This was my paper for english class, and i would like to know thoughts on it before i get my grade back...It compares "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck to "To A Mouse" by Robert Burns It also examines the greater theme of originality in art, something that is scarcely found in the literary world. Please give your thoughts, comments, and criticism. Thanks!
The word “original” is often used to describe paintings that have been manufactured by hand, but it is not clear whether hand-made copies of work are still considered so. When an artist copies another’s art, is his own art original now that it has been tainted by the thoughts’ of others? The poem “To A Mouse” by Robert Burns served as inspiration for John Steinbeck when writing the famed tragedy “Of Mice and Men.” Steinbeck, a Nobel prize-winning author, set many of his books during the Great Depression or the California Dustbowl, times when the future seemed bleak. In Of Mice and Men, man-child Lennie and his “father figure” George form an unsuspecting friendship, and set off into the world with their dreams of one day buying land and settling down. The characteristics of these protagonists are directly taken from the Burns’ poem, which describes similar characters. Is such a close emulation detrimental to the value of originality in the work? Steinbeck believed that “only through imitation do we develop toward originality,” a motif seen in Of Mice and Men. Inspiration is necessary for all art, but by exploiting Burns’ poem, Steinbeck bastardizes the innocence of originality.
The affection the narrator displays for the mouse in Burns’ poem mirrors the affection George displays for his friend Lennie in Of Mice and Men. The narrator starts by convincing the mouse that he is not an enemy, and that he will do the mouse no harm. “Wee, sleekit, cow'rin', tim'rous beastie, O what a panic's in thy breastie! Thou need na start awa sae hasty…I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee” (lines 1-5). In this portion of the poem, the narrator attempts to establish a rapport between himself and the mouse. By the same token, in Of Mice and Men, George gains Lennie’s trust and regards him similarly to a mouse. George sees Lennie’s naivety, and does not wish for the treacherous world to inflict misery upon him. In the following stanza of the poem, the narrator apologizes for the behavior of mankind upon the mouse. George sympathizes with Lennie, as George sees the many obstacles that Lennie must face, and how he is helpless to avoid them. George wants to lessen the burden that society brings upon Lennie, but is often frustrated with Lennie’s lack of gratitude. “Whatever we ain't got, that's what you want...” (page 11). In the poem, Burns amplifies the similarities between the narrator and the mouse, as they are both creatures of the same earth (“Which makes thee startle, At me, thy poor, earth born companion, An' fellow mortal!” [lines 10-12]). Although George and Lennie are the foil of each other, they both are “loners” who have no one else besides one another. ‘“An’ I got you. We got each other, that’s what, that gives a hoot in hell about us,’ Lennie cried in triumph.’”(page 104). This dependence on each other showcases both characters weaknesses, and the delicacy of their relationship. In both the poem and the novel, the relationship between the two protagonists is vulnerable and transient. This idea of communal fragility is present in Steinbeck’s other novels, which often were written about struggling characters at the base of society’s hierarchy. The same concept is also clearly evident in Burns’ poem, begging the question of whether or not such similarity is paying homage to another writer, or infringing on Burns’ right to originality.
Both Steinbeck and Burns allude to the tenuity of preservation, and that all of life’s elements are ephemeral. In To A Mouse, the narrator unintentionally destroys the home of the mouse, leaving her exposed to the brutalities of the coming winter months (“Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!” [lines 19-20]). Where the mouse had believed to be prepared, she is now unable to defend herself, with little hope in sight. The mouse must now survive in a life of harsh struggle; a very different outcome to what she had planned. George and Lennie of Of Mice and Men have a similar relationship to the mouse and her home. Lennie acts as the mouse, a creature of feeble means to take care of itself, while George is the home that protects the mouse. George understands that while he can go one without Lennie, Lennie would not be able to survive without him, just as the situation in Burns’ poem. This conflict comes into play when George must decide what to do with his friend after Lennie’s incident with Curley’s wife. “You ain’t gonna leave me, are ya George? I know you ain’t.” Lennie automatically asks for help from George, who is unable to pick up the pieces as he has done previously. In both Of Mice and Men and To A Mouse, the motif of vulnerability is used to describe the characters. Lennie’s fragility is ironic, as it contradicts his physical strength, while the mouse’s appearance denotes diaphaneity. In these cases, Steinbeck and Burns show the likeness between the powerful man and such a small creature as a mouse. Although very different, they are both creatures of the same earth and share similar weaknesses. These weaknesses ultimately define their fate, and the path of life that they will endure.
In Burns’ poem, the narrator determines that life rarely goes according to ta desired path (“The best laid schemes o’mice an’ men gang aft agley” [lines 38-39]), a concept that Steinbeck utilizes in showing the death of the American Dream. George and Lennie of Of Mice and Men form an imaginary utopia, in which they synthesize their future. When in a trying situation, this false comfort restores their hope and encourages them to power onward. Throughout the novel, their fairy-tale becomes increasingly detailed, as they search for a window out of the troubles in their lives. ‘“Someday—we’re gonna get the jack together and we’re gonna have a little house and a couple of acres an’ a cow and some pigs and-’ ‘An’ live off the fatta the lan’,’ Lennie shouted.” (page 14). In To A Mouse, the narrator describes how he can only hypothesize as to what the future may entail, and fears for its speculative outcome. After spending much time consumed by worry, he decides that “foresight may be vain” (line 38) and accepts the uncertainty in his life. Similarly, in Of Mice and Men George and Lennie are unable to accept the ambiguity of the future, and are forced to create their own stability creating a dream world. In such a world, they have absolute control over their future, no matter how impractical it may be. This method satisfies both Lennie and George, but only until the future becomes so futile that there is no other option but to abandon their childish reveries. A major difference between To A Mouse and Of Mice and Men is that while the narrator in Burns’ poem acquiesces his future, George and Lennie cannot do the same. It is not until Lennie’s incident with Curley’s wife that George sees beyond his fabricated dreams and determines that the best course of action is to kill his friend. This choice literally annihilates the paradisiacal fantasies, or “American Dream” that once ruled the lives of both protagonists. Just as in Burns’ poem, a well-planned scheme goes terribly awry, demonstrating the recalcitrant path of life.
Inspiration’s purpose is to provide a starting point to work from, rather than to supply an entire idea to replicate. To do so is to encroach on the basic right of individuality. Individuality allows for the progression of one’s own idea to become original work. Steinbeck uses Burns’ best piece of literature and infringes on its right to exist. Although Of Mice and Men is famed for its groundbreaking use of euthanasia, the idea itself was taken directly from Burns’ poem. The credit that Steinbeck procures for his novel detaches from the acknowledgment that Burns should receive. Such pilfering of an idea taints the concept of originality and is a gross violation of Burns’ work. Originality is thought to be a keystone of good writing, and yet Steinbeck was able to create a masterpiece by mimicking the ideas of another author. His success is testament to the concept that originality is an unachievable feat, merely causing artists to pursue phantoms in their quest to conceive the inconceivable.
. This actually stands for Point Evidence Explanation. And then that's ALL that should be gone into your paragraph, nothing else, otherwise it will get too long.
x
Gender:
Points: 2614
Reviews: 46