Of Mice and Men “online” discussion ideas-BLOCK 3
It’s really no surprise that Lennie kills Curley’s wife. Why should the reader not be shocked? Discuss the clues
Steinbeck provided through the book to hint that death was possible.
Number of
Respondents
It is no suprise that Lennie killed Curley's wife, he alaways has touched sorft things. So
when Curley's wide asked him to touch her hair that he pats it to hard and make her
scream, which in turn, creates a situation in which Lennie is frighteded and kills her. Also,
when in Crooks room he gets angered fast and cannot control himself, which could be a
forshadowing of this.
It's no surprise because Lennie has been show to have a past of unintentional violence and
disturbance of personal space. This shown by Steinbeck when we discover that Lennie has
had a track record of killing mice and dogs by accident. He also had to flee from Weed
because he grabbed onto a girl's dress who later claimed Lennie raped her.
Lennie is a big and strong man who can't control his strength. Lennie has previously killed
animals due to a lack of control and he even broke Curley's hand by simply squeezing it.
Also to add, Steinbeck alludes to a confrontation between Curley's wife and Lennie due to
interactions between them in the beginning of the novela.
LEnnie kills most things thst he comes into contact with. HE kills the mouse the puppy, and
he almost kills Curley. LEnnie is also attracted to Curley's wife and to soft items like her
hair.
The reader should not be really shocked because when Lennie tries to "touch" things he
likes, he panics when they struggle and tries to grasp tighter which ends up in death for the
thing he is holding.
The reader should not be shocked because Lennie was always attracted to Curley's wife. On
top of that, his mental intellect does not allow him to systematically think through situations
which is evident when he grabs her hair and doesn't let go.
The reader should not be shocked because Steinbeck provides multiple clues throughout the
novel that hint at Lennie's ability to kill a person. An example of this is when he got in the
fight with Curley. He couldn't control his actions and stop crushing his hand. He did not
quite know what he was doing and inflicted more damage than intended. Also, throughout
the book,Lennie kills multiple creatures, his accidental victims slowly getting larger. He
starts with killing mice as a child, then a puppy, and finally Curley's wife. Lastly, George
hints at the beginning of the novel that Curley's wife is trouble, and could bring trouble to
the two of them. This foreshadows the trouble to come.
This isn't incredibly suprising because of Lennie's tendency kill anything soft and George's
ominous warnings. George, after first meeting Curly's wife, says "'I seen 'em poison before,
but I never seen no piece of jail bait worse than her. You leave her be'" (Steinbeck 32). This
is foreshadowing to potential conflict. Also, Lennie has killed mice, rabbits given to him from
Aunt Clara, and his little puppy. Furthermore, he fondled a girl's dress. These are all signs of
destruction when Lennie gets his hand on anything soft. The moment Curly's wife says her
hair is soft, the reader immediatly connects Geroge's warnings and Lennie's previous
actions.
Throughout the book there are many hints that predict the death of Curley's wife at the
hands of Lennie. He is characterized as a childish, giant who doesn't know his own strength;
and locks up in times of terror. The book starts off with Geoge and Lennie running away
from trouble caused be Lennie allegedly assulting a girl. Another supporting piece of
evidence is that Curley's wife is always where she shouldn't or where she is not welcome.
From the beginning Lennie is fascinated by her beauty and George discourages him from
contacting or even at her because he has a strage perspective of her motives.
Throughout the book, Steinbeck gives clues about how violent Lennie could be by describing
how Lennie would always kill the mice when he went to pet them, indicating aggressive
behavior. Also, when George and Lennie were in Weed, he came up to that girl to feel how
soft her dress was, because he was attracted to soft objects. Furthermore, Lennie becomes
more violent throughout the book, attacking Curley, and lashed out at Crooks. Therefore, it
should be no surprise that Lennie killed Curley's wife because she was wearing a soft dress
and Lennie is overly aggressive and can't control himself.
We could tell that this was likely to occur from past events in the book. When George
Percent
reminded Lennie of the Mice he killed and also when Lennie snapped his puppy's neck, it
showed a lack of control. It also showed how he was killing larger and larger creatures.
When it recalled his past encounter with a girl, he found it hard to control himself around
her and, although he didn't kill her, it is an example of how he could let his desires get the
better of him. Lennie shows interest in Curley's wife when he describes her as "purty",
foreshadowing the events to come.
Explain Lennie’s visions of Aunt Clara and the giant rabbit. What do they really seem to reflect? (Hint: Notice the
pattern of Aunt Clara’s speech. Sounds familiar…)
Number of
Respondents
Percent
Lennie has visions of his Aunt Clara and the giant rabbit when he is in hiding after killing
Curley's wife. This reflects that Lennie's mental disability probably was a familial ordeal
because his Aunt Clara talked and had the same exact tone as Lennie.
Question 3 (Free response)
8 of 12 respondents answered this question.
Why should it not be surprising that George kills Lennie?
Number of
Respondents
George is always trying to prtoect Lennie. He wants to give Lennie a quick death with no
fear, unlike Curley and Carlson. This is why George soothes Lennie with the story of their
ranch.
George spends much of his time complaining about how much better his life would be
without Lennie. The death was also foreshadowed with the killing of Candy's dog, which
was loyal to Candy in the way that Lennie was loyal to George.
It is foreshadowed by the idea that candy's dog is shot when it isn't good to itself anymore.
Also, george cares a great deal about Lennie and doesn't want him to hurt anymore people
including Lennie himself.
It is not a suprise because we already knew that Lennie had a hard time controling his
anger and emotions so him killing her did not come as a a suprise. Also, when Carlson
killed Candy's dog that was a blunt foreshadowing to Geoerge killing Lennie in the end.
Furthermore, we knew that George's life would have been easier without Lennie getting in
the way, so when George pulled the trigger we almost knew that it was coming. George
will be able to live a better and easier life while Lennie will be in a "better place."
It is not surprising because throughout the novel, George repeatedly says how he wishes
he could go on with life without Lennie, and how much better it would be. Lennie is also
shown to be a threat to others becuase of his inablilty to recognize that he is doing
something wrong. Ultimately, George knows that at some point he has to be the one to kill
Lennie; he could've known for a long time.
It should not be surprising that George kills Lennie because George gets aggravated with
Lennie because of his failure to remember important things. Also, that George has
continued to get fired from multiple jobs because of Lennie's mistakes. George has always
believed that he could make a life of his own and be successful, but Lennie continues to get
in his way of reaching the "American Dream".
It's not surprising that George kills Lennie because even in the beginning of the book it is
mentioned that George feels he'd be better off without Lennie. Also, towards the end it is
shown that Lennie is indeed a danger to himself. This is because he can't distinguish right
from wrong or understand how society works.
The relationship between George and Lennie emulates Candy and his dog in the fact that
George takes care of him. Even though they share a bond taking care of Lennie it takes a
toll on George as it did with Candy and his dog so he in a sense also put Lennie out of his
misery. George felt obligated to kill Lennie because he saw how it affected Candy when he
did not kill his own dog.
Percent
top
Question 4 (Free response)
5 of 12 respondents answered this question.
Explore the significance of the last two lines.
Number of
Respondents
Percent
It undermines the worth of Lennie, since they don't even acknowledge his death. Curley
and Carlson are not upset at all at the death of a man. They think of him more as an
animal that had to be put down, and can't understand why Slim and George would be
upset.
The last two lines illustrate the utter ignorance of Carlson and Curley. Carlson says," Now
what the hell do you suppose is eating those two?" (Steinbeck 107). This shows ignorance
because Carlson is asking Curley what is wrong with George right after he killed his
traveling partner who he has always looked after. George was shaken up, yet Carlson and
Curley failed to realize.
The last two lines show how different the characters are. Curly and Carlson are completely
insenitive to what George had to do to Lennie. They miss how close George and Lennie
were and fail to see the significance of shooting Lennie to George. Slim, however, knows
exactly why George is upset. He knows that George did this to protect Lennie from being
lynched or locked into jail. Also, Carlson had the same reaction to shooting Candy's dog:
indifference. This closes the loop of Lennie being compared to an animal.
The last two lines shows the lack of respect for human life shown by curley and carlson
throughout the novel. they don't think that lennie's death is such a big deal and dom't
understand why the others are upset.
Throughout the novela, Carlson and Curley mention that Lennie and George traveling
together is a strange thing. They do not understand the significance of a human
companion. The last lines simply emphasize this because the two farm hands don't
understand why george is so sullen.
Total
top
Question 5 (Free response)
6 of 12 respondents answered this question.
The play begins and ends in the same place, having taken place over three days. Why did Steinbeck structure the
novel that way?
Number of
Respondents
Ending and starting the novel in the same place over a short period of time nicely wraps up
the book and weaves in all the loose ends with a setting of familiarity to the reader. This
also shows that things are never set in stone and can change dramatically in a short
amount of time. One can go from a dream to a nightmare in the blink of an eye as this
happened to Lennie and George. They escaped trouble with the law, obtained a job, and
had a set future dream but it all came crashing down on themselves when George shoots
his one and only friend.
It gives closure to the play version of the story, it creates a sense of recollection and it
makes you think of all the things that have happened prior to this moment.
Over a span of three days George and Lennie take on a new job, hoping to stay there for a
while and obtain a lot of money in order for them to reach their ultimate goal, which is to
live on their own land and that they don't have to take orders from anyone. The
significance of the book ending in the same location is that, throughout the whole story
that Lennie set George back on reaching his goal. So, ultimately when the story ends, both
literally and figuratively George ends up in the same place that he started in. Literally
being in the location, and figuratively starting back from scratch and having to restart on
his own to try and reach his dream.
Steinbeck may be trying to tie the story together by having the novel end up in the same
Percent
place that it started. He could have been telling a message as well in that if you are not
careful, you could end up right where you started.
Stienbeck begins and ends the novel in the same spot so the stage crew working the play
does not have to create too many backgrounds.
This reflects Lennie's and George's lifestyle, which is constantly on the move and changing.
They never are able to settle down into a job because Lennie gets into trouble. By closing
the story where the story started wraps up this temperary job adequately, completing the
circle. It ties the beginning to the end, making the extensive description in the beginning
not appear meaningless.
top
Question 6 (Free response)
6 of 12 respondents answered this question.
Consider the one female character and the other females mentioned. What do you think critics have to say about
Steinbeck’s view of women based on these portrayals?
Number of
Respondents
Percent
Based off of Curley's wife and her mom that was mentioned, Steinbeck inferes that women
are overbearing and attention lusting objects that simply want to be recognized/adored.
Based on his portrayal of female characters, Steinbeck didn't view women as very
important. There are only a few women in the entire novel. Curley's wife, being most
important, doesn't even have a name. She is treated more like a possession than a person,
as her importance lies only in her death and the trouble she causes trying to be noticed.
Aunt Clara, the only other specified female, is only a figure of Lenie and George's past, and
Lennie cannot even remember her. Lastly, the men frequent a cat house, where they
spend much of their money. The women here are the only others in the novel, and they are
thought of only a way for the men to spend their time.
Steinbeck's portrayal of women is very dergatory because all of the main women
mentioned in the story have no name or do not physically appear in the story. The fact that
Cruley's wife doesn't even have a mentioned name shows how Steinbeck views women.
The critics could argue that this is sexist.
Steinbeck's view on woman seems to be sexist. This is because in the entire novel, Curley's
wife was never mentioned by her real name. This reduces her sense of being an
indpendant person as she is identified by her marriage to Curley. Also, Steinbeck mentions
the whorehouse on multiple occasions which lessens the morals and purposes of women,
as he sees them as just whores.
Steinbecks's view of women is consistent throughout the novel and can be interpreted by
readers as sexism and belittlement of the opposite sex. The only place that women are
refernced in the book are in cathouses where women are only seen as toys for men in their
spare time, and Curley's wife. His wife never recieves a name and is only seen as an object
of Curley, not her own person. The men try to avoid her as she is seen as a temptrest and
started of trouble as she is never where society deems it fit for her to be.
The way women are portrayed in the novel shows that Steinbeck didn't view them as a
crucial part in life and his novel. This is because the only female character in the book
didn't have a name besides "Curley's Wife." Also, besides Curley;s wife, there were no
other female characters. He mentioned the woman that Lennie grabbed, but not in
significant detail. The lack of female presense in the movel shows that he wanted to focus
more on the life of working men and didn't think that making women main characters
would be important.
top
Question 7 (Free response)
10 of 12 respondents answered this question.
We’ve talked about this as a short novel as well as some of the apparent hints at drama conventions. Do you think a
staged version would be “better?” Or are you Team Novel?
Number of
Respondents
Percent
A novel version of the book would be better because in novels, you can see beyond the
physic asthetics and learn more about the character's thoughts. Also, in movies, many
symbols can be lost in the lack of items or people.
A staged version would be a better version, because during a play it portrays more visual
aspects for the audience. Sounds, images, voices, and emotions are easily shown in plays
and are easier for the audience to pick up the tone and mood. Plays also tend to show
conflict better because they have to display the conflict visually instead of hiding it within
words, which helps the audience pick up on the storyline more.
For Mice of Men we feel that it could be written as a play, or staged. With so much dialouge
and sounds that could be recreated it would be easy to do as a play . It is also already
written mostly as a play with stage directions already somewhat put into the book.
I think that sticking with Team Novel is better because the play would not be able to
portray all aspects of the novel. For instance, the desplay of power as shown be Curly's
wife cannot be converted to play becasue the author wrote very little and left much to the
ideas of the reader for how she yelled and got mad.
Seeing a stageed version of the play would allow readers to see the landscape and
charcters that Steinbeck has vividly described in his novela. Steinbeck has laready set up
the novel in a way that makes it easily adaptable into a play and therefore viewers would
not miss out on many of the key aspects of Mice and Men.
We believe that this book would be better portaryed in a play. We think this because the
chaacters could show more facial expressions and body language than the 107 page book
could potay. Dramatic scenes with dramatic pauses and long periods of silence would be
more affective at capturing the audience and displaying the scene.
We personally like the Novel version. Certain things were lost in the staged version like the
snapping of the cards, it was hard to hear it and the effect was lost. Visual elements were
lost as well, like in Crooks' room. I wouldn't have noticed a dictionary or the Civil Code,
thus the effect was again lost.
We think that the staged version would be better. It would help to visualize some of the
events more. Also, the movie clips that we watched seemed more helpful to understand
than the book did.
We would prefer the novel because it highlights the symbolism and imagry more
effectively. When Candy talks about wanting a purpose, it is more effective when read.
Also, the extensive description of Crooks's room gives a lot of insight, which is lost a bit in
the theater. Lastly, the language is easier to follow in words and appears more "classicly"
written.
We would say that the novel would be better over a staged version. This is because, in a
playwright, there would be little attention payed to the symbolisim found in the book. Also,
in the novel it is easier to delve into the setting and build upon mood/characterization. This
is because plays are restriceted to a simple stage with spoken words and a novel is
restricted by nothing but the words you chose.
top
Question 8 (Free response)
1 of 12 respondents answered this question.
Some critics have explored the “Edenic myth” woven into the play. Could you explain what they mean by that
allusion?
Number of
Respondents
We connected the home that George and Lennie want to the Garden of Eden. The Garden
of Eden is told to be a paradise within the bible; a retreat and a place for rest. The place
that Lennie and George want to buy is somewhat equal to that, being a place where they
could live and relax and do as they please.
Percent