So I read Of Mice and Men a few years ago for school, and it was presented to us as if George killing Lenny was an act of mercy, since he knew the farm workers will want him dead when they find out what he's done. And recently I've been thinking that it had a far more human, depressing reason. I think that even though George genrally likes Lenny because of his innocence, he's tired of carrying the burden of dealing with him. He's finally found a relatively safe and comfortable place to work, where he can earn some money and have a warm place to sleep in, a luxury he risks losing every time because of Lenny's behavior. Even if the farmers won't harm Lenny, they'll want him and George out of there, and George will lose a rare opportunity for work again. I think George subconciously decides to do it at that moment, cause he knows the time and reason are right. He's broken, he's tired, he has to put himself first, he has no time to be a grown parent to Lenny. And thinking it like that makes the whole story 10 times more depressing. What do you think?
by bunnyuplays
33 Comments
You raise a very thoughtful point. I hadn’t considered it from that viewpoint. I believe that even if the ranch hands didn’t 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 Curly’s revenge.
Even though Curly didn’t 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I read it about 10 years ago and this was my exact reaction to reading 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.
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.
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. I’m 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 Candy’s 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 George’s 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 doesn’t 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 Lennie’s 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, George’s 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. He’s 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 he’s going to be miserable for it, having lost his one constant companion.
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.
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.
It can be both, right?
Remember, George has to keep on living…with or without Lenny. It’s not even that he’s “tired” of Lenny; it’s that there’s 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 don’t look out for someone like Lenny, and b) George has to make the decision he made?
I’ve been planning on reading it again lately, since I haven’t read it since high school. Actually just picked up East of Eden. So, thanks! This will definitely be next on the list.
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.
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.
The way my teacher explained it is that he’s kind of mercy killing Lenny, because he’s gone too far in killing the women and he knows he can’t help him, so he’s stopping him from hurting more people in the future and himself. It’s sort of like putting down a rapid dog.
There’s not one answer, your interpretation is correct. That’s why it’s such a beloved ending, that flexibility
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.
For me there was too many men and not enough mice tbh. Ratio was way off.
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
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.
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 Candy’s dog is shot by Carlson and after Candy is upset that he gave his permission and didn’t have the courage to do it himself. This foreshadows George’s decision to shoot Lenny himself. It’s the right thing to do.