I think there are many big questions posed by this story, questions about racism, sexism, loneliness, and questions too about the american dream. But perhaps the most important, most essential question is about alienation, namely why do we choose to alienate certain types of people, and what are the consequences of that alienation, for those people, and for society in a broader sense?
For example, Curley's Wife is alienated because she's the only woman on the ranch, and because she's the wife of the boss' jealous son and so the other men can't talk to her for fear of losing their jobs. She is, therefore, alienated because she is perceived as the property of Curley - significantly she is given no name in the novel, but is known only as Curley's Wife, a name which defines her as the property of her husband. She has no voice of her own, and nobody to talk to ("her words tumbled out in a passion of communication, as though she hurried before her listener could be taken away" - Chapter 5). She has also become used to the fact that her appearance is often the only thing that men pay any attention to. Steinbeck explained the consequences of this in a letter to an actress playing Curley's Wife on stage (see below for a web-link) In all of these ways (seen as belonging to a man, not listened to, judged by her appearance) she represents the average woman in 1920s America - defined as lesser than men because of the sex they were born to.
Curley's Wife suffers, because of her alienation, a profound loneliness and sadness ("I never get to talk to nobody. I get awful lonely" - Chapter 5). And so, for the same reason, does Crooks (''Guys don’t come into a colored man’s room very much” - Chapter 4). Although Crooks is alienated of course because of the colour of his skin, something that he was born into and had no choice over, just as Curley's wife was born into and had no choice about her sex. This novel was written decades before the civil rights movement in America, at a time when black people were treated in many ways as sub-human, as shown in the novel by Crooks living in the harness room, a room meant for animals. Notice too how Crooks, like Curley's Wife, is not known by his own name. He, like Curley's Wife is denied the individuality that comes with a name, and in this way Steinbeck signals what happens to those people who we, as a society decide to alienate and marginalise. It's one of the biggest ironies in the book, that those who are most alone because of their imposed alienation, are at the same time denied any individuality. They are instead judged according to a set of baseless stereotypes attached to the group to which they belong - women on one hand, and black people on the other.
So to return to the essential question: why do we alienate certain types of people and what are the consequences of that alienation? I think that in answer to the first part of that question Steinbeck might be trying to say that, in most cases, we alienate certain people for no good reason at all, but only because they are are seen as belonging to a group. I think Steinbeck would ask us to judge a person's value based on their own behaviour and actions, and not on the behaviour and actions associated with their grouping. And if we were to do this, we would probably find that the stereotypes surrounding those groups would soon collapse. The second part of the question, about the consequences of alienation, has two answers. The first is that the consequence for the individuals alienated is undeserved loneliness, anguish and sadness. The second answer is that this alienation creates a more divisive, hostile society for everyone. In the words of Slim (the voice of reason in the story), "Maybe ever'body in the whole damn world is scared of each other . . . (guys) get mean. They get wantin' to fight all the time" and "Maybe ever'body in the whole damn world is scared of each other" (Chapter 3)
Steinbeck's letter: http://www.hellesdon.org/documents/missluce.pdf.
One essential question of John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, published in 1937 is under what circumstances mercy killing is justified. This question is demonstrated by the protagonists George Milton and Lennie Small, an unlikely friendship that is forged out of their mutual ill-fated circumstances as migrant workers amid the Great Depression and dust bowl landscape. They are going to work on a farm in Salinas, California (the home of John Steinbeck), as many migrant workers fled to California in search of work, encountering meager wages and larger, mechanized farms.
Lennie is the physically larger of the two, and is mentally retarded, which compromises his situation even more than his financial limitations do. For this reason, George Milton takes care of him, as he promised Lennie's Aunt Clara that he would do so. George nobly assumes this charge, giving Lennie (and himself) hope by speaking of a ranch that they will both have one day.
Lennie accidentally kills a puppy owing to his brute force, and, despite his retardation, he realizes his mistake, and says,
"Why do you got to get killed? You ain't so little as mice. I didn't bounce you hard." He bent the pup's head up and looked in its face, and he said to it, "Now maybe George ain't gonna let me tend no rabbits, if he fin's out you got killed." (Chapter 5).
Lennie then tries to cover the puppy in a mound of hay, knowing the error of his ways. This death foreshadows his accidental killing of a human, Curley's wife (who has no name, which positions her narratively for an obvious death).
In the novel's final, poignant scene, Lennie sees a vision of his aunt, chastising him for doing "bad things" (Chapter 6). When George appears to join at him at the camp, Lennie pitifully implores, "You ain't gonna leave me, are ya, George? I know you ain't." Meanwhile, a giant rabbit--an absurdist representation of Lennie's own conscious--says that George will indeed leave him, and calls Lennie a "crazy bastard." The imaginary rabbit's calling Lennie crazy in some ways formally sanctions George's killing. George has demonstrated for the novel's duration his unabated commitment to Lennie's care, even if the face of consistent misfortunes caused by the unwitting Lennie. Only when Lennie faces the justice of Curley and the authorities for the death of Curley's wife does George take the initiative of killing his friend and charge. His good intentions are evidenced in his final words to Lennie. He encourages Lennie to think about the ranch they will have together, and declares that "'Ever'body gonna be nice to you. Ain't gonna be no more trouble. Nobody gonna hurt nobody nor steal from 'em.'" (Chapter 6). Slim, who also works on the farm alongside them, assures George that he did what he had to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment