John Steinbeck is, by far, my favorite writer. Every piece I'd read by him was an enjoyable read with an engaging storyline, but I'd always wondered exactly what it was about Steinbeck's writing that made him so readable. To figure this out, I read his only major work I hadn't experienced before: Of Mice and Men.
Now, the important question "why is he so amazing" has to be put aside for a moment so that I can rant about the ending of the book. Throughout the entire novel, I had enjoyed the message of the importance of life and how people have value outside of their utilitarian means. A simple example of this would have been the dog at the ranch; he was old and couldn't do a single useful thing, but it was still cringe inducing to hear him die. His owner was clearly upset that his dog was being killed, even though he did finally allow it to go. I like that message. Life is pretty sweet, and anybody who wants to defend it is okay in my book.
Then, Lennie gets shot. This is a dumb ending! What is that, I says to myself. I says self, Steinbeck must be doing something or else this wouldn't be considered one of the greatest books of all time. But seriously now? What is this? Now I have to start all over trying to figure out what the novel actually means, and it means I'm going to have to validate death. This is dumb.
But wait! Maybe not! Mrs. Reilly mentioned last year that the book had something to do with being a worker during the Great Depression, which wasn't a far reach for Steinbeck. His novella The Pearl had been about the dangers of greed, so maybe that plays into it. I finally reach a conclusion that makes some sense to me.
The book isn't trying to validate death, but rather make it look disgusting and show how horribly necessary letting things go in those desperate times was. The dog was eating food and wasting space/other resources. It's useless! It must go, for the people are poor and resources scarce. Lennie was going to ruin George's life, and if not send George to prison at least keep him out of work for a long time. George couldn't afford that, and had to get rid of him, as cruel as that was. A foil to this brutality could be found in the ranch-owner's son; he was a rich kid who was living in excess, showing that the huge wealth gap was erosive to all people.
Boom.
Now, the important question "why is he so amazing" has to be put aside for a moment so that I can rant about the ending of the book. Throughout the entire novel, I had enjoyed the message of the importance of life and how people have value outside of their utilitarian means. A simple example of this would have been the dog at the ranch; he was old and couldn't do a single useful thing, but it was still cringe inducing to hear him die. His owner was clearly upset that his dog was being killed, even though he did finally allow it to go. I like that message. Life is pretty sweet, and anybody who wants to defend it is okay in my book.
Then, Lennie gets shot. This is a dumb ending! What is that, I says to myself. I says self, Steinbeck must be doing something or else this wouldn't be considered one of the greatest books of all time. But seriously now? What is this? Now I have to start all over trying to figure out what the novel actually means, and it means I'm going to have to validate death. This is dumb.
But wait! Maybe not! Mrs. Reilly mentioned last year that the book had something to do with being a worker during the Great Depression, which wasn't a far reach for Steinbeck. His novella The Pearl had been about the dangers of greed, so maybe that plays into it. I finally reach a conclusion that makes some sense to me.
The book isn't trying to validate death, but rather make it look disgusting and show how horribly necessary letting things go in those desperate times was. The dog was eating food and wasting space/other resources. It's useless! It must go, for the people are poor and resources scarce. Lennie was going to ruin George's life, and if not send George to prison at least keep him out of work for a long time. George couldn't afford that, and had to get rid of him, as cruel as that was. A foil to this brutality could be found in the ranch-owner's son; he was a rich kid who was living in excess, showing that the huge wealth gap was erosive to all people.
Boom.
I read this book Freshman year and reacted the same way you did. Lennie made me laugh throughout the entire book and then Steinbeck ends the novel like that? George is selfish and crude the entire book and he wins in the end. I felt the same way when I saw "Bad Teacher" because she breaks all the rules and prevails in the end. What is this world coming to?
ReplyDelete