MovieChat Forums > Of Mice and Men (1992) Discussion > Moral of the story: Retarded people shou...

Moral of the story: Retarded people should die because they're useless

posted 10 years ago by nielw
17 replies | jump to latest

I've never read the book. Never seen a movie adaptation. Finally caught this version, and, while I enjoyed it, it seemed pretty obvious how Steinbeck feels about people or animals that aren't useful. It's an old dog, so you have to shoot it in the back of the head. Forget the fact that he brings joy to Candy.

This was obvious foreshadowing of the ending. George had to off Lennie because he was of no use to anyone else, or even himself. Granted, he had just killed a woman, but did that mean George had to shoot him like an old useless dog?

I'm new to this story, and perhaps I should be asking this question on a literature website... But it seems fairly obvious how the author feels. Am I wrong?

Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] louis-skipper 10 years ago

The key is Candy's later statement: "I should have shot my own dog. I shouldn't have let a stranger shoot my dog."

We can debate whether or not ANYONE should have shot Candy's dog, but that's another issue.

When George realized that, if the mob were to catch him, Lennie would be shot, he decided that he was not going to let a stranger do it.

Could George have used to gun to fend off Curly and the others? Could he and Lennie have continued running and hiding and the pattern go on?

In the end, George had Lennie focus on their dream so that his final moment was one of happiness and not terror and confusion at the hands of a mob.

[–] nielw 10 years ago

Thank you. That makes more sense.

Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing.

[–] SonicScooby 10 years ago

If Lenny had been caught by the other ranchers, his death would have been cruel and brutal as they were planning to lynch him. George tried to save him from that. The main theme of Steinbeck's book is loneliness and he explores this in depth.
I really recommend you read the book. I think it will give you a better understanding of what Steinbeck was trying to say.

[–] mathknapp 10 years ago

I don't think you have nailed the moral, but rather you nailed the question that Steinbeck wanted to explore with the text.

Was George right to kill Lennie? Lennie kept getting into trouble. He'd kill the mice. He killed the puppy. He scared a woman before. Now he killed a woman. Would it have been right to run away (again) and let the same thing happen (again) to another woman?

There are other issues as well, as pointed out here, about whose responsibility Lennie was. But even in having George shoot Lennie, Steinbeck paints an emotionally ripped apart George and creates one of the most depressing scenes in literature. So just because George does it, doesn't mean that he necessarily did the *right* thing (in the author's view or anyone else's for that matter).

[–] nielw 10 years ago

Very good points.

What stuck out to me was the fact that the dog had to be killed because it wasn't useful anymore. Maybe I read into this too much, when thinking of the symbolism between the dog and Lennie. It seemed like the author was saying that Lennie was not useful, so he had to be put down like a dog.

Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing.

[–] jtf1986 10 years ago

No, it is saying that this is how society treats things that are of no use to them, not that this is how it should be.

[–] Tiberius27-1 9 years ago

Generalizations almost always lead to misunderstandings. Such is the case with assuming that just because THIS mentally challenged person (Lenny) had to be put down because of the circumstances within the tale, that ALL mentally challenged people should be put down because they're useless as you stated in your subject headline. Adolph Hitler felt that way & mentally challenged people (I'm not Mr. Political Correctness on everything but it really does sound cruel to call them "Retarded people" as you did) were placed into concentration camps during WW 2 alongside gypsies, homosexuals, & of course people of Jewish heritage. Hitler considered them all mentally or physically inferior and thus deserving of death. The irony is that Hitler was mentally deficient himself & was about as pure blooded as a mutt in an animal shelter. If he was for it, chances are great that we should be against it.

I highly doubt that Steinbeck was making a sweeping condemnation of the mentally challenged or else this classic would have been filled with asides by characters who are amazed to see a living mentally challenged person since they (In this line of thought) would normally either bring about their own deaths or be rightly put down before they could bring about someone else's. THAT is the crux of why Lenny was put down, because he was dangerous NOT because he was mentally challenged. No matter how much George loved him he couldn't ignore the danger that Lenny had become anymore.

"Be nice until it's time to NOT be nice."

[–] Wuchakk 8 years ago

It seemed like the author was saying that Lennie was not useful, so he had to be put down like a dog.

"Useful" is not the best word for this context because Lennie was definitely useful -- he was able to do the work of 2-3 men on the farm and people enjoyed his company; i.e. he put a smile on people's faces. Even Curly's babe wanted to be around him and have him stroke her hair.

So Lennie wasn't put down because he was useless, but rather because he was an unintentional danger to living things in general.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] kfckid-365-296572 9 years ago

Interesting to note that Lenny was based on a real individual.

[–] Tiberius27-1 9 years ago

I hadn't heard that before. Could you go into greater detail please?

"Be nice until it's time to NOT be nice."

[–] OIF-Retread 9 years ago

Steinbeck himself mentions it, not sure where, but there are various references to it:

“Lennie was a real person,” Mr. Steinbeck said. “He’s in an insane asylum in California right now. I worked alongside him for many weeks. He didn’t kill a girl. He killed a ranch foreman. Got sore because the boss had fired his pal and stuck a pitchfork right through his stomach. I hate to tell you how many times I saw him do it. We couldn’t stop him until it was too late.”

"I'll do the masterminding around here." -Sgt. Stryker, "Sands of Iwo Jima"

[–] auroraborealus 9 years ago

The moral of the story is not that useless people or animals should die but how the world treats those who are considered to have no more practical use, especially in the era the book was written. There are a few kind people like George and Slim but for the most part people did not have sympathy for disabled people. Candy's dog was old and could no longer work so the men pressure Candy to shoot him, never mind that Candy loves the dog. Candy himself had a fear of no longer being useful and being turned out. George's love for Lenny paralleled Candy's love for his dog. Despite the fact that Lenny is useless and more trouble than he's worth, George still takes care of him because he loves him. He shoots him because after Lenny killing Curly's wife, the only other alternative is to let the lynch mob get Lenny and him dying a horrible, terrifying death. At least George, because he loves Lenny, can make his last moments peaceful and happy doing his favorite thing, talking about the farm and the rabbits before humanely shooting him in the head.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Not sure what "usefulness" we're talking about here; surely, Lennie was as "useful" (or useless) after the killing as he was before.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] nmholland 8 years ago

George ended up killing Lennie himself so that Curley wouldn't be able to. When George shot Lennie, he was dreaming of thier "future," and was currently happy. If Curley would've shot him, then Lennie's last thoughts would've been of George's betrayal, and fear. This is foreshadowed earlier in the story when Carlson shoots Candy's dog. Candy later regrets it, and tells George that he should've shot the dog himself. It wasn't because of the dog being useless, it was becuase it was Candy's reponsibility.