John Steinbeck was basically a genius at making people feel miserable in the best way possible. If you had to read the Of Mice and Men novella in high school, you probably remember the ending. It’s brutal. It's the kind of ending that stays in the back of your brain for decades. Most people think it’s just a sad story about two guys on a farm, but honestly, it’s much weirder and more complex than the SparkNotes version lets on.
Steinbeck wrote this thing in 1937. The world was falling apart. The Great Depression had turned the American Dream into a literal nightmare of dust and hunger. Against that backdrop, we get George Milton and Lennie Small. They are two displaced migrant ranch workers, moving through California, looking for enough work to buy a little piece of land where they can "live off the fatta the lan’."
It sounds simple. It isn't.
The Weird Structure of the Of Mice and Men Novella
One thing that confuses people is the length. Is it a short story? A novel? Steinbeck actually called it a "playable novel" or a "novelette." He wrote it with a very specific, almost strange intent: he wanted it to be a play that you could also read.
If you look closely at the text, you’ll see it.
Every chapter starts with a description of the "set." The characters enter and exit like they’re walking onto a stage at a theater in New York. There’s very little internal monologue. You don’t really know what George is thinking unless he says it out loud to Lennie or another ranch hand. This was a massive gamble for Steinbeck. He wanted to strip away the fluff of a traditional novel and leave only the raw, awkward interactions between broken people.
It worked.
The book is only about 30,000 words. You can finish it in a single sitting on a Sunday afternoon, but you’ll probably need the rest of the day to stare at a wall and process it.
Why the Dream of the "Little House" Was Always Doomed
Everyone talks about "the dream." George and Lennie want their own place. They want rabbits. Specifically, Lennie wants to tend the rabbits because he has a fixation on touching soft things—a trait that, as we know, leads to absolute disaster.
✨ Don't miss: Dining room layout ideas that actually work for real life
But here is the thing: Steinbeck wasn't just being a pessimist. He was documenting a specific economic reality of the 1930s. Most migrant workers at that time were "bindlestiffs." They carried everything they owned on their backs. They were solitary, suspicious, and often angry. George and Lennie’s relationship is viewed with immediate suspicion by the other ranch hands because, in that world, nobody looked out for anyone else.
Curley’s wife is the perfect example of this isolation. She doesn’t even have a name in the Of Mice and Men novella. She’s just "Curley’s wife." She is a personification of the loneliness that defined the era. She’s bored, she’s trapped in a bad marriage, and she’s looking for any kind of human connection, even if it’s with a man like Lennie who doesn't understand the world.
The Problem With the Rabbits
Lennie’s obsession with the rabbits isn’t just a cute character quirk. It’s a symbol of tactile comfort in a world that is incredibly harsh. Throughout the story, Lennie accidentally kills things. A mouse. A puppy. Eventually, a human being.
He doesn’t do it out of malice. He’s just too strong for his own brain.
Steinbeck uses this to show that even the most innocent intentions can’t survive in a world that demands utility. On the ranch, if you aren't useful, you’re gone. We see this with Candy’s old dog. The dog is useless, so it gets a bullet in the back of the head. It’s a heavy-handed bit of foreshadowing for Lennie’s own fate, but it lands because it feels so inevitable.
The Controversy That Won't Die
You might be surprised to learn that this thin little book is one of the most frequently challenged or banned books in the United States. Even now.
Why?
- The language is "gritty" (lots of 1930s-era profanity).
- The depiction of Crooks, the black stable hand, uses racial slurs that make modern readers extremely uncomfortable.
- The ending is viewed by some as promoting euthanasia.
But if you talk to scholars like Susan Shillinglaw, a top-tier Steinbeck expert, she’ll tell you that removing the "ugly" parts of the Of Mice and Men novella ruins the point. Steinbeck was a realist. He wasn't trying to write a polite story. He was trying to show the hierarchy of the ranch, where the black man (Crooks) is at the bottom, and the woman (Curley’s wife) is just above him, and both are desperately trying to find some shred of power over the other.
🔗 Read more: Different Kinds of Dreads: What Your Stylist Probably Won't Tell You
It’s a cycle of cruelty.
When Crooks tells Lennie that the dream of the farm is never going to happen—that he’s seen hundreds of men with the same dream and none of them ever get it—he’s not just being a jerk. He’s being the voice of reality. He’s the only one who truly understands that the system is rigged.
George’s Impossible Choice
The climax of the story is one of the most debated moments in American literature.
When George finds Lennie in the brush at the end, he has two choices. He can let the lynch mob, led by the vengeful Curley, find Lennie and likely torture him to death. Or, he can do it himself.
He chooses to kill his best friend.
Is it an act of mercy? Or is it a betrayal?
Most readers see it as the ultimate sacrifice. George has to kill the only thing he loves to protect it from a worse fate. But it also signals the end of George’s own humanity. Without Lennie, he’s just another lonely guy spending his paycheck on whiskey and "cat houses." The dream dies with Lennie.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Ending
There’s a common misconception that George is somehow "free" at the end. That he's finally rid of the burden of taking care of Lennie.
💡 You might also like: Desi Bazar Desi Kitchen: Why Your Local Grocer is Actually the Best Place to Eat
That’s totally wrong.
George is devastated. Steinbeck makes this clear through the character of Slim, the "mule skinner" who is basically the moral compass of the ranch. Slim is the only one who understands what George did and why it was so hard. He tells George, "You hadda, George. I swear you hadda."
The rest of the guys? They don’t get it. Carlson, the guy who owns the gun George used, watches them walk away and asks, "Now what the hell ya suppose is eatin' them two?"
That line is the most important in the book. It shows the total lack of empathy in the world. Carlson represents the majority of people who can't comprehend a bond that goes beyond self-interest.
Actionable Insights for Reading (or Re-reading)
If you’re going to dive back into the Of Mice and Men novella, don't just look for the plot points. Look at the sensory details.
- Watch the hands. Steinbeck fixates on hands. Lennie’s "paws," Curley’s "gloved hand," Candy’s missing hand. It’s a book about manual labor and what happens when your hands do things your head didn't intend.
- Listen to the silence. There are moments of absolute quiet in the barn or by the river that Steinbeck uses to build tension. The silence is usually where the tragedy happens.
- Pay attention to the light. Notice how the light changes in the final scene compared to the first scene. The first scene is golden and hopeful; the last is shadowed and dying.
How to Apply the Themes Today
The world has changed since 1937, but the core issues in this book haven't.
- Check your assumptions about "utility." We still live in a culture that often values people based on their productivity. Think about how we treat people who "don't fit in" or can't work in traditional ways.
- Value companionship over "stuff." George and Lennie had nothing, but they had each other. In our hyper-connected but lonely digital age, that "I got you to look after me, and you got me to look after you" sentiment is more relevant than ever.
- Understand the weight of responsibility. Taking care of someone else is heavy. George isn't a saint—he gets frustrated, he yells, and he’s often mean—but he stays. That’s the real human element.
The Of Mice and Men novella is a masterpiece because it refuses to give you a happy ending. It forces you to sit in the dirt with George and Lennie and realize that sometimes, no matter how hard you work or how much you dream, the world just doesn't care. And in that realization, we find a strange kind of empathy for every other "bindlestiff" just trying to get by.
To truly appreciate the nuance of Steinbeck’s work, pick up a physical copy and read the dialogue out loud. The rhythm of the speech is where the soul of the book lives. Once you hear George's voice, you'll never forget it. If you want to explore further, look into Steinbeck's "Dust Bowl Trilogy," which includes In Dubious Battle and The Grapes of Wrath. These three books together provide the most comprehensive look at the American labor struggle ever written.
Next Steps for Readers:
- Locate a First Edition Replica: Many libraries hold facsimiles that show how the original 1937 layout influenced the reading pace.
- Watch the 1992 Film Adaptation: Starring Gary Sinise and John Malkovich, it is widely considered the most faithful version of the text's emotional core.
- Read "The Harvest Gypsies": This is a collection of Steinbeck's non-fiction articles about migrant workers. It provides the factual, historical foundation for everything that happens in the novella.