Was George wrong to kill Lennie 
‘George was wrong to shoot Lennie’ How far do you agree? Support your ideas with details from the novel.
‘Of Mice and Men’ is a novel written by John Steinbeck that was first published in 1937. Steinbeck has a very particular style of writing. He manages to provoke a deep emotion in the reader about one circumstance, for instance the killing of Candy’s dog, and then arguably less of a reaction about a considerably more tragic occurrence, the death of Lennie. This makes us question what’s valuable and puzzles the reader as to where their morals lie. The question of ‘was George wrong to shoot Lennie?’ is therefore a difficult and controversial one.
My personal opinion is mixed. I largely disagree with the title of this essay and believe that George did the right thing, but I can also see the opposing arguments. It is simplistic to say that George has committed a crime and therefore is wrong, but one cannot always take a legal argument to deal with a moral situation. Throughout the book, it becomes apparent that Steinbeck does not make judgments. Instead he uses small physical details to evoke emotions. He cleverly leads the reader towards a conclusion without them even knowing it. This makes it very difficult for the reader to create a clear opinion.
My first reason for believing that George did the right thing is to speculate on what may have happened if he had not killed Lennie. Curley didn’t hold much affection for his wife, and from the moment he’s introduced in the book, its clear he is against Lennie. He has always been bitter about his size and strength and ever since Lennie crushed his hand he has been waiting for some excuse to get him back. ‘I’ll kill the big son-of-a-bitch myself. I’ll shoot ‘im in the guts.’ If George had not mercifully killed Lennie in the most painless way possible, he would have been brutally killed by Curley in revenge for his wife’s murder. Lennie got the closest any of them ever could to the dream of having their own
‘Of Mice and Men’ is a novel written by John Steinbeck that was first published in 1937. Steinbeck has a very particular style of writing. He manages to provoke a deep emotion in the reader about one circumstance, for instance the killing of Candy’s dog, and then arguably less of a reaction about a considerably more tragic occurrence, the death of Lennie. This makes us question what’s valuable and puzzles the reader as to where their morals lie. The question of ‘was George wrong to shoot Lennie?’ is therefore a difficult and controversial one.
My personal opinion is mixed. I largely disagree with the title of this essay and believe that George did the right thing, but I can also see the opposing arguments. It is simplistic to say that George has committed a crime and therefore is wrong, but one cannot always take a legal argument to deal with a moral situation. Throughout the book, it becomes apparent that Steinbeck does not make judgments. Instead he uses small physical details to evoke emotions. He cleverly leads the reader towards a conclusion without them even knowing it. This makes it very difficult for the reader to create a clear opinion.
My first reason for believing that George did the right thing is to speculate on what may have happened if he had not killed Lennie. Curley didn’t hold much affection for his wife, and from the moment he’s introduced in the book, its clear he is against Lennie. He has always been bitter about his size and strength and ever since Lennie crushed his hand he has been waiting for some excuse to get him back. ‘I’ll kill the big son-of-a-bitch myself. I’ll shoot ‘im in the guts.’ If George had not mercifully killed Lennie in the most painless way possible, he would have been brutally killed by Curley in revenge for his wife’s murder. Lennie got the closest any of them ever could to the dream of having their own