East of Eden, Book Club Discussion, May 2004

[theworm[$]]

Our "official" book club discussion starts tomorrow.
I'm not a literature teacher, and I think that this discussion should evolve on it's own and be fun.
East of Eden is a beefy booked packed with many topics to discuss. Good vs. Evil, Timshel, Inheritance, Family Relationships, Bibilical Referneces and on and on and on.

Let's start our discussion simply.

Overall, did you enjoy the book?
What did you love about it?
What did you hate or find tedious?
What will you "take with you" from this novel?

I'm sure that the thread will spread to cover all the topics that we want to discuss.

Thanks for joining our book club! I'm looking forwards to our discussions starting tomorrow! :book:

[phoenixx]

I have a long, busy day tomorrow that will take me from the northern part of NH to the North Shore of MA and home to Southern NH, so forgive my posting early. I'll keep it brief for now to avoid spoilers.

Let's start our discussion simply.

Overall, did you enjoy the book?

No. This is my least favorite of the Steinbeck novels, and this is the third time I've read it.

I have no problem with the length, and Steinbeck's fluid writing style is the book's one saving grace, though I find he uses almost as much useless, tedious detail as the modern day author Tom Clancy.

The character development is strong, though the sheer number of "players" can weigh the story down at times - this issue is not helped by the tendency to meander off into detail not essential for the plot.

That's a start - I'll have more to say when I return from my trip. Suffice it to say that I hold the belief that a book being listed as a "classic" does not make it a good book - look at Hemingway - atrocious, always. I can admire this book's tight style and command of words as putting it on the list of classics without thinking it is a good book to read.

Leslie, former English/Psych major - throwing in the first dissenting vote.

[erik_kosberg]

Overall, did you enjoy the book?

Yes

What did you love about it?

The complexity of the character Lee.

What did you hate or find tedious?

I could never really believe the character Adam. How could he be so distant from his sons during their early years? And some little things just didn’t ring true like when he moved to the house in Salinas and couldn’t get the stove to work, mystified about the existence of ashes. He grew up on a farm in the late 19th century, how could he not know how to use a stove?

What will you "take with you" from this novel?

Hopefully, the spark to get off my butt and get more serious about writing.

[ms_n]

Well, I'm still on the read, but I would like to share that stuck out for me and sort of set up the story from the viewpoints of the narrator and characters:

p. 58

Some skillful and effective use of the remarkable comma:

"To be guarded at work by men with shotguns, to be shackled by the ankle at night with a chain, were simple matters of precaution, but the savage whippings for the least stir of will, for the smallest shred of dignity or resistence, this seemed to indicate that guards were afraid of prisoners, and Adam knew from his years in the army that a man afraid is a dangerous animal."

Was that really one sentence? wowie.
--continues on p. 58 to show Adam's withdrawal within himself:

"And Adam, like anyone in the world, feared what whipping would do to his body and spirit. He drew a curtain around himself. He removed expression from his face, light from his eyes, and silenced his speech. Later he was not so much astonished that it had happened to him but that he had been able to take it and with a minimum of pain. It was much more horrible afterward than when it was happening. It is a triumph of self-control to see a man whipped until the muscles of his back show white and glistening through the cuts and to give no sign of pity or anger or interest. And Adam learned this.

People are felt rather than seen after the first few moments. During his second sentence on the roads of Florida, Adam reduced his personality to a minus. He caused no stir, put out no vibration, became as nearly invisible as as it is possible to be. And when the guards could not feel him, they were not afraid of him."

So I see here the understanding Adam has of the dull, emotionless look in another's eyes. He sees a wall formed for survival against pain and suffering. Surely, he can recognize the cold, hardened look he developed as defense and he knows a person in this position cannot be fully trusted or truly known.

Then, the narrator, Olive Hamilton's son (right?), expresses:

"I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents...And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or psychic monsters born?" p. 72

This challenges the reader to judge light from dark and evil from good. Here we meet Cathy. Beautiful, resourceful, emotionally aloof, selfish, strong, and without mercy. She is Adam's love and a creature he is devoted to protecting and serving. That's where I am at -- trying to figure out why Adam is so determined to believe in Cathy and risk everything he has for her, to be her salvation, when she does not value it.

I probably won't be adding much and will be trying to stay out of here so I can finish the story. But, I did want to share what I had so far.

I think this book club is exciting and a wonderful thing. Enjoy!

(When I'm done, I'll come back and answer the questions you posted, Wormie. :thumbs

[lynnzop[$]]

I loved the book. Reading something "classic" instead of the pop-culture pap that I usually read re-opened my eyes.

I had an "ah-ha" moment about midway in the book when Olive's last name is mentioned and it is Steinbeck. For some reason, while it's a minor point in the book, I love those little "secret" moments that are shared with a reader (and are sometimes missed.)

What did I hate or find tedious? Well, I tend to skim through long, descriptive passages (first chapter). I like dialog, or specific descriptions of what the characters are doing. There weren't a lot of sections that were tedious, so I found it to be fairly easy reading.

While I didn't like her, I found the Cathy/Kate character facinating. To be that diabolical and not be found out....true Evil in that one. I agree with Erik on Adam's character - once he married Cathy and moved to the west, he seemed to lose all personality. But perhaps that was the way Steinbeck designed him....he was so wrapped up in her that he lost himself?

I really found it interesting that for most of the second half of the book, I disliked Cal intensely. Then at the end, when Cathy died and Aron joined the service, he became much more likable. Almost the hero of the book.

Lynn

[theworm[$]]

I enjoyed the book very much.
I didn't mind the long descriptive parts because Steinbeck's writing is so "visual".
Have to agree with Erik and Lynn about Adam - I can understand a man being "broken" or broken-hearted, but he seemed to suffer permanent self-loss, and that didn't seem realistic.
I think that Lee was the silent hero of the book. He seemed to be the quiet voice of wisdom (to Samuels open voice of wisdom).
I would have liked to see a bit more between Adam and Charles from after Adam moved west. There was too much unresolved there, but I suppose thats a big part of the story.
I've always liked Steinbeck. I didn't think that this was typical Steinbeck, but I loved the intricate characters and plot lines.

[emeleel]

Overall, did you enjoy the book?
What did you love about it?
What did you hate or find tedious?
What will you "take with you" from this novel?

Basic answers first:

1. I surprised myself and thoroughly enjoyed it!

2. The well drawn characters. I love "getting to know" characters in books more than anything, which is why I am consistently drawn to series fiction. I felt like we really got to know everybody pretty well.

3. I didn't really "hate" the first chapter, but like Lynn, I don't like long, drawn-out descriptive passages. I think the first chapter was necessary, however. Doesn't mean I actually cared a whole lot for it.

4. I think the "timshel" discussion was the most interesting for me.

***********

Now, for what I said in #3 about the descriptive chapter at the beginning. After finishing the book and thinking about it a bit, I decided that it was really handled the best way. We needed to get the full description of the area and the kinds of land out there in one big bite. I think one of the book's subtle points was about what the two families had. There was Samuel's family, the good, salt of the earth, kind, hard-working, etc. stuck out on a useless piece of land with no water anywhere. But they worked hard and became respected for their character, not what they had. Whereas Adam, with all his money and things, had the best piece of land in the area - and what did he and his boys do with their lives? Not much, and eventually became laughingstocks. It's not what we have, it's what we do with our lives.

[emeleel]

I could never really believe the character Adam. How could he be so distant from his sons during their early years? And some little things just didn’t ring true like when he moved to the house in Salinas and couldn’t get the stove to work, mystified about the existence of ashes. He grew up on a farm in the late 19th century, how could he not know how to use a stove?

I actually found Adam, for the most part, to be believable. It might have been more believable had he been with Cathy for longer, but still - it just showed how thoroughly evil she was. Remember the first man she hired on with as a "girl"? It wasn't long at all before she had him wrapped around her little finger and had him in a terrible mental state. But he was a bad guy, so the ending between them was predictably violent. Adam was a good, kind man so when she threw it all in his face, shot him and left him, he just rebounded in his shell and gave up on the world for a while. For some reason she had such a hold on her that when she left, she pulled the whole world out from under his feet.

[theworm[$]]

I agree Melanie. I can see him being so damaged after Cathy that he rebounded in his shell. I can even understand his emotional "abondonment" of his boys. The part I can't quite believe is that later - after Samuel died and Adam "came back" to life, he still was emotionally removed. That didn't jive for me.

[soxfan[$]]

Overall, did you enjoy the book?

Yes and no. I enjoyed the quality of the writing, character development, etc. but found it painful at times.

What did you love about it?

The depth of the characterization, except maybe for Adam. I particularly loved the little story about Lee and his four older relatives learning Hebrew.

What did you hate or find tedious?

I could've done with fewer long, descriptive passages too. And too much of the plot was "driven" by Adam's passiveness and inability to move on with his life.

What will you "take with you" from this novel?

The concept of timshel.

[lynnzop[$]]

emeleel said

I think one of the book's subtle points was about what the two families had. There was Samuel's family, the good, salt of the earth, kind, hard-working, etc. stuck out on a useless piece of land with no water anywhere. But they worked hard and became respected for their character, not what they had. Whereas Adam, with all his money and things, had the best piece of land in the area - and what did he and his boys do with their lives? Not much, and eventually became laughingstocks. It's not what we have, it's what we do with our lives.

Excellent point, Melanie. It didn't make as much of an impression on me in reading the book, but it does when encapsulated like you've written it.

I thought the Hamilton family was rather undeveloped compared to the Trask family. They seemed more one-dimensional and almost as an afterthought to the Trasks' lives.

[erik_kosberg]

Anything that I say about EOE should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s a dense book with many levels of meaning. I’d probably have to read it several times over the course of a year or two to get to the point where I thought that I really understood it well.

[mtomm[$]]

Well, if Erik feels he would need to read it several times to really get everything out it then I feel much better about the shallowness of my commentary.

The book was very wordy. Sometimes I liked it and sometimes I dreaded opening it. I felt some parts were way over-developed and some under-developed.

I echo the feelings about timshel. It feels empowering. But I've always been taught that I the free agency to choose and that just reaffirms it.

[emeleel]

I thought the Hamilton family was rather undeveloped compared to the Trask family. They seemed more one-dimensional and almost as an afterthought to the Trasks' lives.

Me too! I really wasn't quite sure of the purpose of the whole Hamilton family. They were nice and all, but the families were not nearly as entertwined as I thought they would be from the jacket description. After the book was over I found myself wondering why he'd even bothered with them. Lee served the purpose of sounding-board and advice-giver so much better than Samuel did even though the times Samuel was involved were good for Adam.

Going back to the descriptive passages for a moment, as usual I forgot to finish my thought as to why I thought the opening chapter was neccessary. As I said I thought we needed to get that description in one big bite, as I put it. In this case I think we needed it for the land descriptions to make more of an impression on the readers - scattering the descriptions throughout the story might still have told us what everything looked like, but the good land vs. bad land understanding might not be as strong or easy to see.

[lynnzop[$]]

I do think that first chapter servered a purpose. It set the tone for the book - I'm not sure what kind of "popular" fiction was written back in the 50s, but that first chapter definitely made me aware that I was hunkering down to a "serious" book as opposed to Phillip Marlowe.

Doesn't mean I didn't skim it.

Margo...I used to read books, especially long ones, over and over again. I'd always find that I'd missed something the first time around, and I've actually worn out copies of some of my favourites re-reading them. I think I would re-read EOE to get more out of it, just not right away.

I did like the ending. It seemed solid and strong, not something I was disappointed in. And there was enough closure that I didn't feel like I'd been left hanging and thinking that there should be a sequel or follow up novel, yet it didn't wimp out like many books I've read. I thought about EOE quite a bit in the days after I'd read it...even visited a number of discussion web sites. Not many books have that effect on me.

I'm curious how y'all interpreted the Cain and Abel theme of the novel. I saw so many examples of "good v. evil" that I lost track of them. I was convinced, after Cal gave Adam his gift and Adam rejected it, that Cal was going to kill Aron somehow. I didn't want that to happen, and I dreaded reading until I found that my guess was incorrect. In a way, yes, Cal did kill Aron by taking him to Kate, but I didn't want him to actually do the deed.

Lynn

[theworm[$]]

I think that was the point. That Cal, did hurt his brother, but he hurt him through the truth. Aron ran away because of the truth. The fact that Cal sheltered his brother from the truth for SO long, and then revealed all when Adam rejected his gift makes it more tragic.
Abra's role in everything is still sort of hazy to me. What did you all think about her and her role in the novel?

[erik_kosberg]

I finished EOE only yesterday, so a lot of it is still bouncing around in my head slowly congealing. I’m now dinking around in Steinbeck’s Journal of a Novel: The East of Eden Letters written to friend and editor Pascal “Pat” Covici. On the subject of the early descriptive material, somewhere in Journal of a Novel (maybe I’ll find it later and quote it), Steinbeck says something to the effect that the descriptive stuff was planned to lull the reader (I think he called it a trap) into thinking that nothing was going on.

[lynnzop[$]]

erik_kosberg said

...Steinbeck says something to the effect that the descriptive stuff was planned to lull the reader (I think he called it a trap) into thinking that nothing was going on.

It lulled me to sleep.

I'd like to look for that companion book, Erik. Thanks for mentioning it.

On Abra....other than the oddness of her name, I don't know what to make of her. A symbolic prize awarded to one brother (Aron) who subsequently discarded her for a higher calling? First he rejects her for the church, then for the military. She claimed that he loved an image of her that he'd created, not the real Abra. Cal, on the other hand, loved the real woman/girl...not an ethereal vision. Is Abra Steinbeck's equivalent to the blessing God gave to Abel for making a sacrifice He accepted?

Lynn

[soxfan[$]]

I didn't know what to make of Abra either. Only thing I can think of is that she's there to reinforce the parallels between Adam and Aron -- both were in love with an illusion, and were shattered by the truth.