Discussion on why George shot Lenny

[Indian Boy]

I just finished reading "Of Mice and Men". I read this book in high school but now that I've read it again I've formed a much different opinion of the ending.

I think George might be one of the most selfish and evil characters in American literature. From the beginning of the story he speaks constantly aobut how great his life would be without Lenny. "If I didn't have you I could have so much fun. I'd take my check and go to a cathouse on the weekends," etc. So it's clear he wishes Lenny wasn't around. It's clear he wants to release himself of the burden that is Lenny.

Then at the end of the story, and I don't care how you cut it, he takes Lenny down to the river bed, tells him to look over there, see the pretty birds, and then he commits the ultimate act of betrayal. He shoots his unsuspecting best buddy in the back of the head like a coward.

If it was a play on stage, at that point, do you get up and clap? Oh good, he shot the big retard in the back of the head. Clap! Clap! Bravo!

I mean really, go back and read it. This guy, George, is terrible.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I certainly don't read it like that, I think you are being too literal. George feels a great fondness and responsibility for Lennie throughout, seeing himself as a big brother figure. When he says he would be better off without him, he does so through gritted teeth, the elder brother to the younger, he's not being serious. I think that truth is that he needs Lennie as much as Lennie needs him, what was it "guys like us they are the loneliest guys in the world?" they need each other because they have little else, only hopeful dreams that will ultimately fail (don't they always?:D).

He has to kill him at the end (to put him out of his misery like the dog) because if Curley had got too him first it would have been much worse. He doesn't kill him out of betrayal, but out of compassion ultimately.

[dfloyd]

interpretations of the novel Of Mice and Men. Neely has it right. Thread closed. It seems the posters reading interpretations have receeded since high school.

[Indian Boy]

Well, I know that's how the reader is supposed to interpret the story, i.e. that it was a mercy kill, George really loved Lennie and needed him as a companion but Lennie had to die, etc.

You can make up as many excuses as you want to justify George's execution of Lennie, but that's all it really was, an blunt execution. He took his best buddy, a big retarded lunk, dumb as a bull but as innocent as a child, and he betrayed his trust. He sat him down at the edge of the river, told him to stare out yonder and imagine the fluffy white bunnies hopping along the river bank and BAM! The guy blows his brains out!

And who's to say what would have happened if Curly got him? Maybe Curly turns him into the police and Lennie is found not guilty by reason of insanity. Or maybe George owed it to his buddy to help him out of a jam. George could have helped him flee the area, then they could have gone on to work at some other ranch or pursued other aspirations. But no. George decides to cut loose of that big dumb burden and kills him.

[Alexander III]

And who's to say what would have happened if Curly got him? Maybe Curly turns him into the police and Lennie is found not guilty by reason of insanity.

You didn't read the novel did you ?

[LitNetIsGreat]

And who's to say what would have happened if Curly got him? Maybe Curly turns him into the police and Lennie is found not guilty by reason of insanity. Or maybe George owed it to his buddy to help him out of a jam. George could have helped him flee the area, then they could have gone on to work at some other ranch or pursued other aspirations. But no. George decides to cut loose of that big dumb burden and kills him.

Was not going to happen. There was about as much chance of that happening as Lennie getting the farm with the fluffy bunnies.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

{edit}

Sure, you can interpret the book that way, but you're going to have to do a much better job arguing your point than you've done thus far, Indian Boy. So far, you've only referenced the text once (i.e., ""If I didn't have you I could have so much fun. I'd take my check and go to a cathouse on the weekends") and made the argument that George meant what he said in that quote, when it can be easily (and more logically) concluded that it is a statement made in anger. We know this because of the constant displays of compassion we see from George. If he really felt what he says in the quote, then this wouldn't be the case.

Aside from citing this quote, you've just described the ending of the novel with emotionally charged words (i.e., "betrayed," "murdered," "blows his brains out," "innocent as a child," etc.).

And, as for this . . .


And who's to say what would have happened if Curly got him? Maybe Curly turns him into the police and Lennie is found not guilty by reason of insanity. Or maybe George owed it to his buddy to help him out of a jam. George could have helped him flee the area, then they could have gone on to work at some other ranch or pursued other aspirations. But no. George decides to cut loose of that big dumb burden and kills him.

Is there any textual evidence to support this? I can't recall any.

P.S. I really have no idea why this was edited. I didn't mean to make any inflammatory comments. If I did so, I wish they were pointed out, so I wouldn't do so in the future.

[Chilly]

I just finished reading "Of Mice and Men". I read this book in high school but now that I've read it again I've formed a much different opinion of the ending.

I think George might be one of the most selfish and evil characters in American literature.



First of all, I think you need spoiler warnings so that the end doesn't get ruined for anyone who might be reading it at the moment (this isn't me luckily, but it did happen to me with A Farewell to Arms and I got so mad).

I'm also going to go ahead and say that you sound like a hypocrite. George poured so much love into Lenny, much more than most others would have. He could have abandoned Lenny long before the novel even started (and I believe it's the black guy who tells him that he should have done so). You cannot say he was one of the most selfish characters in American Literature, because he really isn't selfish at all. In fact, he may me more selfless than you or me, because really, he did a ton more for Lenny than most others would have done. If it had been anyone else in the novel who had his position, they would've abandoned Lenny and if you replace George with one your favorite characters from other novels, they would have probably abandoned him too. Honestly, if I was in George's position, I would have been incredibly tempted to abandon him early on too, and I'm pretty sure that you would have the thought running in your head as well. So it's completely unfounded to say he's the most selfish.

[BienvenuJDC]

And who's to say what would have happened if Curly got him? Maybe Curly turns him into the police and Lennie is found not guilty by reason of insanity. Or maybe George owed it to his buddy to help him out of a jam. George could have helped him flee the area, then they could have gone on to work at some other ranch or pursued other aspirations. But no. George decides to cut loose of that big dumb burden and kills him.

Think what you want, but I agree with everyone else. The setting of this story is NOT the year 2010. It was during a time that one didn't receive a FAIR TRIAL. George knew what was going to happen, as any of us who understands the reality of the times.

dfloyd said it right...
Thread closed....

[FROADS]

I certainly don't read it like that, I think you are being too literal. George feels a great fondness and responsibility for Lennie throughout, seeing himself as a big brother figure. When he says he would be better off without him, he does so through gritted teeth, the elder brother to the younger, he's not being serious. I think that truth is that he needs Lennie as much as Lennie needs him, what was it "guys like us they are the loneliest guys in the world?" they need each other because they have little else, only hopeful dreams that will ultimately fail (don't they always?:D).

He has to kill him at the end (to put him out of his misery like the dog) because if Curley had got too him first it would have been much worse. He doesn't kill him out of betrayal, but out of compassion ultimately.
Co-sign.

[JBI]

There is a famous line in the text, if I recall the original phrasing, goes like, "I should have shot my own dog." meaning, George feels a sense of responsibility for Lenny, and he knows he is going to die - since now he has killed someone, and he is not fit to have those fluffy bunnies anyway, as everything he touches ends up dead by his hand. His vision then is ruined by the fact that Lenny is not capable in living in this space - he is dangerous, and George is unable say see a way out - they already are fugitives at the beginning of the novel (though he is not particularly guilty) keep in mind.

Curly isn't coming with a plan to turn him in - he has a plan to shoot and kill, and not even talk - George knows that, and he knows, given what was done, in this society, death is the only possible outcome besides running, so he does the hard thing, and kills his best friend, in a merciful way, in a sort of sense sending him to the happier vision of the bunnies and the farm.

To say that he is betraying him is to say that there is an option - the tragedy of the book is not that the vision of the bunnies cannot happen - the last lines of the book make note that George is not willing to follow through with the plan, even though they have the means and almost have the money - the tragedy is, in this world created by the story, Lenny is unable to live, and death is the only possibility by the end.

[Buh4Bee]

Steinbeck's intent was to expose the hostility of the world in America in the 1930s. Curly had to kill Lenny to make the story worthwhile. It was a mercy killing, because if Lenny was caught there would be no mercy.

[wat??]

I think George might be one of the most selfish and evil characters in American literature.

Maybe you should stick to the Harry Potter series, buddy.

[KilgoreT]

First of all, I think you need spoiler warnings so that the end doesn't get ruined for anyone who might be reading it at the moment (this isn't me luckily, but it did happen to me with A Farewell to Arms and I got so mad).

Agreed. I was about to start the book when I saw this thread and wandered in, not knowing who George and Lennie were. Really, just call the thread 'Discussion on the end of Of Mice and Men.'

Regarding the topic, George shoots Lennie because, as others have said earlier, he realizes that Lennie is too dangerous for his own good or others, and to do it in as merciful a way as possible, which Curley certainly will not do. The last section of the book mirrors the first- George and Lennie have to run away from a 'bad thing' Lennie did. This has happened before, to varying degrees, and will happen again. The conversation they have, however, is different from their first one. George is quiet, his pain is palpable. Lennie acts no differently than any other time before. He did a bad thing, George gets mad, they talk about their little place and the rabbits, and they move on. For Lennie, killing the woman (accidentally) was just like killing a mouse or dog- an incident that will make George angry.

George also realizes that he must be the one to pull the trigger. He heard Candy lament that he had let someone else put his old dog out of its misery. He comforts Lennie as much as possible, even telling him that he was never mad at him, and kills him as painlessly as he can.

[Auriga]

The problem with time pieces, especially time pieces that have to do with justice for the disenfranchised, which could include women, homosexuality, slavery and even the mentally retarded, it becomes an exercise in imagination for the reader. We have to somehow place ourselves in that time period, in the skin of the one for whom justice will never be fair, and ask ourselves "what would we have done? How would we have felt?" This is so difficult for modern readers, that it results in interpretations to "Of Mice and Men" boiling down to how you would have handled the situation had you been in their place from the perspective of your life in the 21st century as you know it.

Psychological conditions, like mental retardation in that period, were not understood at all. Lenny would not have had a trial where he would have been found innocent by way of insanity. He killed somebody and he would have been executed, if it would even have gone to trial in the first place, which is a dubious prospect in itself.

When you read this novel, you have to ask yourself: If you were George, in that period in the south, with nothing more than perhaps a third grade education, if you were lucky, how would you feel if your life came down to nothing more than taking care of a person like Lenny, with his special needs? Would you not occasionally tell yourself that you would be happier without them? If your answer is no, then you're being naive. Look at the statistics of MODERN parents of mentally challenged children and you will see that even them, with doctors who now understand those conditions, are less likely to live happy, productive or normal lives. Their lives end up revolving around the care of their children and, in extreme cases, for the rest of their lives.

I personally think as critical readers of these kinds of novels, we have to try and put ourselves in the positions of the characters as far removed from our own perspectives as possible.

Can you imagine reading Lolita if the only thing you can think about is how bad pedophilia is? If you do that, then you've missed the rich substance of what that story is trying to do, verbally, metaphorically and emotionally.

[sithkittie]

Steinbeck is interesting to me because he doesn't write what the reader wants to see. Even if you can see it coming a mile away, you don't really because you don't want to. You want somebody to help Lenny out (and forgive me for excluding details, it's been years since I read Of Mice and Men), but Steinbeck, instead, gives you a really harsh, real solution. I remember feeling like I was going to cry when I read that, because as messed up as the situation was, George didn't hate Lenny. Yeah, he was frustrated with him, and yeah Lenny was a burden, but he cared about him. It was just a really bad situation. Early 20th century America was not a nice place, in the big cities or out. Reading any of Steinbeck's works, I think that fact is important to keep in mind.

[MyBoy]

I don't agree to that:nonod::nonod::nonod::nonod:

[MyBoy]

noooooooo

[IceM]

I just finished reading "Of Mice and Men". I read this book in high school but now that I've read it again I've formed a much different opinion of the ending.

I think George might be one of the most selfish and evil characters in American literature. From the beginning of the story he speaks constantly aobut how great his life would be without Lenny. "If I didn't have you I could have so much fun. I'd take my check and go to a cathouse on the weekends," etc. So it's clear he wishes Lenny wasn't around. It's clear he wants to release himself of the burden that is Lenny.

Then at the end of the story, and I don't care how you cut it, he takes Lenny down to the river bed, tells him to look over there, see the pretty birds, and then he commits the ultimate act of betrayal. He shoots his unsuspecting best buddy in the back of the head like a coward.

If it was a play on stage, at that point, do you get up and clap? Oh good, he shot the big retard in the back of the head. Clap! Clap! Bravo!

I mean really, go back and read it. This guy, George, is terrible.

Two issues: one, if you're unresponsive to other opinions, why ask for a discussion? It seems rather pointless to engage others to define their opinion when you seem decided against it.

Two: If you find yourself stuck to one opinion throughout a novel, why read? Literature is idealized life; permanent in condition, dynamic in development. Embrace that actions have deeper relevance than the words on the page and the ink used to show them.


Well, I know that's how the reader is supposed to interpret the story, i.e. that it was a mercy kill, George really loved Lennie and needed him as a companion but Lennie had to die, etc.

You can make up as many excuses as you want to justify George's execution of Lennie, but that's all it really was, an blunt execution. He took his best buddy, a big retarded lunk, dumb as a bull but as innocent as a child, and he betrayed his trust. He sat him down at the edge of the river, told him to stare out yonder and imagine the fluffy white bunnies hopping along the river bank and BAM! The guy blows his brains out!

And who's to say what would have happened if Curly got him? Maybe Curly turns him into the police and Lennie is found not guilty by reason of insanity. Or maybe George owed it to his buddy to help him out of a jam. George could have helped him flee the area, then they could have gone on to work at some other ranch or pursued other aspirations. But no. George decides to cut loose of that big dumb burden and kills him.

Steinbeck is to say that would never happen. What relevance would the novel have if that were the case? That retards who kill people can be ruled not guilty if they're "insane enough?" Literature lives not to have happy endings but to teach about life. Read deeper.

[Blasarius '33]

Strange that the original poster seems more open-minded to me than those accusing him of being close-minded. He seems to have originally held the common--and apparently correct--artistic interpretation of why George shot Lenny, and was open enough to completely 180 later in life.

From what I read, the O.P. didn't say anything that isn't actually, technically, true... at least to some degree. George murdered his best friend. At the most basic level I should be repulsed at the sympathy for him I've had, and still have. If the exact same story happened in the real world would I be so sympathetic, or would I think There had to be another option, you could have tried...? Like when I find myself hoping Humbert Humbert will get away with Lolita, or even later that he'll find her! there's something wrong there, at least when it's looked at from a "real world" perspective.

A book isn't the real world, though, and I've never really read that way. I've read OMaM maybe a half-dozen times, and every one of those times I've read it the same basic way. That bothers me a little. Maybe I'm reading it the way Steinbeck intended, maybe just part of the way he intended, maybe somehow not even that. I don't know that this thread will change my next reading, but I'm glad to have heard a different perspective. (Different to me, at least.)

One of the reasons I think I might like it here is that I can find ideas and interpretations I haven't already thought of or read about, as opposed to simply having my opinions reinforced.

[Jozanny]

There is a famous line in the text, if I recall the original phrasing, goes like, "I should have shot my own dog." meaning, George feels a sense of responsibility for Lenny, and he knows he is going to die - since now he has killed someone, and he is not fit to have those fluffy bunnies anyway, as everything he touches ends up dead by his hand. His vision then is ruined by the fact that Lenny is not capable in living in this space - he is dangerous, and George is unable say see a way out - they already are fugitives at the beginning of the novel (though he is not particularly guilty) keep in mind.

Curly isn't coming with a plan to turn him in - he has a plan to shoot and kill, and not even talk - George knows that, and he knows, given what was done, in this society, death is the only possible outcome besides running, so he does the hard thing, and kills his best friend, in a merciful way, in a sort of sense sending him to the happier vision of the bunnies and the farm.

To say that he is betraying him is to say that there is an option - the tragedy of the book is not that the vision of the bunnies cannot happen - the last lines of the book make note that George is not willing to follow through with the plan, even though they have the means and almost have the money - the tragedy is, in this world created by the story, Lenny is unable to live, and death is the only possibility by the end.

The disabled are still killed like Lenny in the modern era, though society is more subtle about it, and only a small minority of disabled individuals pose the threat that Lenny or Quasimodo does, since the two characters are related. His mercy execution is convenient, and contextually valid, but dangerous.


Steinbeck is to say that would never happen. What relevance would the novel have if that were the case? That retards who kill people can be ruled not guilty if they're "insane enough?" Literature lives not to have happy endings but to teach about life. Read deeper.

Most people with MR are as complex as the rest of us, and most do not have Lenny's capacity to kill out of not knowing his own strength, and the way you abuse the word retardation is exactly why this story contains the danger I point to, and as my cerebral palsy slows my development ever so slightly, I hope you will reconsider how you've offended me. Watch how you post about my culture Ice.