A disabled, troubled man and an objectified, beautiful woman; What could the two possibly have in common? Even though it may seem like the two would have nothing in common, when one digs deeper into John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, a story taking place during the Great Depression, the two characters share striking similarities. Lennie Small (a troubled migrant worker) and Curley’s wife ( the flirtatious wife of the farm owner’s son), two seemingly opposites, surprisingly have much in common. Though both have unattainable dreams and are prejudiced against, Lennie has a support system, and only Curley’s wife, with no support system, realizes how unrealistic her dream is.
A similarity shared between the two is the fact that both have unattainable, …show more content…
The first visible difference is that while Lennie truly believes that he will be able to one day “tend to the rabbits,” Curley’s wife realizes that her dream is unreachable (Steinbeck 16). This is evident through Steinbeck’s diction, or wording, in the part of the novel in which Curley’s wife is looking back on her dream of being a famous actress. While explaining the situation to Lennie, Curley’s wife then continues to say that she “coulda been in movies, an’ had nice clothes” (Steinbeck 89). By saying that she could have been in the movies and could have had nice clothes, it is implied that she understands this opportunity was in the past. Curley’s wife also darkly states that she “coulda made something” of herself (Steinbeck 88). This quote suggests that she could no longer make something of herself as she now lives on a ranch with her controlling husband. On the contrary, in Lennie’s mind, owning land with George is very possible. However, in reality, the “bad things” he does, such as accidentally killing Curley’s wife, completely ruin any chance of his dreams being reached (Steinbeck 91). Even in the moments leading up to his death, the farm and rabbits are all he can think about. This is evident in the fact that a “gigantic rabbit” appears out of his head and speaks to him, and in the discussion between George and Lennie as George holds a Luger to the back of Lennie’s head (Steinbeck 103). Lennie asks George to …show more content…
Lennie and Curley’s wife are a prime example that proves what is on the outside, does not necessarily represent what’s on the inside. From these two characters, one can learn that just because two seem to be polar opposites, internally, they may share much in
A similarity shared between the two is the fact that both have unattainable, …show more content…
The first visible difference is that while Lennie truly believes that he will be able to one day “tend to the rabbits,” Curley’s wife realizes that her dream is unreachable (Steinbeck 16). This is evident through Steinbeck’s diction, or wording, in the part of the novel in which Curley’s wife is looking back on her dream of being a famous actress. While explaining the situation to Lennie, Curley’s wife then continues to say that she “coulda been in movies, an’ had nice clothes” (Steinbeck 89). By saying that she could have been in the movies and could have had nice clothes, it is implied that she understands this opportunity was in the past. Curley’s wife also darkly states that she “coulda made something” of herself (Steinbeck 88). This quote suggests that she could no longer make something of herself as she now lives on a ranch with her controlling husband. On the contrary, in Lennie’s mind, owning land with George is very possible. However, in reality, the “bad things” he does, such as accidentally killing Curley’s wife, completely ruin any chance of his dreams being reached (Steinbeck 91). Even in the moments leading up to his death, the farm and rabbits are all he can think about. This is evident in the fact that a “gigantic rabbit” appears out of his head and speaks to him, and in the discussion between George and Lennie as George holds a Luger to the back of Lennie’s head (Steinbeck 103). Lennie asks George to …show more content…
Lennie and Curley’s wife are a prime example that proves what is on the outside, does not necessarily represent what’s on the inside. From these two characters, one can learn that just because two seem to be polar opposites, internally, they may share much in