John Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men

Of Mice and Men Critical Analysis “... the function of literature is to provide vicarious "happy endings," to provide in words a sugary sweetness we would like to have but cannot always get in real life.”(Scarseth) Of Mice and Men, a book by John Steinbeck, was not like typical books in which a way tragedy strikes between the best of friends. The main characters are not limited, Curly looks at his wife as a possession, and Lennie’s drive to touch beauty does not kill the things he loves.
To Curly, he looks at his wife as a thing, a possession, a sex object and a status symbol. Curly is the only man on the ranch that has a wife, but there’s a problem. Curly cannot connect with his wife in the way she wants him to because of Curly’s ego. She

I can see where the author is coming from as to the characters having limited lifestyles. “Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don't belong no place. They come to a ranch an' work up a stake, and the first thing you know they're poundin' their tail on some other ranch. They ain't got nothing to look ahead to.” (Steinbeck) They feel this is what they’re going to do their whole lives. I feel that they didn’t get the things they wanted because they didn’t have that drive to get out of the lifestyles they were currently living. In his article he said, “Given their position in that world, they are not able to achieve much. But they are going the best they can; they are trying to be good people and have good lives.” (Scarseth) which again, supports his claim. Another thing Scarseth mentioned was, “The world they live in is even more limited; it is a world in which the simplest dream of the simplest man- poor dumb big Lennie- cannot come true.” (Scarseth) I don’t think the statement should have focused on Lennie because he cannot control how smart he is and why he makes the decisions he does. I do not believe that the characters, nor their lifestyles are limited. In a way I think that yes they did have their doubtful moments in their life but I also thinks that they did have a “dream”, a fantasy, a goal they they wanted to eventually achieve.

I get where the author is coming from because in the book Lennie wanted to touch the girls dress because he thought it was pretty, when she pulled away he grasped on tighter and ripped her dress. Then he killed the mouse while petting it because it kept squirming. Finally, Curleys wife let Lennie pet her hair, when she pulled away, he grasped onto her and she screamed and he killed her. In the article, he said, “The simplest good intention—simply to stay alive—of a simple mouse, a simple pup, a simple young woman, is thwarted by Lennie's urge to pet something soft and beautiful.” (Scarseth). Like I mentioned about Curleys wife being killed, he said, “... he (Lennie) is panicked by her quick resistance, and ends by killing her.” (Scarseth) The sad part is that Lennie doesn’t realize what he’s done until after he’s done, and he’s not even worried about what he needs to do to fix it, he’s only worried about George not letting him “tend the rabbits”. I don’t exactly think that Lennie’s “ drive to touch beauty” is the cause of killing the things he “loves”. I think we could agree that Lennie is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. On top of that, when something startles him he tenses up and seems to be all discombobulated. If he can’t understand and comprehend simple things, wouldn’t you think that it would be challenging for him to understand how to love something? I think the word we’re really looking for is