Abstract
Critics' failure to appreciate the true position of Candy in Of Mice and Men has led to an under-appreciation of the tragic dimensions of Steinbeck's play, which this essay investigates. There is tragedy in this drama; that is why Candy is in the play: he and his dog are very important to the action. The point of Carlson's shooting of the dog is not to make an easy parallel with George's shooting of Lennie. It is not so much the dog who is in the same position as the imbecilic Lennie; it is the shooting of the dog that places Candy in the same position. Once he does not have his dog to look after anymore, Candy realizes the precariousness of his own position on the ranch: he is without one hand, and he is fast approaching senility. Like Lennie, Candy needs someone to make the rest of his life easier and more congenial; he needs George. But Candy, finally, is not Lennie, and George will not team up with him after Lennie is gone. After he shoots Lennie, George can still get the farm with Candy if he wants to, but he declines. This approximates tragedy because it suggests not simply that George loved Lennie too much, but also that only by developing an unnatural attachment to Lennie could he ever have put up with (and done so much for) someone like him in the first place. Thus can we account for the tragic inevitability of the play, wherein character Lennie's, George's is destiny.
Comments (0)