Based on the literary analysis of Of Mice and Men, you are to provide a critique of the argument presented in the article. If you think the author presented their argument well, you are to detail why you agree with the author and cite three specific details from the article to support your position along with corresponding examples from Of Mice and Men. If you disagree with the author, you are to state why you disagree, and present three examples from Of Mice and Men that go against the presented analysis. Also, if you disagree, you will have to state what you think is a more accurate view of George and Lennie.
37 Comments
Justin Lenard
6/1/2015 02:57:06 am
After reading the articles, I agree with Eric Martin. The Author in the article brings up great points that compare Of Mice and Men and the other stories. Such an example from the article comes from page 11 stating that, "The figures of George, Jacob, and Gilgamesh dominate each of the fraternal relationship, not by seniority but through their ability to integrate with society and play by its rules." The stories show how each leader emerges such as how George takes care of Lennie and Gilgamesh takes care of Enkidu. Both of these characters share the leader role in their stories. As for Lennie and Enkidu they share very similar characteristics. Cited from page 8 of the article, the author points out that, “Like Lennie, Enkidu is physically strong but mentally unprepared for social survival.” They both have the same traits but the difference between the characters is that Enkidu becomes a hero with Gilgamesh and Lennie dies for his stupid mistakes. As for the comparison for Of Mice and Men and Tanakh, the article states that,” When Esau complains to Jacob that he is hungry, he demands that Jacob give him some of the “red stuff,” trading his birthright for a bowl of stew (Tanakh 38).” This can be compared to how Lennie asks George for ketchup while they are making supper in the woods. Eric Martin does a great job with comparing the way George and Lennie are with the characters to the other stories and for that reason I agree with him.
Reply
Jonathan Harris
6/1/2015 02:57:41 am
I believe the author of this passage paints an accurate description of Lennie and George representing the conscious and unconscious mind - as well as, how Of Mice and Men compares to such tales as The Epic of Gilgamesh. First of all, the author states that the characters in Of Mice and Men and The Epic of Gilgamesh are bonded together by the same circumstances. He states that “All three narratives depict a character pair in which one individual, the true hero, is bonded by birth and fate to the other, the unassimilated man”. Lennie is George’s anchor while Enkidu holds down Gilgamesh. Secondly, the author states that “The Bengy-Lennie-Chief character type is a modern iteration of an ancient archetype: the unassimilated outcast or alien who represents unacceptable or unwanted urges of the unconscious mind and who—despite friendships and affections—is unable to integrate successfully into society”. That being said, Lennie was never allowed to assimilate due to his actions (which he had no control over) and his mental handicap. Not even with the help of George could he assimilate, in fact, George could hardly assimilate since Lennie kept causing problems for himself and George. Third of all, we see a very similar ending to Of Mice and Men and The Epic of Gilgamesh. In both stories, the conscious mind witnesses the last breathe of the unconscious mind and both key characters yammer on about their dreams and desires. The author states “In narrative detail and poetic imagery, theses passage presages the climactic conclusion Of Mice and Men: Lennie flees after being questioned by a woman; terrified, he moves alone through the brush along the Salinas River. His dream of tending rabbits in a happy future with George dies, like Lennie himself—and like Enkidu, who leaves his bereaved partner Gilgamesh in “misery,” muttering about failed dreams”. Last but not least, in both stories, we see the same characterization between characters. “George proves capable of negotiating, manipulating, and conducting business with surprising skill (Steinbeck 802, 842). Gilgamesh, too, is savvy, smoothing the way for his quest by manipulating the powers that be in Uruk” says the author - as well as, “Like Lennie, Enkidu is physically strong but mentally unprepared for social survival his bond with the animals of the wild is broken when a harlot (Curley’s Wife in Of Mice and Men) teaches him the ways of society.
Reply
Keira Speights
6/1/2015 03:01:04 am
I think the author did state a good argument. He said that Lennie and George are a pair and even though George didn't have the responsibility to take care of Lennie he still did because he felt as if that was his job. In the book George says he could be at a cat house or in the pool house until everyone left but he can't because he has to take care of Lennie. It wasn't his job but Lennie's Aunt Clara asked if he could look after him after she was gone because he didn't have anyone else. Steinbeck makes it more clear the way he makes the characters. He describes the characters in a way that you can most likely imagine them. Steinbeck did portray him as an animal but that's not what Lennie was. He didn't have control of his actions and he needed help with his actions. Steinbeck did describe non human like but he based it off of his actions. I do feel he could of described more humanly but he did really good with the characterization.
Reply
Tony Colucci
6/1/2015 03:41:33 am
This article was so easy to agree with that it is shocking to see the parallels compared to Gilgamesh and Genesis's tale of Jacob and Esau shown through Carl Jung's theory on the Transcendent Function (Martin, 4). In short, Of Mice And Men is the reincarnated tale of two men who have traveled together throughout several hardships in order to make a life in following their desires, with George, the civilized caretaker, and Lennie, the "'unassimilated' man enstraged in nature and society (Martin, 4)". The Epic of Gilgamesh shows this through Gilgamesh and Enkidu, who end up having to be burdens on each other's normal way of living, much like how Lennie is George's handicap. Like Lennie, Esau from the biblical tale of Genesis is able to mentally instill want on his partner, Jacob. A noticable comparison is when "Esau's appetite for 'red stuff' is echoed in Lennie's demands for ketchup in Of Mice And Men (Steinbeck, 804 and Martin, 9).
Reply
Raquel Jackson
6/1/2015 03:48:55 am
Of Mice and Men was a great, well written story that I enjoyed reading and could not seem to get enough of. I have to agree with Eric Matthew Martin and his literary analysis comparing two stories. Martin portrays "Of Mice and Men" and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" as one story. One of my favorite parts of the analysis is when Martin begins saying "..two parts of one mind, symbolically undergoing the necessary process...." In both the story and this analysis, Lennie is seen as this animalistic, crazy, "nuisance half the time" (Steinbeck,41). Martin compared Lennie and Bengy to "Shepard in an age of farming." Eric M. Martin really put a lot of thought into this to prove his point, and to show others how he compares some of the pieces of literature. "In Of Mice and Men Lennie is the character with the closest relationship to the Jungian concept of the unconscious [mind]." I really like the way Martin put thought and his ideas into his argument.
Reply
Jason Kudwa
6/1/2015 03:54:42 am
In the article, “Of Mice and Myth,” I agree with the author Eric Martin that rather of friendship, and loyalty to each other, it is more of a conscious and unconscious thought between the two main characters George and Lennie. These ideas are backed up on mythology and ancient stories told about “The Epic of Gilgamesh.” From this story, Martin brings up the similar characteristics between Enkidu and Lennie. “Enkidu is described as having a body that is “rough” and covered with matted hair (Gilgamesh 63). Just as Lennie is attracted to the solitude of the river, Enkidu had joy of the water with the herds of wild game.” (Martin 6). Martin continues on to compare the direct characterization from both stories. “). “Gilgamesh, too, is savvy, smoothing the way for his quest by manipulating the powers that be in Uruk (Gilgamesh 72).” (Martin 8). George is described to be able to control Lennie, as does Gilgamesh with Enkidu. Lennie and Enkidu can also relate by not allowing the more successful person to fully join in to a succeeding world. They are a paperweight to each character. “Similarly, both Jacob and Gilgamesh possess the power of divination, interpreting dreams (Gilgamesh 78) and seeing visions—the stairway to heaven.” (Martin 10). George, Gilgamesh, and Jacob all have the ability to interpret a separate reality into what they want to achieve in life. It’s a conscious thought, and a more challenging ideology for a person to think about. Lennie and George in “Of Mice and Men” are simply put, the personification of the conscious and unconscious mind. While Lennie does know when something is wrong, he does not think about the consequences of society and rather what is most important to him which is tending the rabbits. Eric Martin explains, in my opinion, a better insight on what “Of Mice and Men” really describes rather than the more subtle friendship, courage, or loyalty that some others may deceive from the short story.
Reply
Chad Onion
6/1/2015 03:56:15 am
After reading the article, I think the author is right. Lennie and George do not match up. George is the unconscious and Lennie is brought out as concsious. One example from the article is when Erin Curtin states "He is the shepard in an age of asrming. He is mute in a time of great debate. He is the man without power over his personal history or his place in society. " Another example would when he states "Driven by animal impulses that he is unable to control, Lennie enters the scene behind George through a brush" and "Animalistic images and asscociations are carried through the climax of the novel". Erin curtin describes the characters both in very good ways. The last example would be "Throughout, he is drawn to small creatures--mice,puppies, and rabbits---he threatens to flee the society of the ranch to live in a cave. I liked that he described them more by their actions instead of characteristicly
Reply
Amanda Bruce
6/1/2015 03:57:59 am
In my opinion, I think that the author stated a very well argument. In the article, the author explains George and Lennie’s relationship and how they act which I think all of what the author said was true. The novella Of Mice and Men are very similar to the other two novels that the author compared them to. Lennie is similar to the character Enkidu from the novel The Epic of Gilgamesh. They are both physically strong but are mentally unprepared for social survival. Gilgamesh and Endiku were just like George and Lennie. They both were together most of the time and took care of each other. It is obvious that both of these novels are alike because the two main characters are alike and the way that they were living is alike. Jacob and Esau are also like George and Lennie. Lennie gets George irritated all the time just like Esau gets Jacob irritated all the time. George takes care of Lennie just like Jacob kind of takes care of Esau. Over all, all of the novels are similar.
Reply
Jessica Bozick
6/1/2015 06:01:12 am
I agree one hundred percent with this article.I beilive that his views on things are diffrent but at the same time very good. I really liked how he compared of mice and men to the epic of gilgamesh and genesis. I feel like they and connected very well. He says that all three stories depict a character as the true hero bonded by birth and fate to the unassimilated man. I feel this is true for of mice and men becuase george is bonded to lennie with fate and he really cant leave him. I also like the way he compares the characters themselves as well. Like how he compares all three of the charcters as animal like. I know that was what stienbeck was really trying to portray lennie as throught the whole story. This as well would be a big thing to connect all the charcters because that is a very promanite trait that could define someone. Not only does he compare lennie to the other characters he compares george to the other characters. George is compared to giglamesh and jacob because they all can integrate with society and play by the rules. This is very true becauae george knows how to be a social norm while lennie on the other hand does not. In the end i feel like this article was very well written and i really like the way things are put in it.
Reply
Kara Gerniski
6/1/2015 06:33:41 am
After reading Eric Matthew Martins literary analysis "Of Mice and Myth," I would have to agree with his arguement. The author did a great job of connecting Of Mice and Men to Carl Jung, The Epic of Gilgamesh, and Genesis. In the book The Sound and the Fury and Of Mice and Men the author of the article talks about how Benjy and Lennie have many similarites. For example, how Lennie and Benjy are both outcast and represent the urges of the unconscious minds. Also, The Epic of Gilgamesh and Of Mice and Men both have men that were together since birth. In Of Mice and Men, these men are George and Lennie. Aunt Clara told George to look after Lennie for her. In The Epic of Gilgamesh, the men are Gilgamesh and Enkidu. They both have similar backgrounds. Lastly, in Genesis both Lennie and Esau both have animal like characteristics. Lennie drinks out of the water in the first chapter like an animal and Esau was born in the wilderness and acts like an animal.
Reply
Alyssa Ziemianski
6/1/2015 06:59:07 am
Reading Eric Martin’s article about “Of Mice and Men,” I would have to agree that George and Lennie are both great examples of the conscious and unconscious minds. The article gives a very good description of why George and Lennie are characterized as this. Martin says that “Lennie’s representation of the unconscious goes beyond his relationship with George” and then goes on to back up this statement by saying “Lennie has the ability to bring out the impulsiveness latent in other characters and to engage them in conversations about dreams, resentments, and other emotions.” An example to back up this statement from the novel is when Lennie gets Curley’s Wife and Crooks to talk to him and tell him how they feel. The article says “George is the ruling ego—aware, socialized and civilized—for whom the threat of the unconscious will exist until the transcendent function is enacted and the Shadow has been purged by being brought to light.” This means that George is able to be himself more than Lennie, therefore he is a conscious mind. This is proved when he is able to shoot Lennie. Martin describes Lennie as “incapable of self-control.” This is shown in the story when Lennie kills both his puppy and Curley’s wife. George, in the article, is described as “sharper and worldlier.” This is made known in the story by George constantly taking care of Lennie and telling him what to do so that they will be able to make a living for themselves and achieve their dream. Overall, I completely agree with everything the article said.
Reply
Lauren Barczak
6/1/2015 07:06:27 am
I agree with the article Martin wrote because it should how “Of Mice and Men,” “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” and “Genesis” all tie together with the same theme throughout the different stories. All three stories had an unassimilated character and a heroic companion. In “Of Mice and Men,” George would be known as the heroic companion. Martin describes George as “… feeling the obligation to protect Lennie at any costs.” You see George protect Lennie from Weed by running away and getting a new job on a different farm. In the other two stories the heroic companion feels the need to protect their unassimilated character from harm. “George… is able to read the signs in a situation and, in a way, prophesy the future.” Martin describes George being smart to discover who is a threat to Lennie and who Lennie and George can trust throughout the novel “Of Mice and Men.” Also Martin says, “George is the ruling ego-aware, socialized, and civilized.” This also describes how George knows that he must be the one to kill George if that means he will be able to still work on the farm. The other two heroic characters do the same thing to their unassimilated characters; they all kill them. Martin also does a great job talking about the conscious and unconscious mind. In “Of Mice and Men” Lennie has the unconscious mind, meaning he is not aware of the situation he is in and how dangerous it could be. For example in “Of Mice and Men” Lennie doesn’t know when to stop petting Curley’s wife’s hair. When she starts to pull aware he grabs on tighter, this is Lennie using his animal like instincts. He doesn’t realize after she is dead that he did something wrong. With a conscious mind like George he knows when to not get into a situation like that and be able to just walk away.
Reply
marissa michels
6/1/2015 08:15:11 am
i think i have to agree with the author. He portrayed George and Lenny as people that are a pair, but George didn't even have the responsibility to take care of Lennie but in his mind he felt like it was his duty to. They both show similarities in the conscious & unconscious mind. The Epic of Gilgamesh and of mice and men are similar because they both portray the two main characters & they both depends on each other. Gilgamesh is similar to George & Enkidu is similar to Lennie because they both are slow in each others stories. ting, “Like Lennie, Enkidu is physically strong, but mentally unprepared for social survival" (Martin,8). "While George is the brains of the pair and takes over for any situations that come their way. “of the two, George is sharper and worldlier, small and quick dark of face(Steinbeck 2)". This statement shows the similarity between the two. Also "George proves capable of negotiating, manipulating, and conducting business with surprising skill (Steinbeck 802, 842)". This shows how Gilgamesh & George can be related as the same kind of charge. Eric Martin makes up a good argument & I personally agree with his examples & his constructed research. Lennie has a subconscious mind, which means his actions don't fully process to him after he does his actions. Unlike George who has a conscious mind & can clearly think when he does something.
Reply
Esmeralda Celaj
6/1/2015 08:22:53 am
I agree with Eric Mathew Martin's literacy analysis Of Mice and Men. Eric wrote it really well and it makes a lot of sense. Eric compared Steinbeck's book " Of Mice and Men" to a story that was "The Epic Of Gilgamesh" and "Genesis's story of Jacon and Esau". Eric did a really good job comparing those three novels. Eric wrote the analysis very good, he pointed out a lot of the stories that had multiple similarities of the novel "Of Mice and Men". The story "The Epic of Gilgamesh" is about Gilgamesh who is basically like George in the novel Of Mice and Men, and Enkidu which was considered an animalistic man, was like lennie. The author said Lennie and Enkidu are alike because they are both animalistic and fond of water, like for example when Lennie drinks the water in the lake like an animal. In the Genesis's story, Esau was similar to George. All of these men are animalistic, just like the author said. Also the author compared Lennie's and George's argument to Jacob's and Esau's argument. Then when Esau wanted "red stuff", the author compared it to when Lennie wanted Ketchup. The author also compared George to Giglamesh and Jacob because they are the leaders of the groups because of "... their ability to intergrate with society and play by its rules". This analysis was well written and made sense. It was hard to disagree with this analysis because it was perfect and each story was compared to Of Mice and Men really good and it made sense to me.
Reply
Gjergj Markaj
6/1/2015 08:55:13 am
I think he does a great job at displaying how the characters Lennie and George are conscious and make conscious decisions. Though Lennie clearly has mental problems challenging him with decisions and social situations. The author makes great points at showing how Lennie is more like a wild animal when compared to George in the beginning (Steinbeck 2). Steinbeck describes Lennie’s walking to be like a bear dragging its paws on the ground or in the forest (Steinbeck 2). Steinbeck then goes on to describe him as a horse when he’s drinking water to the point where George needs to step in and make sure he doesn’t get sick like the night before (Steinbeck 3). The author also does a great job in comparing Lennie to other stories with characters from Gilgamesh and the sound and fury so the reader can better understand just what kind of character Lennie is if they haven’t read the book themselves. Lennie is compared to Enkidu who is described as being one more with nature then in the social society and well as with the character Chief from Ken Kessey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The author also does a good job of taking characters from those stories and comparing them to George as being the slyer, social, and manipulating one. George is compared to Gilgamesh because both are able to manipulate and are sly and smooth when they speak as well as being able to negotiate with other characters in each story. The author also does a good job of showing that they are like brothers and are also the opposite of each other. Overall I think the author made great points and has a great argument with supporting lines from every story he uses.
Reply
Kanai
6/1/2015 09:08:31 am
The author presented their argument well because they gave their opinion and supported it with logical evidence. I don't fully agree or disagree with the author because some parts were the same as my thoughts and some were not. The author described how Lennie is seen as exemplifying acts of the unconscious mind and George exemplifying the conscious. The author understood the book in a more advanced way than I think it was meant to be portrayed. They understood it as the way Lennie and George were living in society was different from each other. The author interpreted the book as a more complex theory like the American Dream and social statuses in America, and related it to Lennie and George. I did not think of the book in that way, but the author did a good job explaining it in that manner. The author states that Lennie represents "the unassimilated outcast or alien who represents unacceptable or unwanted urges of the unconscious mind who is unable to integrate successfully into society", which is very true. Lennie repeatedly shows his incapability to work as a "normal" or "functional" human being in the given society. His animal-like behavior shows how he cannot control what he does, and Steinbeck describes his lack of ability by defining his actions as "[...] dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws" (Steinbeck 1). As described by the author, Lennie is an obvious depiction of the unassimilated American who will not fit into society for he has not conformed and he is not like everyone else, so that automatically excludes him. Lennie is the companion of George and vice versa, and they are depicted as complete opposites. George is more assimilated because he is "[...] small and quick, dark of face, with restless eyes and sharp strong features" (Steinbeck 1). George's features show how he is more adapted and familiar with his surroundings than his traveling companion. George is shown through "Of Mice And Men" as manipulative and skillful when conducting business. George brags on Lennie to the boss by saying "He's a good skinner. He can rasel grain bags, drive a cultivator. He can do anything. Just give him a try." (Steinbeck 12). The boss replies with, "Then why don't you let him answer? What you trying to put over?" (Steinbeck 12). Both quotes show George's more adapted nature toward American society because he shows his negotiating skills and manipulative nature. George has learned the way to get around things in America so he uses it to his advantage, like other assimilationists. George and Lennie are repeatedly described as opposites like "leader" and "follower", "small" and "big", and "defined" and "shapeless of face", respectively. The author of the article describes Lennie as a "social weight on his skillful partner", which, to me, was a key point in the writer's argument.
Reply
Nicole Killinger
6/1/2015 09:16:47 am
After reading Eric Mathew Martin's analysis of Of Mice And Men I agree with what he was saying. He have many examples that made sense and was easy to comprehend. Everyone who as read this book knows that it is full of symbolism and foreshadows. Eric Mathew Martin made his point clear using other books such as The Epic of Gilgamesh. In the book The Epic of Gilgamesh there are two charters that are very similar to George and Lennie. "Born in the wilderness, Enkidu is described as having a body that is “rough” and “covered with matted hair” (Gilgamesh 63). Just as Lennie is attracted to the solitude of the river, Enkidu “had joy of the water with the herds of wild game” (Gilgamesh 63). Like Lennie, Enkiduis physically strong but mentally unprepared for social survival (Gilgamesh 65)." This proves that the characters are similar and relate to each other. Eric Mathew Martin also says that George and Lennie are part of one mine. And I also think he was right about this. "If Lennie is the submerged Shadow, George is the ruling ego—aware, socialized and civilized—for whom the threat of the unconscious will exist until the transcendent function is enacted and the Shadow has been purged by being brought to light." After reading this I personally thought that they both needed each other. Also I feel that both George and Lennie are conscious people. George my be smarter than Lennie, but Lennie still knows what he's doing. When he killed Curly's wife he knew it was a bad thing and he remember where George told him to hid.
Reply
Will Page
6/1/2015 09:27:54 am
I agree with Eric Martin that George and Lennie an uncommon pair and they both have a conscious and unconscious thought, shared by all humans, which is also expressed by Carl Jung, and the Epic of Gilgamesh. An example supporting this is that Lennie has animalistic traits which are expressed at the beginning of the novel by the river, “drank with long gulps, snorting into the water like a horse” (Steinbeck 2). Martin takes this behavior, particularly the killing of animals by petting them, and relates to unconscious thought. An example from the article comes from page 11, "The figures of George, Jacob, and Gilgamesh dominate each of the fraternal relationship, not by seniority but through their ability to integrate with society and play by its rules." He gives the analogy of George to Lennie as Gilgamesh to Enkidu. Steinbeck describes George, stating, “Of the two, George is sharper and worldlier, small and quick dark of face” (Steinbeck 2). With this, Martin supports George’s leadership with “George proves capable of negotiating, manipulating, and conducting business with surprise skills” (Martin 10). Martin compares Lennie and Enkidu, stating “Like Lennie, Enkidu is physically strong, but mentally unprepared for social survival” (Martin 8). As a direct comparison between his article and Of Mice & Men, George is the one who has more conscious thought, Lennie having more unconscious thought.
Reply
Liz Offer
6/1/2015 10:30:52 am
After reading this article on Eric Matthew Martin’s literary analysis “Of Mice and Myth.” I agree with this article very much. I think that all his books have had a connection to each other in some way, but all in a different way. The there books mice and men, Gilgamesh, and genesis is all connected in some way. I really like the way he did it. All the stories have a hero in them. That helps someone out. I think its true because in mice and men George is always there for Lennie since he was young. Also, with the other story Gilgamesh takes care of Enkidu. Lennie and Enkidu are very alike in many ways. They are both very strong, but mentally challenged and not sure of what’s going on. They’re different because in mice of men leonine dies for him doing a bad thing and in Gilgamesh, Enkidu is rewarded for being a hero. He is does a very great job at connection all the characters an portraying some of them as animals. George and Gilgamesh are both normal and Lennie and Enkidu are different and can't live by them self’s. They always need guidance. In the end I feel that this article was very good and shows many great different ways that’s all his books connect to each other in some way.
Reply
Dominique
6/1/2015 11:43:31 am
Upon finishing this article, I agree with Martin's interpretation of Of Mice and Men. Going into dept and detail about the three books, he opened my eyes and gave me a better insight as to what he was trying to prove. Although I couldn't seem to get my mind to wander away from his views on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He tells about the story of Gilgamesh and how, like George, Gilgamesh has to care for Enkidu, who would be like the Lennie in Of Mice and Men. The descriptions given in the article about the four characters is all the more reason to agree. With Lennies comparison to Enkidu-physically strong but mentally unprepared for social survival-you look back on the book and think throughout the entire novella that's exactly how Lennie is perceived; Unable to think for himself as a "normal" man could
Reply
Jaylon Wells
6/1/2015 11:52:20 am
In my opinion, John Steinbeck supported his argument about symbolism being essential to writing a story. Further more, it also helped that he used symbolism in almost every novel he has written, that show the strength in his opinion. He especially supported is opinion on symbolism in his novella "Of Mice And Men". This novella was of a pair of farm hands (Lennie and George) in the 1930's who are on the run from the small town of "Weed" to find more work after they
Reply
Nick Powers
6/1/2015 12:02:33 pm
This article makes a lot of sense and can definitely prove that the two main characters are a sign of "Conscious" and "Unconscious" minds. Lennie and George are complete opposites and both have conscious and unconscious minds. Enkidu can easily be compared to Lennie because of his body, Lennie and Enkidu both have so called "Rough Bodies". But while George and Gilgamesh have the same type of appearance and same type of mind set. These two pairs can be compared a lot.But Lennie and Enkidu also have the same terms of being scared, Fear and Shadow. While George and Gilgamesh have a sense of reality. Lennie and enkidu also have the same type of traits, they both are very strong but yet dont have to have common sense. But George and Gilgamesh are sharp minded and shorter then the other two, also, enkidu is an animal and when George and Lennie are near the lake Lennie starts taking a drink from the water just like an animal would and i think that the author is trying to show a point that they're both just like animals, yet Enkidu is an animal, I think that both of the stories both have really good similarities and one can be based off the other and that two men need to survive but also need and watch for each other. Yet Lennie and Enkidu both flee away from George and Gilgamesh but Enkidu leaves Gilgamesh and doesn't come back. But Lennie's dream is to tend the rabbits so he couldn't be without George, or even live with himself or by himself without George. I think she put a perfect way to compare these two stories and make them seem like they were almost made for this purpose.
Reply
Patricia Camarata
6/1/2015 12:07:00 pm
As i read this article, i have to say that i agree with Martin, as he proved to us how he meant to interpret Of Mice and Men. He went into very good detail, he explained a lot that helped me understand what he was saying in some of the parts i had questions on. He gave description on the character that he didn't really show us in the actual book as much as this article. As he said "social repression and human disenfranchisement function socially and politically as facts of contemporary life" i would take that as something he says that like people back then did not understand how the socially impaired were just a little different, it is not like today's society. Lennie and George have such a unique relationship i feel, i think that it is so great and special, because George is very nice and sweet to Lennie he understands how Lennie means well. And Lennie looks up to George, because they have been together for such a long time.
Reply
Brooklynn Schmanski
6/1/2015 12:20:46 pm
There is not a single statement that I disagree with in this article written by Eric M. Martin. Relating "Of Mice and Men" to the other stories, "Epic of Gilgamesh" and "The Genesis story of Jacob and Esau", really opened my eyes to the deeper more psychological meanings in this novella. Explaining the theory of the conscious and unconscious mind showed the true purpose of George and Lennie's relationship. To relate Lennie to Carl Jung's essay Martin states, "...an ancient archetype: the unassimilated outcast or alien who represents unacceptable or unwanted urges of the unconscious mind and who—despite friendships and affections—is unable to integrate successfully into society." Later on in the text, to describe George he states, " ...sharper and worldlier, 'small and quick, dark of face, with restless eyes and sharp strong features' (Steinbeck 798)." These two statements prove what he later on stated about them representing the two parts of one's mind.
Reply
Aaron Ingram
6/1/2015 01:07:41 pm
I agree, symbolism IS a very important part in creating a good story. Not only does it show a bit of intelligence in the piece, but it also gives the reader something to think about and look into, drawing them deeper and deeper into the plot. As or George and Lennie, it's not uncommon to see characters such s these in one of his writing. George is the smart one, the sensible one, and can be considered Lennie's guardian. However, Lennie is big, strong, but not all too bright; his child-like behavior alone is enough to get the two of them kicked out of places and towns the wouldn't have otherwise. Regardless, they both play major roles within the story, showing how those types of relationships and bonds were back in those times. The story also shows what type of discrimination and social selection took place, really making the story relatable to its audience. One can only imagine how many hearts this tale must have touched in its time due to its amazing plot line, relatable characters, and yes, symbolism.
Reply
Jazmine Weiss
6/1/2015 01:36:09 pm
In Of Mice and Myth: John Steinbeck, Carl Jung, and The Epic of Gilgamesh, there were many points of similarities and differences. I agree with the articles' analysis of the novels. All stories have no comprehension of the conscious mind. Lennie,Esau, and Enkidu were compared to animals. Lennie because of his physical characteristics and his sloppy gait. Lennie acts on his animal impulses when he killed the mice, puppy, and Curley's wife. Lennie is compared to animal multiple times in the first scene.“He walked heavily, dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws.” (Steinbeck pdf 2). Lennie had no understanding of what he was doing. He was just doing what his instincts told him to do, not contacting his conscious.Enkidu is compared because he was born in the wild and he is also physically strong. Enkidu does not realize the severity of surviving in the wild. Esau is described “a hairy man, a shepherd and hunter at home with wildlife and wilderness,” (Article) like Enkidu. When Esau complains about being hungry and wanting "red stuff", he is not understanding of the situation he is in but still asks. Lennie does the same thing in the clearing wanting beans with ketchup. George replies “Well, we ain’t got any, whatever we ain’t got, that’s what you want..." (Steinbeck pdf 6) Both wants things they do not have. George is described as “small and quick, dark of face, with restless eyes and sharp, strong features” (Steinbeck 2). Portrayed like a hero like Gilgamesh is. The article states " As characters, they are both complementary and opposite, two halves of a codified relationship and two parts of a single unit” (Slide 8). I see Lennie and George as reflecting parent-child relationship. I believe the assimilation is similar throughout the novels. All the men in Of Mice and Men keep to themselves because that’s what they are taught to do in that lifestyle. George and Slim so break the stereotype slightly. Overall, I agree with this literally analysis.
Reply
Brodey Altamirano
6/1/2015 02:36:36 pm
After reading Eric Martins analysis, I have to say that I agree with him and his views. In "Of Mice and Men" it is obvious to see that Lennie and George are two completely different people with equally different personas. Lennie shows more unconscious thought while undoubtedly George is the conscious thinker. An example supporting this is that Lennie has animalistic traits which are expressed at the beginning of the novel by the river, “drank with long gulps, snorting into the water like a horse” (Steinbeck 2). It doesn't take much too see that this type of behavior can be realted to unconscious thought. With that connection Martin uses an example from page 11 of the article, "The figures of George, Jacob, and Gilgamesh dominate each of the fraternal relationship, not by seniority but through their ability to integrate with society and play by its rules." He compares George with Gilgamesh and Lennie with Enkidu. With details from the book suggesting that George is the smarter more intelligent one Martin says this on page 10 "George proves capable of negotiating, manipulating, and conducting business with surprise skills” Martin then goes on to compare Enkidu to Lennie by saying that Enkidu is physically strong but not mentally strong in social enviroments. I agreed with Martin completely because it is obvious to see that George has more conscious thought while Lennie is the complete opposite.
Reply
Chris henckel
6/1/2015 07:06:11 pm
I completely agreed with all the arguments made in the article by Eric Martin. All the points he presented truely actually opened my eyes and made me realize that there is more to the story. In the article he compares Of Mice and Men with the Epic of Gilgamesh, in the way of Lennie being like Endiku, and George relating to Gilgamesh. The article was mainly about the sub consious mind however, and how these characters are a representation of it. George and Gilgamesh represent the consious mind, as they are always rational, and thinking straight. While Lennie and Indiku represented the unconsious mind. Both characters were noted to be quite slow. Lennie perfectly describes the unconsious mind because throughout the novel, he displays animalistic behavior in many scenes. For example, while drinking from the stream in chapter one, he is compared to an animal. Also when George says Lennie will have to protect the rabbits from the cats on the farm, Lennie gets very animalistic and talks of snapping the necks of the cats. Finally, Lennie shows behavior that demonstrates the unconsious mind when he accidentally kills Curleys wife. Lennie clearly isnt thinking, and his body just takes over. These characters are great representations of the consious and unconsious mind
Reply
Noah Cannon
6/2/2015 01:52:37 am
I agree with the arguments in the article. He did a good job comparing the novel Of mice of men to other novels including one interesting one called, Epic of Gilgemesh.
Reply
Zeta Barrie
6/2/2015 02:55:14 am
i don't think that of mice and men was meant to be picked apart the way it was in this article. I believe a man wrote a book about friendship, loyalty and heartache, and the story was simply meant to jerk with the readers emotions and teach them a lesson of some sort. I do see the connection between this and the book, "the epic of Gilgamesh" because of the characterization, the way a calm gentle man is placed with an absurd person. It's what makes the story different and more interesting. Those two ideas I believe. I agree with Carl Jung that there is a mythic pattern and I agree in the universal themes teaching someone the importance of friendship. On the Jungian Pyschoanalytical thoery, it is stated in a way that most people reading will not understand. I don't see the connection with migrant labor or disenfranchisement. I think it was just the time and setting the author chose to right about. There's nothing phycologic about that.
Reply
Raymond Hale
6/2/2015 03:05:09 am
In my opinion, the article does an awesome job explaining the comparison between all three stories. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the best to explain because it shows how the characters are very alike but Genesis's Tale is alike as well. Jacob and george are very similar because they both conduct business shrewdly, they think before they do. Besides lennie who doesn't have the ability to do so. Its pretty fun to see such a comparison like lennie holding down george while Enkidu holds down Gilgamesh. All three stories are very good to read and learn about each character. Just like "of mice and men" we learn that lennie has a mental disorder which makes him forget a lot of things people tell him. Another character or symbol is curleys wife and how she doesnt have a name. This just shows how good steinbeck is at showing characterization.
Reply
Cody W.
6/2/2015 05:28:33 am
After reading the articles, I agree with Eric Martin. Many points Eric Martin stated compare to Of Mice and Men. Each story showed how leader rises such as when George cared Lennie, Gilgamesh cared for Enkidu, this is an example of how these characters show a leadership role. “Like Lennie, Enkidu is physically strong but mentally unprepared for social survival.” (Pg.8), this too compared Lennie and Endiku. Although Lennies traits somewhat didn’t compare when Lennie died because of silly mistakes he did, as for Enkidu, Enkidu became a hero with Gilgamesh. A example I found exact is located (Tanakh 38) “Esau complains to Jacob that he is hungry, he demanded that Jacob give him some “red stuff,” trading his birthright for a bowl of stew” compared to when Lennie asked George for ketchup during supper. All in all, Eric Martin did a great job comparing each characters from Of Mice and Men and the other articles.
Reply
Jade Harrison
6/2/2015 12:13:17 pm
As I have read the article I must agree with Eric M. Martin. The two main characters in "Of Mice and Men" are a sign of "Conscious" and "Unconscious" minds. When the author of the articles related "Of Mice and Men" to the other stories, "Epic of Gilgamesh" and "The Genesis story of Jacob and Esau", it showed me a completely different view to the story and showed me more of the psychological meanings behind it all. Clearly the characters are very different, “drank with long gulps, snorting into the water like a horse” (Steinbeck 2) obviously that is an action related to an unconscious thought. “George proves capable of negotiating, manipulating, and conducting business with surprise skills.”(Martin, 10) Obvious of actions relating to conscious thoughts. George has the ability to interpret a separate reality into what he wants to achieve in life, and martin clearly explains that.
Reply
Daevon Morgan
6/2/2015 01:23:10 pm
I disagree with the article's review on "Of Mice and Men". I believe that the book was written in black and white in relation to Lennie ans George. The fact that the duo opposite each other, and are close friends add layers to the book. It would be much more bland to read a book about two men who are alike. Having altered personalities, one who is animal like, and reckless, and another who is sharp, and determined is just the way that the story was supposed to be written in order to stimulate the imagination of the reader. Turning the story into something that involves a complex topic such as Lennie and George representing the subconscious and conscious mind is not entirely a lucid label. The moral that is exhibited in the story has no relation to these kinds of concepts. Most will agree that the book is what it is, and shouldn't be taken to a level that the author of the book has not commented on, or hinted towards. The book is flooded with symbolism, and metaphors, but a representation of the subconscious and conscious mind is not one of those symbols. Lennie is his own personality, along with George. They are the way that they are because of Steinbeck's way of portraying them. While developing this entire book full of adventures and morals, the likelihood of said concept being tossed around is miniscule.
Reply
Kim
6/9/2015 01:11:01 am
I believe that the author did a well comparing the three stories together. He stated similarities among the characters in the stories. Jacob and Esau are like Lennie they are large and anamalistic.
Reply
Hunter Thayer
6/9/2015 01:32:16 pm
I agree with Eric. He showed that there is a leadership role in each story such as George and Gilgamesh. "Like Lennie, Enkidu is physically strong but mentally unprepared for social survival.” (Pg.8)". This statement showed how Lennie and Enkisu are so similar. Although their endings are not the same they both have the similar characteristics. I think Eric didn't a great job comparing and contrasting the two stories.
Reply
Tristin Vezzetti
6/9/2015 10:21:16 pm
Of Mice and Men is a great story that depicts how it was for the lower class in the 1930s and how they struggled. I believe that the author is right in many ways, George and Lennie are an odd duo and you would not expect those two people to be travelling and working together. George is a small and snappy kind of guy whereas Lennie is a big and “bear like” type of person who does not really know what he is doing. George plays the role of a father and Lennie is the 5 year old son basically. Lennie cannot make big decisions on his own and he needs George to guide him on a lot of the things he does. When Lennie does something by himself it does not usually turn out so great just like the pup and him talking to Curley’s wife without George’s permission. George is the only person that Lennie will listen to, and George knows that. Steinbeck portrayed Lennie as an animal and in many ways he showed he had traits of one but he was not full out animal. Lennie shows that he cares about a lot of things such as George and rabbits. Lennie knew that he had done something wrong when he killed Curley’s wife and that is why he fled. George on the other hand plays the guardian and boss role in Of Mice and Men. He is the one who gets Lennie and himself a job on the farm and takes responsibility for everything that Lennie does. He is basically like I said a dad to Lennie. All in all I think that the author’s response has great meaning and I cannot find anything that I do not agree with him on.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMr. Herms and students. Archives
October 2015
Categories |