Steinbeck has a character refer to Americans as a "breed," and near the end of the book Lee says to a conflicted Cal that "We are all descended from the restless, the nervous, the criminals, the arguers and brawlers, but also the brave and independent and generous. If our ancestors had not been that, they would have stayed in their home plots in the other world and starved over the squeezed-out soil." What makes this a quintessentially American book? Can you identify archetypically American qualities—perhaps some of those listed above—in the characters?
Sam Hamilton—called a "shining man"—and his children are an immigrant family in the classic American model. What comes with Sam and his wife Liza from the "old country"? How does living in America change them and their children? What opportunities does America provide for the clan, and what challenges?
Adam Trask struggles to overcome the actions of others—his father, brother, and wife—and make his own life. What is the lesson that he learns that frees him from Kate and allows him to love his sons? He says to Cal near the end that "if you want to give me a present—give me a good life. That would be something I could value." Does Adam have a good life? What hinders him? Would you characterize his life as successful in the end?
Lee is one of the most remarkable characters in American literature, a philosopher trapped by the racial expectations of his time. He is the essence of compassion, erudition, and calm, serving the Trasks while retaining a complex interior and emotional life. Do you understand why he speaks in pidgin, as he explains it to Sam Hamilton? How does his character change—in dress, speech, and action—over the course of the book? And why do you think Lee stays with the Trasks, instead of living on his own in San Francisco and pursuing his dream?
Women in the novel are not always as fully realized as the main male characters. The great exception is Adam Trask's wife, Cathy, later Kate the brothel owner. Clearly Kate's evil is meant to be of biblical proportions. Can you understand what motivates her? Is she truly evil or does Steinbeck allow some traces of humanity in his characterization of her? What does her final act, for Aron Trask, indicate about her (well-hidden) emotions?
Sibling rivalry is a crushing reoccurrence in East of Eden. First Adam and his brother Charles, then Adam's sons Cal and Aron, act out a drama of jealousy and competition that seems fated: Lee calls the story of Cain and Abel the "symbol story of the human soul." Why do you think this is so, or do you disagree? Have you ever experienced or witnessed such a rivalry? Do all of the siblings in the book act out this drama or do some escape it? If so, how? If all of the "C" characters seem initially to embody evil and all the "A" characters good—in this novel that charts the course of good and evil in human experience—is it true that good and evil are truly separate? Are the C characters also good, the A characters capable of evil?
Abra, at first simply an object of sexual competition to Cal and Aron, becomes a more complex character in her relationships with the brothers but also with Lee and her own family. She rebels against Aron's insistence that she be a one-dimensional symbol of pure femininity. What is it that she's really looking for? Compare her to some of the other women in the book (Kate, Liza, Adam's stepmother) and try to identify some of the qualities that set her apart. Do you think she might embody the kind of "modern" woman that emerged in postwar America?
Some of Steinbeck's ethnic and racial characterizations are loaded with stereotype. Yet he also makes extremely prescient comments about the role that many races played in the building of America, and he takes the time to give dignity to all types of persons. Lee is one example of a character that constantly subverts expectations. Can you think of other scenes or characters that might have challenged conventional notions in Steinbeck's time? In ours? How unusual do you think it might have been to write about America as a multicultural haven in the 1950s? And do you agree that that is what Steinbeck does, or do you think he reveals a darker side to American diversity?
What constitutes true wealth in the book? The Hamiltons and the Trasks are most explicitly differentiated by their relationship to money: though Sam Hamilton works hard he accumulates little, while Adam Trask moons and mourns and lives off the money acquired by his father. Think of different times that money is sought after or rejected by characters (such as Will Hamilton and Cal Trask) and the role that it plays to help and hinder them in realizing their dreams. Does the quest for money ever obscure deeper desires?
During the naming of the twins, Lee, Sam, and Adam have a long conversation about a sentence from Genesis, disagreeing over whether God has said an act is ordered or predetermined. Lee continues to think about this conversation and enlists the help of a group of Chinese philosophers to come to a conclusion: that God has given humans choice by saying that they may (the Hebrew word for "may," timshel, becomes a key trope in the novel), that people can choose for themselves. What is Steinbeck trying to say about guilt and forgiveness? About family inheritance versus free will? Think of instances where this distinction is important in the novel, and in your own life.
The end of the novel and the future of the Trasks seems to rest with Cal, the son least liked and least understood by his father and the town. What does Cal come to understand about his relationship to his past and to each member of his family? The last scene between Adam and Cal is momentous; what exactly happens between them, and how hopeful a note is this profound ending? Why is Lee trying to force Cal to overturn the assumption that lives are "all inherited"? What do you think Cal's future will be?
*East of Eden* is a combination novel/memoir; Steinbeck writes himself in as a minor character in the book, a member of the Hamilton family. What do you think he gained by morphing genres in this fashion? What distinguishes this from a typical autobiography? What do you think Steinbeck's extremely personal relationship to the material contributes to the novel?
i*
I have such mixed feelings about this book. For the first 200 pages at least I loathed it. At least for the Trask part of the narrative the characters all seem to be manipulated to fit in with their biblical counterparts. I never believed in their motivations. I don’t believe in Kathy/Kate either. I just wanted to wring Adam’s neck most of the time. The counterpoint of the Hamilton chapters just didn’t work for me. And then at some point many, many pages in Steinbeck inserts his own voice. That just shattered all my illusions - he couldn’t possibly know what all these people were thinking or saying. This is long before you discover that Steinbeck is a Hamilton descendant.
But then we got to Lee. I was so afraid he was going to be a stereotyped “Chinaman”, but I think Steinbeck really succeeded with his character. I agree with Mary, he’s the true center of the book. I loved the discussion of Cain and Abel. I’ve always thought the Old Testament God behaves pretty badly.
The novel grew on me, and I did end up being glad I read it, but I don’t think it really works, even if I understand what Steinbeck was trying to accomplish.
BTW thanks to @ignatius for recommending the Journal of a Novel. It’s a quick read (though I’ve only read half so far) and fascinating. Steinbeck knew I was going to hate all the parts I hate! The point counterpoint of the novel vs the memoir are very intentional and very important to him.
I had never read East of Eden, even though I majored in American Studies as an undergrad, and obviously read lots of American literature. I’m pretty sure I’ve read at least one other Steinbeck novel, but I can’t swear to it … ANYWAY, I “liked” East of Eden, but didn’t truly “love” it. Is that blasphemy? I guess the main negative for me was some of the actual writing – somewhat convoluted and confusing. And, IMO, it could have been a little shorter. That said, however, I’m glad I read it.
I agree that Cathy, especially as a child was pure evil. She gave me the heebie-jeebies. I also liked Lee.
Re: question 1 – pulling on my long ago American Studies background, the whole “going west”
theme certainly appears here.
PS Oh, OK, I’m not the first – I got sidetracked for a few minutes before I actually posted.
I agree that Lee is the heart and soul of the story. He is the calm intellectual voice that works through conflicts and offers his well thought out opinions. Steinbeck gives Lee a voice that reaches beyond the Chinese stereotype of the time.
It’s nice to be back I picked a good time, too–I’ve been in a phase of reading my fast-paced mystery/thriller novels, so reading this classic felt more substantive.
Yikes about Cathy-- definitely evil personified! I was happy to see at the end that she wasn’t a survivor. And yet the angelic character, Aron, didn’t survive either. I think Steinbeck is saying that the future belongs to those with a mix of good and bad–resiliency to stand up to adversity combined with an ability to appreciate full humanness in the form of connection and emotion. Makes me wonder where I am in the balance!
Did anyone think that Cal was evil? Granted, he did some nasty things, but nothing like Cathy. I kept thinking he was a kid trying to discover himself. He was never comfortable being bad. He always questioned himself and admired the good in Aron.
No I don’t think he was evil. I think Steinbeck wanted him to be an echo of Charles, a contrast to Aron and a combination of the genetics of his mother and father. He’s one of the many characters I didn’t believe in. He just didn’t talk like a real person and his motivations didn’t make sense to me half the time. (i.e. the whole scene regarding who shot the rabbit.) OTOH I totally understood why Abra preferred him to Aron, who was too perfect for his own good and who reminded me of his Dad - he saw things the way he wanted them to be, not how they actually are.
Can’t wait ti jump in on this conversation but unfortunately I have a crazy day at work today and won’t have much time for breaks. Hope to have some time tonight. Enjoyed the book a lot.
I finished last night, in the nick of time! I’m glad I read East of Edento make the acquaintance of the characters of Sam, Lee, and Cal. However, considering the length of this book and the limited cast, I never felt like anybody was truly fleshed out. Cathy/Kate has to be one of the most hideous villains I can remember appearing in any book, ever. I was glad she left us–better late than never!
That’s something I loved about the book. Sadly, the stereotype is still with us, maybe not blatant, but there nonetheless. I was at the part of the story where Horace (the deputy sheriff) comes to see Adam and keeps calling Lee “Ching Chong,” when I happened to set aside the book and pick up the New York Times…to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/sports/basketball/jeremy-lin-nba-brooklyn-nets.html. I thought that was an interesting coincidence.
Cal is a better version of Charles. Remember the scene where Charles tries to kill Adam – even goes back to the house for a hatchet and stalks him in the dark, hoping to hack him to death? Even at Cal’s worst, he is not capable of that. I don’t think East of Eden is a story where history repeats itself; rather, I believe it shows evolution from one generation to the next. Perhaps slight, but it’s there. I found it easier to believe in Cal than in Cathy – I agree with @psychmom that Cal’s interior struggle gives him depth.
I see both Lee and Samuel as the heart of the book, both outsiders who ended up having so much to give. I have to give the edge to Lee–his brutal family history and his ability to mock his own stereotype created for me an extra level of warmth towards him. I think he also transcended the gender stereotype…he was both maternal and paternal, and was the true parent to the boys.
I don’t think Cal feels guiltless because he is amoral or hard-hearted-- I think he genuinely doesn’t believe that he has done anything unethical. When Adam tells Cal to give the money back “to the farmers you robbed,” Cal responds, “Robbed?..Why, we paid them two cents a pound over the market. We didn’t rob them” (p. 540). (So is it profiteering?)
@psychmom, I agree with you re Lee and Samuel. (I wonder how Aron and Cal would have turned out without Lee as mother and father.) I think Samuel’s flaw–which he would readily admit–is that he lived too much in the past with his lost love, “night after month after year, right to the very now.”
Well, I’d agree that it wasn’t *really * profiteering (at least not much) and I certainly thought Adam should have just taken the money and made Cal feel good. But that along with the story of Charles and his rejected to his gift to his father all seem obviously part of a theme.
