Review: Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck

a masterful and gut wrenching exploration of the american dream, with some caveats

i’ve wanted to read some Steinbeck for a long while. i had some of his books on my TBR since forever such as grapes of wraith, his king arthur retellings, and of course, Of Mice and Men as well. i had them because i’ve always been curious about his writing. so i was quite excited to read his work when it got selected as the buddy read for our book club at the classical book club for January.

introduction:

the book was published in 1937 (which is absolutely surprising to me given the content of this book, honestly) and it follows two main characters, George and Lennie. George and Lennie are looking for a job and they end up working at a ranch and from there on, we get to meet several other characters and their hopes and dreams.

characters:

the two most important characters in the novel are of course, George and Lennie. George is the more smart, responsible one and Lennie is defintely portrayed as someone on the spectrum.

what i find kind of fascinating about Lennie is that while it is quite typical and cliche for its time period in portraying mental illness, it is also very sympathetic and there is some weight given to Lennie’s actions in this novel that i don’t see very often. he is not a one not character like many from that time period that were either used for comedic purposes or sidelined by other more “responsible” characters. there is agency in his character, even after being a pretty passive character throughout the novel, having to rely on George for most of his decisions.

which is another aspect i enjoyed quite well. it reminded me quite a lot of stephen king’s work as in no character is written to be fully good or bad. George clearly cares for Lennie and wants better for him as much as he wants it for himself, but he is not above being cruel to him. he scolds him sometimes and makes him feel small, but immediately regrets it after. this makes the characters feel more human to me and more and makes the end that much more impact.

there are a few more characters in the novel but none have any depth except one surprising chapter, which i’ll talk about in a bit. that’s not to say that all the other characters don’t have any characterizations. Steinbeck carefully manages to have each character, however minor, feel like an actual person in the story by adding some sort of association with them. candy with his dog, curley with his temper, etc. that way, you never really feel confused as to who’s who. you feel connected to all of them despite not having spent much time in their head as you do with George and Lennie.

Daring Realism:

this book is, in my personal opnion, a prime example of Realism. it has no interest in censoring itself. it is visceral, dark and it is quite an unexpected story if you consider the fact that it came out in the ‘30s. there are characters that swear, talk about taboo subjects, and the novel also does not shy away from ugly realities of the time. i mentioned above that there is one character in the novel that was given more depth than i initially expected, and that is of the character Crooks. Crooks is a black man working on the ranch. he is absolutely isolated from everyone else and while he is somewhat respected, Steinbeck does not pull any punches in letting you know why he is so alone. the blatant racism faced by this character is on full display as a mirror to society of the time. i am not sure whether this book was ever banned in the states but i would not be surprised. at one point, someone even threatens Crooks with a lynching. yes, it absolutely goes there. on top of that, he is the only other character in the book that is given a separate chapter worthy introduction besides Lennie and George. this leads me to believe that Steinbeck might have been sympathetic to racist struggles, although i could not say since i have no idea about his life.

some faults:

despite all of this though, the novel does sort of dates itself in one single aspect. that is of the characterization of Curley’s wife. she is treated so insignificantly that she does not even have a name of her own in the novel. nope, just Curley’s wife. an object of desire and scrutiny, which i felt was seriously unnecessary.

someone argued that Steinbeck might have done this deliberately as a non-misogynistic stance but i seriously doubt it given that Steinbeck could portray how Crooks faces his discrimination without alienating his character. another factor making me think it was just sexism on his part is the one little fact i found about him that he was absolutely abusive to his wife. he was not a feminist in real life, so why would i assume otherwise for his novels?

conclusion:

my first Steinbeck experience is a good one overall. i enjoyed the novel and i was quite surprised at how explicit the novel actually was. there’s literally like 3-4 instances of the characters saying the N word, so he was not shy about realism, as i explained above. i appreciate unabashed honesty in books, and it gave it to me. i won’t explain why since it might be a spoiler, but the book also came very close to making me cry, which i absolutely hate and love it for.

overall rating: 4.5