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.