Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

If you were George, at the very end of the book, what would you have done? (Or would you have killed Lennie just the way it happened?)

First off i loved this book t was really adorable and i cried at the end of it. I think George did what he knew he should have done, because if anyone would have caught Lennie he would have been tortured and that wouldnt have been fair to him..however I'm not sure if i would have had the heart to kill him.

No, definitely not. And he would've been killed and brutalized by someone else, and I would've felt horrible about it.

That's what makes the character of George so compelling. He did something, on the surface, so brutal, and so inhuman, while in reality doing the only humane thing he could've done. His character is juxtaposed with that of the old man who owns the sick dog and lets someone ELSE shoot him. Most of us are more like him than George, I think.

ofcourse i wouldn't , killing sucks and i don't think i could do it but it looks like it is the best thing to do. lennie was idiot, he was hurting people - having no clue about what he was doing. he had to die like the way it happenned

My kid brother was put in the situation that he had to kill his pet that he had accidentally run over. It was a horrible experience for him and I distinctly recall his calling me 3 days later and his voice was still filled with anguish. I applaud him. I am not certain I would have done the same.

Was it an act of selfishness? Or was it for Lennie's own good? I understand that George did what he thought was right by killing Lennie, but wasn't the whole point that the author was trying to get through the importance of friendship? If I was George in that situation I would have killed the both of us, knowing that although it wasn't the brightest solution, that I would have at least been loyal to him. If Lennie was to die, I would die also; I think that's what a real friend would have done.

In all your heads Lenny was a sweet adorable person that never tried to hurt anyone, but in real life he was a giant towering ape that caused destruction and frustration every where he went. I'm not saying that I would have done it or if it was the write way to go but it was defiantly a resolution to the problem.

Haley wrote: "Was it an act of selfishness? Or was it for Lennie's own good? I understand that George did what he thought was right by killing Lennie, but wasn't the whole point that the author was trying to get through the importance of friendship? If I was George In that situation I would have killed the both of us, knowing that although it wasn't the brightest solution, that it would have at least been loyal to him. If Lennie was to die, I would die also; I think that's what a real friend would have done.

You make a valid point, but if Lenny was alone he would die for sure, but if George was alone he would thrive in life. So if Lenny was going to die anyway by a stranger, George could kill him now and he would die by a friend. Why should George pay the final price of death for something Lenny did?

I get where you're coming from and I don't mean to start an argument or book debate, whatever people call it, but obviously friendship doesn't mean as much to you as it does to me. Friendship is when you would sacrifice yourself for the other no matter what the circumstance or situation. Friendship is giving up everything of the slightest importance just to see that your companion is happy. Friendship is unfailing and unconditional love that one is willing to present to him or her. Lennie would have done anything for George, and we all know it. But would George have done the same for Lennie? Evidently not. Why should George pay the final price of death for something Lenny did? Because that would have been an exhibition of true friendship.

And so Lennie would have appreciated George`s sacrifice of his own life? Hardly. If Lennie was a true friend he would not.

I completely disagree with Haley.

So you're saying that, if you die, your friend should kill themselves also, because that's what a 'true friend' would do?

Oh come on. Let's be realistic, unless what happened to Lennie was George's fault, he has no real reason to feel guilt. George was a great friend to Lennie, and Lennie was a great friend/companion to George. He did a really grand gesture by killing Lennie in a more humane way, rather than letting Curley's mob of crazy men get his hands on him.

What would George committing suicide prove? That he's a good friend? That he's not selfish? Hardly. He already proved that. He stuck by George all those years. In fact, it must have truly pained him to kill Lennie, Lennie was the only thing that made George different from all the other migrant workers, he was his friend, he had someone. By killing Lennie, he became like everyone else.

I think that act, shows how selfless George really is, and I highly doubt Lennie would want George to kill himself to prove he's a good friend. In fact, if Lennie wanted George to die with him, then HE if anyone, would be the terrible friend.

Killing yourself, because you don't want to be alone doesn't show you're a good friend, it's almost an act of selfishness. Coming to terms, with the fact that he would have to live without Lennie and killing him himself, was an amazing way of showing just how much Lennie meant to George.

and Lennie would be happy to know that George is still out there, offering his understanding to others ... beacause he knows if it weren't for George, he would have been denied that understanding.

Haley wrote: "I get where you're coming from and I don't mean to start an argument or book debate, whatever people call it, but obviously friendship doesn't mean as much to you as it does to me. Friendship is wh..."

very well written, thank you for clearing your point up.

Honestly, I believe that George acted like the best friend he could to Lennie in such a terrible situation. Had George decided to not kill Lennie, Lennie would have suffered at the hands of Curley, and that would have been a billion times worse than what ultimately happened to him. Lennie did not like Curley; Curley always antagonized him. He fought back at George’s permission when Curley pushed him. He destroyed Curley’s hand. It would have terrified him if Curley had killed him. Especially because Curley intended to ensure that the death be as long and painful as he could make it.

If Curley had not gotten to him, Lennie still would have suffered a bad fate. He would have been locked up, trapped like some savage animal. George knew that Lennie could not withstand that. He needed help, more help than George provided to him, sadly. :( No one understood that; no one really understood or empathized with mentally disabled people. Lennie was not capable of handling it.

So, George took matters into his own hands. He killed Lennie. By taking into consideration everything that occurred with Candy’s dog, George did the best thing he could for Lennie.

I don’t know if I possess the bravery that George possessed in that situation. I don’t know if I would have the heart to do that to my best friend, even if it was the right thing to do.

He made the worst choice a friend could possibly ever need to make, and now he has to live with it. He has to live with the loneliness he experiences without Lennie by his side. He has to live with knowing that he did the best he could for Lennie, but that the best was not good enough. He has to live with knowing that he used to be like all the others that failed to understand Lennie. He has to live without a dream. After all, his dream and his inclusion died with Lennie.

And to me, that is the true testament of friendship. He made the choice, with shaking hands, as he realized that it wasn’t going to be okay anymore. Lennie can rest peacefully, true. However, George has to cope with the repercussions and forever enduring pain of losing all hope and friendship. Even killing himself physically never compares to that sacrifice of killing his soul.

This one book is a great example of frienship and pure love,,,i love it even that it was really sad at the end,,but i will read again...

I wouldn't be able to do it. I realize that George was trying to save Lennie from being brutally murdered, but I know that I couldn't take a life. Just holding a gun would freak me out. I would probably have tried to move on, but I guess that would make the story redundant - considering that's what George and Lennie have been doing most of their lives. I think Steinbeck's ending was perfect. I think George was a true friend.

If i were George, I may thinking of killing him, since I can foresee that if I do not kill him in fast and less painful way, Lennie will likely to end up being tortured and brutally murdered by someone else. But of course, I don't have the guts to do that.

I love the ending when George makes Lennie become as happy as he can be by start talking to him about the rabbits, and their the plan to have their own farm, before then taking his live without let him know it is coming. It is very humane and Lennie deserve this fast and less painful death, since he is obviously never ment no harm to anybody.

I did not aswers the question,but I think George did the right thing, to bad that they couldnt realize their dream of having a little farm for themselves. Lennie will always be the same getting into trouble for both of them..but George pacience and love was so great that friends are always friends in good and bad times...not all ends have to be happy.

I am not sure. I guess I would have to be in George's situation to see how I would react. During this period, It was easy for the common folk to convict and lynch a person of a crime without Judicial Justice and/or due process. I don't blame George for saving his friend from the horrors of an apathetic society.

Yes, it may have been common but still today there are cases of vigilant punishment

I will do anything except killing him.
My religion (Islam) forbids killing people, how about innocent.

i think what george did was very couragious. He was put into a difficult situation and had to do what he thought was best at the time which was ensure that lennie had a quick and unpainful death. I think if i was him i would have done exactly the same as i dont think running would have helped as they had done that previously after the weed incident.

Simon wrote: "No, definitely not. And he would've been killed and brutalized by someone else, and I would've felt horrible about it.

That sounds a lot like me. OR, just as likely, I would've totally screwed myself by trying to take him on the run. (and probably got myself hanged right along with him)

If it were me as George I would have gotten my shit together and told lennie what's what. I would have totally not put up with Lennie for that long. He is a full grown man and should know how to take care of himself. I like that George loved Lennie enough to go through all of that but I could never care that stupid. In fact I think if I had a gun I would tell Lennie about the farm then shot him then and there, because I would have at least guessed that he was too stupid enough to learn to restrain himself. he is just gonna keep huring people and people are only gonna get madder and madder. But if I were stong enough to get through the first night by the pond I would make sure that Lennie made it to the farm then I would have left him to get on with his own life. Then I would have fled to the nearest city and gotten myself a job to get rich!

I wouldn't have had the heart to kill him, maybe because I haven't killed anyone or anything expect insects.

I would have told him to run, to get lost, said him hurtful things so he would go away. I am not sure if that plan would have worked, but I couldn't have killed him because I don't have the nerve to kill.

I can understand George's choice to shoot Lennie. Lennie was reliant on George to help him with everything. Right from the opening that's highlighted, since George has to tell him to avoid the water he's drinking from. Had he let Lennie run, Lennie likely would have returned and forgotten what he had done.

As was said earlier, the whole theme of the book is conflict and friendship. In many ways, shooting Lennie was the most definite act of friendship George could have done. It meant sacrificing everything he had since he relied on Lennie himself as a companion, but it was the kinder action for Lennie's own sake. By giving up his best friend in order to save Lennie from himself, George acted in probably the most selfless way he could. Even at the end though he treated Lennie with kindness, by giving him a final mental image of the ranch they would one day own, with his beloved rabbits.

Yasmine wrote: "Then I would have fled to the nearest city and gotten myself a job to get rich! "

That's a great idea, except the book was set in the 1930s at the height of the Great Depression, so getting rich was tough for the majority of people. :P

Yasmine wrote: "If it were me as George I would have gotten my shit together and told lennie what's what. I would have totally not put up with Lennie for that long. He is a full grown man and should know how to take care of himself. I like that George loved Lennie enough to go through all of that but I could never care that stupid. In fact I think if I had a gun I would tell Lennie about the farm then shot him then and there, because I would have at least guessed that he was too stupid enough to learn to restrain himself."

Holy shit! I hope for everyone's sake you never meet or give birth to a mentally retarded person, because apparently you'll just kill them! Holy shit!

The point has been made previously that there is a parallel between George's responsibility to Lennie and Candy's to his dog. Candy feels guilty for leaving it up to other men to shoot his dog when he's agreed that it's better for him to die than to go on living. Similarly, when George is in the position of recognizing either that Lennie deserves to die for killing Curley's wife or, possibly, that he's going to be caught and killed anyway, he believes it's his responsibility (as the only person who loves Lennie) to commit the act.

I don't think the point is about morality or the characters' fitness to be part of society. It's about men's dependence upon and responsibilities to each other.

I think gorge did the right thing to do to shoot lennie in the head cause he was going to die anyways for killing curlys wife

I think he should have gunned down everyone in sight, and then run off and live in the forest.

George has a choice of not killing Lennie but due to the circumstances that he was facing but he must also face the brutality of the men present specially Curley.George made a choice that would make him regret for the rest of his life.Killing a person whom became a part of your life and whom you loved is like killing yourself at all..emotionally.I'm just wondering if it was his real intention,to spare Lennie from a tragic death or to free himself from Lennie?People are people,you know.

Stop to consider how much pain Lennie would have to undergo if he was beaten to death by the mob revenging her death and ask yourself if what he did wasn`t an act of mercy for the friend he loved.

Lennie really couldn't live/survive w/o George you see that through the whole story. George knew Lennie has mental challenges and his sweet nature would not allow Lennie to understand all that he'd done. George did what he felt he needed to do, as a true friend and an act of mercy. No one wants to see another person die, no one wants to see a friend suffer that is love in this friendship. Sure we all die a little with a friend who dies, but to allow that friend to suffer and to not be able to help. Gee come on Lennie couldn't understand enough and George was the friend who came to his rescue.


"Yasmine" you really need some people skills along with some teaching/lessons about people like Lennie. If you are truely that cold hearted, I pity you... Sad.

George loved his friend he did the right thing, hard as it was.

If George had not done it those people coming after him would have. I t would have been much worse. It would be hard but I would have done what George decided to do.

In answer to the question,no I would not have had the guts to do the right thing. I suspect there are a lot of people out there with a bit mixture of machismo and compassion who claim they would have done what george did. But I fess up-I admire him for the strength of his resolve, but no, I would not have done it.
These are the life and death questions that are so difficult to make, a la Sophie`s Choice,partial birth abortions, a gun to your head, you have to kill a loved one....etc. etc. This is life at its cruelest.

It takes a strong individual to do what George did. I couldn't have killed him. I probably would have told him to hide. Then ran away so I wouldn't get caught. I know that's wrong but I didn't kill Curley's wife. I mean we have laws for a reason right. Shouldn't the police have handled this?

jOsEpHiNe wrote: "If you were George, at the very end of the book, what would you have done? (Or would you have killed Lennie just the way it happened?)

"

Given the times, the way Lennie would have been treated in an asylum or at the hands of someone like Curley, I'd have had no option but to do just as George did. Pull the trigger. It was a mercy killing, just as the killing of Candy's dog was.

This scene was every bit as powerful, if not more, than when Anna Karenina threw herself under a train.

It was the perfect ending, the only logical conclusion, given the way the plot and characters were developed. Everything pointed logically to this one terminal act that satisfied the demands established beforehand.

George did the right the thing by killing Lennie in the most painless way possible; if he hadn't, his friend would've gone through incredibly intense suffering and anguish. However, euthanizeing Lennie, if it can be called that, would not be easy to do. I like to think I could've been 'enough of a man' to do it, but I don't know. You'd have to give George a handshake if you saw him afterwards;because, he did what he thought was moral despite the pain that it entailed.

Interesting that most critics have neglected to point out not only George`s difficult decision in killing his best friend but that he has killed his lifetime dream.The rabbit farm was more than just a sop to his friend`s fantasies...it kept George going as well in a directionless life.

Question of what would you do if you were George is only valid if you were living in 30s and then you could really undrestand the situation and circumstances and I personally might have killed my friend in that situaion if that was my only option to end his life in the least painful and respectful way. But with us living in 21st centuray it is really difficult to imagine that because we do have more choices to make, for example sending him to mental institions,ect,...
Very interesting responses though

Kill him. It would be the most humane way. They would of tortured him and done god knows what if he'd been alive. It would cause me emotional agony, but I'd have to do it.