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.
No comments:
Post a Comment