The ending of John Steinbeck’s novella, “Of Mice and Men,” leaves readers grappling with a profound and disturbing question: Why Did George Kill Lennie? While seemingly brutal, George’s decision is rooted in a complex interplay of compassion, responsibility, and the harsh realities of their time. Understanding the context of their world and the characters’ motivations is crucial to unraveling this difficult act.
Lennie’s actions, though unintentional, are the catalyst for the tragic climax. His immense strength coupled with his intellectual disability consistently lead to unintended harm. The death of the mice and, ultimately, Curley’s wife, are not acts of malice, but rather the devastating outcome of his inability to control his power and understand consequences. As the original article points out, questioning George’s actions in isolation is incomplete without considering Lennie’s role in the unfolding tragedy.
George’s decision to kill Lennie is not born out of hatred or cruelty, but from a place of deep care and a grim understanding of their limited options. In the context of the 1930s, resources and support for someone like Lennie were practically non-existent. Mental institutions were not readily accessible, and the societal tolerance for individuals perceived as a “burden,” especially one with violent tendencies, was incredibly low. George had already shouldered the responsibility of caring for Lennie, protecting him from the world and, ironically, from himself.
The killing of Curley’s wife escalates the situation to a critical point. The community’s reaction is swift and unforgiving. A mob, fueled by anger and a desire for retribution, is formed, aiming to inflict a far more brutal and prolonged death upon Lennie. George, witnessing this impending doom, chooses to intervene, offering Lennie a semblance of peace and control in his final moments.
By taking Lennie’s life himself, George believes he is sparing his friend from a far worse fate – a lynching at the hands of an angry mob. It is presented as an act of mercy, a “noble death” as the original text suggests. George, who has always been Lennie’s protector, takes on this final, agonizing burden to shield Lennie from further suffering and indignity. He chooses to remember Lennie as he was, clinging to the dream of their farm, rather than allowing him to face a brutal and terrifying end at the hands of strangers.
To argue against George’s action is to disregard the realities of their time and the limited choices available to them. Allowing Lennie to be captured would likely have resulted in a public spectacle and a painful death, preceded by fear and confusion. George’s act, while tragic, is portrayed as an attempt to reclaim some agency in a hopeless situation, offering Lennie a quick and, in its own way, loving end. The true tragedy lies in the circumstances that forced George to make such an impossible choice, highlighting the societal limitations and prejudices that offered little compassion or understanding for individuals like Lennie.
