In Scarseth's review of "Of Mice and Men," he claims that overall it is a Tragedy but a book worth teaching. To support his claim, he argues about the function of literature, the limitations of Steinbeck's characters, and the purpose of using certain elements from that time period.
To start, Steinbeck defends his claim by discussing the function of literature. He writes, literature is "not mere sugar candy," and is not only meant to be vicarious. I agree with him and believe it is important not to sugar coat things and give the exact truth when necessary. In "Of Mice and Men," this is shown when Crooks is talking to Lennie about all of the men with a dream of land and their failure. "I read plenty of books out here. Nobody never gets to heaven, and nobody gets no land" (Steinbeck 36). Even though Lennie got nervous from this hard truth, he learned a valuable lesson. You have to work hard for your dreams and never give up. In addition to the function of literature, the limitations of characters teach valuable lessons
…show more content…
He composes, "Lennie and George share a good dream...love one another, but are to limited to understand how to say it." This is a perfect example of how the characters are limited—in this case by showing their love. I approve of his opinion because it shows in other parts of the story. Candy gives into peer pressure when he is trying to save his dog from getting shot. Carlson and Slim were arguing with Candy to shoot his dog and finally Candy said hopelessly, "Awright—take 'im"(Steinbeck 8). After this, you could tell Candy regretted giving in because he just stared blankly at the wall for a while. This proves the book a Tragedy but also provides a valuable lesson to never give into peer pressure because things you love can be lost. A lesson is also taught when learning about the purpose of certain elements of the time period that are used in