BookTalk.org

Steinbeck raises some uneasy questions about the nature of compassion in Of Mice and Men, and I'd be interested in sounding out the community's thoughts on what Steinbeck is conveying about natural law and damaged human beings. We can see a foreshadowing of the problem, in terms of George's emotional investment in protecting Lennie from real world cruelty, in Candy's attachment to his old dog, which Carlson executes out of mercy, and the men support him on this; we still do this for our pets today, and George is conflicted about treating Lennie the same way. The film adaptation with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich sanitizes the novel a little, but still suggests that euthanasia is the greater mercy over and above imprisonment and medical model systems we use today.

Is Steinbeck right? The disability activist in me says Steinbeck's literary genius is dangerous; the writer in me finds his vision disturbing, particularly as when poised against modern geriatrics and the nightmare of warehousing people who would not be alive but for aggressive intervention.

I'd be particularly interested in Murrill's views, but also those who appreciate what Steinbeck represented in the depression era. Thoughts?

This is "taboo" much like cannibalism or abortion. It's a dream to say that this is something not to be melted down and categorized or something that should be handled very close to the smallest scale possible and kept as far away from 'law' but it just can't be with the society we have engineered. There must be laws. Human beings are protected and humanity is trampled upon but it's the way things must be.

On a small scale this is seen in the short story. You have a man, a human being, that knows no better. He doesn't intend to cause the harm he inflicts but he is ultimately held responsible for it as he should be by standards enumerated through laws which all must obey. Not even that... murder is THE crime. Punishment for murder most likely goes back before the written word. Anyway, this is the way we operate. His death was inevitable after he took a life. That his (family) friend was the executioner was a heartbreak to George.

This story, in my opinion, should have centered around the death of the dog. It would have been great if it did. To compare a man to a dog is to compare apples and oranges in my book. There are healthy humans and there are healthy dogs. If you're thinking something like "well that's the point!" then your argument is lost on me as cold hearted as that sounds. He was a kept human being, much like a dog.

I hate to sound horrid as I usually do but I don't mind voicing my opinion. I know your situation and I understand the enormous amount of empathy which you may have for an individual such as Lennie.

This man would have been kept as a dog would have. He would have been used as a dog would have (companion, worker). But the second he destroyed he would have had to have been destroyed himself. He was put down in a more humane way than most criminals are - by the hand of family.

This story can be taken down to pieces as far as George feeling like he owed society more than he owed his brother. That maybe he was tired of trying to help his friend... drinking and working and old age were taking a tole. He couldn't have the liability anymore. He needed to kill Lennie to be free of him and used the cover of justice. Whatever.

The bottom line is that the man killed. Yes, he was kept like a dog but he was a man. It's funny, but when it comes to murder of people there are the same standards for men as there are for dogs for the most part.

Anyway, I don't think this story was very remarkable at all. If it had been centered around the dog it would have been great.

You both raise some interesting points. I haven't read Of Mice and Men in years. Perhaps it would make a good selection for our next Fiction read.

I disagree about centring the story around Candy's dog's death. The dogs death played an important part in the story, mainly to foreshadow what would happen to Lennie. Due to his mild mental disability, Lennie completely depends upon George, his friend and traveling companion, for guidance and protection. Although he frequently speaks of how much better his life would be without his caretaking responsibilities, George is obviously devoted to Lennie and Candy's regret that he didn't kill his dog himself is what leads George to make the decision to kill Lennie himself.

"The film adaptation with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich sanitizes the novel a little, but still suggests that euthanasia is the greater mercy over and above imprisonment and medical model systems we use today."

I dont think Steinbeck had George kill Lennie as a greater mercy or because he had a disability. Throughout the story the two men talk about their dream of a farm of their own. George tells this story of their future to Lennie over and over, but it is clear that George's own belief in this story relies heavily on Lennie too. By shooting Lennie, George spares his friend the merciless death that would be delivered by Curley’s gang, but he also puts to rest his dream of their future dream ever coming to anything. He simply couldn't allow anyone else to kill him.

Luckybutton wrote:"The film adaptation with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich sanitizes the novel a little, but still suggests that euthanasia is the greater mercy over and above imprisonment and medical model systems we use today."

I dont think Steinbeck had George kill Lennie as a greater mercy or because he had a disability. Throughout the story the two men talk about their dream of a farm of their own. George tells this story of their future to Lennie over and over, but it is clear that George's own belief in this story relies heavily on Lennie too. By shooting Lennie, George spares his friend the merciless death that would be delivered by Curley’s gang, but he also puts to rest his dream of their future dream ever coming to anything. He simply couldn't allow anyone else to kill him.

Lucky, one does get from the novel, (much less tangible in the Sinise film), that the farm serves as a metaphor, not simply as an Eden, but as a source of hope for these men with their burdens. Candy, it must be remembered, is also lame, but the novel implies he will be left to rot, much like what he was attenpting to bestow on the old dog.

What I am driving at is that Steinbeck quite successfully sets up a number of contradictory values in the novel that still plague independent living model systems and disability activism in contemporary terms (no need to acknowledge "my situation" I think the text creates its own debate that can then be applied).

Lennie did, in fact, create a situation where the idyll of the farm could not exist, and so the dream perished with him, I agree, but that is an easy way to extract oneself from the nearly insoluble tensions of the story. (It is, by the way, very difficult to crush a man's fist as Lennie does to Curly, so I find a hint of the romanticism surrounding Quasimodo in Lennie, as well, bordering on the fantastic.)

I think one of Steinbeck's main points was all men prey on the weak, even the weak. Take Crooks. He criticizes Lennie’s dream of the farm and how much he depends on George, after he has admitted his own vulnerabilities—he is a black man with a crooked back who longs for companionship—Crooks zeroes in on Lennie’s own weaknesses. In this Steinbeck suggests that strength itself comes from weakness- Crooks doesnt seem as strong anywhere else in the story as when he has practically reduced Lennie to tears.

Your right in the farm being a symbol of hope for the men... not just being able to fend for themselves but be protected from the cruelties of powerful men like Curly...all the other men are sucked into the dream, even Crooks. For Candy who does fear his age is making him useless its an opportunity for happy end to his life, he offers his life saving's to join them. In this dream ending with Lennies death Steinbeck is writing of the impossibility of the American dream. If you look at the location and time the story was set, many farmers were heading to California to work due to a drought in the great plains. These migrant worker were treated with cruelty and scorn by the Californians, and Steinbeck echo's their plight in this book.

I finished the novel two nights ago, and do not remember the Clara/ giant rabbit end of life monologues in the Sinise adaptation, but I think Steinbeck veers slightly to the fantastic to make the tragedy palatable. Can anyone talk about the earlier film?

I am going to link this discussion to my blog, as I will have more constructs to offer in building a thesis. Do Cam or Lucky have a problem if I refer to their posts, or anyone else that has an opinion?