Of Mice And Men Murder Analysis

“You’re going to regret turning the page,” I said to myself as I anxiously prepared to read the very thing that brought the rest of my classmates to tears. Murder, normally depicted with a malicious criminal, will uncessantly be known as an erroneous crime. However, in some cases, such as in John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, what is considered a “murder” is arguably a justified action. The story is set during the Dust Bowl in the 1930’s and centered around two partners, George and Lennie, who make a living by traveling from ranch to ranch to do work. While George is a very intelligent and sapient worker, Lennie helplessly struggles with a mental disorder that inhibits him from both thinking and acting reasonably or independently. This, combined

If George had decided to run off once again with Lennie before the angry mob found them, what good would he really be doing? The pair had a history of running away and starting over someplace new each time Lennie caused trouble, and to continue this cycle would encourage the danger of future sufferers of Lennie’s unpredictability. While it is not for certain that the same situation would have happened again, the fact of the matter is that Lennie lacked the mental capacity to know his rights from wrongs and when to stop. This is apparent in the moments leading up to Lennie killing Curley’s wife. While the girl “struggled violently under his hands,” Lennie, instead of stopping, could not control his body and threw her to the ground, snapping her neck (Steinbeck 91). It was not until after the action was done that he realized what had happened. Curley’s wife did not deserve to die, and though Lennie could not help it, he was a tremendous hazard to those around him. Logically speaking, George possibly could have been saving numerous other innocent individuals’ lives by killing

From this viewpoint, by not taking matters into his own hands, George could have vindicated himself of blame. Instead, he would now have to go the rest of his life knowing he ultimately was the one who ended Lennie’s life. While it is true that he would not have been responsible, it is critical to understand that George was not so much concerned with how others might perceive him after the killing as he was concerned with the Lennie’s comfort in his moments before dying. If the angry mob had pulled the trigger, Lennie’s last emotion would be bewildering fear and distress. To avoid this piteous way of dying, George told Lennie to face the river while he told Lennie their favorite fairytale-like story of one day living on a farm. While Lennie was in the trance of his happiest thought, George swiftly shot him in a way in which he died instantaneously and painlessly. With this method, one of the last details noted of Lennie is how he “giggled with happiness” upon his death (Steinbeck 105). All in all, George just wanted to make sure Lennie’s life would be spared in the most comfortable way, making his course of action entirely acceptable.
It is clear that--- as a caring and altruistic man--- George just wanted the best for Lennie. With all the blunders Lennie had made and would