Comparing Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men

The stories, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck and The Cask of Amontillado by Edgar Allen Poe, both have a character that breaks a social convention. In this case, both characters, George and Montresor, were murderers. It’s clear that these characters have broken a major law, but how and why they did it will determine whether or not their justification is enough.

In Of Mice and Men, George broke the rules by shooting and killing his friend, Lennie. His reasoning for doing so is because Lennie was always getting into trouble everywhere they went, and this time he had accidentally murdered Curly’s wife. Curly was livid and said when he found Lennie, he would make his death slow and painful to pay for what he did. George knew that if they were to run away and escape retribution, Lennie would find danger in the next place and it would be an endless cycle of running until Lennie got the agonizing death that was coming for him. George cared for Lennie, so to make things smoother he decided to take care of things himself and make his friend’s death as quick and

painless as possible. George didn’t kill Lennie for his own wicked pleasures; he did this in consideration for Lennie’s wellbeing. Either way, Lennie was going to die, but George made his passing more tranquil.
In The Cask of Amontillado, Montresor had a much different tale. He also killed a man, but he did it for vengeance. He took a man by the name of Fortunato down into the French catacombs during Carnival season, got him intoxicated, then proceeded to construct a wall of brick around Fortunato to suffocate him. Montresor did not murder Fortunato out of sheer pity, like George. In fact, he never reveals the full explanation for committing such a crime. The only justification Montresor gives is at the very beginning of the story when he says, “The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge”(Poe,1). What Montresor did was completely avoidable, and only showed that he is severely ill-minded.
George and Montresor both broke the same social convention, but their reasoning couldn’t be any more dissimilar.

George killed Lennie out of the good of his heart. Of course, there could have been a better way to handle the situation such as leaving the ranch, but with the time at hand George did what he could. There was not much chance for escape with Curly and the rest of the men right on their tail, so in order to save Lennie from the gruesome agony Curly would deliver, George put a swift bullet through Lennie’s head. Montresor, on the other hand, did not kill Fortunato out of the good of his heart. If Montresor was a sane, rational man, he would have handled being insulted in a sophisticated manner and tried to talk to Fortunato about the problem. Since he didn’t give Fortunato a chance to apologize or explain himself, Montresor went to absurd measures and committed a crime that could have been

avoided.
George was in a situation that was going to end dreadful no matter what, so he made the best decision he could in the heat of the moment. Montresor had all the time in the world to figure things out with Fortunato, but he decided to take to extreme measures and brutally murder a man. They are both killers, but George had a more reasonable explanation for his doings than Montresor did. George was saving his friend from excruciating pain, but Montresor executed Fortunato just because he couldn’t handle an insult like a mature adult. They both broke the same social convention, but one of them was more justified than the other. Why they did what they did is the main concept that comes into play when determining which character did the right thing in their situation, and that character is George. When breaking a law for a character’s own personal reasons, it is appropriate if the felony is protecting or helping another. It is not appropriate when it is for one’s malicious desires.