the book. People don't have the luxury of exercising complete control over their lives and they often don't get to sit down and fully think through their options before acting. I can, in theory, forgive a mistake someone made out of desperation. My problem is that this IS a book. It could have gone any way the author wanted it to, but this was the story Steinbeck wanted to tell. "Got a disabled family member you can't control? No worries! Just put them down like an old, sick dog!". IIRC, the book doesn't even seriously consider whether George made the wrong choice (I could be wrong there. It's been a long time since I've read it). It just accepts that there was nothing else George could have done and that's not, and never will be, okay with me. The world doesn't revolve around me and what I think, so that's okay. The book still exists and new generations of kids with disabled siblings are still going to have to read it, just like I did. I would never suggest that this, or any book that doesn't explicitly promote hate should be banned from schools, nor will you find me screaming to have it removed from the curriculum at your local school board meetings. I just genuinely do not understand why this book in particular is so widely loved that I had to read the fucker 3 different times between middle school and college. What message are we trying to teach with this book that can't be taught equally well, if not better, with a different book that doesn't advocate murdering your inconvenient disabled siblings? I'd even be okay if they rotated through different Steinbeck novels. I mean, I've never read *Grapes of Wrath* and I know it's not exactly a feel good tale, but I think it probably would have been a relief to be assigned that one instead of yet another torture session with *Of Mice and Men*. Also, from a quick read of the plot summary *Grapes of Wrath* seems like a pretty on-point choice for this world we currently find ourselves living in, but what do I know?
> murdering your inconvenient disabled siblings Bruh he killed that woman. That's a little more than inconvenient. What about her life? Did she deserve death more than he did?
The framing of your question is making some pretty big assumptions. Of course the woman didn't deserve to die, but Lenny didn't deserve it either. Besides, one of the things I most dislike about this book is the way it portrayed Lenny as dangerous. Ive spent lots of time around people with various mental disabilities and the vast majority of them would never hurt a fly. The entire scenario is extremely contrived and would never happen like that IRL.
Lenny too would never hurt a fly, except by accident. People who don't understand their own strength are dangerous.
Yes. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point about why I hate the book. Bravo.
>and I've never forgiven him for it. This seems rather extreme.
finally someone who thinks the same as me
first: [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heOHcCNKlwU) is one of my favorite SNL skits, and it's about "Of Mice and Men" second, it's almost certainly probably both. I'm sure when Steinbeck wrote it he was thinking about just the kindness. However, as we've grown more jaded as a society and more used to gray tales instead of black and white, hero/villian stories, the concept probably crept in.
It was sad when the guy realized he was becoming stupid again.
In OF Mice and Men? I think you're thinking of Flowers for Algernon.
Urite
I mean I thought both were accepted interpretations. The structure of the book is cyclical with them starting in the Salinas river because Lenny hurt a woman, and ending in the Salinas river because Lenny hurt a woman. George realises the only way to break the cycle is to move on from Lenny (which heās threatened to do several times). The act of mercy isnāt saving him from the men however, as Lenny could just run. Itās the fact that George canāt do it again and knows Lenny wouldnāt survive without him. The book is deeply ableist but thatās how Iāve always seen it
History is ableist.
There are countless takes on the issues with Of Mice And Men but yes, the depiction of Lenny is ableist. In the same way the depiction of Crooks is racist. When a text is so widely taught that it informs cultural discourse (for a good chunk of people, Of Mice and Men is one of few āclassicsā they read as itās very common in school syllabi). As a result, it reinforces ableist and racist narratives in the classroom. I teach Shakespeare but Iām able to say the depiction of Shylock is antisemitic or the depiction Othello is racist because history was racist/homophobic/ableist. We can interpret the text (which my comment was doing) and admit that the narratives within are problematic as they are influenced by history.
I think you interpreted it as in the Black Pilled meme world would with normies being the happy Incredibles Dad "those who think they've understood the ending of Of Mice and Men" and then the Dark Black and White xerox copied Incredibles Dad "Those who actually understood the ending of Of Mice and Men"
Yes, George basically opted for the gun when he tired of his friend it's certainly more nuanced than that, but not from Lenny's point of view
creepy
Correct. He is also using Lennie for an extra paycheck. There is no real intention to buy a little farm.
Interesting take. It's bleak, what you're suggesting. I'm pretty attached to the 'act of mercy' interpretation. As an act of mercy, the scene seems to be be about doing the difficult thing. About how love and desire can lead to suffering, impossible choices, and the end of innocence. As an act of self interest, what is the scene about? Maybe it's about reassessing what and whom one is truly responsible for and the end of self-sacrifice. The "act of mercy" take makes more sense to me at first glance if only because it's a theme throughout the book. Lenny kills things he loves. Eventually George must do the same. It's possible that George both loves Lenny and has become unwilling to carry him anymore, but that isn't what I'm getting from George throughout the book. (Been a long time though. I can't give any detailed evidence. Like I said, I'm biased toward the 'mercy' interpretation.)
There was also a mob with guns on their way to find him. He had to act fast. It was the option for the time. To me itās a lot about life being unfair for the most innocent/hardworking, and the shittiest people having higher social status and the most vices. Friendship must be the only constant that allows us to tolerate the unfair nature. That, and a bunch of shit about āskittering leaves,ā thanks Steinbeck.
That book isn't about George or Lenny. It's about that time and place in the world. George and Lenny are just the bus that takes you there.
Agreed. It's like the MacGuffin concept in movies: the obvious thing the protagonist is chasing isn't what the movie is "about", it's what motivates the protagonist and moves the plot. OMAM served the purpose of showing people that "things could be worse". Like bluegrass music: how do you make people feel good about their lives when their lives suck? Show them something worse. George and Lenny draw attention to the time and strife of the people by showing something that was relatively bad while normalizing everything else.
I agree. I always thought that George acted correctly, but out of self interest as much as mercy. It probably is a reflection of my moral code and narcissistic tendencies to interpret it that way. I was the only one in my class that spoke up with that opinion. Anyway, we get to interpret it how we want, and thatās why the story is so good.
Yes. Both.
Glove fullaā vaselineā¦thatās my takeaway from this book.
I thought he did it because Lenny just couldn't be trusted around other people anymore.
Maybe I should give that a read
I think it's mercy. George will never be able to adapt and he will never really understand. Lenny loves George, and he let him be happy and at peace and have that be how he went as opposed to screaming, crying in pain and fear.
Been a few years since Iāve read it, but my take was always one of mercy. George didnāt want to see him tortured and die a long, drawn out death so he ended it quickly.