data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a2d72/a2d7242dbd92c12c717323d8cd76d0d2d35ce416" alt=""
I came across this word because it is a word that has been thrown critically in the direction of John Steinbeck's novella Of Mice and Men, a book that has resided on the GCSE syllabus for many a year. Critics say that Lennie's fate is deterministic in that there never seems a viable alternative with Big Len careering unerringly towards his final tragic demise. I guess determinism as a criticism is something that could be thrown at many simple plots with characters often stumbling headlong into tragedy. As I tappetty-tap-tap, Phil Mitchell is slurring nonsense in a drug-induced haze in the background and this is surely also weak determinism, but the criticism is only valid if it doesn't reflect life, so do these tales bear an accurate image of life? My personal stance is that the existence of God who grants us free will creates a paradoxical situation where a determinism of sorts and free will both exist. The criticisms of Of Mice and Men, I think, are misplaced: the plot's simplicity is part of what makes it beautiful and poignant and the apparent lack of free will for the protagonists feels like an accurate reflection of the limited free will the poor and disadvantaged were given in 1930s America.
So far I've managed not to watch shows with Phil Mitchel in, and in fact I've never (ever) watched more than 5 consecutive minutes of Eastenders, but now I find myself asking whether I had a choice or not, or whether I had no choice in choosing, but I like to think it was free will...
ReplyDelete