Riot’s Classic Literature Reviews: Of Mice and Men
This week’s reading brought on another classic literature piece that I unknowingly knew a lot about before even finishing. John Steinbeck’s novella published in 1937, Of Mice and Men, has a reference list that is as impressive as other books I’ve already covered. For a work that has such dark and serious themes/overtones, I find it ironic that the journey of the protagonist pair, George and Lennie, is so often used for cartoon or comedy effect. Being that it’s one of my favorite and most re-watched T.V. shows, I especially make note of two episodes of Archer (A Going Concern and Achub y Morfilod) that lean heavily into these references. The 107 page novella is one of the most leisurely reads that I’ve had during my quarantine. The linear, straightforward nature of the story reveals its central themes in a fluid manner and walks its reader through a tragic tale that evaluates how worldly malevolence affects individual dreams.
The story opens up with a brief but effective description of a small pond in Soledad, California. While there doesn’t appear to be a direct reference to the actual date, the events surrounding the two protagonists, George Milton and Lennie Small, suggest that this is taking place during The Great Depression. Readers are introduced to the pair; George being small in stature but mentally sharp and Lennie being physically enormous in size with the mind of a young child. The two are migrant workers, finding themselves in search of new work after being forced to flee from their previous job in a town called Weed. Lennie, being simple minded, has an obsession with touching soft things such as tiny animals. Due to his enormous size, he often accidentally murders the fragile creatures and after having an encounter with a young woman in which Lennie was trying to feel the fabric of her dress, he was accused of rape and was chased out of town by a lynch mob. George has to repeat himself constantly, trying to ensure that Lennie doesn’t get them in trouble again. When they arrive at their new worksite to report for duty, they are grilled by the farm owner about the odd nature of their relationship, as migrant workers of the time were expected to travel alone. After George is able to convince the owner of their usefulness, the pair are allowed to stay on and quickly become acquainted with the rest of the workers. Some of these interactions are less than positive, as is the case with their conversations with the owner’s son, Curley, and his wife, who remains unnamed the entire book but is shown constantly trying to gain the attention of anyone except her husband. Foreshadowing abounds as Lennie begs George to leave the worksite and George repeatedly implores Lennie to stay away from Curley or his apparently promiscuous wife.
The reader is let in on a bit of backstory soon after in regards to George and Lennie’s history. George was acquainted with Lennie’s aunt, who implored him to take care of the simple-minded man. While noble, we are also informed that George has slightly abused Lennie in the past; ex: using his influence to tell Lennie to jump into a river which subsequently led to his near drowning. Regardless, there is a genuine affection between the pair and after discussing their future ambitions with another one of the workers, Candy, the three begin to see their dreams as something genuinely attainable. It’s during this same time period that a series of foreshadowing events play out: Candy’s elderly dog is put down (shot) by one of the other men, another worker named Crooks informs the group that Lennie is spending too much time physically handling puppies from a newly birthed litter, and Curley instigates a fight with Lennie who, in self-defense, breaks Curley’s hand. After an undisclosed amount of time, the scene shifts to a conversation between Crooks, Lennie, and Candy. Crooks, being African American, resents being shunned by the rest of the workers because of his race. After tormenting Lennie for a bit, he relents to his innocent nature and allows Lennie and Candy to be in his space. The three discuss the blossoming plan for Lennie, George, and Candy to obtain their own land but are soon interrupted by Curley’s wife, who throws a wrench in their good natured conversation by threatening to lynch Crooks after he asks her to leave.
Shifting to a Sunday afternoon, we find Lennie sitting in front of a dead puppy in the barn. He speaks to the dead dog, deriding it and himself for its accidental death. Curley’s wife makes another appearance here, striking a conversation with Lennie and actually being kind to him. She confesses her own unhappiness at the farm, being married to a man who consistently suspects her of infidelity but takes no time to give her any legitimate attention. She laments over the way her life turned out, expressing that she had offers to become a movie star but has instead ended up in a loveless marriage. After Lennie admits that he simply loves touching/petting soft things, the girl offers her own hair for Lennie to touch. Predictably, when he becomes too rough with her, she struggles to get away, to which Lennie responds with covering her mouth and shaking her. His brutish strength snaps the girls neck and Lennie flees the scene, vowing to return to the little pond area described at the beginning of the novella. After the girl’s body is discovered, George convinces the group of workers that it is best to capture Lennie. While they agree, they are shown arming themselves with guns, with Curley vowing to murder Lennie on sight. The book wraps with George finding Lennie at the pond. As he recounts the dream they’d been working on together, George shoots Lennie in the back of the head.
Loneliness and Malevolence: After reading multiple other reviews, loneliness is commonly shown to be the pervading theme of the book. While I wouldn’t say I picked up on this outright, it makes perfect sense in retrospect. What I think other interpretations of this theme are missing though, is how human/worldly malevolence impacts or creates the loneliness that is being experienced by each of these characters. Candy is lonely after his dog is put down, indicating the impact of the ravages of time on both him and his beloved pet. Curley’s wife is lonely because he won’t pay any attention to her and lets his jealousy go unchecked. Crooks is made lonely by racism. George and Lennie, combating loneliness with their companionship, are still isolated by financial deficits. While I agree that loneliness is the most common theme, it’s the evils that essentially foster each lonely experience.
The “American” Dream: I put the American in quotes here because I disagree with other reviews that state that the lack of obtaining a personal dream has anything to do with what country you live in. Each of the main characters of the story bemoan the fact that they have unattained dreams for their lives. I would argue that this is oppressively common amongst all people, regardless of gender, race, creed, and the list goes on. Dreams in general are always going to be attacked by malevolent factors and the characters of Steinbeck’s novella are clearly shown not only dealing with the outside forces that prevent them from their dreams, but their own internal deficits that keep them out of reach. George for example, the “mastermind” behind the dream that hooks not only Lennie, but Candy and Crooks into it, is shown (off scene) blowing the money he’s made at a whorehouse. Personal responsibility therefore becomes the most important factor in the lack of dream achievement.
Man’s Inherent Evil/Predatory Nature: Many of the characters throughout are given sympathetic storylines. Curley might be the only character that isn’t shown to have a redeemable backstory. Although it could be argued that his toxic relationship with his wife is cyclical in nature, there seems to be much more evidence that Curley is in fact the abuser. But even after the reader is given a sympathetic look at Curley’s wife, it’s hard to ignore her blatant racist interaction with Crooks or her intentional manipulation of Lennie. Much like many of George’s conversations regarding Lennie, once one character is reduced to a vulnerable position, there is another player that takes the opportunity to inflict their will on the person that has been brought low. Even Crooks, clearly the victim of the racist ideologies of the time, has a moment where he mentally and emotionally torments Lennie for no other reason to flex his own power over his small dominion. While other reviews might state that there are clear protagonists/antagonists in this story, I would argue that none of the main players keep a moral high ground. The closest would likely be Slim, but his involvement in the story’s events is minimal at best.
Steinbeck’s novella has been described as controversial during its long history of publication and it would prove a lie to say that there isn’t content in here that is morally wrong and tough to read. But, understanding how we have grown as a society beyond representations such as this should be a positive testament to advancing away from harmful narratives. I absolutely loathe the idea of removing or “cancelling” works due to offensive content from the U.S.’s troubled past. While this is a fictional story, it was interesting reading about overt racism happening in a progressive state like California (even in the old days). Sure, there is a chance that what happened with the Crooks character never really went down in CA even back then and that it is a work of pure fiction, but the likelihood of that being true is so small it’s probably laughable. Honestly, I don’t want to spend too much time on this. I bring this up to say first of all, there’s not much in this novella that’s meant for kids or even young adults and if your kid does read it, sit down and have a conversation with them about it. Troubling content exists all around us and if we really want to prevent our future generations from being affected by toxic content, it’s up to us to help them understand where we came from and where we are going.
Wrap Up: I thought this book was fantastic. While I limited myself and spread its reading over the course of three days, this is the kind of story that is easy to binge. It’s the perfect kind of book to grab for a decently long plane ride when you want to kill a couple hours reading. Similar to a complaint I had in my previous review (Wuthering Heights), Steinbeck often writes character dialogue phonetically, which has a tendency to stop up my reading flow. What Steinbeck was able to accomplish versus Bronte though, was a way of portraying/writing words that share similarities with other words in the English lexicon. This allowed for a smoother transition in reading, instead of the syllable-reducing, apostrophe-heavy approach that Bronte used. Much like the feeling I got while reading Lord of The Flies, it’s hard to get through some of the terrible ways these characters speak to each other and it’s even harder getting through what they do to each other. Inevitably, it’s not until we see the darkness in people that we realize how much power we have to choose to do good for those around us. And that is exactly what it is, a conscious choice to uplift people rather than degrade them. The allusion between putting down Candy’s dog and George’s murder of Lennie is an interesting one, regardless of how difficult it is to think about. Is it the right choice to spare people/animals from suffering or the malevolency of the world? In the dog’s case, I think most pet owners (including myself) would agree. One of the hardest days of my life was when I had to put my cat down after 16 years together. By today’s standards, it is morally wrong and socially unacceptable to make the leap/comparison to human life, but when you evaluate how George was the only person to look out for and take care of Lennie, is sparing him from what would have been a much more violent murder the right choice? Either way, for such a short book, Steinbeck brilliantly opened up a much larger world of discussion and thought that is impossible to convey in a three-page review. Regardless of its controversy, I hope more people read it and judge for themselves.
Riot’s Rating: 10/10. Go read this book when you can. It’s worth it.
Comments