In Of Mice and Men, I never understood why it was necessary for

George to kill Lennie,

when George simply could've pulled some sort of diversionary tactic and falsely led the rest of the lynch mob somewhere else in the forest. By the time the lynch mob realized it was a false clue, George could've snuck back to him and have been on his way to the next town. Is the reason it was necessary for

Lennie to die

because the lynch mob was already too close to the pair of them for them to escape?

  • 5
    I really am not a fan of using the spoiler tag on this site. It makes everything hard to read. And arguably, spoilers are more of a thing for the science fiction and fantasy community than they are for the literary community. Mythology.SE, for example, doesn't use spoiler tags. – user111 Jan 19 '17 at 1:48
  • 4
    @Hamlet I absolutely hate it when people think it's just fine to ruin a book for me. – Paul Jan 19 '17 at 2:25
  • 4
    @LaurenIpsum It does not matter when the book was written if I haven't read it. – Paul Jan 19 '17 at 2:31
  • 3
    @Paul What's "common knowledge" is a dangerous thing to assume. For instance, the "I am your father" line from Star Wars is pretty famous at least in western English-speaking culture, but I had no clue about it until I started spending time at Science Fiction & Fantasy SE. (I agree with your other comments here though.) – Rand al'Thor Jan 22 '17 at 15:58
  • 4
    Surely one worries about spoilers only in potboilers where the only essential pleasure lies in the surprise. If the only pleasure you take in Of Mice and Men is finding out how it ends, it probably is not the right book for you. – user406 Apr 29 '17 at 18:47

It's been a while, but my recollection is that the idea was that Lennie 1) was ultimately dangerous and 2) killed a woman, albeit unintentionally.

Lennie liked to pet rabbits because they were soft, but he killed them because he didn't understand nor could he control his strength. He did the same with the puppy he was given. Lennie simply didn't have the mental capacity to be gentler — imagine a three-year-old with the strength of Mike Tyson.

When George realizes Lennie has killed the woman whose hair he was "petting," like the small animals, he knows that Lennie will be easily caught and tried for murder. The trial will be terrifying for Lennie, who can't understand what's happening, and his death will be frightening and possibly painful. Or worse, he'll simply be lynched.

George puts a bullet in his head out of kindness, both for Lennie so he doesn't suffer and for anyone else who might be hurt by Lennie's accidental maulings.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I'm not sure if this fully answers the spirit of the question. It's all perfectly correct, but the question is asking about why George couldn't have just led the lynch mob away from Lennie and then come back to get him, which isn't addressed by explaining that George killed Lennie out of kindness. If you edit to put a little more stress on the argument that a similar thing would have happened again even if they'd escaped this time and moved on to the next town, then I'll upvote :-) – Rand al'Thor Jan 22 '17 at 16:22
  • 3
    I would also add that he does it because he wants the best for Lennie. Given that it is evident that Lennie would be killed eventually, George wanted to make his last moment a happy one, with hope instead of fear and confusion – MildlyMilquetoast Feb 8 '17 at 6:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.