Shmoop - Of Mice and Men

John Steinbeck takes the title of this novella from the poem "To a Mouse [on turning her up in her nest with the plough]," written by Scottish poet Robert Burns in 1785. In the poem, the speaker has accidentally turned up a mouse's nest with his plough, and takes the opportunity to wonder at man's separation from the world of animals. Still, the speaker thinks both mice and men suffer from being mortal, so no matter how different "thinking men" and "unthinking animals" seem, they really aren't that different after all - everybody suffers in the end. This thought isn't too far off from what ends up happening to our "thinking man" (George) and his "unthinking friend" (Lennie).
Most critics talking about Steinbeck point you to the seventh verse of the poem:
But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane [alone]
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley, [often go awry]
An' lea'e us nought [leave us nothing] but grief an' pain,
For promised joy.
The seventh stanza is relevant, but you've got to read the whole poem to understand why it relates to Steinbeck's novella. Actually, the last stanza of Burns's poem is probably the most relevant to Steinbeck's novella:
Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But, och! I backward cast my e'e [eye]
On prospects drear! [dreary]
An' forward, tho' I canna [cannot] see
I guess an' fear!
In the above stanza, the speaker realizes the poor little animal is only touched by the present, as she can't think about the past or the future. It's the thinking man, who can look backwards and forwards, that suffers the most from the awful things he's done. This last verse is a nice way to think of Lennie and George's respective fate. Whatever happens to Lennie is done, but George is left to spend the rest of his future thinking of his past deeds.

Steinbeck's writing style mirrors his characters. Of course the author writes as the men would literally speak, but on a deeper level, the language of the book is simple but compelling - just like the characters. Because the language is easy to understand, it's even more extraordinary that it can carry such lofty themes, feelings, and ideas.
Though the characters never gush about each other, it's clear that they feel deeply. Steinbeck achieves this by using simple language to build characters who are more than what they say. For example, while George says he and Lennie just got used to each other, what he's really feeling is that their friendship is the only thing he's ever really had to hold on to. The language, like the men on the ranch, seems simple enough, but it's more "still waters run deep" than "OMG you're my BFFL."
Again, Steinbeck uses his writing style as another means to suggest that every story is important, no matter whose story it is. Though these characters are working class people who don't have access to big vocabularies or grand philosophies, they can still communicate about the things that really matter.
This all comes through in the dialogue that dominates the book, and is only occasionally augmented by the narration. The narrative style can differ slightly from the simplicity of the dialogue (like when the narrator is so effusive in describing Slim), but usually even the narration tells the most gripping stuff in a straightforward manner. When George kills Lennie, Steinbeck lets the language be as stark and straightforward as the act, making it all the more shocking. Part of Steinbeck's brilliance is this subtle usage of language: when he needs to make words sing, he can, but usually he's good enough that the action doesn't seem like it's clouded over with poetry. Instead, it just reads like real life.

Steinbeck's attitude toward the subject of his novella is one of great sympathy tempered by realism. Steinbeck contrasts the real world of poverty, limited resources, limiting social roles, human intolerance, and violence with the dream world of freedom, autonomy, wealth, friendship, and loyalty. This stark and unflinching juxtaposition seems an honest attempt to reveal that for some, the American Dream was simply that - a hopeless dream.