"Yet each man kills the thing he loves..."

Oscar Wilde's prison poem came to mind not only for its literal truth in the context of Lenny and George, but also because it evokes the brutal isolation of the whole cast of characters, each one of them stuck in their separate reality and unable to connect with each other. The young lonely wife has nobody to confide in, and keeps looking for trouble out of sheer isolation. The black man is so utterly alone that he is almost insane, and the barrier of his skin colour is even more impenetrable than the woman's gender. George's loneliness is connected to his responsibility for Lenny, and Lenny himself is in the brutal prison of his intellectual inferiority and herculean strength. Even the boss' son is in a no man's land between privilege and torture.

The dream of sharing a future together keeps the men's spirits alive for a while, and it is contagious. Breaking out of the isolation, enjoying freedom and partnership - those are powerful ideas.

"Yet each man kills the thing he loves..."

The domino effect of Lenny's inability to control his strength or his craving for softness and love makes all dreamers wake up to a nightmare without end. The only solace is finding another human being who understands enough of the pain of killing what one loves to offer a sign of support or friendship in the misery of reality.

Lenny broke my heart, and yet I had to smile at his limited vision over and over again. When I first read this novel, I was a busy teenager, bored and frustrated that school picked my reading materials for me, not willing to enter into the confused minds of men with whom I had seemingly nothing in common. With hindsight, I see myself in a cloud of ignorance, not fully grasping what happened around me, missing a masterpiece in the process - I was very much like Lenny myself, unaware of the bigger picture of what was going on around me. Reading Of Mice and Men now, to prepare a teaching unit for a new generation of fifteen-year-olds, I find myself more in the role of George, gently coaxing, carefully repeating the information I consider crucial, avoiding too much detail out of fear to completely lose the attention of my students. Lenny and George live a life of their own in my head now, and they have transcended their bitter story and become part of mine.

Just what one expects of a great classic!

I decided to up my rating with one star as I still think about this novella more than 2 years after I read it.

I will definitely remember this book because of the ending. It was brutal and heartbreaking.

the book that made me fall in love with steinbeck's prose.

موش ها و آدم ها حکایت انسانها ست ، حکایت آرزوهای آنها ، امید به آینده و فردایی داشتن ، امید به آرامش داشتن ، خانواده داشتن ، امید به آزادی و در بند ارباب نبودن ، رویایی داشتن ، امید به داشتن زمین و کاری از خود ، در جایی ریشه داشتن ، امید به همدم و هم راهی داشتن ، رفیقی داشتن
امید به برادری و عدالت داشتن ،امید به اتفاقات محال داشتن ،

امید به معجزه داشتن

How does one rate a Holy Tome of English Lit, when one found the reading experience to be extraordinarily average. . . nay, even sub-par?

I suppose the real question is, am I, like some people, a vote whore who will slap the Big Uno on it, and then index all the book's inadequecies, ignoring all the things the author did well? This will probably gain my review the most interest.

Or shall I, like a dignified book reviewer, give it a Trio, and calmly explain both its flaws and its high points?

Uno it is.

Here's why I thought Of Mice and Men sucked balls:

1. WHAT'S UP with the main character who has no personality other than being large and, like the lame interpretation of Frankenstein from the 30's movie, friendly-yet-stupid and unaware-of-his-own-strength? Super-lame.

2. WHAT'S UP with the other main character who seems to like nothing more than shitting on the big dude's self-esteem, and pointing out how much his own life sucks because of his friendship with said stupid friend? He's not an orgasmically charming fellow himself. In fact, he's Eeyore.

3. WHAT'S UP with the most interesting character being in one fraggin' chapter? I found the black character fascinating, and in this one scene he established himself as more intriguing than anyone else in the whole flippin' book. Then? We never hear from him again.

4. YET AGAIN, Steinbeck makes the main female character a sultry temptress. The way he makes all women into sultry temptresses, you'd think he had a Bible fetish or something. She's the least sympathetic character in a book full of characters I didn't sympathize with.

5. I'm now bored with the numbering system, and shall stop doing it.

Two Steinbeck novels have I loved: East of Eden is one of my very favorite books, and The Grapes of Wrath is also terrific. But this reads like a mediocre Tennessee Williams play, and I frikkin' HATE that guy. Why? It isn't just because of weak characters in this book. It's also because the whole premise of this book sucks, and the ending sucks even more than the premise. It's a snowball of suckiness, culminating in a bang that left me confused, yet simultaneously indifferent.

Perhaps it's because similar plotlines have been littered around the modern age like horse shit at a circus, but DID ANYBODY NOT know EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN from page 10 on? Anyone? Beuller?

Get it? Like. . . movie reference? Nevermind.

Anyway, this sucked. There's no Wishbone episode of this'un, and it's because a Wishbone episode of this would've made kids commit suicide. It's depressing, yet depressingly lame as well.

And there wasn't one damn mouse in the whole book. That's false advertising.

4.5 stars

As expected, this book was gorgeously written, intelligent and touching.
The foreshadowing was perfectly executed (not the only thing perfectly executed, if you catch my drift) and held everything together beautifully.

The only criticism I have is the treatment of the only female character: She is essentially the Evil Whore who makes a Good Man do bad things, and everyone blames her and is sorry for the guy, even though she clearly gets the short end of the stick.

But yeah, definitely a classic for a reason.

С препрочитането на „За мишките и хората“, открих много нови неща и задълбочени послания в тази кратка и мрачна книга на Джон Стайнбек! На пръв поглед обикновената, макар и любопитна история на психопата Лени далеч не е най-важното, заради което тази чудесна творба си заслужава вниманието!
На нейния фон, големият писател всъщност изгражда цялостна, ярка и многопластова картина на живота и обществените нрави от началото на 20-ти век. Тежкият фермерски начин на живот, расовите предразсъдъци и насилието сред хората, утопичните мечти на работниците... това са част от важните теми, засегнати в книгата. Преди сякаш не бях обърнал внимание на Крукс, но вече ми е най-любимият герой от „За мишките и хората“! Освен единствен чернокож, той е и единственият четящ човек сред персонажите...
Книгата несъмнено представя силата на приятелството, но също така и самозаблудите, породени от него.



„Колко съм ги виждал аз такива — скитат по пътищата и по фермите с вързопи на гръб и все имотец им в главата. Един ли е, двама ли са... Дойдат, поработят, па си отидат; и все петимни за парче земя. Всеки за туй си мисли. Ама ни един не си е купил. То е като рая. Аз доста книжки съм попрочел, та знам: парчето земя е като рая — не можеш стигна до него. Но от главите им не излиза.“

"Hey Tim, old buddy… I hear you've been depressed recently. A book should cheer you up, right?"
"Why yes Tim, that sounds delightful. Got any good ideas?"
"How about a classic?"
"Brilliant idea Tim! One I haven't read?"
"Of course! How about Steinbeck?"
"I don't know… I hear he's a bit depressing."
"Come now, it's only 105 pages! How depressing could it be?"

…

Should I just end the review there? Nah, of course not.



Of Mice and Men is one of those books that pretty much everyone has read. I once saw an article that said it was one of the most commonly read books in High School classes in America. Somehow it is another one of those classics that I managed to never have assigned to me in both High School or College (and I majored in English). Well, I've read it now. My thoughts?

Well, it's a wonderfully well told story, frequently feeling more like a play than a novel, but I mean that as a compliment as it makes for a fast paced conversational tone. It's depressing as all hell mind you, but wonderfully told.

Did I enjoy reading it? No, no I sure as hell did not. I mean the writing is well done, Steinbeck created one of the best literary pairs ever written and managed to have the most perfect moment of foreshadowing I've ever read (in the form of a dog, so animal lovers beware!). I'm very glad I read it and genuinely liked the book. Enjoyment though? No, no and no.

Do I have anything else to add? Not really. It's a short review, because there's really not much I can say that hasn't already been said. I could address how Curley's wife is annoyingly only called Curley's wife despite being a main character, and the treatment she's given in the book… but I think this is entirely because Steinbeck is showing her only from the point of view of his characters. This is further reinforced by an article I saw in which it discussed how he wrote to Claire Luce, the actress who originated the role on stage saying the following about the character: "She is a nice, kind girl and not a floozy. No man has ever considered her as anything except a girl to try to make... As to her actual sex life — she has had none except with Curley and there has probably been no consummation there since Curley would not consider her gratification and would probably be suspicious if she had any." So I guess mission accomplished in showing how others viewed her, but also a bit of a failure if that was his real aim for the character (though I do love his jab at Curley there).

Will I read more Steinbeck in the future? Sure! I apparently like sliding down the rain slick precipice of despair, so why the hell not? 4/5 stars.

"Tell me what you told me before...about them rabbits"

عزیز نسین: آدم‌ها به مرور زمان دروغ‌های خودشان را باور می‌کنند

همه‌مون می‌دونیم عاقبت سگ دو زدن به کجا میرسه ولی باز هروز شروع میکنیم به سگ دو زدن. چون یه امید لعنتی هست که میگه یک روز خوب میاد و ما خودمون رو بند کردیم به این روز خوب که هرگز هم نمیاد.
استاین‌بک اینا رو دیده و ازش کتاب ساخته اما خود کارگرا فک نکنم خستگی امونشون داده باشه که یه کم با مغزشون ور برن و به این حقایق برسن: به اینکه هرروز خدا(شایدم شیطان) باید کار کنن و وقتی حقوقشان را سر ماه گرفتن، تنها کاری که می‌تونند با این حقوق شندرغاز بکنن اینه که یه شب برن به عیاشی و قماربازی و پول و پله رو بر باد بدن. برای دمی خوش‌ند اما میلیون‌ها میلیون دمِ دیگر باز کارگرند و مشغول سگ‌ دو زدن

اگه این امید لعنتی تو وجودمون نبود الان شاید...

A book I'd read an awfully long time ago, when pocket calculators were still the latest thing.
Such an iconic staple of American literature, wherein George and Lennie, migrant labourers in the Cali dustbowl, form an unlikely bond in a tale of brutality and tenderness.
Typical of Steinbeck, his 'no-fucking-about' narrative fast-tracks his examination of human morality, culminating in a story that has since been immortalised on film and stage.
Steinbeck strived for gritty realism and wrote about a time and a place, with all of its triumphs and evils. Hidden messages shadow the narrative, chiefly one of morality. He depicted an America that existed, not the one that he would have liked.

'Of Mice and Men', more a play than a novella, takes us to the sunny California, to the era of the Great Depression. There is no hope under the Californian sun, it's a land where thousands of homeless and lonely Georges, Lennies, Candies and many others move from one ranch to another in search of a temporary job, food and a bed. It's everyday struggle. There is no place for the warmth of human connection, friendship, empathy and kindness. Only few of them are lucky to have a friend, like George and Lennie, for some (like Candy) a dog is their family, but the majority are just on their own against the whole world in this never-ending marathon.
Because it is a race, only the strongest survive. The old dog and her cripple owner don't stand a chance. As for Lennie, reading the novella was a stressful experience to me because I was very worried something bad would happen to him and it did. Lennie was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The end of the story is heartbreaking
The survival has a price - shattered dreams and the hope for a better tomorrow.

'Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world.'
------------------------------------------------------------------
'Maybe ever'body in the whole damn world is scared of each other.'
------------------------------------------------------------------
'Nobody never gets to heaven, and nobody gets no land. It's just in their head.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
'As happens sometimes, a moment settled and hovered and remained for much more than a moment. And sound stopped and movement stopped for much, much more than a moment.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
'His ear heard more than was said to him, and his slow speech had overtones not of thought, but of understanding beyond thought.'

Sometimes people can do awful things, sometimes they mean it, and sometimes they don't.

In this novel we learn the story of "George" and "Lennie". Two wandering day laborers traveling together; from work to work, from trouble to trouble. One small and cunning; the other giant, and retarded. Working from city to city, from field to field, but always protecting each other. A dream pushes them forward, work the fields until one day have enough to purchase a small farm of their own. A place where George can work the land, and Lennie tend the rabbits. But there are difficulties, Lennie in his brutish innocence tends to get himself into serious problems, and more often that not, both.

A short but very memorable read from the famed Pulitzer winner John Steinbeck. A little 100p novella about the unbreakable bonds of friendship, and the cruelties of a sometimes hostile rural world.

**** One of those very few exceptions where the movie may actually match the book. John Steinbeck creates two immortal characters, but the movie (1992) gives them a real palpable soul. Mainly due to the exceptional performance of John Malkovich, and a very remarkable Gary Sinise. Brilliant book-to-film adaptation.



-----------------------------------------------
n  PERSONAL NOTEn:
[1937] [103p] [Fiction] [3.5] [Recommendable]
-----------------------------------------------

★★★★☆  Of Mice and Men.  [3.5]
���★☆☆☆  Flight.

-----------------------------------------------

A veces la gente puede hacer cosas terribles, a veces lo hacen a propósito, y a veces no.

En esta novela conocemos la historia de "George" y "Lennie". Dos jornaleros errantes viajando juntos; de trabajo en trabajo, de problema en problema. Uno pequeño y astuto, otro gigante y retardado. Trabajando de ciudad en ciudad, de campo en campo, pero siempre protegiéndose el uno al otro. Un sueño los motiva a seguir juntos, trabajar los campos hasta algún día tener lo suficiente para comprar una pequeña parcela propia. Un lugar donde George pueda trabajar la tierra, y Lennie cuidar de los conejos. Pero existen dificultades, Lennie en su bruta inocencia tiende a meterse en serios aprietos... y más que a menudo, a ambos.

Una lectura corta pero muy memorable del afamado ganador del Pulitzer John Steinbeck. Una pequeña novella de 100p sobre los fuertes lazos de la amistad, y las crueldades en un mundo campestre a veces hostil.

*** Una de esas pequeñas excepciones donde la película tal vez supera la obra escrita. John Steinbeck crea dos personajes inmortales, pero la película (1992) les otorga un alma real. Principalmente gracias a las actuación excepcional de John Malkovich, y un muy destacado Gary Sinise. Brillante adaptación de cine.



-----------------------------------------------
n  NOTA PERSONALn:
[1937] [103p] [Ficción] [3.5] [Recomendable]
-----------------------------------------------