I specifically read Of Mice and Men before reading this so I’d have context for the retelling, which granted me insight into how differently these stories are told.
Steinbeck relied heavily on symbolism, which is my preference when reading. I prefer to think while reading, instead of being told what to think. That’s not to say that this doesn’t address critical topics. It’s just too overt in its communication, leaving nothing up to the imagination.
Furthermore, as a narrative that takes on such emotional content, I found it lacking, as the writing was extremely stilted. Steinbeck told his tragic tale so beautifully while Hurt You felt extremely flat.
I also want to note that this felt like a meandering narrative, walking around in places it did not need to be. The scenery was often dull as I followed its winding path. Steinbeck’s novella was concise, and this novel did not know how to be.
I found not giving a name to Curley’s significant other a failed literary device here, although it was effective in Of Mice and Men. Since this was written in first person, it sounded silly to keep referring to her as Curley’s girlfriend or, even odder, the girlfriend of Curley. In the original story, this demonstrated the devaluing of the character. While it seemed like Lee wanted to mimic this, the rest of her novel is so weighty in its telling, instead of showing. Why aim for symbolism with this one aspect? I find it especially baffling since the author did not emulate the meaningful misunderstanding of the character that we finally come to recognize at the end of Steinbeck’s story, although I will give her credit for aptly conveying Curley’s possessiveness. In that respect, there is meaning to this device, but the nuance of the original was lost here.
I also felt the ending was extremely rushed and, while I comprehend what the author was trying to convey, I think it came across in an unrealistic, almost cartoonish, way. It felt cheap and underdeveloped, but I wasn’t particularly pleased with anything in this story, so the conclusion didn’t ruin it for me.
I appreciate the social issues addressed and, with its primary focus on Leo, I can definitely understand the pain of seeing the struggles surrounding a child whose behavior is misunderstood by society. In fact, I liked that this wasn’t focused solely on a familial struggle with someone with special needs. Instead, it looked closely at the public’s disapproval and judgment. I know all too well how much this hurts, and that helped me remain engaged with the story.
Unfortunately, I cannot rate a poorly written book well just because it addressed meaningful topics, especially since I don’t think they were always communicated in interesting, hard hitting, or thought provoking ways. This seemed more like a story written based on a checklist of hot button issues without any true understanding of how to illustrate them with emotion and eloquence.
I am immensely grateful to Libro.fm, Blackstone Publishing, and Marie Myung-Ok Lee for my copy. All opinions are my own.