But Mousie, thou art not alone,
in proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men,
Gang aft agley,
And leave us nought but grief and pain,
For promised joy!
To a Mouse,” Robert Burns
Analysis of Of Mice and Men” by:
John Steinbeck.
Of Mice and Men draws its thematic inspiration from the simplistic yet touching lives of two migrant workers during and after the hard times that followed the Great Depression. It is told in a way that makes the characters palpably real without the slightest hint of being too contrived or exaggerated. The writing style in which the play-novelette is told bespeaks the honesty of the narrative that rings throughout the entire story. This kind of honesty earned the novel its place in the literary canon as one of the Most Challenged Books of the 21st Century (American Library Association). However, it has gained infamy among some critics, schools, and literary institutions for its apparent vulgar” and “offensive” language.
In the updated report of the American Library Association, the play-novelette has racked up an impressive resume of several citations from schools and groups who have attempted to remove the book from their shelves due to its profanity and foul language. Recent records show that in the years 2000-2003 alone, five high schools across the country cited the work as challenged because the book contains racial slurs, profanity, violence, and does not represent traditional values” (American Library Association).
Indeed, the work contains explicit material, as can be gleaned from the dialogue and the various sexual and racial suggestions. Yet, precisely because of the forthright and sometimes unapologetic treatment in its writing, the story comes to life at full force with its brute but genuine approach. The author is to be lauded, and perhaps the work should be given full credit as well, for not compromising the integrity of the content for a cleaner and more acceptable version.
The story could not have possibly been told in any other way. If it were to be filtered of its necessary antecedents vis-à-vis its main thematic agenda, in a manner that is scurrilous to the senses, then it would be better that the novella had not been written at all. It would certainly fall flat on its face if the material content were stricken under censure. There is no better way to tell the story than to tell it as naturally and realistically as possible. John Steinbeck achieved this rather cleverly and completely in his novella.
A quick survey of literary syllabi across various educational institutions would show that the book is gaining a strong foothold in schools and other teaching venues. The work is being taught as an important part of American Literature, along with other controversial works of the century such as The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, to name a few. Incidentally, these are the same books listed as banned and challenged (Doyle) as well.
Moreover, there are teaching and study guides available for the work that would allow for a sharper and more profound understanding of its context and characters. For example, The Teacher’s Guide to John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men is “designed to assist teachers in moving students beyond the surface story of Steinbeck’s novella” (Reed, 2). Accordingly, the guide serves as a tool to forewarn readers of the mature content of the story, but nevertheless provides a step-by-step process to see past the rough adornments of the work and prepare the class for a great and enjoyable discussion.
Truly, the work is more than just an outburst of stark images and candid language. The substance beneath the surface offers a plenitude of themes and motifs, enabling a better appreciation of modern literature. In brief, the story not only gives a glimpse of the lives of two people making their way through one of the toughest periods in American history, but it also offers a realistic purview of what it must have been like then. We completely enter into the exact consciousness of those who have absolutely nothing, not even a place to stay or ready food to eat. All that they have are dreams and plans for a better future, including visions of finally having a ranch to own and take care of without worrying about where to get their next sustenance and means of livelihood.
At the very start, George Milton emphatically relays his wish to find a way to settle down amidst the turbulent and unstable times to Lennie Small, who, like him, shares the same degree of faith and eagerness of hitting it big someday. George begins to rile Lennie for holding him back with his lack of ambition and somehow by being much an excess of bad luck: “Without you, I could live so easily. I could go get a job and work, and no trouble. No mess at all, and when the end of the month comes, I could take my fifty bucks and go into town and get whatever I want” (Steinbeck, 4). He continues to explode in such a manner of furious anger because Lennie just isn’t getting the same picture he has of great days ahead for both of them. He finally confides in Lennie, as a sign of true friendship in hard times perhaps, “O.K. Someday we’re gonna get the jack together, and we’re gonna have a little house and a couple of acres and a cow and some pigs and…” (7).
The conversation continues with Lennie prodding George to paint and repaint, so to speak, the future that lies ahead for both of them. There is talk of a vegetable patch, a rabbit hutch, and chickens, a fire in the stove when it rains in winter, and of other pleasant things (8). Each time that such fantasy and imagination is let loose, George and Lennie reveal their naturally poignant humor, more like the humility to hope for grand outcomes out of simple desires of their hearts that sort of motivate them every night for the day of work that will soon come in the morning.
Likewise, this routine of seeing themselves in ways they want to has had them convinced of the certainty that these dreams will eventually come true. So much so that George threatens to forfeit Lennie’s place in their imagined lives if he gets them into trouble again (10), and Lennie, for all his innocence and goodness, seems to understand what is at stake and is just as taken with the strength of George’s promises. In fact, later in the story, poor Lennie was so apprehensive with fear at the thought of being shot by Curley for no reason at all, he recalls the pact they made that night and with a face contorted with thought and sadness, meekly says, “If I get in any trouble, you ain’t gonna let me tend the rabbits.” (14).
Early on and until the death of Lennie, his character is marked by rigidity and subservience. He is unable to think for himself, much less act under his own terms, without having to search for (dis)approval in George’s face. His lack of imagination, spineless attitude towards the way he allows others to treat him, unusual ignorance of many of society’s mores, and inappropriate behavior when dealing with people, among other things, lend the notion that a person like Lennie will not survive for long in harsh conditions.
Put more clearly, Lennie’s character as a simpleton produces feelings of both sympathy and exasperation. Despite his physical strength, which has given him a certain advantage over others, his dull mind offsets it. The naivete he constantly shows puts him out of touch with reality and in a position where everything and everyone above will roll down to crush him. Lennie Small symbolizes the meek of the world who are to be destroyed by those who have the power to do so. Curiously enough, his name even suggests his status in the society to which he belongs. Very few understand him as a person in the story. Only George, who has been there for him as a friend and companion since childhood, appreciates and can vouch for his worth in the world (15).
However, the dim-witted Lennie gives the story a gripping climax at the end. His role may be bland and minimal, with no dynamics of change and development whatsoever at different points of the narration, but the treatment of his character is justified with how the story reaches its denouement at the height of tragic drama brought about by the inequities and prejudices in an intolerant community. It is the very reason why the story can be considered a modern-day tragedy in the Aristotelian sense.
This is not so much because Lennie had to die in the hands of his only friend, but because the author makes us understand that the people Lennie symbolizes are eventually brought to the gallows, in a manner of speaking, simply because, by their very nature, they are totally helpless against the perpetual biases of society. In other words, the tragic character of Lennie is doomed for extinction mainly due to the serious flaw of being incompatible and misconstrued within his social sphere. Sooner or later, society is bound to weed out the outcast regardless of how much he tries to stay and avoid it (50).
On the other hand, George has successfully protected Lennie up until circumstances have turned against their grand plans for the future. The certainty of rescission and conclusion has become inescapable. It is the least and last of fortunes towards their friendship that Lennie should not suffer the lynching of the mob, but through the person who understands and cared for him most. The last act of kindness between them, no matter how bitter, was for George to save Lennie from the angry mob by ending Lennie’s life and ensuring his permanent escape from everyone. He hid Lennie where no one can get to him.
George is the exact opposite of Lennie’s character. He is an idealist, a man of action, and definitely a person who understands how the world works. George has the ability to imagine a better future and has the resolve to realize his plans. The effect of his dominant character over the mild-mannered Lennie is such that he turned him (Lennie) into his blind follower and constant companion. Regardless of Lennie’s incompetence and oftentimes string of misadventures that get them into trouble, George is committed to looking after the welfare of his friend with little or no heed for reprisals and risk.
Although George and Lennie went to different places and did things together, George’s character is more developed. He is able to interact with other people and, in fact, did so in order to introduce Lennie to society. George was always at Lennie’s defense whenever the predatory nature of society brought danger too close to their closed and exclusive sanctuary. It would seem that George’s plans are motivated by his desire to protect Lennie from everyone. In order to achieve this, he has to have the resources to cut themselves away from the cruel province of men and be free from prejudice and possible hurt.
However, despite their contrasts, both nevertheless share the same dream of safety, economic security, and social security, where they won’t have to worry about anything. He strongly believes in the stories that he constantly tells and retells to Lennie. It serves both as a pacifier for Lennie and a mission statement for George.
In other words, their friendship is founded on the single aspiration to do well. The novel subtly establishes the dependency of both characters on each other. Upon the disappearance of one, the other is also likely to disappear. The moment George shot Lennie, not only did Lennie die, but also the hopes, dreams, and visions they both had ever since. Perhaps the end is only a fitting conclusion to the truism that all the well-laid plans of mice and men are brought to naught. It leaves one in grief and pain for promised joy.
In hindsight, Lennie and George bring to fruition the travails and reception of John Steinbeck’s magnum opus of modern tragedy in his work Of Mice and Men. The characters and their fates reflect that of the book’s own experiences about the kind of welcome the critics, scholars, and institutions have given it. Inasmuch as the work was largely dismissed as too bombastic and distasteful to the sensitivities of the modern audience, this echoes, as if by a final literary irony, Lennie’s fate of rejection and prejudice.
Fortunately, the work did finally, in fact, catch the attention of the initiated audience and has already been given the proper merit it truly deserves. In its defense are the Georges, so to speak, of the literary circle who recognize the powerful ramifications of the play-novelette on modern literature. It further opened the doors to a more realistic, genuine, and provocative narration of stories that are closely intertwined with historical context. What better way to depict a period of social and political evolution through fiction than a sincere and truthful exposition of reality then and of reality that is to come?
The only trustworthy sources of fiction and literature that seem to capture a certain consciousness at a particular time are those that incisively cut to the heart of the matter to tell a story that is so close to truth and reality, and nothing else—without any restraint or compromise whatsoever.
Works cited.
Doyle, Robert. (2004). Banned Books Resource Guide. New York: American Library.
Association, 2004.
Reed, Arthea. A Teacher’s Guide to the Penguin Edition of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men.
Men. New York: Penguin Press, 2005.
Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.
The American Library Association, November 11, 2007.
The American Library Association, October 10.
December 2007 http://www.ala.org/ContentID=136590.
