I thought I should put what I got on this, I got an A!!!
In a world where friends were rare, two who travel together were looking for a little place to call home. Lennie small was one of them. He was a colossal, dumbfounded, sort of cuddly guy. He and George Milton went around trying to get enough jack together to get some land. Lennie Small, a name more fit for his mind than his physical appearance.
A huge man, shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes, with wide slopping shoulders; and he walked heavily, dragging his feet a little the way a bear drags his paws. His arms did not swing hat his sides but hung loosely. (2)
Those few sentences described Lennie. He was as it said, big. Lennie was also incredibly strong. As shown later in the book he was able to crush Curly’s hand with one hand. Being as strong as he was made him a good worker, he was able to do a two man job all by himself.
Lennie was not very bright. On a light bulb scale a ten watt. “‘Oh I ain't saying he’s bright. He ain’t. But I say he’s a God damn good worker.’” (22) George described this as Lennie when they were talking to the boss. Lennie was aware that he wasn’t bright, but George looked after him and George was smarter than him.
There was not much in the book about Lennie’s morals. Lennie was a simple person, so he had simple morals. His morals were basic, meaning that he knew right from wrong, when he did something wrong most of the time he recognized it, and had a simple understanding of the consequences that his actions held.
Lennie’s social aspects did come into play. When he talked to Crooks in the barn John Steinbeck shed a little light on how he handled having a conversation with somebody.
“Ain’t anybody goin’ to talk no hurt to George,” he grumbled
Crooks said gently, “maybe you see now. You got George… A guy goes nuts if he ain’t got nobody. Don’t make no difference who the guy is, long’s he’s with you.” …
“George gonna come back,” Lennie reassured himself in a frightened voice.
That quote actually told more about Crooks than Lennie. It showed that Crooks was lonely but it also showed that Lennie didn’t care who he was talking to, just as long as somebody was talking to him. He never really was lonely; he did not have enough sense to know he did not have anybody when George was not around.
Where friends were few and far between, Lennie Small and George Milton were best friends. They were just trying to make a better life for themselves. Lennie Small’s role in the book was big, unlike his name.
Nice essay, but I think you should rearrange the structure of it a little bit. For example, in the opening paragraph try to summarize everything you're going to say in the essay without exception or going into too much detail. Otherwise, nice essay.
Ahh, I remember reading this book. If you want, you can link it back to Frankenstein's monster, the architypal misunderstood outcast. What you didn't mension at all was that Lennie is a murderer, though it is not intentional, so however admirable his other character traits may be, he is dangerous and doesn't know his own strength, just as Frankenstien's monster. You could also comment on the use of foreshadowing deaths in the novel, for example, Lennie killing the puppy foreshadowing his killing of Curley's wife, and likewise, the killing of Candy's dog foreshadowing Lennie's death. You might also reflect on the signifigance of the title and names. The title is a reference to the poem "To a Mouse" by Robert Burns, from the following stanza:
"But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,
An’lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!"
The same sentiment, is reflected in George's sirname, Milton, a reference to the author of "Paradise Lost", John Milton, and this story is indeed one of a paradise lost, of the idyllic world of rabbits and plenty created by George and Lennie. Superficially it would seem that in George and Lennie's relationship, all the benefit is on Lennie's side, George takes care of him, defends him, takes on the nomadic existance Lennie's accidents condemn them to. George can't have any other long term relationship. It is Lennie's child-like belief, however that sustains George, that creates a meaning, a drive not found in any of the other workers they come across. It is the idyllic dream, that George soothes Lennie with before shooting him, destroying with him the impalpable hope of it realisation.
You could also mension perspective, through whose eyes is Lennie seen throughout the book, in what different lights is he portrayed etc.
That's just off the top of my head, so scuse me if I got it muddled. You have some good points in there, but it's always good to back stuff up with outside sources. Biggest mistake you can make in essays is to talk about the character like they're real rather than a construction of the author's, because then you don't talk about how the author does it.
Oh, and I get what you mean in your last line, Small is ironic because he's big physically, also playing with the conflicting facets of his nature, his physical strength with his mental weakness, his innocence with his actions.
blah blah blah, you know the crap they like.
In an analysis, you shouldn't use the lingo from the book : "get enough jack together" unless you want to put quotations around jack.
also, you must put quotations around things you swipe from the book, if they're directly from the book.
Those few sentences described Lennie. He was as it said, big. Lennie was also incredibly strong. As shown later in the book he was able to crush Curly’s hand with one hand.
Lennie was not very bright. On a light bulb scale a ten watt. “‘Oh I ain't saying he’s bright. He ain’t. But I say he’s a God damn good worker.’” (22) George described this as Lennie when they were talking to the boss. Lennie was aware that he wasn’t bright, but George looked after him and George was smarter than him.
Lennie Small’s role in the book was big, unlike his name.
I just finished reading this book in my Lit. class and really enjoyed it... It was so depressing, though...
Anyway, this is a bit short for a literary analysis thingy, but it's very well-written, I liked it. You could go a bit more in-depth and make it longer, but only if you feel you should say more, that's a personal thing, and length doesn't make an essay better.My only real suggestion is too make the conclusion stronger, I felt like the ending... needed something more.
Please try to fix punctuation errors, there are many. They didn't really bother me because I personally care more about the content of your essay than your punctuation. But many members of this site can't stand punctuation errors, so...
Nice work overall, 'twas a good essay! 
Keep writing.
120,613 Literary Works • 651,075 Reviews
Points: 1373
Reviews: 270
Donate