Of Mice and Men Essay Examples and Writing Prompts
Need to write an essay about Of Mice and Men? We've got you covered with 5 complete essay types, each with prompts, thesis statements, detailed outlines, and full sample essays.
What You'll Find:
- ✅ 5 complete essay examples (~1,500 words each)
- ✅ Essay prompts and thesis statements
- ✅ Detailed outlines for structure
- ✅ Key points and writing tips
- ✅ Ready to use as reference for your own essays
5 Essay Types for Of Mice and Men:
📖
1. Literary Analysis
A literary analysis essay examines how an author uses literary techniques—foreshadowing, symbolism, circular structure, naturalism—to create meaning. You analyze the author's craft and its significance.
⚖️
2. Argumentative Essay
An argumentative essay makes a specific, debatable claim about the text and defends it with logical reasoning and textual evidence. You take a clear position and defend it against opposing views.
🔄
3. Compare and Contrast
This essay examines similarities and differences between two subjects to reveal deeper insights. The comparison should illuminate both subjects and lead to new understanding.
👤
4. Character Analysis
A focused examination of one character's development, relationships, symbolic significance, and function in the novel. You analyze what makes the character complex and what they represent thematically.
📜
5. Historical Context
This essay examines how historical circumstances shaped the text and how the text responded to its moment. You connect literature to history to deepen understanding of both.
📖
Essay 1: Literary Analysis
This essay develops analytical reading skills for understanding how Steinbeck uses structure and symbol to make tragedy feel inevitable. For Of Mice and Men, literary analysis reveals how foreshadowing, animal imagery, and the novella's circular structure create a sense of inescapable fate.
📝 Essay Prompt:
"Analyze how Steinbeck uses foreshadowing in Of Mice and Men to make the tragic ending feel inevitable rather than surprising. How do the deaths of Candy's dog, the mice, and the puppy prepare us for Lennie's death?"
💡 Thesis Statement:
Through carefully layered foreshadowing—Lennie's pattern of killing soft things, Candy's dog being shot as mercy, and the novella's circular return to the river—Steinbeck creates not suspense about whether tragedy will occur but inevitability about how it must, transforming George's final act from shocking violence into unbearable but necessary conclusion.
📋 Essay Outline:
I. Introduction • Hook: "Tell me about the rabbits" repeated throughout • Context: Foreshadowing in tragedy vs surprise in thriller • Thesis: Inevitability through layered foreshadowing II. Pattern Established: Lennie Kills What He Loves • Mice in his pocket (dead from petting) • Puppy in the barn (crushed while playing) • Pattern: Lennie + soft thing = death • Readers understand danger before Curley's wife appears III. Candy's Dog: The Mercy Killing Template • Old dog shot by Carlson (mercy, they say) • Candy regrets not doing it himself • Foreshadows: George must kill Lennie; doing it yourself is kinder • Structure: Steinbeck shows us the script George will follow IV. The Gun Established Early • Carlson's Luger introduced specifically for dog • George sees where gun is kept • Checkov's gun: weapon shown must be used • We know HOW it will happen before it happens V. Curley's Wife: Marked for Death • Described as dangerous (Candy: "She's trouble") • Lennie attracted to soft hair • Alone with Lennie in barn after puppy death • All elements in place—tragedy now inevitable VI. Circular Structure: Return to the Pool • Novel opens at the riverbank • Closes at same location • George's instruction: "Hide in the brush by the river" • Circular structure = no escape possible VII. Why Inevitability Matters More Than Surprise • We dread what's coming, can't stop it • Like Greek tragedy: you know Oedipus's fate • Makes us focus on HOW it happens, not WHAT happens • Emotional impact greater when inevitable VIII. Conclusion • Foreshadowing creates fatalistic tone • Reflects naturalist philosophy (environment and biology = fate) • Still devastating because we care about characters • Why Steinbeck chose this technique
🎯 Key Points to Remember:
- •Track every death in order: mice, puppy, Curley's wife, Lennie—show the pattern
- •Analyze Candy's dog scene as template for Lennie's death
- •Explain circular structure (river opening and closing)
- •Connect foreshadowing to naturalist philosophy (determinism)
- •Show how inevitability creates different emotional effect than surprise
📄 Full Sample Essay (1,200-1,500 words (4-5 pages)):
Click to read full essay →
The first time George recites the dream of the little farm to Lennie by the Salinas River, readers might hear it as hope. By the final scene when George tells it again in the same location before shooting Lennie in the head, we understand it was always a fairy tale parents tell children before terrible things happen. John Steinbeck doesn't give us twist ending—he gives us inevitability. Through carefully layered foreshadowing including Lennie's pattern of killing soft things he loves, the mercy killing of Candy's dog that provides the template for Lennie's death, and the novella's circular structure that returns us to the opening location for execution, Steinbeck transforms the ending from shocking surprise into unbearable but necessary conclusion. The tragedy isn't that we didn't see it coming; it's that we did, and couldn't stop it.
Steinbeck establishes Lennie's danger in the very first scene. He has a dead mouse in his pocket—he was petting it, and it died. When George makes him throw it away, Lennie cries like a child who lost a toy. This pattern repeats: Lennie loves soft things and kills them through his enormous strength and inability to understand when to stop. A puppy given to him by Slim dies in his hands. "I didn't bounce you hard," he tells the dead puppy, genuinely not understanding that his "bounce" crushed it. By the time Curley's wife offers to let him stroke her soft hair, readers understand immediately what George doesn't yet know: she's already dead, because soft + Lennie = death. The pattern has been too consistent to break now.
The foreshadowing isn't subtle—Steinbeck doesn't want surprise. He wants us watching helplessly as tragedy unfolds according to its own logic. When Lennie pets too hard and the woman screams, when he panics and tries to quiet her by shaking, when her neck breaks—we've seen this script with the mouse, with the puppy. The woman is just the largest soft thing he's killed in a escalating pattern. Steinbeck's naturalism: biology is fate. Lennie's strength plus his mental disability plus his love of soft things equals inevitable destruction.
The shooting of Candy's old dog provides the explicit template for Lennie's death. Carlson argues the dog should be shot because it's suffering, it's useless, and it stinks. Candy reluctantly agrees, but afterward regrets not doing it himself—he let a stranger kill his dog when he should have done it. "I ought to of shot that dog myself, George. I shouldn't ought to of let no stranger shoot my dog." George is present for this conversation. He files it away: if you love something that must die, you do it yourself.
Carlson's Luger becomes Chekhov's gun—introduced for the dog's death, it must be used again. Steinbeck shows us where Carlson keeps it. George knows. When the lynch mob forms after Curley's wife's death, George deliberately takes the gun. He'll use it the way Candy wishes he'd used it: to give mercy instead of vengeance. The script has been written; George is following it. We know this because Steinbeck showed us the rehearsal with the dog.
Curley's wife is marked for death from her introduction. Candy warns George: "She's gonna make a mess." Every ranch hand knows to stay away from her—she's Curley's property and she's lonely, which makes her dangerous. Steinbeck describes her always in terms of sexuality and danger, never as person with agency. (Modern readers rightly critique this, though Steinbeck later regretted not giving her more depth.) When she appears in the barn with Lennie, the pieces are all in place: Lennie (just killed puppy), soft hair (Lennie's trigger), alone (no one to stop him). Tragedy isn't shocking—it's the conclusion of an equation Steinbeck has been calculating from page one.
The novella's circular structure makes escape impossible. It opens at the pool by the Salinas River where George and Lennie camp before reaching the ranch. George tells Lennie: if trouble happens, "hide in the brush an' wait for me." The opening describes this location in detail—the brush, the path, the pool. When Lennie kills Curley's wife and runs, he returns to exactly this spot. The novel closes where it opened, with George arriving to find Lennie. The circular structure says: you can't escape fate; you can only return to where you started and complete the pattern.
This structure reflects naturalism, the literary movement Steinbeck belonged to. Naturalists believed humans are trapped by biology, environment, and social forces beyond their control. Free will is illusion; you're determined by factors you can't change. Lennie can't change his strength or his mental disability. George can't change having made a promise to care for Lennie. Curley's wife can't change being a woman in a world where women have no power. The Depression economic system can't change. Therefore the outcome can't change. Foreshadowing reveals this deterministic worldview: we show you what must happen because choice isn't real.
Why choose inevitability over surprise? Because Steinbeck wants different emotional response. Surprise endings shock—you didn't see it coming. Inevitable endings create dread—you see it coming and can't stop it. Greek tragedy works this way. Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother because prophecy said so; watching him try to avoid fate makes it worse, not better. Of Mice and Men creates similar dread. We know Lennie will kill again. We know it will be Curley's wife (she's the only developed female character). We know George will find him. We know about the gun. We're watching people we care about walk toward disaster they can't avoid.
The emotional impact is greater because we're complicit in the inevitability. We want to yell at Curley's wife: "Don't let him touch your hair!" We want to tell George: "Watch Lennie every second!" But the novel's structure prevents intervention—it already happened, we're just reading the record. This is how tragedy works: building toward the moment when the choice that seems impossible becomes the only possible choice. George shoots Lennie because every other option is worse. Steinbeck made sure we understand this through foreshadowing.
Modern readers sometimes object to inevitability—doesn't it remove character agency? If everything is foreshadowed, did characters have choices? This is exactly Steinbeck's point about the Depression era and migrant workers. Ranch hands had no real choices. Work or starve. Move or starve. Lennie has even fewer choices—his disability removes agency entirely. Curley's wife has no choices—she's property. The foreshadowing reflects their actual lack of freedom. The novella's determinism isn't artistic choice; it's social realism about people whose fates are determined by forces beyond their control.
Of Mice and Men succeeds as tragedy despite (because of?) its inevitability. We care about George and Lennie's friendship, their dream of the farm, the rabbits Lennie will never tend. Foreshadowing doesn't reduce emotional impact; it intensifies it. We're not shocked when George shoots Lennie. We're devastated because we've been dreading it for 100 pages and it still had to happen. That's more powerful than surprise because it's more true to how tragedy feels in real life: you see it coming, and you're helpless anyway.
Steinbeck's craft in layering his foreshadowing—each death preparing for the next, each conversation revealing the script, the structure forcing return to origin point—makes the ending feel both devastating and right. It had to end this way. All the elements required this conclusion. George whispering the dream one last time while Lennie smiles thinking about rabbits, then pulling the trigger—that's not twist. It's the only possible ending to the story Steinbeck has been telling. The foreshadowing made it inevitable, and inevitable tragedy, we discover, cuts deeper than surprise.
✍️ Writing Tips:
Foreshadowing analysis works best when you show the progression—early hints, middle confirmation, final fulfillment. Use textual evidence chronologically to demonstrate how Steinbeck plants clues. Explain WHY author chose foreshadowing over surprise (what does inevitability achieve that twist doesn't?).
⚖️
Essay 2: Argumentative Essay
Develops critical thinking and persuasive writing essential for any field requiring debate. Of Mice and Men raises genuinely debatable questions: Is George's action murder or mercy? Is the dream achievable? Is Curley's wife victim or villain?
📝 Essay Prompt:
"Argue whether George's killing of Lennie is justified. Consider alternatives (running away, turning himself in, letting Curley kill him) and take a clear position on whether George made the right choice."
💡 Thesis Statement:
While George's shooting of Lennie is legally murder and emotionally devastating, it represents the only ethical choice available in the brutal context of Depression-era California—saving Lennie from torture, lynch mob, or lifelong institution proves that sometimes love requires unbearable action when all alternatives cause more suffering.
📋 Essay Outline:
I. Introduction • Hook: "Look across the river, Lennie" • Debate: Murder vs mercy • Thesis: Justified given brutal alternatives • Stakes: Questions about euthanasia, love, responsibility II. The Alternatives Were All Worse • Let Curley find him: Lynch mob, torture, slow death • Let law find him: Institution/asylum (horrific in 1930s) • Run away: Pattern repeats until worse outcome • Turn himself in: Lennie can't survive trial/prison • Evidence: Each alternative leads to greater suffering III. Candy's Regret Provides the Model • Should have shot own dog himself • Stranger doing it made it worse • Template: If killing is necessary, love requires doing it yourself • George learns from Candy's mistake IV. Lennie Would Never Understand • Can't grasp why people are angry • Would be terrified, confused in institution • Dying while thinking about rabbits = best possible death for him • Mercy isn't just quick death but peaceful death V. Counterargument: "George Murdered His Friend" • Address: It's legally homicide • Response: Law doesn't account for context • Evidence: Lennie endangered others, society had no place for him • Not about what's legal but what's ethical in impossible situation VI. Counterargument: "They Could Have Kept Running" • Address: Geographic escape as solution • Refute: Pattern established—Lennie will kill again • Evidence: Weed incident, mice, puppy, woman • Running delays tragedy, doesn't prevent it VII. The Ethical Framework: Lesser Evil • Not all choices are between good and bad • Sometimes choosing least bad option available • George's choices: all involved Lennie dying or suffering • He chose least suffering VIII. Conclusion • Justified doesn't mean right (nothing about it is right) • Means: best available option in impossible situation • Why this still matters: Questions about disability, euthanasia, mercy • Tragedy is that this choice had to be made
🎯 Key Points to Remember:
- •Take clear position early: George was justified (or wasn't—but commit)
- •Acknowledge strongest counterarguments (legal murder, playing God, etc.)
- •Use context: Depression, disability services, lynch mobs, asylums
- •Compare George's choice to alternatives systematically
- •Show ethical complexity: justified doesn't mean easy or painless
📄 Full Sample Essay (1,200-1,500 words (4-5 pages)):
Click to read full essay →
"Look across the river, Lennie, an' I'll tell you so you can almost see it." George Milton speaks softly to his friend about their dream farm while the lynch mob searches nearby. Lennie smiles, imagining rabbits. George shoots him in the back of the head. Readers recoil—we just watched murder. But calling George a murderer requires ignoring every detail Steinbeck provided about Depression-era California, mental disability, lynch mobs, and asylums. George's shooting of Lennie is legally homicide and emotionally devastating, but it represents the only ethical choice available in brutal circumstances. Examining the alternatives—letting Curley's mob torture him, surrendering to law enforcement for institutionalization, or running away to repeat the pattern—reveals that each causes more suffering than quick death while thinking about rabbits. Sometimes love requires unbearable action when all alternatives are worse.
George had four possible choices when Lennie killed Curley's wife: let the mob find him, turn him in to law enforcement, run away together, or do what he did. None are good. The question is which is least bad. The lynch mob led by Curley, whose wife just died, would not deliver quick justice. Curley wanted to shoot Lennie "in the guts"—slow, agonizing death. The mob would torture him first, probably. Lennie wouldn't understand why they're hurting him. He'd be terrified, confused, begging for George. This is the comparison point for George's choice: dying in terror over hours, or dying peacefully thinking about rabbits. Put that way, George's choice becomes clear.
Turning Lennie in to law enforcement seems like the "civilized" option, but 1930s California had no compassionate system for mentally disabled adults, especially those who killed someone. The state options were execution or institutionalization. Execution would be traumatizing—Lennie wouldn't understand, would be terrified. Institutions of that era were nightmarish: overcrowded, abusive, essentially prisons for disabled people. Lennie would be locked up, probably chained (he's enormously strong), isolated from the only person who cared about him, unable to understand why this is happening. He'd die there eventually, alone and confused. This is arguably worse than quick death by the river.
Running away together postpones the problem but doesn't solve it. The pattern is established clearly: Weed (grabbed a girl's dress, had to flee), mice (kills them petting), puppy (kills it playing), Curley's wife (kills her touching her hair). Each incident escalates. Next time could be a child. Lennie can't learn from mistakes—his disability prevents that kind of cognitive processing. Geography doesn't change biology. Wherever they go, Lennie will kill again. George knows this. Running means waiting for the next accident, then the next, until finally something worse than what already happened. Delaying tragedy doesn't prevent it when the cause is innate.
Candy's profound regret about his dog provides the moral template George follows. Carlson shot Candy's dog while Candy lay in the bunkhouse listening. Afterward, Candy tells George: "I ought to of shot that dog myself, George. I shouldn't ought to of let no stranger shoot my dog." The lesson is clear: if someone you love must die, you owe them the mercy of doing it yourself rather than letting strangers do it cruelly. George was present for this conversation. When he takes Carlson's gun and goes to find Lennie, he's applying Candy's wisdom: don't let strangers kill what you love. The parallel is explicit—Steinbeck wants us to see George's action as mercy, not murder, by showing us the template first.
The strongest argument against George is that he committed premeditated murder. He took the gun deliberately. He told the others he'd search downstream while going to exactly where he knew Lennie would be. He approached from behind so Lennie wouldn't see the gun. This isn't split-second decision—it's planned execution. Legally, it's homicide, probably first-degree murder given premeditation. If this happened today, George goes to prison.
But law and ethics don't always align, especially in contexts like Depression-era California where law provided no good option for people like Lennie. The legal system would execute him after traumatic trial, or imprison him in institution amounting to torture. Following the law creates more suffering than George's action. This doesn't mean law is irrelevant, but it means in extreme circumstances, ethical action might require breaking law to prevent worse outcome.
The counterargument that George could have kept running with Lennie requires ignoring Steinbeck's established pattern. This isn't Lennie's first incident. In Weed, he grabbed a girl's dress because he wanted to feel the fabric. The girl screamed; he panicked and wouldn't let go; they had to flee a mob. This same script played out with Curley's wife—wanted to touch soft thing, person screamed, panic, death. The difference is escalation: from touching dress to breaking neck. The next incident could be worse: a child, perhaps. How many deaths before George accepts that running just moves the location of the tragedy?
Some argue this is ableist—suggesting disabled people are inherently dangerous. Steinbeck's portrayal of Lennie is complex here. Lennie isn't dangerous because he's disabled; he's dangerous because his specific combination of great strength plus inability to understand his strength plus love of soft things creates specific danger. Most people with intellectual disabilities aren't dangerous. But Lennie specifically is, and 1930s society has zero infrastructure to help him. Modern readers can critique the society (no disability services, no special education, no care options) while recognizing that within the story's context, George faces reality, not ideal world.
The ethical framework here is harm reduction: when all choices cause harm, choose least harm. George's shooting causes Lennie zero suffering—he dies happy, thinking about rabbits and the farm. The alternatives (mob, execution, institution) cause prolonged suffering. Harm reduction doesn't make the choice good; it makes it least bad. This matters for understanding George's psychology: he's not a killer, he's someone forced to choose between terrible options and picking the one that minimizes suffering for someone he loves.
Critics might argue George is playing God—deciding who lives and dies. This objection assumes George has option where Lennie continues living safely. He doesn't. Lennie is already condemned by his actions, his disability, and the brutal social context. George isn't deciding whether Lennie dies but HOW he dies. Playing God would be deciding Lennie must die for convenience. George is recognizing Lennie will die (mob is coming) and ensuring it happens with dignity rather than terror.
The ending scene shows George's heartbreak—this isn't easy for him. He delays, telling the farm dream slowly. His hand shakes. He's not executing a plan coldly; he's forcing himself to do an unbearable thing because all alternatives are worse. After, when Carlson asks "What's eating them two guys?" (missing completely that George just killed his only friend), we understand the tragedy extends beyond Lennie's death. George must live with this forever, alone, having killed the one person who needed him. The punishment for doing the merciful thing is living with having done it.
Steinbeck doesn't make this easy for readers. He makes us watch George choose murder. He makes us understand why it's the best available option. He makes us feel the devastation even while recognizing the necessity. This is how ethical complexity works: sometimes you must do something terrible to prevent something worse, and doing it doesn't make you evil—it makes you heartbroken. George is justified and destroyed simultaneously. The tragedy is that the world Steinbeck depicts made this his best choice.
Of Mice and Men endures partly because this ethical question remains relevant: When is mercy killing mercy? When is it murder disguised as mercy? How do we judge actions taken in impossible circumstances? If someone you love will suffer terribly, can you end their life to prevent it? These questions don't have simple answers, which is why arguing about George's choice still matters. Steinbeck presents the strongest possible case for mercy killing while showing its devastating cost. Whether you find George justified depends on how you weight competing values: sanctity of life vs minimizing suffering, legal rules vs ethical context, others' judgment vs personal responsibility. The argument never ends because both sides have genuine moral force.
✍️ Writing Tips:
Argumentative essays need debatable thesis. Everyone agrees George shot Lennie; arguing whether it was justified creates real debate. Present opposing view fairly (steel-man, not straw-man) then refute with evidence. Build toward conclusion—don't just repeat thesis.
🔄
Essay 3: Compare and Contrast
Comparison reveals patterns and contrasts that analyzing one subject alone misses. For Of Mice and Men, comparing George and Lennie's dream to other characters' dreams reveals why theirs almost succeeds and ultimately fails.
📝 Essay Prompt:
"Compare the dreams of different characters in Of Mice and Men: George and Lennie (the farm), Curley's wife (Hollywood), Crooks (dignity and companionship), Candy (security in old age). What makes dreams achievable or impossible in Steinbeck's vision?"
💡 Thesis Statement:
By comparing the farm dream (shared, specific, almost achievable) with Curley's wife's Hollywood fantasy (isolated, vague, impossible) and Crooks's dream of dignity (crushed by racism), Steinbeck reveals that in Depression-era California, dreams fail not from lack of effort but from structural barriers—economic system, social prejudice, and random tragedy destroy even the most carefully planned hopes.
📋 Essay Outline:
I. Introduction
• Hook: Everyone dreams; few achieve
• Context: Dreams in Of Mice and Men
• Thesis: Structural barriers, not effort, kill dreams
II. George and Lennie's Farm Dream
• Shared dream (two people working toward it)
• Specific and detailed (described repeatedly)
• Becomes achievable when Candy joins with money
• Why it almost works: Collaboration + resources + planning
III. Why George and Lennie's Dream Fails
• Not lack of effort or money
• Lennie's disability + Curley's wife's loneliness + bad luck
• Shows: Even best-planned dreams destroyed by circumstances
• Steinbeck's point: System is rigged
IV. Curley's Wife's Hollywood Dream
• Isolated (can't share with others)
• Vague (no specific plan)
• Probably never real ("a guy said he'd put me in pictures")
• Why it failed: Fantasy replacing reality, plus sexism blocking opportunity
V. Crooks's Dream of Dignity
• Wants to be treated as human, not just Black worker
• Briefly believes in farm dream, then rejects it
• Why it fails: Racism makes it impossible
• Most tragic: He doesn't even let himself hope anymore
VI. Candy's Dream of Security
• Wants to not be "canned" when old
• Farm represents survival in old age
• Invests life savings in George and Lennie's dream
• Loses everything when Lennie dies
VII. What Comparison Reveals
• Shared dreams have better chance than isolated ones
• Specific plans beat vague fantasies
• But: Structural barriers (economy, prejudice, disability, random chance) destroy even collaborative, specific dreams
• Steinbeck's naturalism: Environment determines outcome more than effort
VIII. Conclusion
• American Dream promises: work hard, achieve goals
• Of Mice and Men proves: System makes achievement impossible for working class
• Still relevant: Economic mobility still blocked by structural barriers🎯 Key Points to Remember:
- •Organize clearly: similarities, then differences, then significance
- •Compare structure of dreams (shared vs isolated, specific vs vague)
- •Compare barriers to dreams (disability, sexism, racism, economics)
- •Explain what comparison reveals about Steinbeck's vision
- •Connect to larger theme: American Dream vs structural reality
📄 Full Sample Essay (1,200-1,500 words (4-5 pages)):
Click to read full essay →
Every character in Of Mice and Men has a dream. George and Lennie dream of owning land. Curley's wife dreams of Hollywood stardom. Crooks dreams of dignity and companionship. Candy dreams of security in old age. Slim, Carlson, Curley—even they presumably dream of something beyond ranch hand existence. But only George and Lennie's dream almost succeeds, and its failure reveals Steinbeck's devastating critique: in Depression-era California, dreams die not from lack of effort but from structural barriers beyond individual control. Comparing their shared, specific, nearly-achievable dream to Curley's wife's isolated Hollywood fantasy and Crooks's impossible dream of racial dignity shows that the American Dream's failure comes from economic systems, social prejudice, and random cruelty—not from insufficient trying.
George and Lennie's farm dream is described with specific detail. The dream isn't vague ("we'll be rich someday") but concrete: "We'd have a little house an' a room to ourself... An' rabbits... An' I'd tend the rabbits." They know how much land costs. They've saved money (not much, but some). They have each other—shared dream means shared effort. This specificity makes the dream feel achievable in a way other characters' dreams don't. Steinbeck gives us hope: maybe these two will actually make it. The dream sustains them through backbreaking work and loneliness. As George says, "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."
When Candy offers his three hundred dollars in life savings to join them, the dream transforms from fantasy to plan. They have enough money. They've found the property. In a month, they could actually do it. For the first time, the dream isn't "someday" but "actually next month." This moment is crucial: Steinbeck shows that the dream isn't inherently impossible. With pooled resources and collaborative effort, it could work. He lets us believe before destroying it, making the tragedy more powerful. The dream doesn't fail from laziness or insufficient planning. It fails because Lennie's disability plus Curley's wife's loneliness plus pure bad luck create catastrophe no amount of planning prevents.
Curley's wife's Hollywood dream functions as counterpoint to George and Lennie's farm. Where theirs is specific and shared, hers is vague and isolated. She says "a guy" told her she could be in pictures, probably a lie designed to seduce her. She has no specific plan, no career path, no actual connection to the film industry. More critically, she's alone in this dream—Curley doesn't care about her aspirations, the ranch hands avoid her, she has no collaborators or supporters. Her dream is escape fantasy rather than achievable goal. It sustains her emotionally (she preens and talks about what could have been) but was never real.
The comparison reveals a pattern: shared dreams with specific plans have a chance; isolated vague dreams don't. But Steinbeck complicates this by showing that even when dreams are shared and specific, structural barriers destroy them. Curley's wife's dream also failed because 1930s Hollywood had minimal roles for women beyond looks, because she had no access (stuck on rural ranch), because sexism limited options. Even if she'd had specific plan, sexist barriers probably would have blocked achievement. Her isolation from the dream reflects her isolation from power.
Crooks's dream sequence is the novel's most devastating. The only Black worker on the ranch, forced to live separately, forbidden from the bunkhouse, Crooks is profoundly lonely. When he hears about the farm, he briefly allows himself to hope: "If you guys would want a hand to work for nothing—just his keep, why I'd come an' lend a hand." He dreams not of ownership but just participation—belonging to community. When Curley's wife crushes him with racist threats ("I could get you strung up on a tree so easy it ain't even funny"), he immediately withdraws: "I didn't mean it. Jus' foolin'... I wouldn' want to go no place like that."
Crooks's tragedy is that he can't even let himself dream. Racism makes dreams too painful—they'll be crushed anyway, so why hope? The comparison to George and Lennie reveals privilege in dreaming: white men can genuinely believe in the farm. Crooks can't, because his experience taught him that Black men don't get to own property comfortably in 1930s California. His skin color erects barrier no amount of money or planning overcomes. Steinbeck shows how prejudice operates: not just preventing achievement but preventing hope itself.
Candy's dream is survival. Old, one-handed, knowing he'll be "canned" when he's useless, Candy needs the farm for purely economic security. Unlike George and Lennie who dream of autonomy, Candy dreams of not dying alone and poor. His three hundred dollars represents his entire life's savings, money he got for losing his hand in ranch accident. Investing it in George and Lennie's dream is desperation—this is his last chance to avoid dying on the ranch after being fired. When Lennie kills Curley's wife, Candy immediately understands: "I could of hoed in the garden and washed dishes for them guys." His dream dies instantly because it was dependent on others' dream. The comparison shows vulnerability of any dream that requires collaboration—one person's failure destroys everyone's hope.
What comparing these dreams reveals is that Steinbeck isn't making simple argument about hard work leading to success. George and Lennie work hard—their dream still fails. Candy saves his whole life—loses everything. Curley's wife wants something—sexism blocks it. Crooks would accept scraps—racism prevents even that. The comparison pattern is consistent: individual effort matters less than structural context. Economic system, social prejudice, biological reality (Lennie's disability), and random chance (being in barn at wrong moment) determine outcomes more than planning, effort, or collaboration.
This is literary naturalism: humans are subject to forces beyond their control (environment, biology, social systems). The naturalist worldview is pessimistic about free will and American Dream ideology. Of Mice and Men is naturalist manifesto: dreams fail because the game is rigged. The comparison of multiple dreams all failing for different structural reasons (disability, sexism, racism, economic precarity) builds Steinbeck's case more effectively than following one dream alone could. Each failed dream reveals different systemic failure.
The exception that proves the rule: Slim is the only character who seems content. Why? He doesn't dream of anything different. He accepts his role as ranch hand and excels at it. He's "the prince of the ranch," respected and skilled. He helps George without judgment after the shooting. The comparison between Slim (no dreams, no disappointment) and everyone else (dreams, devastation) suggests that in Steinbeck's world, dreaming itself is dangerous. Not dreaming means accepting your place in the system. But Steinbeck doesn't present this as solution—Slim is admirable but his life is still limited. He avoids despair by lowering expectations.
The novel's title, from Robert Burns's poem, is about best-laid plans going wrong. "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley" (often go awry). Steinbeck chose this title specifically: even the most careful plans (George and Lennie's farm) fail. The comparison of dreams—some careful, some vague, some collaborative, some isolated—shows that failure isn't individual but systemic. The Depression economy, racial prejudice, gender discrimination, and lack of disability support combined to make dreams impossible for the working class. Individual virtue (George's loyalty, Candy's savings, Crooks's capability) can't overcome structural oppression.
Of Mice and Men remains relevant because the dream vs reality question persists. America still promises that hard work brings success. Steinbeck showed this is lie for the working class. Comparing different characters' approaches to dreaming reveals that the problem isn't how you dream or how much you work toward it—the problem is the system that prevents achievement regardless of effort. This is why the novel angers defenders of meritocracy and resonates with those who see structural barriers. It takes seriously the idea that sometimes you do everything right and still fail because the game is rigged. That's not pessimism; that's reality for many people.
✍️ Writing Tips:
Comparison essays need clear thesis that uses comparison to make argument. Don't just list similarities and differences—use them to prove something. For Of Mice and Men, comparing multiple failed dreams builds case that failure is systemic, not individual, more effectively than analyzing one dream alone.
👤
Essay 4: Character Analysis
Character analysis develops empathy and psychological insight while practicing close reading. Understanding Lennie Small requires recognizing how Steinbeck portrays disability with both sympathy and determinism, creating character who is tragic victim and genuine danger simultaneously.
📝 Essay Prompt:
"Analyze Lennie Small as a character. How does Steinbeck portray his intellectual disability? Is Lennie tragic victim, dangerous threat, or both? What does his character reveal about society's treatment of disabled people?"
💡 Thesis Statement:
Lennie Small embodies Steinbeck's naturalist tragedy—a gentle soul made dangerous by the combination of great strength and intellectual disability, whose destruction reveals society's failure to accommodate those who can't fit its productivity-driven structures, making him simultaneously innocent victim and genuine threat in ways that resist simple moral categorization.
📋 Essay Outline:
I. Introduction • Hook: "Tell me about the rabbits" • Debate: Victim or danger? • Thesis: Both simultaneously—that's the tragedy II. Lennie's Disability: How Steinbeck Portrays It • Childlike understanding (asks George everything) • Can't remember, can't plan, can't learn from mistakes • No understanding of own strength • Sympathetic but realistic portrayal III. Lennie as Innocent • Loves soft things without malice • Doesn't mean to kill (mice, puppy, woman) • Childlike joy in simple things (rabbits, beans, ketchup) • Not morally culpable for what he can't understand IV. Lennie as Dangerous • Pattern of escalating violence • Kills everything he loves • Can't be reasoned with when panicked • Genuine threat to others regardless of intent V. Society's Failure • No support systems for people like Lennie • Expected to fit into productivity model • Options: Family care, institution, or death • Steinbeck indicts system, not Lennie VI. The Rabbits: What They Symbolize • Lennie's dream of tending them = wanting to nurture • But he kills what he nurtures • Rabbits represent innocence he can't protect (including his own) VII. Modern vs 1930s Reading • Today: Disability rights, accommodations, support • Then: No infrastructure, harsh Darwinism • Both readings valid—reveals historical progress and ongoing issues VIII. Conclusion • Lennie can't be reduced to victim OR threat • Complexity is the point • What his character reveals about us
🎯 Key Points to Remember:
- •Show Lennie's complexity: innocent intentions + dangerous actions
- •Provide evidence of his disability portrayal (specific examples)
- •Analyze the rabbits as symbol of his desires and impossibility
- •Compare 1930s context to modern disability rights
- •Explain what his character reveals about society, not just about him
📄 Full Sample Essay (1,200-1,500 words (4-5 pages)):
Click to read full essay →
"Tell me about the rabbits, George." Lennie Small repeats this request throughout Of Mice and Men, his childlike joy in the imagined rabbits representing everything innocent and gentle about him. Minutes later, we learn he has dead mice in his pocket from petting them too hard, immediately complicating our understanding. John Steinbeck presents Lennie as tragedy embodied: a gentle soul made dangerous by intellectual disability combined with enormous strength, whose destruction reveals society's failure to accommodate anyone who can't fit productivity-driven structures. Lennie is simultaneously innocent victim and genuine threat, and this complexity resists simple moral categorization. Understanding him requires holding both truths at once: he didn't mean to kill anyone, and he killed three beings we know about. He's not morally culpable for what he can't understand, and he's still dangerous. The tension between these truths generates the novel's power.
Steinbeck portrays Lennie's intellectual disability with sympathy but also realism unusual for 1937. Lennie has childlike understanding—he can't follow complex instructions, can't remember rules, can't plan for future. He asks George about everything: what to do, what to say, where to go. His memory fails constantly: he forgets where they're going, why they left Weed, what George just told him. He can't learn from mistakes—killing the mouse doesn't teach him not to pet the puppy too hard. This isn't caricature; it's reasonably accurate portrayal of someone with significant intellectual disability who lacks support systems to function independently.
What makes Lennie innocent is his complete lack of malice. He loves soft things—mice, puppies, Curley's wife's hair—without any intention to harm. When the mouse dies, he's genuinely confused and sad: "I didn't kill it. Honest I found it dead." He's not lying; he doesn't understand that his "petting" crushed it. When the puppy dies, he's angry at the puppy: "Why do you got to get killed? You ain't so little as mice." He can't grasp that he's the cause. This lack of understanding extends to Curley's wife's death—he didn't mean to kill her; he panicked when she screamed and his attempt to quiet her accidentally broke her neck. Morally, how do we judge someone who literally cannot understand what they're doing?
But Lennie's innocence doesn't make him safe. The pattern is established clearly: Lennie plus soft thing equals death. Mice, puppy, woman—escalating. His strength is beyond what even he realizes. When Curley attacks him and George says "Get him, Lennie," Lennie crushes Curley's hand effortlessly. He doesn't know how hard is too hard. He doesn't recognize when to stop. His disability means he can't control his strength or understand consequences. This makes him genuinely dangerous regardless of his innocent intentions.
The ethical complexity: Lennie is both not responsible (can't understand, no malice, didn't mean it) and must face consequences (killed someone, will likely kill again, can't be left unsupervised). Modern disability rights framework might argue for supported living, behavioral therapy, constant supervision. 1930s California offered: family care (if family exists and can afford it), institutionalization (horrific), or what happens in the novel. Steinbeck isn't arguing Lennie deserves death; he's showing a society that provides no good option for people like him.
George's care for Lennie demonstrates what was possible: one person, no training, no resources, trying to keep a disabled adult safe while also working full-time. It's unsustainable. George can't watch Lennie every moment. Lennie can't understand danger. The Depression economic reality means no money for special care. Steinbeck shows individual love (George genuinely cares for Lennie) colliding with structural impossibility (one person can't provide the support Lennie needs). The result is inevitable tragedy.
The rabbits symbolize everything tender about Lennie and everything impossible about his dream. He wants to tend rabbits—nurture soft, vulnerable things. But he kills soft things he loves. The rabbits in his imagination are safe; real rabbits in his care would die. Steinbeck makes this explicit when Lennie imagines a giant rabbit telling him: "You ain't fit to tend no rabbits." Even Lennie's hallucination understands he can't have what he most wants. The rabbits represent innocence—both Lennie's innocent desire to care for something, and the innocence that he destroys through actions he can't control. His dream is impossible because achieving it would destroy what makes it desirable.
Comparing 1930s and modern readings reveals both how far we've come and how far we haven't. Today we have (imperfectly) disability accommodations, special education, supported living, legal protections. Reading Lennie now, we see someone who could potentially be supported in ways 1930s California couldn't imagine. This makes the tragedy historical—result of era's limitations rather than eternal truth. But we also still warehouse people with disabilities in institutions, still question their humanity, still struggle with what to do when someone can't function independently. Lennie's tragedy resonates because the questions aren't fully resolved.
Steinbeck's portrayal has been criticized as ableist—showing disabled person as dangerous, ultimately killed. But reading in context, Steinbeck seems to be indicting society, not Lennie. The novel shows: Lennie is vulnerable and needs care. Society provides no care. His disability makes him dangerous in environments without support. Society destroys people who can't fit. This is tragedy of failed social structure, not inevitability of disability. Lennie isn't inherently doomed—he's doomed by 1930s capitalism that values only productive workers and discards everyone else.
George tells Slim why he stays with Lennie: "He's my... cousin." Later: "I told his old lady I'd take care of him." Eventually, the truth: they're not related, but George made a promise and Lennie is his friend. The friendship between intelligent George and intellectually disabled Lennie is the novel's heart. George complains about Lennie slowing him down, but he doesn't leave. "I want you to stay with me, Lennie. Jesus Christ, somebody'd shoot you for a coyote if you was by yourself." The tragedy is that George is right, and eventually must shoot Lennie himself to prevent worse death.
Lennie dies thinking about rabbits, happy. This matters for understanding Steinbeck's compassion. Lennie's last moment is joy—imagining the dream farm, the rabbits he'll tend, "livin' off the fatta the lan'." He doesn't experience fear or understanding of death. From his perspective, he just stops existing while thinking about something happy. If death must come (and in this novel's structure, it must), this is merciful death. Steinbeck gives Lennie this much dignity: dying ignorant of death, which for someone who can't understand abstract concepts, is mercy.
What makes Lennie tragic rather than just pathetic is that we see his inner life. He's not a symbol of disability; he's a person who experiences joy (telling the dream), sadness (dead puppy), fear (Curley), love (George and rabbits), and confusion (why do things die when he pets them?). Steinbeck's access to his consciousness creates empathy even when showing him being dangerous. We understand he doesn't mean harm. We also understand he causes harm anyway. Both are true. The tragedy is that someone this innocent must die because the world can't accommodate him.
Of Mice and Men matters because Lennie's question remains unanswered: what do we do with people who need more care than individuals can provide, who society sees as burdens, who don't fit productivity models? Steinbeck didn't have answer in 1937 except showing that killing them is tragedy. We claim to have better answers now (and sometimes do), but disabled people still face systemic barriers, still get warehoused, still are judged by productivity metrics they can't meet. Lennie haunts us because his question—how should society care for its most vulnerable members?—hasn't been resolved. We just have more complicated ways of failing.
✍️ Writing Tips:
Character analysis works best when you show complexity and contradictions. Lennie is sympathetic AND dangerous—explore this tension rather than resolving it. Use specific scenes as evidence. Connect character to theme: Lennie reveals societal failures regarding disability and vulnerability.
📜
Essay 5: Historical Context
Understanding the Great Depression context transforms Of Mice and Men from simple tragedy to social critique. Knowing about migrant workers, economic collapse, and 1930s disability treatment reveals Steinbeck's political intervention in contemporary debates.
📝 Essay Prompt:
"Examine Of Mice and Men in the context of the Great Depression and California migrant labor. How does understanding 1930s economic and social conditions change interpretation of the novel's themes and ending?"
💡 Thesis Statement:
Of Mice and Men is Steinbeck's direct intervention in 1930s debates about Depression causes and solutions—by showing that hardworking men still fail to achieve dreams due to structural economic barriers rather than individual failings, he challenged dominant narrative that blamed the poor for poverty and argued for systemic reform rather than individual charity.
📋 Essay Outline:
I. Introduction • Hook: The dream that almost succeeds • Context: Written during Great Depression • Thesis: Social critique disguised as tragedy II. The Great Depression Context • Economic collapse 1929-1939 • Unemployment reaching 25% • Farms foreclosed, workers became migrants • California agricultural system exploiting workers III. Migrant Agricultural Workers in California • Moved from farm to farm following harvests • No permanent homes, no communities • Paid poorly, treated as disposable • George and Lennie as typical workers IV. The American Dream Under Pressure • Traditional: Work hard, buy land, prosper • Depression reality: System prevents achievement • Steinbeck shows: Dream is lie for working class • Political message: System is problem, not individuals V. Disability in 1930s America • No social safety net, no accommodations • Institutions were nightmarish • Disabled people: Family care or destruction • Lennie's fate reflects historical reality VI. Contemporary Debates Steinbeck Addresses • Are poor people lazy? (No, George and Lennie work hard) • Is charity enough? (No, system must change) • Are dreams achievable through effort? (No, structural barriers) • Was this politically controversial: Absolutely VII. Reception and Impact • Bestseller and Broadway success • Some critics called it socialist propaganda • Taught widely (still is) • Influenced public opinion about labor conditions VIII. Conclusion • Historical reading reveals political purpose • Novel works as tragedy AND social critique • Why context matters for interpretation • Relevance today: Economic inequality persists
🎯 Key Points to Remember:
- •Research Great Depression: unemployment, migration, agricultural labor
- •Know California agricultural system: large landowners, exploited workers
- •Understand 1930s disability treatment: institutions, eugenics, no support
- •Explain contemporary political debates Steinbeck engaged with
- •Show how historical reading enriches modern interpretation
📄 Full Sample Essay (1,200-1,500 words (4-5 pages)):
Click to read full essay →
When Of Mice and Men was published in 1937, America was eight years into the Great Depression. Banks had failed, farms were foreclosed, unemployment reached 25%. Millions of people who'd worked their entire lives suddenly had nothing—not because they stopped working but because the economic system collapsed. John Steinbeck wrote Of Mice and Men directly into this crisis, using George and Lennie's tragedy to argue that the Depression wasn't caused by individual moral failures but by structural economic problems requiring systemic solutions. Reading the novella in historical context transforms it from simple tragedy about two unlucky men into political intervention in 1930s debates about poverty, worthiness, and the American Dream's accessibility to the working class.
The specific setting matters: California's agricultural valleys during Depression. After the Dust Bowl destroyed farms in Oklahoma, Texas, and surrounding states, hundreds of thousands migrated to California seeking agricultural work. They found an exploitative system: large landowners paid starvation wages, provided minimal housing, and treated workers as disposable. No contracts, no permanence, no path to ownership. Ranch hands like George and Lennie moved constantly, following harvests, never settling. This wasn't chosen lifestyle—it was economic necessity in a system designed to prevent workers from gaining stability or power.
George and Lennie's dream of owning "a little house an' a couple of acres" represents the traditional American Dream: work hard, save money, buy property, be independent. What Steinbeck shows devastatingly is that this dream was impossible for migrant workers. They worked hard—backbreaking farm labor. They saved what they could—Candy's $300 represents a lifetime of savings. They found property they could afford. And still the dream dies. Not because they didn't try hard enough or weren't virtuous enough, but because Lennie's disability plus social isolation plus random tragedy equals destruction. Steinbeck's argument: the system prevents achievement regardless of effort.
This directly challenged dominant Depression-era narrative. Conservative voices blamed the poor for poverty: if you're struggling, you must be lazy, immoral, or incompetent. Work hard and you'll succeed; failure proves insufficient trying. Steinbeck shows this is lie. George is smart, hardworking, responsible. Lennie works like a machine. Candy saved his whole life. They still lose everything. The system is rigged against the working class, and individual virtue can't overcome structural exploitation. This was political argument disguised as literature.
The treatment of disability in Of Mice and Men reflects brutal 1930s reality. There were no disability rights, no special education, no accommodations, no social safety net. People like Lennie had three options: family care (if family could afford it), institutionalization (often horrific warehousing), or what happens in the novel. Asylums were overcrowded, abusive, essentially prisons. Many disabled people were forcibly sterilized under eugenics programs (legal in California). The idea that society should accommodate rather than eliminate disabled people didn't exist in mainstream thought.
George's killing of Lennie isn't just mercy in abstract—it's mercy within specific historical context where alternatives were genuinely worse. Steinbeck isn't endorsing euthanasia generally; he's showing what happens when society provides no humane option for vulnerable people. Historical reading reveals this as social critique: America's treatment of disabled people is indicted through Lennie's fate. Modern readers can recognize progress (we have better options now, though still inadequate) while understanding Steinbeck was documenting real limitations of his era.
Contemporary reactions to Of Mice and Men reveal its political nature. It was bestseller but also controversial. Some critics praised its realism and social awareness. Others attacked it as depressing, socialist propaganda undermining American values. It was banned in some schools for language, violence, and implicitly for suggesting that hard work doesn't guarantee success. The ban attempts prove the novel's effectiveness as political critique—comfortable people don't ban books that don't threaten their worldview.
The novella influenced public opinion about migrant labor just before The Grapes of Wrath made Steinbeck's critique more explicit and more controversial. Of Mice and Men showed Americans that ranch hands were human beings with dreams and friendships, not just economic units. It created empathy for working poor at moment when political will existed to help them (New Deal programs). Literature and politics intertwined: Steinbeck's fiction helped build support for labor reforms and social programs.
Understanding this context doesn't reduce the novel to propaganda. It remains genuine tragedy with complex characters and careful craft. But historical awareness reveals additional layer: Steinbeck was making argument about who deserves dreams, whose poverty matters, and whether America's economic system serves its working people. These were urgent political questions in 1937 when New Deal was debated and contested. Of Mice and Men intervened in this debate on the side of workers against exploitation.
The relevance persists because structural barriers to American Dream persist. Replace 1930s ranch hands with contemporary gig workers, precarious part-time employees, people working multiple jobs without benefits. Replace farm ownership dream with home ownership or retirement security. The pattern remains: work hard, save what you can, dream of stability, watch external forces destroy that dream. Economic inequality, lack of social safety net, medical bankruptcy, disability discrimination—these echo 1930s conditions Steinbeck documented. The historical novel illuminates contemporary reality.
Reading Of Mice and Men historically enriches modern reading without limiting it. The tragedy of George and Lennie works as story about friendship and loss regardless of knowing about Depression. But understanding that Steinbeck was specifically critiquing agricultural capitalism, documenting migrant labor conditions, and arguing that dreams fail from structural barriers rather than individual failings—this adds dimension to simple tragedy. The novel is both timeless and time-bound: crafted for its moment, speaking beyond it.
✍️ Writing Tips:
Historical context essays need clear background explanation—don't assume reader knows Depression history. Then show how novel engages with historical moment. Connect past to present: how do these historical issues persist or differ today? Balance historical specificity with contemporary relevance.