to think Of Mice and Men should not be cancelled?

[Florenz]

I read this on the BBC website today. Kids are upset because it contains the N word. I do not think it should be removed from the school curriculum. It's a classic work of literature, one of the few books we read at school that I genuinely enjoyed and read ahead of where we were in class because I wanted to find out what happened. We went to see the film with John Malkovich and Gary Sinise with school as well.

I was appalled when I read this with my son for Year 8. At the time, I would have discouraged him from reading a book with so much violence, characters using prostitutes etc., let alone have it taught at school.

I was very struck by how very many male characters in my son's set texts were kiling women generally. (eg My Last Duchess, Porphyria's Lover)

The Lennie character is very sympathetically portrayed but he has previously approached/ started to molest another young girl and also kills small animals repeatedly, and then a puppy. And then kills a girl in front of the audience/ reader; there is a hint of sexual motivation in this. There is also a lack of sympathy from the other characters towards the dead girl (a young teenager) and a sense that she had got this coming to her. The authorial voice is itself fairly umsympathetic, I think, talking of the hardness in the girl's face as she lies dying, for example.

Of course this book shouldn't be cancelled- no book should be cancelled.

But there are so many other, better books that could be taught in schools and this is so unsuitable.

I don't see why they can't just choose another text? Why are we making our children study the exact same texts every year

OMAM is not a great book. It is racist, sexist, ageist and ableist and it is difficult to teach well at KS3 as a result (where it tends to be taught in England).
One of the main reasons it was popular when I started teaching was its length. Same reason why Jekyll and Hyde is the dominant 19th Century novel. It remains because so many schools have copies and resources. This is not why curriculum decisions should be made. There are so many many books that can be taught each needs to fight for its place in the curriculum.
I actually consulted with the students on OMAM's place in the curriculum. It started with a simple request that a certain word was not said out loud in class but that its history and problematic nature was discussed. We did this for a while. But like an earlier teacher I was increasingly struck by the other issues within the text and the difficulty of given them the proper attention in the time frame with a KS3 group. It's a different kettle of fish at GCSE where it used to work relatively well (there are better choices though).
It is impossible to do in Literature GCSE in England. A PP was right Gove removed all non-British writers from the Literature spec (international writers in English have appeared on English Language unseen fiction though).
Short version. I took it off my curriculum for valid reasons. It's not that great. We still have it in the library though. It hasn't been cancelled. This isn't Florida.

George belittles Lennie, suggests that he would be better had he been kicked in the head as opposed to ASD. Lennie is portrayed as animalistic and is clearly othered. He is infantilised, chastised for showing any sexual urges. He is shown as incapable of exercising restraint. He is portrayed as being menacing. Whatever way it’s cut it’s an appalling representation of disability/ neurodiversity in society. An academic interpretation of the book is that George represents NT society and the portrayal of George was a supportive argument by Steinbeck for the forced sterilisation of women with learning disabilities and autism. Overall the book is a shocking portrayal of people with NT disorders.

@Oaktree1233 totally agree. It's awful.

Interesting reading.

What gives George the right to kill Lennie and where is his punishment? What gives anyone the right to take anyone’s life no matter what. We don’t even allow euthanasia of those with terminal cancer in this country but we teach it was the right thing for George to kill Lennie - it’s a sympathetic killing! Throughout this book, children are encouraged to align with poor old George. The very same George who uses Lennie as

Garrison (2008) studied the perceptions of disability of 28 female and 20 male adolescents aged 14 or 15 on reading the text of Of Mice and Men. The results were disturbing. The young people frequently responded to the construct of disability as presented in Of Mice and Men as being ‘other’ to their own experiences. They described disability as being ‘abnormal’ or ‘inferior’ and indicated that they were less likely to identify with disabled characters (Garrison, 2008, p. 195). The results of the study ‘revealed that these adolescent readers reported negative perceptions of the characters with disabilities and their relationships within the novel that align with eugenic beliefs about people with disabilities when responding to the novel Of Mice and Men’ (Garrison, 2008, p. 191). Garrison highlights the importance of ‘teachers who are knowledgeable of disability studies and ableism [who] can foster their students’ ability to critically analyse disability as a social construct in literature and in society’ (Garrison, 2008, p. 205).

This.
Many posters on this thread seem only to have a very superficial understanding of the book -probably not been properly taught as quite a few English teachers also don't seem to get it.
Children often initially write 'Steinbeck thinks' which is nonsense - but you that parroted often so not surprising. (I've heard hard-of-thinking Englosh teachers refervto 'Shakespeare's mistress/boyfriend' in the sonnets etc.)
Read Steinbecjs letter to Claire Luce about Curly's Wife.
The n word is a trivial distraction -no-one reads it aloud in class.
George's frustration with his powerlessness is a much more powerful theme that you don't get in the faddy books with 'ishoos' crudely pushed.
(And Gary Sinise's portrayal in the film is just perfect)

@GreenwichOrTwicks
Good job you’re here to put right all the thicko English teachers!

Children often initially write 'Steinbeck thinks' which is nonsense - but you that parroted often so not surprising.

Not totally sure what you mean here, but I’m guessing you’re basing your attacks on an isolated incident. Unless you’re a school inspector or something.

All books from other times are shot through with outdated prejudices to a certain degree. That’s how society and literature work.

Some teachers (on the thread) have complained that OMaM has been on the syllabus too long or that they would prefer a change from teaching it. Which I thought was why OP mentioned Shakespeare because that seems to be permanent on the curriculum (although I imagine they change texts to study)

I studied of mice and men at GCSE and ashamed to say I barely remember any of it, apart from being relieved it was quite a short book

I think its important in life to remember where our society was so we make sure we don't go back there. Its good people are offended by it as so they should be - its a reminder of where society was back then and how that was a bad thing and lets make today different.

I taught it several times. My approach was always to warn the kids beforehand about the ‘n’ word, assure them I thought they were mature enough to handle it sensibly, and then absolutely rinse anyone who even smirked. I think I only ever had to do that once, and it was in a one-to-one lesson.

That being said, I taught in a very non-diverse area. The comments above have given me food for thought. I doubt if I was teaching it now that I’d allow the n-word to be said out loud.

The book contains racism, sexism, ableism and ageism. I taught it from the point of view that the older and disabled characters were living in a society with no safety net, and were often punching down.

We had lessons on racism in America, the Jim Crow laws and segregation.

I showed them Steinbeck’s letter to Miss Luce, and whenever Curley’s Wife was disparaged by a student (often) we’d have interesting discussions where I’d challenge the students to find even one example of promiscuity - and then ask them, what about the men? Why aren’t you disgusted by them? Which would lead to a good discussion about double standards and patriarchy.

It’s an excellent jumping-off point for topics which are sadly still relevant today. Yes, it’s dated in its approach to some things - but it was written in the 1930s! It should be contextualised. Students gain marks for linking the text to the context - it’s one of the Lit Assessment Objectives.

I have to say, of all the texts I’ve taught, it’s the most impactful on the students. They love it. I’ve had classrooms where you could hear a pin drop at the end, and students with tears in their eyes. It just has to be taught with awareness.

While it felt bad at the time, I look back now and honestly, she was the most amazing teacher I ever had. She went well beyond the sylabus to make us understand Steinbeck's themes. In think in the beginning, my classmates found it as akward as I did. I think their initial teasing came from not knowing how to process it. A few would try the N-word for size for a laugh (but quickly realised it was wrong) and 'Crooks' was a nickname which stuck for a while. By the end of it, the whole class became more enlightened. We read a lot of books at school but OMAN is one which lives in my head rent free. I really hope they don't cancel it.

Nobody. Literally nobody is cancelling it. There are lots of great books that aren't on the curriculum that I'm happy to recommend but not teach. It's one of them. It's not as great as people make out though.
It's main virtue is that it is short.

Totally agree. I’m an English lit lecturer and I covered a text a few months ago which regularly used the N word. I pre-warned the seminar group, we have to cover historic text that uses such language. Had a group of Asian students get offended and storm out shouting ‘what the fuck is this’.

We can’t erase history and shouldn’t even attempt to. It’s a Stalinist tactic, erasing literature isn’t acceptable in any democracy. Young people also need to stop being so offended, everything offends their sensibilities and they think this constitutes as an argument. It doesn’t.

One of the best interpretations of "Morte D'Arthur" was by Steinbeck. Beautiful evocative prose. Sadly an unfinished work but well worth a read. If we had done that instead of "The Pearl" I might have stuck with English as a subject. (Instead I decided to just read for myself ...)

i recently re-read Grapes of Wrath, utterly heart breaking poetry.

Shhh - they'll be coming for that next.

So much literature has prejudice absolutely baked in - why wouldn’t it? History is full of it!

I honestly think the reason OMAM keeps getting it in the neck is because it’s the only book some people have read, so they’re totally unprepared for anything offensive, having been accustomed to sanitised 21st century discourse.

Not cancelled (very few books should be 'cancelled') but....as an ex-English teacher I do sometimes wonder if the exam boards choose books specifically to put kids off reading for life. I'd put Of Mice and Men into a 'worthy but horrendously dreary' category myself.

I think, especially at GCSE, the books should be challenging but enjoyable in a more simple sense of the word. Leave the really heavy and worthy stuff for those who choose to specialise in English Literature at a later stage and let the 15 year olds read something they can enjoy.

I couldn't care less whether they're all by dead men - no problem with that if they're good books. I don't think books (or any 'art') should be chosen by tokenism and lip-service - only by quality of writing. The good reason that exam set books used to be by past authors is that the excellent judge, Time, had proved their value.

Not cancelled (very few books should be 'cancelled')

You can't just drop that in and then not suggest some that should ....

I didn't think OMAM was dreary at all. Talking about it this week at work it's the one book that just about everyone enjoyed reading at school and remembering the plot etc. Maybe it's because people have also seen the film and IIRC there were cartoon character animals called Lennie and George at one point.

It’s not been on the curriculum in England for a while now, along with to kill a mockingbird I think?

I love both books and enjoyed studying them at school but don’t think there is anything wrong with changing things up and keeping the kids interested.

I worked in a school where they studied Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro at GCSE and the kids absolutely loved it. Bonus that got to watch a film of it which was newer with actors they recognised and so they were more enthusiastic about it.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it being on the curriculum, and with regards to the outdated views depicted - part of the essence of studying classics is to learn about the historical context and how that shaped the writing.

on the other hand, schools seem to sort of stick with what they know … so maybe it’s going to encourage them to choose stuff that the students might be more interested in and therefore more likely to do well.

Me too. Think I'll revisit this one

What is your evidence for that statement?

My son’s class have been using ‘ninja’ in place of the N word which is ridiculous.

It’s being removed from the curriculum next year for this exam board. I don’t think it should be removed, it’s of its time and the historical / cultural context is part of studying any text.

Maybe we should follow Oscar Wildes view about books ?

“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book,” writes Wilde, “Books are well written or badly written. That is all.” His claim is that works of art are legitimate objects of aesthetic judgement, but not of moral judgement.

What do you suggest they say instead?