Week Post 4

Personally I would have to say I enjoyed Flowers for Algernon more then Of Mice and Men. This is because in Flowers we were able to get to really know Charlie in a way that wasnt as apparent in Mice and Men. While it does help that Floweres was longer so naturally you get more info, you get to really know Charlie when his world basically flips upside down. There was no dramatic change that gave Mice and Men its story. However with Flowers we went from a simple minded Charlie who could only read and write on a really basic to level, to a Charlie who learned twenty languages, wrote a paper about the expirement and in the end reverting back to his previous state. In Mice and Men Lennie was always simple minded and you never got to see him experience anything like Lenie did. So while both were exceptional novels, Flowers for Algernon won my vote on what was best.

Week 4 Post

Of the two novels, I preferred reading Flowers for Algernon. Although both dealt with mentally handicapped men and were similar in some ways, I definitely liked Flowers for Algernon better. Flowers for Algernon was a much quicker read than Of Mice and Men seemed to be. Of Mice and Men was a not exciting book, and the story line could have been much better. I also thought that Flowers for Algernon was better because the story line was something that could actually happen. The operation Charlie went through could possibly be something that may exist sometime in the near future.

The mentally handicapped characters in each book were portrayed very differently. The author of Flowers for Algernon seemed like he didn't want you to be on Charlie's side, especially when he was smart, because Charlie was portrayed as arrogant and rude. In Of Mice and Men, the author portrayed Lennie as a good character and made you feel bad for him when things went bad.

Of the two movies, I preferred Of Mice and Men because it was more action packed, unlike Flowers for Algernon which was trippy in some parts. The movie was also slow and confusing.

Week 2 Post

Short man syndrome, this is what everyone on the ranch that Lennie and George just started working on. There is a guy on the farm named Curly who is short and has "short man syndrome" this is something that he is very common for, he doesn't like tall people because he feels antimidated by tall people, and he doesn't care how big someone is he will fight them if he doesn't like them. This is dumb because most people who are bigger than small people can beat them in a fight easily, and that is what Lennie does when George tells Lennie to fight Curly back!

Week 4, Tyler E

The books Flowers for Algernon and Of Mice and Men were both similar with how they had mentally handicapped people as the main characters, but other than that the books weren’t very similar. Of Flowers for Algernon and Of Mice and Men, I liked Of Mice and Men more, because it was shorter and therefore we had less reading to do a night. I also felt that it was more interesting, especially at the end of the books. At the end of Of Mice and Men, Lennie kills Curley’s wife and then a man hunt peruses where at the end of Flowers for Algernon, Charlie just reverts to his old self and that’s about it. With both characters being mentally handicapped you can compare their intelligence and society’s expectations of the men. To me it seems that Charlie is a quite a bit smarter than Lennie, because when Charlie was at his dumbest he was still able to function in society and he didn’t get in trouble, where when Lennie was left on his own he got in trouble all the time and he was unable to function in society unless George was right by his side watching him constantly all the time.

The Comparison

Even though both Flowers for Algernon and Of Mice and Men deal with the same basic issue, how people with a mental disability adapt and survive in society, I preferred Flowers for Algernon. In Flowers for Algernon, I felt like I had more time to develop a better picture and all the characters due to its longer storyline. In Of Mice and Men, I hardly was able to get a good idea of what the different charachters personalities were like; some of the characters in Of Mice and Men didn't even have names i.e. Curly's Wife. In Mice of Men, the book only took part in one part of Lennie's Life and we never learned very much about his past. However, in Flowers for Algernon we learned extensively about Charlie's past and even some about his future. The plot in Flowers for Algernon was much more dynamic, unexpected and intriguing than that of Of Mice and Men. I also find the basic plot of Flowers for Algernon to be more interesting than Of Mice and Men. The plot of Flowers for Algernon was unpredictable because there were more scenarios for it to play out. Flowers of Algernon, in my opinion, is a better book than Of Mice and Men in every way I can think of.

Week 4 POST

I thought both of the books were alright. They both had their up and they both had their downs. I thought that Flowers for Algernon was more realistic because it was the more recent book. The things that happened in that book could possibly be tested at some time in our lifetime. Both of the novels were similar though. They both had vey sad and unfortunate endings. Also, both of the novels dealt with someone who is either very sow mentally or someone who is mentally retarded. Of Mice of Men was different because Lenny did't ever mean any harm to anybody but he ended up killing many animals and a woman because he didn't realize that he was being super aggressive. On the other hand, Charlie was a happy individual who just wanted to be smart. He had the operation which made him smart. It actually made him more than smart; it made him an absolute genius. He slowly became very smart and got to experience it but then he began his regression back to his old ways. This was a very sad moment for Charlie and the girl that he had fallen for, Alice Kinnian. Both knew that it was coming but both were still heartbroken. Overall, both of the novels shared a good point. That point is, treat others how you want to be treated and never take advantage of any person that is mentally handicapped.

ashley brewster week 4

I personally like Flowers For Algernon better than Of Mice and Men. The one thing I don't like about both of the novels is the ending. The ending in each is horrible. Flowers For Algernon is just more captivating and it always kept me wondering what was going to happen to Charlie. I like Charlie's character because he was brave and did a great thing for science. Before the surgery he was so carefree and happy but as soon as he found out about reality his dreams were kind of shattered. He doesn't let that make him stop trying to get better. He may have treated people badly but how are we to say we wouldn't be like that too if this happened to us.
Both novels portray mentally challenged people as being kind of a burden to society. No one really understands what is going on with them or how to handle them. In Flowers For Algernon every one took advantage of Charlie because they knew he didn't know any better they used him for a good time.
In both novels, neither character is treated fairly and with respect. They are different so people are scared and don't know what to do. This day in age we know how to handle it and we've learned to accept that they are people too. They may be different mentally but they still have a heart and they still have feelings.

week #4 :) amanda b

Compairing Flowers for Algernon and Of Mice and Men are easy. They both were okay books to read. they both had to do with a mentlely challenged person. They both had girls that were portrayed as not good ladys. They both had an unusual plot. They both made me feel different about each character. I felt bad for charlie but i am up set about Lennie because he kills things; well even though he doesnt mean to... Also In the Flowers of Algernon, Charlie was connected with a mouse, and in Of Mice Of Men Lennie also was connected with a mouse but it was a dead mouse.. Charlie was friends and kind of competed against the mouse named Algernon and Lennie just likes to pet soft things and mice are soft to him and his Aunt Cleara used to give them to him but he kept killing them so she stoped. Also they both have a mouse (type of thing ) in the titles. Algernon is a mouse and in the other book the mice part. These books are very much similar in many ways. I m sure i could come up with alot more. They were both good books to read in school.

Week 4 Post:)

Between Of mice and men and Flowers for Algernon, I personally liked of mice and men better because it was more dramatic and not as boring as Flowers for Algernon. Yeah, they both had the same concept but, Flowers for Algernon I felt dragged on and never ended. Of mice and men was more dramatic with all the animals and people dying. I thought it was stupid how they compared Charlie to a mouse. Its better that in Of mice and men Lennie had George and a puppy to relate and help him. Each novel portrays the intelligence of mentally impaired people and that they are slower than most people but that doesn’t make them any less important or any less stupid. In Flowers for Algernon Charlie was portrayed but his so called “friends” making fun of him and in Of mice and men Lonnie was portrayed by the whole ranch because of his mistake of killing the puppy and breaking Curly's wife's neck! The author is conveying the characters role of intelligence by showing how they interact with other people. :)

Making a Comparision

Comparing the two novels, Of Mice and Men and Flowers for Algernon, I would have to say that I enjoyed reading Flowers for Algernon better. Even though it was a longer book, and took longer to read, it really kept my attention and made me want to keep reading and make me keep wondering what was going to happen next. Of Mice and Men was just boring and didn’t really have much going for it. Even though both books had a lot of differences in them, they both shared a lot of things in common. Both novels show how society treats the mentally handicapped and the different intelligence levels that they have from normal people. They make you feel like if you’re not as intelligent, you’re not going to be as successful as others. It also shows that people expect less out of people who are handicapped but in reality, you shouldn’t underestimate anyone because most likely they will end up proving you wrong. Just like when Lennie broke Curley’s hand in the fight. The roles that the characters play in both novels portray different things. In Flowers for Algernon, Charlie’s role demonstrates someone who doesn’t have intelligence but is willing and wants to be smart. He tries and does everything he can to be successful but it fails. Lennie on the other hand isn’t intelligent and doesn’t do anything to help himself. He does try to listen to George, but he always gives in and never was successfu so it got him no where. These two novels were very similar yet so different in so many ways and I enjoyed them both.

Week 4 Post

I liked both of the books. But if I had to choose the one I liked better, I would choose Flowers for Algernon. At first I didn’t like it as much because it was harder to read. But as it went on, I felt like I became more and more interested in the book. I think the ending to Of Mice and Men was much more interesting. But, overall the book Flowers for Algernon has a better plot. In my opinion, both the books say that intelligence is overrated. In Flowers for Algernon, Charlie becomes a legal genius, but still feels like a part of him is missing. In the book Of Mice and Men, Lennie shows that he is just as able to work as all the other fully abled people. It shows that the expectations of people have gotten higher. In both books, the characters are looked down upon due to their mental illness. Both lead to sad endings as well. But, ironically, both of the endings were somewhat relieving. It was relieving that Lennie didn’t have to deal with people making fun of him and taking advantage of him to get him in trouble anymore. Also, Charlie went back to his old self where he had actually friends and relationships rather than the way he was after the procedure.

Week Three Comparing

After reading Mice of Men and Flowers for Algernon. I though Flowers for Algernon was better because there was always rising action and everything you read about was interesting. But In Mice of Men I thought the ending was a lot better than Flowers for Algernon. I thought this because towards the end of Mice of Men you never thought that ones best friend would kill another. Also in Flowers of Algernon the end wasn’t a surprise because you already knew that the experiment was going to go bad because Algernon died and he had the same experiment as Charlie. Also there was other ideas of what was going to happen to Charlie because Algernons brain deteriorated and Charlie knew that was going to happen to him so he visited the Warren State home. Also I thought Mice of Mens starting of the book was really boring. I thought the start of Mice of Men was boring because all they did was explain the setting and nothing much really happened. I thought the start of Flowers For Algernon was a lot more intresting because it talk about the operation and it wanted to make you keep on reading. Over all I thought Flowers For Algernon was the best.

Flowers or Mice?

When comparing Of Mice and Men and Flowers for Algernon, I would have to say that Flowers for Algernon was a better read. Both novels had similar underlying issues, as well as totally different ones. Personally I am science fiction fan, and to see how the whole experiment in Flowers  panned out at the end of the book was very cool and dramatic. Whereas in Of Mice and Men, the story line was much less dynamic; yet still had a fair amount of drama involved in the book. In regards to the characters, there were some similar roles in both books. George and Ms. Kinnian were both caretakers and best friends of the mentally handicapped character. Candy and Dr. Strauss could be said to be the wise older character in both novels. They both genuinely cared for the main roles, and offered advice as needed. I also felt that in both novels, the author was trying to give a great insight into the mind of a mentally handicapped person. Personally I felt Flowers did a better job of doing this, because of the way the story was written from the perspective of Charlie's progress reports. This is why I prefer Flowers. 

Charlie and Lennie

After completing both Novels, honestly i can't say I enjoyed either more than the other.
They were almost about the same thing in a sense. Charlie Gordon and Lennie Small.
The ending of Of Mice and Men was definitely better I thought, not for the fact that Lennie died but that it did not leave you wondering what happens? In Flowers i did not like the regression stage of Charlie at all. It was depressing in a sense and it was very drawn out in how he ended up in the home he stayed in. I liked it how Lennies death was short and to the point and you didnt have a bad taste in your mouth about what happened or does he live or whatever. The fact of which novel i like more, I would have to say Of Mice and Men. It was seemingly more heart felt and a warmer story over all. I enjoyed the brotherhood of lennie and george, and thought it right that gerge be the one to end things. I hope this is two hundred words.

Week #4-Colleen Curtiss

I liked the book, Of Mice and Men because it had a really interesting plot, setting, and time period, and it was a short read, plus it was an easy book for me to get into. I have to say that I didn’t care for the book, Flowers for Algernon, because it was very repetitive and plus it was harder for me to get into.  Both the books were about a mentally retarded person having to go through their daily lives and struggling.  In the books Lennie and Charlie are the main characters that are always getting picked on it some way and are never able to stand up for themselves.  In Lennie case he doesn’t have choice and he just has to get use to it, but in Charlie case he has the chance to get a surgery that can make him smart so that other people will like him.  The author of the book, Flowers for Algernon, is really trying to portray that intelligence is not always the key to friends and family.  The author of the book, Of Mice and Men, is trying to portray that intelligence doesn’t make a different and someone will hopefully always be there to stick up for you, in that case George sticks up for Lennie.

Flowers for Lennie.

Both of the novels that we read in Senior English so far were good. I enjoyed them both. I enjoyed Flowers for Algernon more. I feel as if it had a better storyline than Of Mice and Men. I’m not so sure why we are reading so many books on mentally challenged people, but I think it is wrong how mentally challenged people are looked down upon by society. To get a true perspective of what mentally challenged people have to deal with, I attempt to imagine myself in their shoes. When I am in their shoes, all I want is for someone to stand up for me, but rarely does that happen. I think that people are afraid to stand up for mentally challenged people, because if they do people will pick on them instead. In the novels, Charlie and Lennie are somewhat similar, because they both have someone kind of looking out for them. Lennie has George and Charlie has Alice and Fay. In Flowers for Algernon Charlie just regressed and didn’t die. Lennie never became smart, but he just stayed the same level of intelligence. I wonder what would’ve happened if Lennie had surgery to make him smart. I wonder if the operation would have worked this time? Unless you gave professor Nemur a little more time, odds are that Lennie would regress back to his regular self. If Lennie had the surgery, I wonder if he would have found a different place to work, and possibly bought the farm for George and himself.

this or that

Comparing Both novels, Mice of Men and Flowers of Argon is hard because they are both good books. If I had to choose I would pick the novel Mice of Men. I liked this novel better than Flowers of Argon because it is more believable. Both the books have similar themes, which are society’s intelligence and how people react to that. People Judge others who are way to smart or really dumb. If any one is out of the norm they are judged and criticized. I think that Lennie and Charlie are almost exactly alike. Both are mentally challenged, at least for a time. Also, both appear to be very kind. I think that this is kind of a stereotype by both authors; they seem to think there is a relationship that the less smart you are, you also become more friendly or innocent. I do not think that that is necessarily and accurate label.

Week 4 Flowers vs. Mice

I liked "Of Mice and Men" more the "Flowers for Algernon", that's probably because I felt like I could relate a little more to "Of Mice and Men". Both of the books brought mental handicaps into the picture in their own ways. "Flowers for Algernon" brings retardation into view in the the life of a handicapped adult and the want to be smart, and the willingness to do anything to achieve that goal to be normal in the world that Charlie lived in. The experiment was his attempt at reaching that goal. In "Of Mice and Men", Lennie is a big, strong adult, but has the mental handicap that makes him a problem maker. He can't really be helped with his handicap which is one of the reasons he causes all kinds of problems, like killing Curley's wife on accident. His size and mental capacity makes him kind of a threat. It's problems like these that get Lennie killed in the end by his best and only friend. He was just doing more bad then good with good intentions. Both of these portrayals make very good points about the treatment of mental handicaps and what may eventually come to be of them, fixed or dead.

Ryan Makinen Week 4 comparison post

In the comparison between Flowers for Algernon and Of Mice and Men, Flowers for Algernon is the favorite. Flowers For Algernon is a better read because it shows more of the discrimination that people face. In Flowers for Algernon, Charlie gets discriminated against the most because of his mental disability. Multiple characters in the novel give him a hard time and treat him as though he is inferior to them, and is an animal. In Of Mice and Men, Lennie is a character who also has a mental disability, bu the only person who seems to give him a hard time is Curley. Although Curley picked on him because he doesn't like big guys, he kept picking on him because he thought that it would be easier for him to get away with it because of Lennie's mental disability. Both novels show society's expectations for humans regardless of their intelligence. Both novels also show that innocence is bliss. In Of Mice and Men, Lennie doesn't really know what's going on because he always forgets, but this allows him to focus on what he wants, and it makes him happy. All Lennie really thinks about is how someday he might be able to tend rabbits. In Flowers for Algernon, Charlie doesn't really know what's going on as well. He thinks that the workers at the bakery are his friends because they always seem to be laughing and having a good time. Even though they're laughing at him, just the fact that they're laughing makes him happy. But after the surgery, Charlie was much more intelligent and aware of what was happening around him, so he realized that they weren't really his friends and he became less happy.

Which is better? Read it.

Between of Mice and Men and Flowers for Algernon I would have to say that I enjoyed Flowers for Algernon more than I did of Mice and Men. The reason that I enjoyed it more was that I thought the characters in Flowers were more likable and their personalities were much deeper than that of the characters from Of Mice And Men. Intelligence, both books revolve around the topic yet they both do it in completely different ways. In Of Mice and Men they show mentally handicapped people through Lennie and him being this giant of a person yet having the mental capabilities of a 6 year old. In Flowers for Algernon it portrays mentally handicapped people as being the joke of most people so that they can feel better about themselves. The book also shows that they believe mentally challenged people should be able to have an operation and be able to be normal just like everyone else in the world, it shows that the author thinks that everyone in life should be normal or at least have the opportunity to be normal it shows a level of xenophobia from the author. Overall I would say that Flowers for Algernon was much better than Of Mice and Men.

Week 4 Post

Flowers for Algernon and Of Mice and Men are two novels that I have recently read in class. Both novels are very similar stories to each other. One similarity the novels share is that they both show a mentally handicapped person and how they connect with society and how society connects with them. Both Charlie and Lennie want friends and are looking for approval from their peers. They both also had a similar dream. Charlie’s dream was to be smart and for Lennie it was to live on a ranch with George and raise rabbits. Although Lennie never reached his dream, he died with the thought of achievement. Unlike Lennie, Charlie reaches his dream but ends up broken hearted when his dream doesn't last. After reading both novels, the novel I liked the most was Of Mice and Men. I felt Flowers for Algernon was a little bit predictable throughout the story unlike Of Mice and Men which had several surprises that I didn’t think were predictable. I enjoyed not knowing what was going to happen as I read the story. I thought the friendship between George and Lennie was nice and especially like the way George took care of Lennie and stuck for him.

of mice and men vs flowers

I enjoyed Flowers for Algernon more than of mice and men. I feel like a flower for Algernon had a better story line and was told a lot better than of mice and me. Plus even tho it still had a sad ending it was better than over all ending. Society always puts a high standard on intelligence and it is a very prominent theme in both books but in flowers for Algernon it showed that some people in society don’t care about intelligence, only about your self at the level you are at. In of mice and men Lennie was portrayed as a very dim witted man that cant do anything for himself, but in flowers for Algernon he made the change because he had the drive to change. In of mice and men they convey a kind of sad out look on the mentally handicapped. That they are for the most part unable to keep themselves out of trouble and can not function in normal society. In flowers for Algernon they show a very different side of mentally handicapped people. Showing that they are capable of working in a plaice like a bakery and that they are real people too. Even tho most people don’t treat them as so

Of Mice and Men was so much better...

I believe that Of Mice and Men is much better then Flowers of Algernon, because I didn't really care for all the people making fun of Charlie and in Of Mice and Men, nobody makes fun of Lennie cause they don't know. I liked how there was somebody there for Lennie to watch over him, but Charlie didn't really have a friend to look over him just a bunch of doctors. Charlie really couldn't be himself in the book cause all he was, was a science project, and with Lennie he got to be himself around George and do things that he was good at. Even though both Lennie and Charlie are the same, Lennie could be able to take of himself ( if he ever gets is anger under control that is), and Charlie really can't cause people would take advantage of him. They only thing I really cared about from Flowers of Algernon was that Charlie didn't kill any animals, and Lennie has killed a bunch apparently. I'm not a big fan of animal cruelty and that's just sad what Lennie did to the mice and puppy. Of Mice and Men was better also because it had a lot of twists and turns that I thought was interesting. Especially when Lennie ended up killing Curley's wife, didn't see that one coming.

Comparison

Personally, I liked Flowers for Algernon. This book has many different settings and places to explore. While Of Mice and Men, on the other hand, only placed at the farm was less exciting. Although both books had very interesting stories to them, Flowers for Algernon portrays a better feel for what was going on and was very unpredictable at times. I like to be able to guess what is going to happen next, and in Of Mice and Men I feel if was very predictable. Of Mice and Men has a better feel for how people were treated differently and society’s expectations of each individual while Flowers for Algernon is based on Charley’s experiment. Both stories send a message that you have to think about what to do before you do it. Also, do what you have to do with meaning. Do not just do something to get it over with, finish with 110% like you have started. So yeah pretty much I liked Flowers for Algernon better!

Week 4 Post

I like the novel Flowers for Algernon better because it kept me interested to see what was going to happen next, and Of Mice and Men took forever for something exciting to happen. Charlie had his operation mid way through the book and it kept me wondering what was going to happen to him next. The only thing that was exciting in Of Mice and Men occurred in the last chapter. Another reason why I like Flowers for Algernon better is because it is easier to follow and it had a better plot. In Of mice and Men there was a whole chapter of just people talking. Overall, Flowers for Algernon kept me interested more than Of Mice and Men did. Both novels gave good examples of how the lack of intelligence affects the amount of success a person can have. Charlie lived a boring life before the surgery and Lennie was shot because he didn't understand that killing things was wrong. Both Charlie and Lennie had a difficult time fitting in and making a difference in their lives. Lennie and Charlie were also treated poorly due to their mental disabilities. Charlie was often mistreated by the people he worked with at the bakery, and Lennie was treated poorly by his best friend George.

Week 4 Post ( My writing skills are astonishing)

Between the two novels, I really thought both were not good. Honestly if I had to pick I would say I liked Flowers for Argenon better because it had more of a modern problem and solution that Of Mice and Men. I liked Flowers better because of how it showed a useless human being changed over time due to the result of one surgery. If that surgery was a true solution in this society I believe this book would help people decide whether they want to have it or not. I believe that through these books, it shows society accepts smart people and that the smarter people succeed more than the mentally ill. In a society with more normal people than people with disabilities the people who were born with these disabilities are treated differently than those who aren’t and are sometimes even discriminated against because of their lack of mental capacity. For example Lennie is treated differently by Curley because he is a bigger and dumber man than all the rest so therefore Curley believes he can take his anger out on him. Another example is how Nemur convinced Charlie of taking the risk of the surgery because Nemur was smarter and seemed to know what he was doing so Charlie agreed with him and went with the procedure. The characters help the author say that people with the mental disabilities will most likely never make it through life completely by themselves. They always need someone there to watch over them or they could lose their lives like the case of Lennie.

I like the book Of Mice And Men better because it was an easier read. Also, it was less confusing and I understood the whole story. Both stories dealt greatly with the importance of intelligence in society. I interpret it as, if you don't have a sufficient amount of intelligence then you wont make it in this world. Charlie wanted to become smart, therefore he had the surgery. He wanted improvement in his life and was willing to take the chance. Without more intelligence Charlie would be worth nothing. He would just live out his life in the Warren home and make nothing of himself. In Flowers, Lennie never had the chance to improve his mental capabilities. His lack of intelligence lead him to his death. The author was trying to make a point that if your brain lacks certain aspects then the human body will not succeed in life. Lennie was a very hard worker, but not very smart. It wasn't Lennie's fault that he was born that way. He also had no chance at fixing it unlike Charlie. Charlie took the chance but it ended up failing. I would say that it is better to live a short life with intelligence rather than live a long life without it. It sounds very harsh saying that both authors want to convey the importance of intelligence in society with success, but that's almost how it is today. People with the incapability of learning will not go very far in life. To get a good paying job you need to be really smart, and if your brain can't move forward and grow with knowledge, then you are stuck going nowhere in life. The author of Flowers was trying to imply that there are people trying to improve the intelligence of those born without it. But in Mice the author is saying that people with no intelligence will die and they have no significance in society. These books both have differents ways to look at them.

Week 4- Cm

Both novels were similar in context; they each had to deal with individuals who have mental disabilities. I would have to say that I liked the novel, Flowers For Algernon better than John Steinback's Of Mice and Men. Flowers for Algernon was overall a better book with a hands down better plot. In Of Mice and Men, I felt that the plot wasn't really progressing and the ending wasn't all that great. In the book of Flowers for Algernon, I felt that I was reading a good story with an actual thought out plot. I felt that Flowers for Algernon focused more on intelligence and the people around Charlie were concerned for him the whole time. They felt that they had to baby sit Charlie. In of Mice and Men, Lennie could hold his own when he was with the guys working on the ranch. It also helps that he is big as an elephant and like a tank. George could trust Lennie more than the people could trust Charlie in Flowers For Algernon.

week 3

In the book Flowers for Algeron there is a power struggle between the doctors and the experiment or as we call them algernon and charly. Charly in this book seems like he gets a tast of power when he gets his temperary intellegance. He finaly is on top and is as smart and or smarter then most of the doctors that gave him his intellagence. But in the book he doesn’t allways have power or when he does its only minimum. Threw out charlies hole life he has allways been under the power of others because of his mental retardation. When he was a kid his mother was control of him and treated him so bad threatening him punishing him for stuff he cant help. Then when he went to the warren home he allways had someone looking after him. Even the one thing he loved to do which was work at the bakery he was still didn’t have power. He was still just a bus boy doing basic things around the shop. A person that allways had power in the book but lost it at the end was was charly mom. She over powered her son charly and she wore the pants in the family. But karma came back at her because she lost her mind with demensia when charly went to see her. This in my eyes was kinda like peotic justice that charlies mom treated charlie so horribaly and had his sister an gave up on him because he was retarted but in the end she became mentaly handycaped.

week four

Compare the two novels. Which did you like better and why? What does each novel say about intelligence and society's expectations of people? Compare characters portrayed in each? What role do the characters play in conveying the author's message about intelligence?

I think that if I had to chose between the two novels, Flowers for Algernon is way better. It has a plot line that actually makes sense, and its not always people just sitting there, talking in the ranch quarters for workers. Flowers was also a better read because it had more interest to it. The surgery and the entire plot line was a lot more sophisticated then Of Mice and Men. Also, Flowers was a lot easier to read and follow, and it really felt like you where reading an actual journal written by Charlie. But if I had to chose which movie is better I would say Of Mice and Men because it follows the story a lot better then Flowers for Algernon did.
Each novel basically said that intelligence isn't that important for a happy life. Well, at least that's what I got out of it. In Charlies case, he got to be intelligent but he was happy before, and he continued to be happy after the surgery wore off. In Lennies case, he was for the most part happy and hardworking, he was nice and never meant any to do any harm purposely.
Each novels had the main charactors get teased for not being smart. Charlie would get teased by the guys at the bakery and Lennie was teased growing up. Neither of them realized that, and they even laughed and played along with those who were teasing them.

But overall Flowers was by far the better book, and Of Mice and Men was a better movie.

Dylan Coffman Week 4 post

I am comparing the two novels, Of Mice And Men, and Flowers For Algernon. In both of these novels there are some characters that just arent as smart as the average person. Lennie in Of Mice and Men is just slow and in the 1920-30's they didnt really know what this was. When he does things like grab a girls dress this looks like he is trying to rape someone, and these other people dont know how this works exactly. And in Flowers for algernon the main character is slower and he doesn't know that people are making fun of him, when he gets this surgery he is much smarter and he then notices these people he is around daily are actually really mean. These slower characters are picked on and made fun of because they are different intelligence wise. This is wrong and i think they need to be picked on themselves if they get a kick out of picking on slower people.

Week 4 Post

Week 4 Post Assignment

Compare the two novels. Which did you like better and why? What does each novel say about intelligence and society's expectations of people? Compare characters portrayed in each? What role do the characters play in conveying the author's message about intelligence?

Dear mrs marble,

I am doing this at the last minute and i am extremely tired and need to quickly do my rough draft after this. on a better note. i like Flowers For Algernon better, because it had a better story line behind it with more description that could allow the reader connect better with the novel. both novels show how intelligence plays a key part in society, as both Charlie and Lennie had a lack of it and for that, they were treated poorly. both Charlie and Lennie show a strong interest in mice and a need for them to keep them as pets. also they both don't understand the world the way, the rest of the people around them do.

big rayn

week 4 post

I enjoyed Flowers for Algernon more than Of Mice and Men because it’s overall a better read. Of Mice and Men wasn’t very detailed and even though it was a shorter book it was almost harder to read because you had to take in so much information at once. In Flowers for Algernon you got to learn more in detail about the characters, so it made the novel more interesting. The novels basically say that if someone isn’t normal then they don’t and will never fit in with society. The only time that Charlie was accepted in society was when he was smart, but before that everyone treated him poorly. Lennie and Charlie play the main role in the author’s message about intelligence, but in very different ways. Lennie was not book smart, but knew how to be a hard worker and cared about others feelings. The Of Mice and Men author had a message that even if someone isn’t intelligent doesn’t mean that they are completely dumb. In Flowers for Algernon Charlie played a role in the author’s message that sometimes not being smart is better than being smart. After the operation when Charlie became smart he noticed things that he didn’t before like people making fun of him and judging him. Both authors did show that whether someone is smart or dumb they are still a human and it is wrong for them to be treated as if they aren’t.

Blog week 4 chrisp

I like Flowers for Algernon better then of Mice And Men because it was more exciting. Also it seems that the book Flowers For Algernon flowed quicker and was a easier to read. Another thing is that it took longer for the book Of Mice And Men to get to a interesting part .The reason that I thought Flowers For Algernon was better was because it was interesting to see how Charlie evolves as a person as he gets smarter. Along with seeing Charlie flash back as he becomes more intelligent.

In the book Of Mice And Men Lenny and George are slow intellectually . I believe this because they don't really now how to function in normal society and only care about each other and getting a farm. Charlie IQ of 99 cause Charlie to be different from society . The similarities between Lenny and Charlie are that they are both mentally handicapped. Also they both have a tendency to trust people to easily. Some of the difference between Lenny and Charlie is that Lenny had a good aunt how has raise him responsibly unlike Charlie's mom how abuse him every chance she got.

Week 4.

Of Mice and Men was my favorite out of the two books we had to read. I preferred Of Mice and Men because, it wasn't so boring which, made it was easier for me to read. It was just more exciting, where I’d want to read ahead. Where as in Flowers for Algernon, it felt like forever just to get through one page. The book made us look at mental handicaps from two points of view; from theirs and from outsiders so, we got to view it from both sides. I felt like both books made it seem like it was hard to fit in if you're a mental handicapped. In Flowers, Charlie didn't fit in society until he was smart and in Of Mice and Men they didn't really give Lennie much of a voice because of his problem. But, even if you're smart in society that doesn't guarantee that you'll fit in and, if you aren't as smart as the rest that doesn't mean that your opinions don't matter. George, played the role of intelligence in the novel by being a good friend. Lennie, was always getting them into some sort of trouble and George would've to find a way out of it but, he stuck by Lennie's side anyway. I think he wanted the best for Lennie even, if it meant losing his temper on him sometimes.

Week 4: Novel Comparison- Megan Sheridan

I personally liked Flowers for Algernon much better than Of Mice and Men mainly because the setting in Flowers for Algernon is more recent, the story is set in first person (which allows me to relate more to the obstacles Charlie must overcome and his thought process), and the ending proceeds to adequately indicate what happens to the main character after the climax events succeed. Of Mice and Men is presented in third person, which makes it difficult to discern Lennie or George’s internal thought process directly (it must be inferred), and the ending seemed to cut off abruptly with no indication of how George would cope with Lennie’s death or what he would decide to do next.

While both books present an initial hostile or doubting response from society to those with mental disadvantages, Flowers for Algernon examines society’s reaction to a sudden leap in intelligence from that of an intellectual disability to an intellectual genius. As the novel unfolds, Charlie is alienated and misunderstood; ending his run as a genius isolated. However, Daniel Keyes illustrates that the accumulation of intelligence as corrupting, as Charlie begins to become bitter and condescending. Lennie, on the other hand, eventually overcomes the character’s (mostly Curly’s) initial hostility or doubt, and becomes an asset to the farm and a friend to its employees; demonstrating that intelligence is not needed to be content.

Both novels present a negative perspective on amassed intelligence, and an innocent or pure perspective on mental disabilities in Of Mice and Men and Flowers for Algernon.