EAST OF EDEN thinking questions
Part One
How do the patriarchs, Samuel Hamilton and Cyrus Trask—and their respective families— differ? Compare their different moral environments?
While both Samuel Hamilton and Cyrus Trask act as patriarchs of the main characters, their similarities end there. Samuel Hamilton acts as the symbol of desired traits of a patriarch. He is a loyal family man, staying with Liza for the entirety of their lives. He also was a good father figure to his children, raising nine generally respectable kids. While some of his children grew up to be wealthy, Samuel lives a modest lifestyle. He is well respected throughout the community, and has been considered an honest man. Cyrus has lived through a vastly different journey in his life. Cyrus once had a wife similar Liza, a pious and conservative woman. Unlike Liza, Mrs. Trask committed suicide after contracting the syphilis Cyrus had from a prostitute he had had an affair with. While Samuel remained with Liza his entire life, Cyrus lost his wife early on due to his own poor choices and remarried later on. His second wife hid from Cyrus out of fear of his abusive behavior. This behavior also appeared in his treatment of his children, Adam and Charles, whom he beat frequently. Not only is he unlike Samuel in terms of family, he is unlike him in his social life as well. Where Samuel is a well respected man who lives a modest lifestyle, Cyrus is fairly wealthy due to his lying about his military achievements. The two men are opposite in almost every conceivable way. Their contrasting characteristics are similar to the contrast of the mountains in the valley or the contrast between Adam and Charles. Steinbeck seems to be focusing on the opposition of good and evil in many aspects of life.
How is Adam's good nature and inability to see through Cathy a weakness? If Adam is an "A" character and therefore "good," is he also an admirable character? Do you, as a reader, like all that he does?
Adam’s good nature causes him to be quiet naive about Cathy’s character. He allows Cathy to manipulate him, as she takes advantage of his home and kindness. Her presence divides him and his brother, as he lets his interest in Cathy take precedence over his family. His reputation is harmed as well, as people in the town talk about their distrust and discomfort around Cathy. He also put a lot of his desires on Cathy’s shoulders, which only result in difficulties for him. His intention to build the family he never had was foiled as Cathy was not only a poor wife, but had no motherly qualities either. Though he may be overall “good” character, that in no way makes him admirable. As the reader, I know more about the situation than he does, as I know the experiences and viewpoints of multiple characters. While Adam may not be aware of the entirety of Cathy’s character, I am able to see each side of her. It makes Adam seem more pitiful than admirable, as he is simply getting conned into a situation that is not good for him. It is impossible to like all that he does as the reader is aware of Cathy’s poor character, and all of his actions to protect Cathy feel infuriating. When Cathy threatens to leave, and Adam locks her in the room, he appears less admirable and more desperate.
Steinbeck has been accused of creating only two types of female characters, mother figures (like the heroic Ma Joad) and prostitutes (like Cathy). While many female characters in this book are not as richly drawn as the male characters, he nonetheless creates fascinating characters in Alice, Liza and later Abra. Comment on the role of these women as nurturers, as mothers, as confidants. The thematic role of each differs.
Alice, Liza, and Abra all play extremely different roles in East of Eden. Alice, the second wife of the corrupt Cyrus Trask, acts as the mother figure for Adam and Charles early in the book. Steinbeck creates a contrasting perception of women when comparing Alice to the characters he has previously written, as she is nothing like other powerful mother figures. Alice seems practically apathetic towards the two boys and lives in fear of her husband. Her passiveness is represented by her relationship with Cyrus, as she tolerates his poor behavior and his abusive actions towards the boys. There is little evidence to suggest she disciplines or guides the boys during their childhood. Since there is little information about her past, there is not much room to dissect the choices she makes. She still remains a crucial part in fleshing out Cyrus’s character and represents the idea of the bystander in the fight between good and evil. While she isn’t actively being evil, she is allowing it to manifest and grow due to her lack of action. Liza is practically the opposite perception of a wifely figure. Perhaps the most notable discrepancy between the two is Liza’s very apparent love towards her family. She shows love towards her husband and children, and is very interested in their wellbeing. She portrays this trait through her strict nature as a parental figure. She shows great strength as a maternal character unlike Alice. She functions as a great representation of unwavering good. Abra, while equally loving and character, displayed her emotions through dialogue. She helps Cal and Aron digest the issues their facing in their lives, Cal with his regret towards his actions and Aron with his fear of his mother’s past. She is best described as a confidant because she functions as an outlet for the brothers to confront their fears. She is the best developed female character in the book besides Cathy. Her love for Cal and dislike of Aron’s naivety show her as a realistic good. While she isn’t portrayed as having a struggle with being “evil” as Cal has, she doesn’t perceive the world as starkly good and evil. (In my opinion) Her subtle hints at timshel prove that her mindset is that which Steinbeck wishes to put forth; we are allowed to choose our own paths, but the key is to find the balance between good and evil that allows you to find comfort in the world. Being too evil, like Cathy, will rot your life, but being too good, like Aron, won’t allow you to find solace in a world where evil exists.
Part Two
How does Steinbeck handle the issue of racial prejudice in his portrayal of Lee, Adam's Chinese servant, and "the Nigger," whorehouse madam? Both are dignified characters, yet both are subject to denigration. Clearly Lee is the more important character. Why does he speak English so readily with Samuel? How many roles does he play in this novel?
Steinbeck very obviously did not hold strong racial biases. His portrayal of the Lee and the whorehouse madam show his understanding of race equality. The madam’s whorehouse is briefly mentioned as the place for emotional support. While whorehouses are generally seen as a vice and practically dehumanize their prostitutes, this particular one is seen as much nurturing. This is a contrast to the stereotypes surrounding African-American people as the time, as the madam is a capable businesswoman who is more caring and motherly than the people who run the other houses. Lee, who plays a larger role throughout the book, is also seen as intelligent and capable. He plays into the Asian-American stereotypes believed by the main characters to earn their trust, proving his intelligence and awareness of his situation. He continually demonstrates his intelligence through his advice to the main characters. He often acts as the impartial voice of reason for them. Not only was Steinbeck ahead of his time in portraying Lee as an extremely intelligent character, he was also ahead of his time when discussing the difficulties for any minority attempting to blend in to American culture while maintaining their roots. Lee’s confession to Samuel on this topic can be summarized by Lee’s reason for telling Samuel. He says that Samuel sees what is rather than what he expects which insinuates that the majority of other characters just see him for what they expect. Through both of these characters Steinbeck explores racial stereotypes for the time period without buying into them.
Liza Hamilton is mother to Samuel's nine children, four boys and five girls. She "had a finely developed sense of sin. … She suffered bravely and uncomplainingly through life, convinced that that was the way her God wanted everyone to live. She felt that rewards came later." Talk about her relationship with Samuel. Which of her characteristics are most admirable?
Samuel and Liza have an interesting relationship because while they are in a loving and committed relationship, they have very different beliefs. Samuel is very inquisitive in life, he explores different ideas and beliefs, while Liza is extremely pious and does not question her religious standpoints. Liza is much more serious and determined. Perhaps her best characteristic is her consistency. She has firm beliefs, and she is unwavering on her stance on topics. She didn’t drink alcohol until her doctor prescribed it as medicine. She is firm with her children as well, consistent in her rules and regulations. It shows great strength to remain strong in personal beliefs, and it is quite admirable that she did so throughout her entire life.
In discussing the Cain and Abel story with Samuel Hamilton and Adam, Lee says: "The greatest terror a child can have is that he is not loved, and rejection is the hell he fears. I think everyone in the world to a large or small extent has felt rejection. And with rejection comes anger, and with anger some kind of crime in revenge for the rejection, and with crime guilt." To whom does this apply? Charles? Cathy? Adam?
Lee’s idea most directly applies to Charles, as Cathy had a caring family whom she killed and Adam paid little attention to the affection his father gave him. Charles continuous struggled with his father’s preference of Adam over him, which he expressed through violence and anger. Perhaps the most notable scene is when Adam and Charles present their father with birthday presents. While Charles cared deeply about his father and the gift he bought, he was still brushed away as Cyrus still preferred Adam’s gift over his. His reaction was severe, as he beat Adam out of anger and jealousy. Charles never recovered from the incident, remembering the event for many years later.
Part Three
Samuel, Adam, Cal, Dessie and Tom all lie to protect the feelings of others in Part Three. Is their deception justifiable as a kindness, or is it ultimately a breach of trust? Compare their actions to that of Lee's father. Note also Lee's advice to Adam about telling the boys the truth about Cathy.
Steinbeck provides examples in which the lying creates both positive and negative outcomes. Samuel, Adam, and Cal all lie to Aron about his mother’s death, and when he finally finds the truth, it is too much for him to handle and could be seen as the cause of his death. Yet Samuel lying to Adam about Cathy’s whereabouts allowed Adam enough time apart from Cathy that when he saw her again he was disgusted. Dessie lying about her stomach pain to Tom caused her death and his immense guilt, but his lying to his mother about his death saved her feelings. In every case, each character was acting on the idea that ignorance is bliss and that by not telling each other the hard truths, that they’re saving each other from pain. Perhaps it is a breach of trust, but it comes from a good place. The risk is that the person may discover the lie. Lee’s father decided to simply tell Lee about the cruel fate met by his mother, and Lee grew up believing the best thing to do is always to be transparent about their actions. The main characters took the risk of being caught in their lie unlike lee’s father, and it payed off 50% of the time.
Some critics have derided Lee as stereotypical—the inscrutable, wise Oriental man. Especially during the discussion of timshel, do you find him convincing? Why does he play so many roles in the novel?
I think Lee does play into the stereotype as the novel progresses. I don’t think he’s very believable, but I don’t think that’s his point. I feel like he’s supposed to act as the voice of reason throughout the issues all of the characters face. He plays so many roles in order to give himself a voice on all of this commentary. Once his discussion with Samuel was completed about identity for people of different races in the US, he shifted in order to assist in the proving of a different point. His past doesn’t warrant any particular knowledge about timshel, so his excessive knowledge on the topic proves that he was just a device to introduce new ideas later in the novel.
In Journal of a Novel: The East of Eden Letters, Steinbeck wrote, "I think you will find that Cathy as Kate fascinates people. ... People are always interested in evil even when they pretend their interest is clinical. And they will mull Kate over. They will forget I said she was bad. And they will hate her because while she is a monster, she is a little piece of the monster in all of us. It won't be because she is foreign that people will be interested but because she is not." Why does Cathy begin to show cracks in her façade during her confrontation with Adam? If she seems more recognizably human in her rage and sorrow, is she still a monster as first described? Why would Steinbeck wish to make his readers see Cathy in different ways? If the author is "rereading" Cathy with each encounter, is he also asking readers to reexamine her and their assumptions about evil? Or does she remain fixed throughout the novel-thoroughly evil, unsympathetic and a "monster"?
Weaknesses are quite humanizing. At the beginning of the novel, Cathy appeared practically invincible; besides her encounters with Charles, she had the ability to control and manipulate everyone. However, during her encounter with Adam later on, her fear of lack of control comes through. Finally Cathy has a weakness. If she feels she is not in control, she loses herself in fear. I still perceive as monstrous as she was before, as her rage and sorrow stem from not being able to commit evil acts. I see the point in exposing this weakness and humanizing Cathy more is to increase her believability and to have readers associate Cathy with real evil in their lives. She remains fairly monster-like, yet she grows fearful with age. This new emotion introduced to Cathy gives her more depth, which makes readers reexamine the plausibility of “evil” existing in their lives. While before the idea of a completely evil character seemed completely unrealistic in real life, building a character with fears and emotions that seem almost relatable creates a reevaluation of Cathy’s evilness as a whole.
Part Four
1. How is Aron’s imagination of Abra similar to Adam’s inability to see nothing but what he wants to see in Cathy? What does their infatuation suggest about a state of innocence and purity?
Aron is idealizes Abra as the perfect woman. This ideal is most notable in his commitment to celibacy. His odd fear of sex and all things “dirty” points to his belief that sex is a bad act. In this fear, he can’t imagine his perfect Abra committing such a horrible act as sex, though she would do so readily. In this way he see the perfect woman he wants, in the same way his father did with Cathy on a much larger scale. Aron acts with the same mindset as an elementary school child not only for sexual topics, but on any topic he considers bad. He is less innocent and more naive, as his father had been before him. The failed relationship between the two suggest that, that in order to succeed, in relationships and in life, there must be a more realistic point of view than Aron’s.
2. By presenting Adam with a gift of $15,000, is Cal really acting out of jealousy and trying to buy his father’s affection, or is he motivated by virtuous impulses? Why does Adam reject his son’s gift?
Cal presenting Adam with the money is similar to when Charles bought Cyrus the expensive knife. While Cal does desperately want to make his father like him more, and he is vaguely jealous of his fathers preference for his brother, he wasn’t presenting the gift with ulterior motive. Cal was trying to prove himself to his father while also attempting to help his father regain some of the money he had lost. His actions were out of a pure heart, but they were greatly misinterpreted by his father. Once Adam learned of Cal’s business model that earned him the money, he decided that Cal had cheated the farmers he had bought the beans from. Adam’s internal sense of good decides that he cannot accept a gift that is a result of taking advantage of others. This is where Cal and Adam do not see eye to eye, as Cal’s good business sense is also a sign of his internal balance of good and evil.
3. How is Abra an agent of change in the novel? How is she different from other women in East of Eden?
Abra is an agent of change because she forces the male character in the book to reevaluate themselves and grow. She forces Adam to accept his father’s mistake and his families new reputation by asking him to kiss her. This kiss represents her sharing his burden of this reputation, and pushes Adam towards feeling as comfortable with this negative reputation as she is. She teaches Cal that there is nothing wrong with being “bad”, as she shows her acceptance of his visiting whorehouses and alludes to her own “bad” behavior. She is a factor in his acceptance of timshel and his growth overall. She is a bit different because most of the other women are either exclusively good, exclusively bad, or not entirely developed. Abra is portrayed as mostly good, with elements of “bad” integrated in. She is wholly believable, and her both positive and negative attributes make her advice more reputable.
4. What does Adam mean when he utters the word timshel at the novel’s conclusion?
Adam’s final words encapsule the main idea that Steinbeck is attempting to prove. That while we may be born in certain situations, we all have the power to change the outcome of our lives. While Cal is feeling great guilt about how his angered actions could be considered the reason that Aron is dead, Adam consoles him by suggesting that he is not confined to live a life of “evil”. Everyone has the ability to choose their path and who they are.
How do the patriarchs, Samuel Hamilton and Cyrus Trask—and their respective families— differ? Compare their different moral environments?
While both Samuel Hamilton and Cyrus Trask act as patriarchs of the main characters, their similarities end there. Samuel Hamilton acts as the symbol of desired traits of a patriarch. He is a loyal family man, staying with Liza for the entirety of their lives. He also was a good father figure to his children, raising nine generally respectable kids. While some of his children grew up to be wealthy, Samuel lives a modest lifestyle. He is well respected throughout the community, and has been considered an honest man. Cyrus has lived through a vastly different journey in his life. Cyrus once had a wife similar Liza, a pious and conservative woman. Unlike Liza, Mrs. Trask committed suicide after contracting the syphilis Cyrus had from a prostitute he had had an affair with. While Samuel remained with Liza his entire life, Cyrus lost his wife early on due to his own poor choices and remarried later on. His second wife hid from Cyrus out of fear of his abusive behavior. This behavior also appeared in his treatment of his children, Adam and Charles, whom he beat frequently. Not only is he unlike Samuel in terms of family, he is unlike him in his social life as well. Where Samuel is a well respected man who lives a modest lifestyle, Cyrus is fairly wealthy due to his lying about his military achievements. The two men are opposite in almost every conceivable way. Their contrasting characteristics are similar to the contrast of the mountains in the valley or the contrast between Adam and Charles. Steinbeck seems to be focusing on the opposition of good and evil in many aspects of life.
How is Adam's good nature and inability to see through Cathy a weakness? If Adam is an "A" character and therefore "good," is he also an admirable character? Do you, as a reader, like all that he does?
Adam’s good nature causes him to be quiet naive about Cathy’s character. He allows Cathy to manipulate him, as she takes advantage of his home and kindness. Her presence divides him and his brother, as he lets his interest in Cathy take precedence over his family. His reputation is harmed as well, as people in the town talk about their distrust and discomfort around Cathy. He also put a lot of his desires on Cathy’s shoulders, which only result in difficulties for him. His intention to build the family he never had was foiled as Cathy was not only a poor wife, but had no motherly qualities either. Though he may be overall “good” character, that in no way makes him admirable. As the reader, I know more about the situation than he does, as I know the experiences and viewpoints of multiple characters. While Adam may not be aware of the entirety of Cathy’s character, I am able to see each side of her. It makes Adam seem more pitiful than admirable, as he is simply getting conned into a situation that is not good for him. It is impossible to like all that he does as the reader is aware of Cathy’s poor character, and all of his actions to protect Cathy feel infuriating. When Cathy threatens to leave, and Adam locks her in the room, he appears less admirable and more desperate.
Steinbeck has been accused of creating only two types of female characters, mother figures (like the heroic Ma Joad) and prostitutes (like Cathy). While many female characters in this book are not as richly drawn as the male characters, he nonetheless creates fascinating characters in Alice, Liza and later Abra. Comment on the role of these women as nurturers, as mothers, as confidants. The thematic role of each differs.
Alice, Liza, and Abra all play extremely different roles in East of Eden. Alice, the second wife of the corrupt Cyrus Trask, acts as the mother figure for Adam and Charles early in the book. Steinbeck creates a contrasting perception of women when comparing Alice to the characters he has previously written, as she is nothing like other powerful mother figures. Alice seems practically apathetic towards the two boys and lives in fear of her husband. Her passiveness is represented by her relationship with Cyrus, as she tolerates his poor behavior and his abusive actions towards the boys. There is little evidence to suggest she disciplines or guides the boys during their childhood. Since there is little information about her past, there is not much room to dissect the choices she makes. She still remains a crucial part in fleshing out Cyrus’s character and represents the idea of the bystander in the fight between good and evil. While she isn’t actively being evil, she is allowing it to manifest and grow due to her lack of action. Liza is practically the opposite perception of a wifely figure. Perhaps the most notable discrepancy between the two is Liza’s very apparent love towards her family. She shows love towards her husband and children, and is very interested in their wellbeing. She portrays this trait through her strict nature as a parental figure. She shows great strength as a maternal character unlike Alice. She functions as a great representation of unwavering good. Abra, while equally loving and character, displayed her emotions through dialogue. She helps Cal and Aron digest the issues their facing in their lives, Cal with his regret towards his actions and Aron with his fear of his mother’s past. She is best described as a confidant because she functions as an outlet for the brothers to confront their fears. She is the best developed female character in the book besides Cathy. Her love for Cal and dislike of Aron’s naivety show her as a realistic good. While she isn’t portrayed as having a struggle with being “evil” as Cal has, she doesn’t perceive the world as starkly good and evil. (In my opinion) Her subtle hints at timshel prove that her mindset is that which Steinbeck wishes to put forth; we are allowed to choose our own paths, but the key is to find the balance between good and evil that allows you to find comfort in the world. Being too evil, like Cathy, will rot your life, but being too good, like Aron, won’t allow you to find solace in a world where evil exists.
Part Two
How does Steinbeck handle the issue of racial prejudice in his portrayal of Lee, Adam's Chinese servant, and "the Nigger," whorehouse madam? Both are dignified characters, yet both are subject to denigration. Clearly Lee is the more important character. Why does he speak English so readily with Samuel? How many roles does he play in this novel?
Steinbeck very obviously did not hold strong racial biases. His portrayal of the Lee and the whorehouse madam show his understanding of race equality. The madam’s whorehouse is briefly mentioned as the place for emotional support. While whorehouses are generally seen as a vice and practically dehumanize their prostitutes, this particular one is seen as much nurturing. This is a contrast to the stereotypes surrounding African-American people as the time, as the madam is a capable businesswoman who is more caring and motherly than the people who run the other houses. Lee, who plays a larger role throughout the book, is also seen as intelligent and capable. He plays into the Asian-American stereotypes believed by the main characters to earn their trust, proving his intelligence and awareness of his situation. He continually demonstrates his intelligence through his advice to the main characters. He often acts as the impartial voice of reason for them. Not only was Steinbeck ahead of his time in portraying Lee as an extremely intelligent character, he was also ahead of his time when discussing the difficulties for any minority attempting to blend in to American culture while maintaining their roots. Lee’s confession to Samuel on this topic can be summarized by Lee’s reason for telling Samuel. He says that Samuel sees what is rather than what he expects which insinuates that the majority of other characters just see him for what they expect. Through both of these characters Steinbeck explores racial stereotypes for the time period without buying into them.
Liza Hamilton is mother to Samuel's nine children, four boys and five girls. She "had a finely developed sense of sin. … She suffered bravely and uncomplainingly through life, convinced that that was the way her God wanted everyone to live. She felt that rewards came later." Talk about her relationship with Samuel. Which of her characteristics are most admirable?
Samuel and Liza have an interesting relationship because while they are in a loving and committed relationship, they have very different beliefs. Samuel is very inquisitive in life, he explores different ideas and beliefs, while Liza is extremely pious and does not question her religious standpoints. Liza is much more serious and determined. Perhaps her best characteristic is her consistency. She has firm beliefs, and she is unwavering on her stance on topics. She didn’t drink alcohol until her doctor prescribed it as medicine. She is firm with her children as well, consistent in her rules and regulations. It shows great strength to remain strong in personal beliefs, and it is quite admirable that she did so throughout her entire life.
In discussing the Cain and Abel story with Samuel Hamilton and Adam, Lee says: "The greatest terror a child can have is that he is not loved, and rejection is the hell he fears. I think everyone in the world to a large or small extent has felt rejection. And with rejection comes anger, and with anger some kind of crime in revenge for the rejection, and with crime guilt." To whom does this apply? Charles? Cathy? Adam?
Lee’s idea most directly applies to Charles, as Cathy had a caring family whom she killed and Adam paid little attention to the affection his father gave him. Charles continuous struggled with his father’s preference of Adam over him, which he expressed through violence and anger. Perhaps the most notable scene is when Adam and Charles present their father with birthday presents. While Charles cared deeply about his father and the gift he bought, he was still brushed away as Cyrus still preferred Adam’s gift over his. His reaction was severe, as he beat Adam out of anger and jealousy. Charles never recovered from the incident, remembering the event for many years later.
Part Three
Samuel, Adam, Cal, Dessie and Tom all lie to protect the feelings of others in Part Three. Is their deception justifiable as a kindness, or is it ultimately a breach of trust? Compare their actions to that of Lee's father. Note also Lee's advice to Adam about telling the boys the truth about Cathy.
Steinbeck provides examples in which the lying creates both positive and negative outcomes. Samuel, Adam, and Cal all lie to Aron about his mother’s death, and when he finally finds the truth, it is too much for him to handle and could be seen as the cause of his death. Yet Samuel lying to Adam about Cathy’s whereabouts allowed Adam enough time apart from Cathy that when he saw her again he was disgusted. Dessie lying about her stomach pain to Tom caused her death and his immense guilt, but his lying to his mother about his death saved her feelings. In every case, each character was acting on the idea that ignorance is bliss and that by not telling each other the hard truths, that they’re saving each other from pain. Perhaps it is a breach of trust, but it comes from a good place. The risk is that the person may discover the lie. Lee’s father decided to simply tell Lee about the cruel fate met by his mother, and Lee grew up believing the best thing to do is always to be transparent about their actions. The main characters took the risk of being caught in their lie unlike lee’s father, and it payed off 50% of the time.
Some critics have derided Lee as stereotypical—the inscrutable, wise Oriental man. Especially during the discussion of timshel, do you find him convincing? Why does he play so many roles in the novel?
I think Lee does play into the stereotype as the novel progresses. I don’t think he’s very believable, but I don’t think that’s his point. I feel like he’s supposed to act as the voice of reason throughout the issues all of the characters face. He plays so many roles in order to give himself a voice on all of this commentary. Once his discussion with Samuel was completed about identity for people of different races in the US, he shifted in order to assist in the proving of a different point. His past doesn’t warrant any particular knowledge about timshel, so his excessive knowledge on the topic proves that he was just a device to introduce new ideas later in the novel.
In Journal of a Novel: The East of Eden Letters, Steinbeck wrote, "I think you will find that Cathy as Kate fascinates people. ... People are always interested in evil even when they pretend their interest is clinical. And they will mull Kate over. They will forget I said she was bad. And they will hate her because while she is a monster, she is a little piece of the monster in all of us. It won't be because she is foreign that people will be interested but because she is not." Why does Cathy begin to show cracks in her façade during her confrontation with Adam? If she seems more recognizably human in her rage and sorrow, is she still a monster as first described? Why would Steinbeck wish to make his readers see Cathy in different ways? If the author is "rereading" Cathy with each encounter, is he also asking readers to reexamine her and their assumptions about evil? Or does she remain fixed throughout the novel-thoroughly evil, unsympathetic and a "monster"?
Weaknesses are quite humanizing. At the beginning of the novel, Cathy appeared practically invincible; besides her encounters with Charles, she had the ability to control and manipulate everyone. However, during her encounter with Adam later on, her fear of lack of control comes through. Finally Cathy has a weakness. If she feels she is not in control, she loses herself in fear. I still perceive as monstrous as she was before, as her rage and sorrow stem from not being able to commit evil acts. I see the point in exposing this weakness and humanizing Cathy more is to increase her believability and to have readers associate Cathy with real evil in their lives. She remains fairly monster-like, yet she grows fearful with age. This new emotion introduced to Cathy gives her more depth, which makes readers reexamine the plausibility of “evil” existing in their lives. While before the idea of a completely evil character seemed completely unrealistic in real life, building a character with fears and emotions that seem almost relatable creates a reevaluation of Cathy’s evilness as a whole.
Part Four
1. How is Aron’s imagination of Abra similar to Adam’s inability to see nothing but what he wants to see in Cathy? What does their infatuation suggest about a state of innocence and purity?
Aron is idealizes Abra as the perfect woman. This ideal is most notable in his commitment to celibacy. His odd fear of sex and all things “dirty” points to his belief that sex is a bad act. In this fear, he can’t imagine his perfect Abra committing such a horrible act as sex, though she would do so readily. In this way he see the perfect woman he wants, in the same way his father did with Cathy on a much larger scale. Aron acts with the same mindset as an elementary school child not only for sexual topics, but on any topic he considers bad. He is less innocent and more naive, as his father had been before him. The failed relationship between the two suggest that, that in order to succeed, in relationships and in life, there must be a more realistic point of view than Aron’s.
2. By presenting Adam with a gift of $15,000, is Cal really acting out of jealousy and trying to buy his father’s affection, or is he motivated by virtuous impulses? Why does Adam reject his son’s gift?
Cal presenting Adam with the money is similar to when Charles bought Cyrus the expensive knife. While Cal does desperately want to make his father like him more, and he is vaguely jealous of his fathers preference for his brother, he wasn’t presenting the gift with ulterior motive. Cal was trying to prove himself to his father while also attempting to help his father regain some of the money he had lost. His actions were out of a pure heart, but they were greatly misinterpreted by his father. Once Adam learned of Cal’s business model that earned him the money, he decided that Cal had cheated the farmers he had bought the beans from. Adam’s internal sense of good decides that he cannot accept a gift that is a result of taking advantage of others. This is where Cal and Adam do not see eye to eye, as Cal’s good business sense is also a sign of his internal balance of good and evil.
3. How is Abra an agent of change in the novel? How is she different from other women in East of Eden?
Abra is an agent of change because she forces the male character in the book to reevaluate themselves and grow. She forces Adam to accept his father’s mistake and his families new reputation by asking him to kiss her. This kiss represents her sharing his burden of this reputation, and pushes Adam towards feeling as comfortable with this negative reputation as she is. She teaches Cal that there is nothing wrong with being “bad”, as she shows her acceptance of his visiting whorehouses and alludes to her own “bad” behavior. She is a factor in his acceptance of timshel and his growth overall. She is a bit different because most of the other women are either exclusively good, exclusively bad, or not entirely developed. Abra is portrayed as mostly good, with elements of “bad” integrated in. She is wholly believable, and her both positive and negative attributes make her advice more reputable.
4. What does Adam mean when he utters the word timshel at the novel’s conclusion?
Adam’s final words encapsule the main idea that Steinbeck is attempting to prove. That while we may be born in certain situations, we all have the power to change the outcome of our lives. While Cal is feeling great guilt about how his angered actions could be considered the reason that Aron is dead, Adam consoles him by suggesting that he is not confined to live a life of “evil”. Everyone has the ability to choose their path and who they are.
Passage Analysis
East of Eden Passages
“‘What did you do on his birthday? You think I didn’t see? Did you spend six bits or even four bits? You brought him a mongrel pup you picked up in the woodlot. You laughed like a fool and said it would make a good bird dog. That dog sleeps in his room. He plays with it while he’s reading. He’s got it all trained. And where’s the knife? ‘Thanks,’ he said, just ‘Thanks.’” Charles spoke in a whisper, and his shoulders dropped.”
Page 29
This passage is a good representation of the beginning as it builds the foundation for the difficult relationship between Charles and Adam that alludes to the Cain and Abel story in the bible. Charles very clearly discusses his jealousy of his father’s preference for Adam by complaining about how Cyrus prefered Adam’s thoughtless gift. Steinbeck also discreetly portrays Charles insecurity by describing his shoulder dropping, a signal of weakness. The use of repeated rhetorical questions demonstrates Charles anger and conviction against Adam’s actions. Charles word choice also portrays his anger well as he speaks down to Adam about the gift he gave, calling it a “mongrel pup”. His name calling in the form of a simile, “laughed like a fool” shows his anger towards Adam specifically, not just towards the situation. The passage demonstrates Charles innate anger through all of this strategies, and sets up his reasoning for beating Adam in the following scene. It is a great introduction to the recurring usage of the Cain and Abel story.
“I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents. Some you can see, misshapen and horrible, with huge heads or tiny bodies; some are born with no arms, no legs, some with three arms, some with tails or mouths in odd places. They are accidents and no one’s faults, as used to be thought. Once they were considered the visible punishments for concealed sins. And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or physic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?”
Page 71
This is not only an important character description, but also a great paragraph overall. This intro to Cathy is crucial to the reader’s view of her. Steinbeck conditions the reader to view her a monstrous, as he compares ghastly physical mutations to the “mutations” in Cathy’s character. He follows a line of logic with a varied if/then statement, like a formal fallacy. The physical mutations Steinbeck refers to are extremely rare and “horrible”; he is likely inferring that Cathy’s absence of good is equally rare and horrible. It’s quite a powerful scene because it builds great suspense to the introduction of Cathy and makes her character seem all that much more powerful and scary.
Samuel was silent for quite a long time while the buggy lurched down the
wheel track toward the dusty valley. “Lee,” he said at last, “I mean no
disrespect, but I’ve never been able to figure why you people still talk pidgin
when an illiterate baboon from the black bogs of Ireland, with a head full of
Gaelic and a tongue like a potato, learns to talk a poor grade of English in ten
years.”
Lee grinned. “Me talkee Chinese talk,” he said.
“Well, I guess you have your reasons. And it’s not my affair. I hope you’ll
forgive me if I don’t believe it, Lee.”
Lee looked at him and the brown eyes under their rounded upper lids
seemed to open and deepen until they weren’t foreign any more, but man’s
eyes, warm with understanding. Lee chuckled. “It’s more than a
convenience,” he said. “It’s even more than self-protection. Mostly we have
to use it to be understood at all.”
Page 161
Here Steinbeck’s use of Samuel as the voice of reason puts the reader on the same path of discovery as Samuel is on. By having Samuel talk with a level head and using literary devices, it shows a great respect for Lee. By doing so, Steinbeck gives Lee a reason to open up to Samuel. The great juxtaposition of Lee’s original speech patterns and the style of talking after Samuel questions him is the key portion of this passage. Lee begins with a strong regional accent, but he reveals his knowledge of proper english and his elevated diction was Samuel challenges him. Steinbeck mirrors this transformation with his description of the change in Lee’s eyes. This passage is a great example of the events in the middle; main characters unveil different parts of themselves and become better developed characters. This is also a great example of Steinbeck’s ongoing commentary on racism that is in the book.
The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’ Don’t you see?”
Page 301
This statement by Lee is perhaps the best concise explanation of the heart of East of Eden. Timshel, or the concept of ‘Thou Mayest”, refers to the idea that humans have the ability to choose their own course in life; no man is predestined to be good or evil. Timshel is a recurring idea throughout the book, and this passage is the the introduction to the idea. Lee directly compares the meaning of “Thou shalt” and “Thou mayest”, which makes his point clear and understandable. This passage is less about the actual words and more about the meaning. I agree with the idea of timshel, and I like how Steinbeck has layered it into the book in various different ways, showing each character go through moments where they’re able to choose their own path.
Cal spoke happily. “I’m going,” he said. “I’m going now. It’s all right. What Lee said was true.” “What did Lee say?” Cal said, “I was afraid I had you in me.” “You have,” said Kate. “No, I haven’t. I’m my own. I don’t have to be you.” “How do you know that?” she demanded. “I just know. It just came to me whole. If I’m mean, it’s my own mean.” “This Chinaman has really fed you some pap. What are you looking at me like that for?” Cal said, “I don’t think the light hurts your eyes. I think you’re afraid.”
Page 462
Though there is plenty of events that happen afterwards, this is truly the climax of the book. This is the point at which a character finally makes a distinctive decision to change the direction of their lives. Cal, who was falling into the Cain role like his uncle Charles before him, comes to accept timshel when encountering what he considered to be the root of his evil. He recognizes that his own mistakes are not a sign of who he was destined to be, but acts of malice that he committed through his own choice. Cal breaks the cycle of those before him when he realizes this. While he was considered inferior to his brother by his father as Charles had been before him, he was still able to avoid the evil lifestyle that Charles chose. In this scene it is important to note the symbolism behind the light, as it represents goodness and truth, something that Cathy/Kate has had a fear of for her entire life. It is important to show that Cathy/Kate is weak because of her inability to accept the good in her life because it demonstrates the strength Cal has that gives him the ability to accept the evil in his life. He is no longer afraid of it as Cathy is afraid of the light.
“‘What did you do on his birthday? You think I didn’t see? Did you spend six bits or even four bits? You brought him a mongrel pup you picked up in the woodlot. You laughed like a fool and said it would make a good bird dog. That dog sleeps in his room. He plays with it while he’s reading. He’s got it all trained. And where’s the knife? ‘Thanks,’ he said, just ‘Thanks.’” Charles spoke in a whisper, and his shoulders dropped.”
Page 29
This passage is a good representation of the beginning as it builds the foundation for the difficult relationship between Charles and Adam that alludes to the Cain and Abel story in the bible. Charles very clearly discusses his jealousy of his father’s preference for Adam by complaining about how Cyrus prefered Adam’s thoughtless gift. Steinbeck also discreetly portrays Charles insecurity by describing his shoulder dropping, a signal of weakness. The use of repeated rhetorical questions demonstrates Charles anger and conviction against Adam’s actions. Charles word choice also portrays his anger well as he speaks down to Adam about the gift he gave, calling it a “mongrel pup”. His name calling in the form of a simile, “laughed like a fool” shows his anger towards Adam specifically, not just towards the situation. The passage demonstrates Charles innate anger through all of this strategies, and sets up his reasoning for beating Adam in the following scene. It is a great introduction to the recurring usage of the Cain and Abel story.
“I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents. Some you can see, misshapen and horrible, with huge heads or tiny bodies; some are born with no arms, no legs, some with three arms, some with tails or mouths in odd places. They are accidents and no one’s faults, as used to be thought. Once they were considered the visible punishments for concealed sins. And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or physic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?”
Page 71
This is not only an important character description, but also a great paragraph overall. This intro to Cathy is crucial to the reader’s view of her. Steinbeck conditions the reader to view her a monstrous, as he compares ghastly physical mutations to the “mutations” in Cathy’s character. He follows a line of logic with a varied if/then statement, like a formal fallacy. The physical mutations Steinbeck refers to are extremely rare and “horrible”; he is likely inferring that Cathy’s absence of good is equally rare and horrible. It’s quite a powerful scene because it builds great suspense to the introduction of Cathy and makes her character seem all that much more powerful and scary.
Samuel was silent for quite a long time while the buggy lurched down the
wheel track toward the dusty valley. “Lee,” he said at last, “I mean no
disrespect, but I’ve never been able to figure why you people still talk pidgin
when an illiterate baboon from the black bogs of Ireland, with a head full of
Gaelic and a tongue like a potato, learns to talk a poor grade of English in ten
years.”
Lee grinned. “Me talkee Chinese talk,” he said.
“Well, I guess you have your reasons. And it’s not my affair. I hope you’ll
forgive me if I don’t believe it, Lee.”
Lee looked at him and the brown eyes under their rounded upper lids
seemed to open and deepen until they weren’t foreign any more, but man’s
eyes, warm with understanding. Lee chuckled. “It’s more than a
convenience,” he said. “It’s even more than self-protection. Mostly we have
to use it to be understood at all.”
Page 161
Here Steinbeck’s use of Samuel as the voice of reason puts the reader on the same path of discovery as Samuel is on. By having Samuel talk with a level head and using literary devices, it shows a great respect for Lee. By doing so, Steinbeck gives Lee a reason to open up to Samuel. The great juxtaposition of Lee’s original speech patterns and the style of talking after Samuel questions him is the key portion of this passage. Lee begins with a strong regional accent, but he reveals his knowledge of proper english and his elevated diction was Samuel challenges him. Steinbeck mirrors this transformation with his description of the change in Lee’s eyes. This passage is a great example of the events in the middle; main characters unveil different parts of themselves and become better developed characters. This is also a great example of Steinbeck’s ongoing commentary on racism that is in the book.
The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’ Don’t you see?”
Page 301
This statement by Lee is perhaps the best concise explanation of the heart of East of Eden. Timshel, or the concept of ‘Thou Mayest”, refers to the idea that humans have the ability to choose their own course in life; no man is predestined to be good or evil. Timshel is a recurring idea throughout the book, and this passage is the the introduction to the idea. Lee directly compares the meaning of “Thou shalt” and “Thou mayest”, which makes his point clear and understandable. This passage is less about the actual words and more about the meaning. I agree with the idea of timshel, and I like how Steinbeck has layered it into the book in various different ways, showing each character go through moments where they’re able to choose their own path.
Cal spoke happily. “I’m going,” he said. “I’m going now. It’s all right. What Lee said was true.” “What did Lee say?” Cal said, “I was afraid I had you in me.” “You have,” said Kate. “No, I haven’t. I’m my own. I don’t have to be you.” “How do you know that?” she demanded. “I just know. It just came to me whole. If I’m mean, it’s my own mean.” “This Chinaman has really fed you some pap. What are you looking at me like that for?” Cal said, “I don’t think the light hurts your eyes. I think you’re afraid.”
Page 462
Though there is plenty of events that happen afterwards, this is truly the climax of the book. This is the point at which a character finally makes a distinctive decision to change the direction of their lives. Cal, who was falling into the Cain role like his uncle Charles before him, comes to accept timshel when encountering what he considered to be the root of his evil. He recognizes that his own mistakes are not a sign of who he was destined to be, but acts of malice that he committed through his own choice. Cal breaks the cycle of those before him when he realizes this. While he was considered inferior to his brother by his father as Charles had been before him, he was still able to avoid the evil lifestyle that Charles chose. In this scene it is important to note the symbolism behind the light, as it represents goodness and truth, something that Cathy/Kate has had a fear of for her entire life. It is important to show that Cathy/Kate is weak because of her inability to accept the good in her life because it demonstrates the strength Cal has that gives him the ability to accept the evil in his life. He is no longer afraid of it as Cathy is afraid of the light.
Quote of the Book
“But ‘Thou mayest’! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win.”
Page 301/302
I love this quote. This quote is extremely important to the book. The idea that Steinbeck is trying to prove is very clearly that man can choose his path in life regardless of his circumstances. Characters in the book are defined by their belief in the idea of timshel. Cal is seen as strong and caring once he makes his own choices. Adam and Cathy are both too afraid of what they believe to be the opposite characteristics of their predestined ones. The choice of “murder of his brother” resonates with the storyline and connects timshel with the characters. It’s quite empowering to believe in this idea, as it gives me control over my life and my choices. It is definitely the quote I’d choose to keep.
Page 301/302
I love this quote. This quote is extremely important to the book. The idea that Steinbeck is trying to prove is very clearly that man can choose his path in life regardless of his circumstances. Characters in the book are defined by their belief in the idea of timshel. Cal is seen as strong and caring once he makes his own choices. Adam and Cathy are both too afraid of what they believe to be the opposite characteristics of their predestined ones. The choice of “murder of his brother” resonates with the storyline and connects timshel with the characters. It’s quite empowering to believe in this idea, as it gives me control over my life and my choices. It is definitely the quote I’d choose to keep.
Reflection
For some reason I thought this book was actually interesting. Thought I didn't feel any connection to the characters, I think it was the overlapping storylines and the complex relationships between characters that made it more intriguing. The analysis of the quote and the thinking questions definitely pushed me to better understand the book overall. I questioned the purpose of passages and characters more too. I struggled mostly with the timing of the assignment, as the book is so long and there is so much to unpack within it. At first I thought the repeated two brothers storyline was redundant, but I realized that it was actually important for setting up Cal’s change in behavior. I personally didn’t understand the point of Joe, but I also didn’t spend any time analyzing his role in the story. Though I’m not sure if I believe in predestiny or freewill of if I even care about which of the two it is, it did feel like the book was empowering my ability to chose in my life.