Just tell me if its good or not. Constructive criticism is beneficial.
http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects...H-QP-JUN14.PDF (pg. 9)
Source of inspiration:
http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects...-WRE-JUN14.PDF (pg. 12)
Spoiler:ShowOf Mice and Men: The Relationship of George and Lennie
From the beginning of the novel, Steinbeck defiles the expectations of the classical ranch worker during the 1930’s; the Great Depression of America. Simultaneously, Steinbeck foreshadows the brutality of nature, which concludes to be the omnipotent powers of fate.
A family-bond synchornises George and Lennie: George having ‘restless eyes’, metaphorically alike a tired parent/guardian, having difficulties to keep the safety of a child intact. Contradictory to Lennie – ‘large, pale eyes’ similar to a curious (or perhaps entirely naive) child who might be unaware of the pains of his parent. Steinbeck attempts to subvert the notion of an atypical ranch worker: often isolated from anyone, in fear of damaging their job; true to the context of the Great Depression in which men leave their families to find work and suffer frequent cases of sombre, because of these hostile conditions. Therefore, a family relationship of George and Lennie (even the idea) seems alienating in their time and place. Steinbeck then foreshadows a some-what, quite possibly fearful implication: Lennie also has ‘paws’, symbolic of a bear and if expanded, a predator for man. This altogether creates the irony of a seemingly innocent child, yet the body of a beast – the potency to harm, or even to kill humans. The reader is given a slight hint of Lennie’s death that would be the resulting ultima ofthe novel, not in due to his fault, but because of his fate as a predator by nature.
By this perspective, George lives in sorrow. Knowing that his only friend in the world requires persistent maintenance that may push his limitations; George has no control over Lennie's arguable idiocy and herculean body which can easily get him killed. Despite of all this negativity George is hopelessly trying to juggle, it cannot be disputed that his love for Lennie is satisfactory; Steinbeck proves that migrant workers in the 1930’s still yearn for love and connections as ordinary human beings. Again it is that fear of disrupting their work reputation, that isolates workers. Indeed, Steinbeck is stating the americanised importance of family – a temporarily forgotten standard during the great depression: there will always be sparks of positivity to love another person even in desperate environments.
Unfortunately, Steinbeck does not forget to remind the reader that fate can control one’s end, as ‘Lennie continued to snort in the pool.’ Which might not seem humanely normal to ‘snort’ in order to consume water – it seems like something an animal would do. It could be said that frequent, anomalous mistakes such as these would run dry of intolerance, which concludes to Lennie’s death. Steinbeck illustrates the brutality of fate for Lennie to the reader, making the reader afraid of what can happen to Lennie because of his fated position as a ‘bear’ that will be killed in the presence of man.
Steinbeck from the start of the novel has already clued readers an ominous fate between George and Lennie, which became too evident at the very end. Structurally, Steinbeck creates the connotation that fate does not come into disfavour from midway during life. Rather, it is pre-coordinated from birth, whether an individual whilst in the advent of the Great Depression could live by the American Dream: where industrious traits are merited, or quite likely, not. Hence by the structure of the novel, that the people in 1930’s America had no control of fate from the introduction of the setting, to the ending of life. It is this brutality of nature – the predatory fate of Lennie, his death – that will inevitably make George the same as all of the other ranch workers, that because of his fate, by nature he has no right to redefine his life as a migrant ranch worker. Instead: forever deadlocked at the heart of 1930’s, Great Depression, America.
Of Mice and Men A* Attempt Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by Social Elitist; 21-05-2016 at 01:16.
- 21-05-2016 01:05
- 21-05-2016 10:09
If I'm honest with you, I think you tried too hard to sound "professional" as such by using big words rather than just simply stating the correct words. I was told that part a must refer to the passage and only the passage itself. Then when you're onto part b, refer back to everything else in the novella. However, from what I read it's heading the right way
Posted from TSR Mobile
- 21-05-2016 10:36
yeah when youre doing part a) you're simply referring to the extract, you can make sly details to show your understanding to the rest of the novella but it won't get you any marks i dont believe, a) is how you analyse language, structure and form