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.
I agree with you Calvin. Both novels showed people who normally would not succeed in the world we live in today. Both Charlie and Lennis needed to be constantly watched and made sure they were staying out of trouble. As Charlie grew smarter he realized how much of a hassle he must have been and knows how it feels to be so dumb you rely on other people everyday to help you out in life.
ReplyDeleteI completly agree with the both of you. Considering the plot, I better followed the plot for Flowers for Algeron, and I actually enjoyed reading it. It made me want to read it to the end, unlike Of Mice and Men. Of Mice and Men just made me want to get it over with. I only disagree with the part that you said Lennie could hold his own when he was with the guys on the ranch. He obviously could not hold his own because he ended up killing both the cute little puppy, and Curley's wife. If anything Lennie should have been more watch over than Charlie was because Lennie was an actual threat to the people around him.
ReplyDelete