The literary genre of the novel has been distinctly established throughout the centuries as a «work of narrative fiction, typically written in prose» [1]. There is a fair amount of debate surrounding the origins of this particular literary form, yet, the famous «Don Quixote», written by Miguel de Cervantes, is frequently cited as the first significant European novel of the modern era [2]. His tradition, inherited by the literary world all over the globe, flourished and gave birth to distinctive works of fiction that have gone one to achieve profound recognition in their respective countries. Thus, it is important to examine the defining features of such novels so as to comprehend their superiority to many other representatives of this popular genre.
The authors of this article propose a hypothesis stating that the usage of storytelling devices that predominantly center around the bonds between characters in a novel is one of the features that tend to spell a cult classic status. Among major character-driven novels is «Of Mice and Men» by John Steinbeck, and as such is shall serve as the object of our analysis in this article.
If one were to survey a hundred American adults on the subject of how familiar they are with John Steinbeck’s bibliography, one would be sure to discover that every single respondent (barring, perhaps, recent immigrants) has read the novel «Of Mice and Men». The reason for such universal knowledge of this novel in the United States is obvious: it has been an integral part of the reading curriculum in American schools for decades now. Now, by and large, the books that make it onto the obligatory curriculum are nationally regarded as the building blocks of a country’s culture, as they are deemed worthy to serve as a child’s guide to a deeper understanding of the world around them.
Consequently, this is what Steinbeck’s «Of Mice and Men» is considered to be in the United States. So why exactly is this short novel about the Dust Bowl era so significant? Addressing this question is imperative, but for now let us concentrate on the main topic of this article: Steinbeck’s approach to storytelling. It is the «how» and the «what» that we must concern ourselves with. How did Steinbeck write his book to be the shortest yet the most faithful depiction of America during the Great Depression? What is the novel’s central character bond, which illuminates all other aspects of the story and binds them together into a comprehensive encyclopedia of human emotion?
In order to analyze these complex issues, we must turn to the very beginning of the novel, where amid the «evening of a hot day» against the backdrop of the Gabilan Mountains we are introduced to the main characters, George Milton and Lennie Small. Now, stating that the friendship between them is a considerable part of the novel’s subject matter would be nothing new. A much more profound way of reading between its lines would be recognizing how their relationship is employed by Steinbeck when it comes to talking about the harsh realities of the American working class.
The specific structure of the narrative, i.e. the way it is divided into chapters, already suggests that the novel’s protagonists are not the plot but rather the narrators. The very first chapter is wholly dedicated to fleshing out who George and Lennie are, what they are like and how they relate to each other, both through their physical interaction with one another and nature around them and, in most part, through dialogue. All of the themes which define the bond that ties the characters together throughout the storyline are touched upon here — Lennie’s mental disability coupled with his crazily enormous power and amiable helplessness, George’s instinctive sense of responsibility and brotherly devotion coupled with repressed frustration begging for release, and, finally, an unrealistic dream of having a shared farm «an’ living on the fatta the lan’». In essence, Steinbeck begins his story by purposefully focusing our attention on the two protagonists while placing them completely alone on a deserted path lined with willows and sycamores, thus forcing us to identify with them. He provides us with all the necessary exposition on both of their accounts. As a result, we enter the next chapter having subliminally adopted the point of view of George and Lennie.
Maintaining authenticity, Steinbeck never lets the reader part with the established narrators, keeping them together almost at all times; and yet the focus is subtly shifted on other characters: Candy, Slim, Crooks, Carlson, Whit, Curley, wife and etc. Unlike the first chapter, the rest of the novel almost never witnesses George or Lennie alone, quite the opposite — practically the entire plotline of their life at the ranch consists of interactions with the colorful lineup of characters present there. And it is within the seemingly trivial conversations, depicted so naturally it goes unnoticed, that the mesmerizing artfulness of Steinbeck’s storytelling is permitted to shine.
First of all, our initial understanding of George and Lennie’s bond is turned on its head by being brought out of the isolation of the first chapter into context: real circumstances of the tough lives of working-class people in the Dust Bowl era. What was previously made out to be a misfortune, a parasitical dependency between a destitute ranch hand and a grown man who is not in control of either his sheer brute force or his own head — transforms into an enviable advantage, so precious that Curly, Slim, the boss and other men have trouble believing that George has no ulterior motive and that the pair are genuinely friends. What seemed to be a sad consolation that George told himself (that the reason he could not enjoy blowing his money on pool and cathouses the way he wanted was because this way of life was for lonely unhappy ranch men) is promptly confirmed by a knowledgeable Slim, who, perhaps fulfilling authorial intent, juxtaposes Lennie and George’s exceptional bond to everybody else, saying that average working-class men «never seem to give a damn about nobody», concluding that «maybe ever’body in the whole damn world is scared of each other», whilst the protagonists «kinda look after each other».
But above all else, the idea that, via their unbreakable bond, George and Lennie are far luckier than anyone else on the farm, which, through a vast array of literary devices and character tropes, is a clear symbol for poor rural America in general, is finalized by the concept of dreams. George and Lennie’s big dream of having «that little place an’ live on the fatta the lan’ — an’ rabbits» takes on an entirely new shape overnight when it presents itself amongst those envious of their friendship: it morphs from something George was irritated to even be made to mention into something he could spend hours talking about, naming every single detail that would make their new home cozy and welcoming. Much more importantly, this «promised land» draws in Candy’s proposal to contribute, thus upgrading a dream to an actual possibility.
On the other hand, we have the dreams of everyone else, each one illustrating a particular American demographic — African-Americans, women, cripples, etc. All of them fade in Steinbeck’s hidden yet evident comparison to that of the two protagonists: they are destined to remain dreams forever. Another important comparison is made between George and Lennie and the «hunderds of men…on the ranches, with their bindles on their back an’ that same damn thing in their heads…they come, an’ they quit an’ go on; an’ every damn one of ‘em’s got a little piece of land in his head», in the words of Crooks.
By connecting the dots, the reader easily deciphers what separates George and Lennie from the rest of America, what makes them truly unique and deserving of happiness unavailable to everyone else: their togetherness, their closeness, their bond. Steinbeck majestically leads us to the conclusion that while the Great Depression may have destroyed all possible links between people, made them impoverished and isolated, while men are capable of genuine feeling and authentic connection, their dreams shall come true.
Except they never will. The moment Curly’s wife’s neck snaps, the moment George makes the decision to forever prevent all future harm that Lennie might cause, the heart-warming promise of the protagonists achieving the unattainable American dream comes crashing down. As George stands over the young girl’s body, pronouncing these words: «I think I know’d we’d never do her. He usta like to hear about it so much I got to thinking maybe we would…I’ll work my month an’ I’ll take my fifty bucks an’ I’ll stay all night in some lousy cat house…An’ then I’ll come back an’ work another month an’ I’ll have fifty bucks more», the dark, gut-wrenching realization creeps in: it was but an illusion. The dream about feeding rabbits had only ever lived in the head of Lennie, a freakishly large giant with the mind of a 5-year-old — practically, a mythical creature. When George shoots him, with their bond departs the very last hope of happiness that it promised. The last American dream in existence is finally crushed by the world’s harrowing ruthlessness.
Utilizing the ‘sacred’ bond between Lennie and George as the driving force of his storytelling, John Steinbeck lies to us, sweet-talks us, but then subverts our expectations, eventually leaving us heart-broken. His novel builds up connections only for them to lead nowhere, discusses people’s woes and grievances just to promise no relief, vows to tell a tale of accomplishment, but ends up singing an ode to collapse instead. No doubt, for a modern privileged reader exploring «Of Mice and Men» just might be the closest equivalent to walking a mile in the leaky shoes of a sun-burnt ranch hand in Soledad, California during the Great Depression. The unique irreversible catharsis this novel tricks us into is precisely what makes it so outstanding among other discussions of the Dust Bowl era.
The analysis of the distinctive features of John Steinbeck’s storytelling in «Of Mice and Men» thus allows us to draw more general conclusions about the role of character bonds in fiction, specifically, in the genre of a novel. When employed an independent device in the overall storytelling of an entire novel, character relations turn out to be a doubtlessly unique and absolutely indispensable building block of the narrative, succeeding at the seemingly unattainable goal: suspending a reader’s disbelief in the reality of the novel’s characters and their lives.
References:
- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
- Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature. Kathleen Kuiper, ed. 1995. Merriam-Webster, Springfield, Mass.
- David Wrobel; Critical Insights: Of Mice and Men. Steinbeck Review 6 June 2018; 15 (1): 67–73.
- John, Steinbeck. Of Mice and Men / Steinbeck John. — Steinbeck Centennial Edition, US / CAN Edition. —: Penguin Books, 2002.
