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

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