Literary Analysis: Of Mice and Men

1.     Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck is about two migrant workers, George and Lennie, who travel to the Soledad area during the 1930’s. (Lennie is very child-like and has a mild mental disability and a troublesome past, so he must depend on George for guidance and protection; George is a small, quick-witted man who is devoted to protecting his friend Lennie.) When they arrive in Soledad, George and Lennie begin working on a farm in return for small payment and housing. They meet several men on the farm, and are able to befriend all of them except for Curly, the farm owner’s son. Candy, the farm’s oldest worker, has a dog that gives birth to a group of puppies and dies shortly after. He gives Lennie one of the puppies to keep, because he knows that Lennie likes soft things. One night, Lennie slips out to the barn to visit his puppy. Though he only meant to pet it, Lennie accidently crushed it. He freaked out, and Curly’s wife tries to help him. Lennie tries to keep her quiet and accidently kills her, as well. George finds Lennie and tells him to go hide in the woods where they slept before they got to the farm. When the men find out what’s happened they set off to find Lennie and hang him. George is able to get to Lennie first, and shoots him in the back of the head as a final act of kindness/protection for his friend.

2.     There are two major themes to this novel: the importance of friendship/companionship, and the pursuit of the American dream.

At some point in the novella everyone, with the exception of George and Lennie, harbors a feeling of loneliness. All of the workers travel alone; Candy feels broken and alone when his dog (and best friend) is put down;Crooks admits loneliness; even Curly’s wife feels lonely, as suggested by her constant need for attention and reaching out to Lennie. The only two characters who don’t feel that pain are George and Lennie, who have always had each other. This is also shown by the devotion that these two have to each other (mostly George’s dedication to Lennie) and by the astonishment that everyone shows when they learn that George an Lennie travel together. Also, the story is set in a town called Soledad, which means

The second theme, the pursuit of the American dream, pops up frequently throughout the novella, with the most obvious example being George and Lennie’s dream of one day owning a self-sustain, isolated ranch of their own. Candy indulges this dream with the hopes of owning a couple of acres. Even Crooks gets in on it with the hopes of farming a small garden on Lennie’s property. Another example would be Curly’s wife’s secret ambitions. Although she had given herself up to an unhappy marriage, she always dreamt of living a better life as an actress, as she confessed to Lennie just before dying.

3.     The tone changes throughout the novel, but the most notable change is the one from hopeful to hopeless or denial.

Hopeful:

·         “Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place. . . . With us it ain’t like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us. We don’t have to sit in no bar room blowin’ in our jack jus’ because we got no place else to go. If them other guys gets in jail they can rot for all anybody gives a damn. But not us.”

·         “S’pose they was a carnival or a circus come to town, or a ball game, or any damn thing.” Old Candy nodded in appreciation of the idea. “We’d just go to her,” George said. “We wouldn’t ask nobody if we could. Jus’ say, ‘We’ll go to her,’ an’ we would. Jus’ milk the cow and sling some grain to the chickens an’ go to her.”

            Hopeless:

·         “I seen hundreds of men come by on the road an’ on the ranches, with their bindles on their back an’ that same damn thing in their heads . . . every damn one of ’em’s got a little piece of land in his head. An’ never a God damn one of ’em ever gets it. Just like heaven. Ever’body wants a little piece of lan’. I read plenty of books out here. Nobody never gets to heaven, and nobody gets no land.”

4.     Imagery:

·         “They had walked in single file down the path, and even in the open one stayed behind the other. Both were dressed in denim trousers and in denim coats with brass buttons. Both wore black, shapeless hats and both carried tight blanket rolls slung over their shoulders. The first man was small and quick, dark of face, with restless eyes and sharp, strong features. Every part of him was defined: small, strong hands, slender arms, a thin and bony nose. Behind him walked his opposite, a huge man, shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes, and wide, sloping shoulders; and he walked heavily, dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws. His arms did not swing at his sides, but hung loosely.”

            Foreshadowing:

·         “ ‘’Course you did. Well, look. Lennie—if you jus’ happen to get in trouble like you always done before, I want you to come right here an’ hide in the brush.’”

            Dramatic Irony:

·         Well, the quote is too long to post, because it contains the entirety of, like, four pages… so I’ll explain it instead. George finds Lennie in the clearing that he told him to hide in. Lennie asks George to tell him about the happy future that they’re going to live together, and he is overcome with joy. George has Lennie remove his hat and look out across the river and image the ranch as George describes it to him. Lennie smiles and is relieved that George isn’t mad at him for killing the puppy and Curly’s wife. George holds a gun to the back of Lennie’s head and does him in before the other men get to him. This is dramatic irony because Lennie is completely oblivious to what’s happening, and the readers would have never guessed that George would be the one to kill Lennie.

Tools That Change the Way We Think

"Back in 2004, I asked [Google founders] Page and Brin what they saw as the future of Google search. 'It will be included in people's brains,' said Page. 'When you think about something and don't really know much about it, you will automatically get information.'

'That's true,' said Brin. 'Ultimately I view Google as a way to augment your brain with the knowledge of the world. Right now you go into your computer and type a phrase, but you can imagine that it could be easier in the future, that you can have just devices you talk into, or you can have computers that pay attention to what's going on around them and suggest useful information.'

'Somebody introduces themselves to you, and your watch goes to your web page,' said Page. 'Or if you met this person two years ago, this is what they said to you... Eventually you'll have the implant, where if you think about a fact, it will just tell you the answer."

-From In the Plex by Steven Levy (p.67)

Answer this not-so-simple question: How does extensive Internet/media/technology use change the way you think? Focus on your memory, your ability to concentrate, your sense of time and priorities, and the subjects/topics that interest you most.

Learning about the Internet and technology and web 2.0, and such, has forced me to begin to think about how my thinking processes have been affected. Upon reflection, I have realized that I’ve (automatically) become lazier, for lack of a better word, and increasingly less able to maintain a high level of concentration and/or focus. I am constantly getting sidetracked; I find it hard to stay focused on one task at a time; I constantly feel the need to move on to something different; I want to move through things quicker. I can hardly sit down and read an academic text for longer than twenty minutes before I start checking how much is left, itching to skim through the remainder, move on, and just get someone else to fill me in on what I missed.

I think that most of these consequences stem from the rapidity and brevity of information shared through technology. For example, if I want to research President Lincoln’s role in the Civil War all I would have to do is type “lincoln + civil war” into the search engine and out comes about 24,700,000 results in only .17 seconds. Simple enough. But if I wanted to do this very same research offline I would have to actually read through a number of texts and decipher the useful information for myself. Just twenty short years ago this was the norm. But now, with all of the advances made in technology and Internet sharing, offline research is perceived to be inefficient and, consequently, rendered obsolete.

These values are definitely reflected in the tendencies I mentioned above. Why sift through (what feels like) mountains of information when everything that I need is just a click away? My frequent/prolonged use of technology has me convinced that the internet is a much better and more effective resource than a reference/text book.

In Search Of..

Some questions to think about during Eli Pariser's talk (seen here):

a)     What new information did you learn from the video?

b)    How does this information make you think differently about what you see online?

c)     What questions does this video raise about the Internet in general? And

d)    How can you improve the effectiveness of your searches?

And my own answers:

a)   I was surprised to learn that Google search results are different for every person/computer, and that most sites (Washington Post and New York Times included) tailor the information on your screen to you.

b)   It alarms me. I never realized that I was getting such a small percentage of the information available to me. I feel like I’ve missed out on some things that I probably should know about.

c)   The video raises several questions. One being who really is in control of your internet experience—you or the algorithm writer? Another question addressed was if the internet has lived up to its reputation as the great information resource. If the internet is only shelling out a small percentage of the information on a subject, is it really that good of a resource? Or does its bias hinder the user’s learning?

d)   Since the information output is based on all of my past activities, I can’t really think of a quick way to circumvent the filters. I suppose a deliberate effort to switch up my browsing habits could throw a couple of kinks into the algorithm and hopefully diversify my results.

Notes on Hamlet

            Upon learning that we were about to begin Shakespeare’s Hamlet I was not at all excited or motivated to read it. Though I can hardly say that I get excited to read each assigned portion, I no longer dread reading Shakespeare. After learning different ways to augment my understanding of the text I have actually began to enjoy Hamlet.

            With this new understanding of the text I have learned a lot about the characters, particularly Prince Hamlet. I went into the play with the preconception that Hamlet was crazy and emotionally unstable. After studying the plot events and Hamlet’s soliloquies I have learned that he is in fact very thoughtful and methodical.

            As for the remainder of the play, I predict that Hamlet will pull even more ploys to ensure that he is ready to take the revenge. He is constantly rethinking and reanalyzing his actions, the repercussions of his actions, and even the consequences of those repercussions. This behavior will likely extend throughout the play, forcing Hamlet to spend tons of thought on each of his decisions.

To Facebook, or Not to Facebook?

This post is in response to Emily Bazelon's article in the NY Times, "Why Facebook is After Your Kids", published October 12, 2011.

Facebook. Why such a fuss about Facebook? Honestly, who really cares about any of this stuff? I'm absolutely positive that not one of my classmates has ever given thought to the subjects discussed in the article, nor did they ever intend to. And I'm almost equally certain that none of them are going to go home tonight and change every last security setting on their profile. It's ridiculous.

Today, my teacher made the comment that he did not assign the article to incite "paranoia"-- with the stipulation that "paranoia" is, by definition, an irrational fear-- but to make us aware of the very enlightening and very alarming realities of the online world. He said that things like public information sharing are things worth fearing.

Not to make him sound irrational, but believing that every little thing you post on the Internet CAN AND WILL be seen/used by anyone and everyone in the world seems a little paranoid to me.

Yes, I do understand that almost everything we post on Facebook is viewable by others ("friends of friends", to be specific), and yes, I do understand that Facebook examines our "likes" and couples them with bits of information or ads that it calculates we might also like. I get it. What I don't get is why that is so scary to some people. Why wouldn't I like to see ads for things that correspond to my interests? I'm not going to go hunting just because I saw an ad for a great deal for hunting rifles on Facebook. (I'm not a big fan of hunting, by the way..) It wouldn't make sense to have advertisements all over my page that have no relevance to my interests. And just a quick note, I don't think that the world revovles around me or even that everyone thinks the same way I do; I'm not delusional.

I also fully understand the idea of a "digital footprint", and that once something is on the Internet it is very, very difficult (if not impossible) to remove. But I don't think that means that there is no such thing as privacy. For example, if you log on to your Facebook account and find the "Privacy Settings" menu, or even the "Security Settings" menu, you will find a dozen different ways that you can control who can view your posts and information. (Once all of your settings are conducive to maintaining your privacy, the worry that advertising companies are stealing your information and using them to their advantage should fade.)

So I guess what I got from the article and from our in-class discussionis a better understanding of the so-called risks of Facebook (namely, broadcasting the details of my life to an audience unknown), or any social-networking website for that matter. I will continue to be conscious of what I post online.

Who Was Shakespeare?

The Man

William Shakespeare was supposedly born April 23, 1564 to John Shakespeare and Mary Arden, a couple living in Stratford-upon-Avon.  John Shakespeare was a glover, successful leather merchant, alderman, and high bailiff of Stratford.  His mother, Mary Arden, was a land-owning local heiress.  The couple was relatively prosperous during William’s early life, but any wealth faded around 1570.

William was the third of eight children. Records from Holy Trinity Church prove that he was baptized at that church on April 26, 1564, three days after his alleged birth date.

Scholars believe that William attended a free grammar school in Stratford, as evidenced by his knowledge of both Latin and Classical Greek. Although they don’t know how long William was in school, these scholars are certain that he did not receive any university-level schooling.

William, 18, married 26 year old Anne Hathaway. Together, they had three children: a daughter named Susanna, and a set of twins named Hamnet and Judith. Hamnet died when he was only 11 years old.

After making his way to London, William began to establish himself as an actor and playwright. By 1594 he had joined Lord Chamberlain’s Men, a troupe patronized by royals, and wrote/acted in many of their plays. Lord Chamberlain’s Men quickly became the most successful company of their time.

William sold his plays, showing an immense amount of success, and designed the Globe. He accumulated enough money to buy a new house and retire in Stratford in 1611.

The Myth

Not very much is known about William Shakespeare. (We don’t even know his real birthday.) There are substantial chunks of his life missing from historical records. For instance, there is a 7-year period of time, called the “Lost Years”, after the birth of his twins where Shakespeare virtually disappeared. Some speculate that Shakespeare had to do time for poaching rabbits and deer, while others suggest that he was an assistant schoolmaster in Lancashire. This period of time, among others (like his childhood and education), are scarcely known about.

All of this speculation has caused quite a bit of controversy. Uncertainty regarding his schooling, for example, has caused people to suspect that he may not have been capable of writing such great plays.

The Legend

Shakespeare’s legacy is huge. Consisting of at least 37 plays, Shakespeare’s body of work has lasted over 400 years, and is still alive today. It would be safe to say that almost every English speaker in the modern world knows at least one of Shakespeare’s plays, or at least Shakespeare is.

This being said, there is somewhat of a stigma to reading Shakespeare. They are all written in Old English, needless to say, so they are often very hard to understand and, more importantly, to interpret. Thus, when a student hears that they will be assigned a piece by Shakespeare, their initial reaction is to sigh with agony.

For me, reading Shakespeare is still a very daunting task. However, I don’t hate it as much as I thought I would. This school year, I have learned that there are several resources that can help me understand the text in a different way than I originally read it. I find it helpful to watch live-action renditions of the play after I have read through it to help me better visualize the play’s action. I usually have to read through the text twice to acquire a complete understanding of section, though.

(Don't) Be Hamlet

Now that you've mastered the text of "To be, or not to be..." reflect on Hamlet's dilemma and help him make up his mind. Use the text of the play and your own logic to support your opinion.

Although the opening lines of the “To be or not to be…” soliloquy directly address the thought of committing suicide, I do not believe that Prince Hamlet’s primary concern at this point in the play is whether or not he should take his own life.  By this time, he had already confessed his desire to die—“O, that this too too solid flesh would melt/ Thaw and resolve itself into a dew…” (Act I, scene ii)—making it safe to say that he does not fear death.  The following lines show that he does, however, fear damnation in the afterlife: “…Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d/ His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter…” (Act I, scene ii).   This same sentiment is revealed about half-way through the “To be or not to be…” soliloquy. “To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub: / For in that sleep of death what dreams may come… Must give us pause…” (Act III, scene i).  From this point on, Hamlet begins to realize that his real fear is not death, but rather, what will become of his soul after death.  He struggles to reconcile what he feels that he needs to do with his religion, in the form of the consequences said to descend upon him.  This question—namely, what will become of him in the afterlife—is the true dilemma of this particular soliloquy.

As for my advice, or helpful words, to Hamlet, there is not much to say.  Hamlet’s conflict is unavoidable in a situation such as this, and his decision will be very very hard to come to terms with.  Whether he kills his uncle or kills himself, Hamlet is still committing a sin that is punishable by eternal damnation (according to his own belief system). Given the conditions of young Hamlet’s life, it’s hard to say that he would ever be truly happy, so he may as well do what would be the closest thing to a resolution or sense of contentment that he will ever find—take revenge on Claudius.