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.
I would have to disagree with you, Colleen on with book was better. For me the best book was Flowers. I really didn't think Of Mice and Men had a plot and I didn't get into the book as much as I did with Flowers. I would agree that Of Mice and Men was a shorter book to read. In the Lennie's case he did have the choice of letting people pick on him because if someone did pick on him, he could have really hurt them. I agree with you that the author for Flowers was trying to portray the fact that intelligence is not always the key to friends and family. In the book Of Mice and Men I don't think the author was trying to portray that someone will always be there to stick up for you like George sticks up for Lennie because George didn't really stick up for Lennie he just controlled who and what Lennie did.
ReplyDelete