Reviews

Des souris et des hommes by John Steinbeck

la_licina's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

La cattiveria, il cinismo che traspare da questo libro è agghiacciante.

bethanyyleee's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

This is a classic for a reason. *Excellent* imagery. The way Steinbeck built each scene in my mind almost felt like watching a play. The character development was also beautiful, leaving the ending truly heartbreaking.

mouseinbeans's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional sad tense slow-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? Yes
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

gracem914's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark reflective fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

shannonevans's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

I had to read this book for school and comparing it to the texts we were reading at the time, I’d say it shows a realistic way of living during the time it was written. I think it shows a good character evolvement of both George and Lennie, and it shows good insight to characters that we never thought we would need insight on. Didn’t like the racial slurs, but other than that it was okay. In the end, I think Steinbeck made the right decision of ending it the way he did, and crated great foreshadowing to help us predict what would happen: Candy saying that he wished he shot his dog in the head himself instead of the other guys —> George killing Lennie himself rather than him be scared by the other guys. I think it was a good book that reflected the time period well.

trillyrobinson's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

It's the way Steinbeck describes things that gets me.

"Crooks, the negro stable buck, had his bunk in the harness room; a little shed that leaned off the wall of the barn. On one side of the little room there was a square four-paned window, and on the other, a narrow plank door leading into the barn. Crooks' bunk was a long box filled with straw, on which his blankets were flung. On the wall by the window there were pegs on which hung broken harness in process of being mended; strips of new leather; and under the window itself a little bench for leather-working tools, curved knives and needles and balls of linen thread, and a small hand riveter. On pegs were also pieces of harness, a split collar with the horsehair stuffing sticking out, a broken hame, and a trace chain with its leather covering split. Crooks had his apple box over his bunk, and in it a range of medicine bottles, both for himself and for the horses. There were cans of saddle soap and a drippy can of tar with its paint brush sticking over the edge. And scattered about the floor were a number of personal possessions; for, being alone, Crooks could leave his things about, ad being a stable buck and a cripple, he was more permanent than the other men, and he had accumulated more possessions than he could carry on his back."

None of this is relevant to the story, and yet a middle chapter opens up with this vivid scene. Steinbeck succeeds because the characters he paints in your head are exact. The first time I saw the movie that was made out of this story, it was just as I had envisioned it. Though the story great itself, the reason I will come back to this book is for the little things, the very things that have made me love Steinbeck so much.

I first read Of Mice And Men my sophomore year of high school, when it was a required reading in Mrs. Beeler's class. I recall disliking almost all required school readings up to this point (though admittedly I had skipped out on the summer reading project of "The Grapes Of Wrath"). When this book was assigned, I knew it was different. I blew through it, reading it in a day or two, even though I wasn't supposed to. For once there was a school book that I enjoyed. And all the credit in the world to my teacher, who chose other good books the rest of the year. So it's been 6-7 years since I've read this, and now, reading it for the second time, it's just as memorable as I remember. The story sticks with you, the imagery sticks. The characters are among Steinbeck's best, painted in such a crystal clear vision of the time.

It's a near perfect short story, and one that I will surely revisit throughout my life.

timcooper99's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional reflective fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Plot
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

stomalia's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark reflective sad medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? N/A
  • Loveable characters? N/A
  • Diverse cast of characters? N/A
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A

4.0

serenitysky98's review against another edition

Go to review page

fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? A mix
  • Strong character development? No
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? No
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

genderoutlaw's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional reflective sad fast-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? It's complicated
  • Diverse cast of characters? Yes
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0