Essay On The Relationship Between George And Lennie

1124 Words3 Pages

The novella focuses on the dream shared by George and Lennie, which emphasizes upon their independence of other people other than each other. In this sense, they appear to be much more capable of fulfilling their American Dream than others. The reception to George and Lennie’s kinship further draws attention to the difference between the partners and the rest of the workforce, putting attention upon their desolated lifestyles and the social (or more appropriately, antisocial) lifestyles of the men of the day (Goldhurst 52). Steinbeck reinforces this idea through repetitive dialogue between the two characters, which stresses upon their relationship: “But not us! An’ why? Because…because I got you to look after me, and you got me to look after …show more content…

Lennie and George thus represent the two standing conflicts as Lennie represents the need for companionship as shown through his inclination to touch soft animals and objects which “symbolizes the yearning all men have for warm, living contact” (“Bloom’s Guides” Owen 85). George, on the other hand, through his implications of being free from Lennie and the responsibility of being his keeper, is suggested to be man’s wish to be independent and illustrates his ultimate fate to live in solitude. Steinbeck creates an absolute contrast between the two without a potential of being able to coincide, suggesting that there is no compromise to obtain both. Hadella calls attention to the story of Curley’s wife in which the author reasserts the need for man’s companionship (151). Throughout the course of the story, Curley’s wife serves a prime example of man’s unsatisfactory isolated lifestyle as she constantly searches for companionship among the farm tenants, all to no avail. Eventually her search comes to a halt when her drive for her desires ultimately causes her …show more content…

One critic recognizes Steinbeck’s approach to the futile dream of achieving the happy medium by comparing George and Lennie’s relationship to the psychological components of the appetite and reason (Goldhurst 57). Hadella reinforces this idea, suggesting that as the appetite, Lennie acts without reason, thus explaining the violent outbursts and feats he performs throughout the novella (152) whereas George acts as Lennie’s guide and ensures the safety for the two of them. Through Lennie’s death, the author illustrates that the relationship between appetite and reason are not of equal standings and that, in the end, one eventually domineers over the other. The death of Lennie as the portrayal of man’s relations could also be seen as a continuation of the curse as Owens suggests (“Bloom’s Guides” 84). Companionship is essentially unattainable within the setting of the novella Of Mice and Men suggestively due to man’s desolate fate based on the story of Cain and Abel. Due to the impossible obtainment of a compromise between companionship and independence, fate conclusively takes its toll on Lennie, doubling as the

Open Document