Summer Reading: 'East of Eden' by Steinbeck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

I also liked it when Cathy was beaten but the beating did not do her any good...it never does...

---

No, I guess it doesn't. It did give me a wonderful, superficial, visceral satisfaction, however.

Besides, she is beginning to experience her just desserts at the moment. Adam has gone to see her a few times and reduced her to nothingness by a complete lack of interest and care for her. Ha! She is crying and quavering in fear and uncertainty right now. With her silly pot belly and varicose hands.

"Give him the boots, Ralph!" :D

"Some say that the decay of morality among girls has dealt the whorehouse it's deathblow." I cannot properly communicate how meaningful that was to me when I read it.


I was also delighted with the description of Olive Hamilton's duties as a small town teacher near the start of Chapter 14.

"Olive Hamilton had not only to teach everything, but to all ages."

"Olive also had to practice rudimentary medicine, for there were constant accidents. She taught reading to the first grade and algebra to the eighth. She led the singing, acted as a critic of literature, wrote the social notes that went weekly to the Salinas Journal. In addition, the whole social life of the area was in her hands, not only graduation exercises, but dances, meetings, debates, chorals, Christmas and May Day festivals, patriotic exudations on Decoration Day and the Fourth of July. She was on the election board and headed and held together all charities."


Whew! I think that the position of small town 'intellectual' is kind of unique and interesting. It sounds difficult and stressful; but there can hardly be a more rewarding or important role for a person in that setting to play.


I also enjoyed Sam Hamilton's speculation on the asteroid's terrestrial collision in Chapter 17.

"Maybe it was all water here - an inland sea with the seabirds circling and crying. And it would have been a pretty thing if it had happened at night. There would come a line of light and then a pencil of white light and then a tree of blinding light drawn in a long arc from heaven. Then there'd be a great water spout and a big mushroom of steam. And your ears would be staggered by the sound because the soaring cry of its coming would be on you at the same time the water exploded. And then it would be black night again, because of the blinding light. And gradually you'd see the killed fish coming up, showing silver in the starlight, and crying birds would come to eat them.

It is a lonely, lovely thing to think about, isn't it?"

He made them see it as he always did.


***PLOT WARNING***

I thought that Tom taking those sisters to the dance on a sofa was wonderful; Dessie's death and his subsequent suicide broke my heart.

I hope that things work out with Cal.

"And in his mind he cried, 'Don't let me be mean.'"

I am liking Aron and Abra (I'm in chapter 36).

"All that was in him was hidden by his angelic face, and for this he had no more concern or responsibility than has a fawn for the dappling spots on it's young hide."

I just read East of Eden last year, so I am wavering on reading again (Am not a Steinbeck fan, and read Grapes of Wrath last month, so I'm about at my quota), although the posts here are luring me on to it. In any case, I wanted to note that I agree with ShoutGrace and Pensive in that I absolutely LOVED the first chapter. That was what started me reading the book, and I remember having that same feeling for the Grapes as well. . . . I love Steinbeck's descriptions of the land more than anything else in his work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HG

I just read East of Eden last year, so I am wavering on reading again

---

Oh, do read it again! I would like to hear what such a knowledgeable and insightful literary persona has to say about it!

:nod: Please, please, please! :nod:

It is very different from Grapes of Wrath (as you surely well remember).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HG

although the posts here are luring me on to it.

---

Give in! Give in! Let yourself fall victim to your desires; I for one will greatly appreciate it. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

I would like to hear what such a knowledgeable and insightful literary persona has to say about it!
:nod: Please, please, please! :nod:
Give in! Give in! Let yourself fall victim to your desires; I for one will greatly appreciate it. :D

---

Flattery, it seems, will get you everywhere. :lol: I give in. Let me get through Oliver Twist (approx. 150 pgs to go) and then I'll head to Eden

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

Let me get through Oliver Twist (approx. 150 pgs to go) and then I'll head to Eden

---

:banana: YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAHHHHHHH! :banana: That's what I'm talking about.

Okay, I suppose I will have to resign myself to waiting a little bit longer. :D We do have all summer long, though. Perhaps that gives me time to read it twice? :confused:


Can't be that bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HG

Flattery, it seems, will get you everywhere. :lol: I give in.

---

The rest of you can thank me later!

Okay . . . . . so I have finished the book, and I think I have some things figured out. Firstly, the Hebrew word 'Timshel' ('Thou mayest') is obviously an important aspect of the novel (perhaps the most important? At the moment I think that it is). One of the defining characteristics in the book is the characters struggle between good and evil; perform evil, or do good. I think that this is bourne out explicitly in the narrator's discourse in chapter 34 (a heavy, quick chapter - I liked how Steinbeck interspersed these little homilies in between the actual plot developments; I have also concluded that they contain a large portion of the meaning and authorial intent to be found in the book), in which Steinbeck states:

"Virtue and vice were warp and woof of our first conciousness, and they will be the fabric of our last, and this despite any changes we may impose on field and river and mountain, on economy and manners. There is no other story. A man, after he has brushed off the dust and chips of his life, will have left only the hard, clean questions : Was it good or was it evil? Have I done well - or ill?"

"When a man dies - if he has had wealth and influence and power and all the vestments that arouse envy, and after the living take stock of the dead man's property and his eminence and works and monuments - the question is still there: Was his life good or was it evil? - which is another way of putting Croesus's question. Envies are gone, and the measuring stick is: "Was he loved or was he hated? Is his death felt a loss or does a kind of joy come with it?"


Also, I think a lot of the material concerning blood relation, and whether or not children are predilected towards their actions genetically, pertains to this idea as well. Off the top of my head:

"I don't very much believe in blood," said Samuel. "I think that when a man finds good or bad in his children he is seeing only what he planted in them after they cleared the womb."


Again, "good", or "bad".


Also, Caleb and Adam's conversation near the end of the book is a direct (nearly explicit) allusion to the Biblical story of Cain and Able which was expounded on so dearly earlier in the novel.






Adam asked, "Do you know where you brother is?"
"No, I don't," said Cal.
"Weren't you with him at all?"
"No."
"He hasn't been home for two nights. Where is he?"
"How do I know?" said Cal. "Am I supposed to look after him?"


Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is you brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"




I have lots of other thoughts and haven't yet gone back and seen what everybody else has written. Has anyone else finished the book? I know Pensive did . . . Papayahed and SleepyWitch?



One other little digression (I am typing with a staight face :D ) - I think that Steinbeck's treatment of turnips was especially interesting. Both turnip adherents/advocates and naysayers/assailants might do well in considering the following:

"Well, I haven't got that yet. Maybe some people need things more than others, or hate things more. My father hates turnips. He always did. Never came from anything. Turnips make him mad, real mad. Well, one time my mother was - well, huffy, and she made a casserole of mashed turnips with lots of pepper and cheese on top and got it all brown on top. My father ate half a dish of it before he asked what it was. My mother said turnips, and he threw the dish on the floor and got up and went out. I don't think he ever forgave her."

Lee chuckled. "He can forgive her because she said turnips."

So. we have finished the book.

It was an interesting read, although "timshel" didn't have much effect on us. It seemed a bit like breaking through an open door to us, but that aside, there were many interesting points too.

We found the passage at the beginning where Adams father tells Adam about soldirering and humiliation and how all that humiliation and destruction of character prepared one for the final embarassment of death, quite interesting. We don't have the book at hand and can't quote it, but there is something very interesting in there, although bleak.

Another interesting thing: note how Adams' and Charles' mother is innocent but pretends to be guilty for some strange reason before commiting suicide (there was quite a lot of suicide in that book) and is believed by the public to be guilty but Cathy, in the next generation is viewed by Adam, Faye and practically everybody as innocent and sweet but is really devilish. There is a nice mirror-effect in that.




We like Caleb more than Abel, perhaps the reason is that the author wrote more from his point of view (on the other hand, in the previous generation we sympathized more with Adam than Charles - again, we saw more of Adams than Charles' point of view. Perhaps, if the author had done it the other way around and reflected more Charleses and Arons thoughts and feelings and less of Adams and Calebs perhaps we would sympathize with Charles and Aron). Caleb seems more torn with conflict and more interesting ("Don't let me be mean") than Aron who seems to be like a child, a good child, but a naive child with no actual understanding of other people, just wanting to be the star of the drama of his life. He doesn't want to face the truth and reality and practically commits suicide by enlisting. (by the way, remember how the enlisting officer said that Aron would make a good sergeant? That somehow reminded us of the various cruel sergeants from literature who shout at their underlings and are harsh. It is somehow ironical that the enlister saw Aron the Angel as somebody who could fit well for such a cruel post)

Okay ShoutGrace, I have finished (re)reading chapter one. A couple of thoughts:
I found the naming of places interesting. It begins with holy names: San Bernadino, Natividad, then moves to the earth or sea: Los Laureles, then animals: Topo, then to man:Lame Moor. The basic premise seems to parallel (in a slight way) creation itself: God, Earth, Animal, Man.
Also, I think Steinbeck offers a commentary on human nature in chapter one, setting the scene for the human drama to follow:
"And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way"
Reminds me especially of post-Edenic Israel in the desert with Moses: God is great when everything is good, but when things are bad, God's blessings are forgotten, although applies to everyone post-Eden: "It was always that way".
Steinbeck also sets up the dichotomy of East/West: "I always found in myself a dread of west and a love of east". East, the place where the sun rises, is a place of hope and possibility, the origin of the sun/light. West is a place of death/darkness. "East of Eden" therefore, is set up as a place that, while falling short of Paradise, is a place of hope. This is echoed in the settling of the narrator's grandfather to the "east of King City"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

Okay ShoutGrace, I have finished (re)reading chapter one. A couple of thoughts:
I found the naming of places interesting. It begins with holy names: San Bernadino, Natividad, then moves to the earth or sea: Los Laureles, then animals: Topo, then to man:Lame Moor. The basic premise seems to parallel (in a slight way) creation itself: God, Earth, Animal, Man.

---

I agree with you that the connection is delicate, but interesting nonetheless. I also wouldn't doubt it too much considering all the Biblical material and allusions in the novel. Something I didn't even consider, though I did at the time wonder for a moment why exactly Steinbeck felt the need to name everything so studiously.

Quote:

---

Also, I think Steinbeck offers a commentary on human nature in chapter one, setting the scene for the human drama to follow:
"And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way"

---

I'm not sure about that only because I can't connect it to specific events in the plot right now. I'm trying to think, 'Who were the forgetters and what were they forgetting?' Perhaps we will run across them :D.

Quote:

---

Steinbeck also sets up the dichotomy of East/West:

---

Thats something I agree with too! I still think that the point of the novel is Timshel, the choice between good and evil, choosing how to live your life. I think that the Salinas Valley represents good and evil in the way you've described:

Quote:

---

"I always found in myself a dread of west and a love of east". East, the place where the sun rises, is a place of hope and possibility, the origin of the sun/light. West is a place of death/darkness.

---

It is like the characters in the novel are placed in this arena between good and evil (in a figurative and literal sense) and go either East or West; and, more importantly, choose for themselves East or West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

I still think that the point of the novel is Timshel, the choice between good and evil, choosing how to live your life. I think that the Salinas Valley represents good and evil in the way you've described:
It is like the characters in the novel are placed in this arena between good and evil (in a figurative and literal sense) and go either East or West; and, more importantly, choose for themselves East or West.

---

I agree with you that the point of the novel is choice: good/evil, east/west

I am now at chapter 8. One thing that strikes me about EofE is Steinbecks attention to balancing a binary system. For example: Charles loves his father, but the father loves Adam. On the other hand, Adam loves Alice, but she loves her son Charles. Adam gives acceptable gifts to her - she assigns them to Charles. Charles tries to give the father acceptable gifts, but Adam's are acceptable instead.

I also like the echoes of the Cain/Abel story found in the early portion of the novel as precursor to its fulfillment later on: the acceptable sacrifice, Charles the farmer and Adam, the wanderer (shepherd), the murder (attempt) by Charles over the love of the father.

Okay, must dive back in now. . . am falling behind in my reading schedule. :D

Okay, have finished part one. I really like Steinbeck's manner of creating characters that we do not empathize with or even like, and yet we do not throw the book away in disgust. For example, Kathy's appearance is preceded by: "You must not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the norm is monstrous" By putting the reader in the position of monster, Steinbeck not only discusses the role of perception, but also lays a foundation for the reader: we can dislike Cathy, but we cannot condemn her for not possessing what we have: a conscience. She acts according to her nature, which is different from us and monstrous to us, but we the reader would be the same to her.
Cathy's introduction also carries an implied question to me: is good and evil a matter of perception? Is Cathy really evil, as she does not have a natural conscience? Is Charles evil for attempting to kill Adam? Why then would he try to save Adam from Cathy?
One can argue that this is resolved in some sense by the language used to describe the people. Cathy has feet "almost like little hoofs" and is a "little devil". She carries the same mark as Charles, the mark of Cain.

Okay, on to book two

You know, when we read the place where Cathy describes how he sees the world, /spoiler/ and shows the photographs of famous and good men that are wicked in her brothel //spoiler finished/ and says that no good exists, we remembered another passage from the beginning of H. C. Andersens "Snow Queen"

Quote:

---

Once upon a time there was a wicked sprite, indeed he was the most mischievous of all sprites. One day he was in a very good humor, for he had made a mirror with the power of causing all that was good and beautiful when it was reflected therein, to look poor and mean; but that which was good-for-nothing and looked ugly was shown magnified and increased in ugliness. In this mirror the most beautiful landscapes looked like boiled spinach, and the best persons were turned into frights, or appeared to stand on their heads; their faces were so distorted that they were not to be recognised; and if anyone had a mole, you might be sure that it would be magnified and spread over both nose and mouth.

"That's glorious fun!" said the sprite. If a good thought passed through a man's mind, then a grin was seen in the mirror, and the sprite laughed heartily at his clever discovery. All the little sprites who went to his school--for he kept a sprite school--told each other that a miracle had happened; and that now only, as they thought, it would be possible to see how the world really looked. They ran about with the mirror; and at last there was not a land or a person who was not represented distorted in the mirror. So then they thought they would fly up to the sky, and have a joke there. The higher they flew with the mirror, the more terribly it grinned: they could hardly hold it fast. Higher and higher still they flew, nearer and nearer to the stars, when suddenly the mirror shook so terribly with grinning, that it flew out of their hands and fell to the earth, where it was dashed in a hundred million and more pieces. And now it worked much more evil than before; for some of these pieces were hardly so large as a grain of sand, and they flew about in the wide world, and when they got into people's eyes, there they stayed; and then people saw everything perverted, or only had an eye for that which was evil. This happened because the very smallest bit had the same power which the whole mirror had possessed. Some persons even got a splinter in their heart, and then it made one shudder, for their heart became like a lump of ice. Some of the broken pieces were so large that they were used for windowpanes, through which one could not see one's friends. Other pieces were put in spectacles; and that was a sad affair when people put on their glasses to see well and rightly. Then the wicked sprite laughed till he almost choked, for all this tickled his fancy. The fine splinters still flew about in the air: and now we shall hear what happened next.

---

Quote:

---

And now it worked much more evil than before; for some of these pieces were hardly so large as a grain of sand, and they flew about in the wide world, and when they got into people's eyes, there they stayed; and then people saw everything perverted, or only had an eye for that which was evil. This happened because the very smallest bit had the same power which the whole mirror had possessed. Some persons even got a splinter in their heart, and then it made one shudder, for their heart became like a lump of ice. Some of the broken pieces were so large that they were used for windowpanes, through which one could not see one's friends.

---

This paragraph is fit on the situations of both Adam and Cathy, fit on the relationship of Adam with his brother and Cathy with her parents, Adam and her kids. Look, those pieces of mirror have been into the eyes of a mother who has even left her kids, her kids think that she is dead when she is living. I can't believe a mother can be that much self-centered... Cathy does not seem like a human being, let alone a mother. The characters in this book surprised me a lot and made me feel that how can you trust life, when a mother can leave you, a brother can try to kill you....and this reminds me of an old Hindi song:

Dost dost na raha (Friend no longer remained friend)
Bhai Bhai na raha (Brother was no longer a brother)
Ma Ma na rahi (Mother was no longer a mother)
Piyaar Piyaar na raha (Your loved one no longer loved you)
Zindagi hamain tera ayatbar na raha (Now, you can't trust your life)

Does anyone know who the men described in Chapter 34 are?

"The richest man of the century . . . . "

"Then there was a man, as smart as Satan . . . . "

"There was a third man, who perhaps made many errors in performance . . . . "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

Does anyone know who the men described in Chapter 34 are?

"The richest man of the century . . . . "

"Then there was a man, as smart as Satan . . . . "

"There was a third man, who perhaps made many errors in performance . . . . "

---

Are you talking about the reference to "The Histories" by Herodortus?

Or is it part after that?

No, it is after that. It begins in the seventh paragraph - "I remember clearly the deaths of three men."

I'm wondering if they are known historical figures.

I don't know....even if they are, I can't seem to regognize who they are...

Finished the book and loved it, I will definitelly reread it. I will have troubles picking ONE fave character though :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

No, it is after that. It begins in the seventh paragraph - "I remember clearly the deaths of three men."

I'm wondering if they are known historical figures.

---

I can't say with any certainty, but one could make a stab at them. . . what about one of the big industrial magnates like JP Morgan for the first man. The second I have no clue, but I would suspect someone involved in things like the Teamsters or Tammany Hall. The third might be someone like Roosevelt. Again, this is a stab, as I am definitely not up on my American history, especially that of the late 19th/early 20th century, but the timing would be about right.

I think the most important thing about this passage is that these archetypes can be found in today's society as well, as I'm sure you would agree:brow:

(and yes, ShoutGrace, I AM still reading. I got a bit slowed down with some personal stuff, but I am back at Eden and hoping to finish shortly)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

I can't say with any certainty, but one could make a stab at them. . . what about one of the big industrial magnates like JP Morgan for the first man.

---

Thats a good guess :D . . . . I was considering somebody like Rockefeller or Carnegie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

Again, this is a stab, as I am definitely not up on my American history, especially that of the late 19th/early 20th century, but the timing would be about right.

---

Do the figures need to be from American history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

I think the most important thing about this passage is that these archetypes can be found in today's society as well, as I'm sure you would agree.

---

I like Steinbeck because the issues, morals and ideas he talks about seem timeless to me. :banana:

It's fun to inquire, however . . . I am awfully curious. That, and, I think that knowing who the men were in real life would add depth to the passages for me . . . if indeed they are based on actual individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

(and yes, ShoutGrace, I AM still reading. I got a bit slowed down with some personal stuff, but I am back at Eden and hoping to finish shortly)

---

And what kind of decency does this show? Sacrificing reading and posting on Internet forums for personal issues? :p I thought that you were dedicated!! ;)

I am still reading too, though it is hodge podge (first time I've used that phrase . . . hope it isn't misplaced :D ). I am skipping things and rereading my favourites.

I thought that the incident with the German tailor Mr. Fenchel was very touching, and I felt quite terribly after reading it. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

Do the figures need to be from American history?

---

No, but that seemed the most likely scenario. ;)

Quote:

---

It's fun to inquire, however . . . I am awfully curious. That, and, I think that knowing who the men were in real life would add depth to the passages for me . . . if indeed they are based on actual individuals.

---

It definitely would lend depth to the reading, but I, unfortunately, do not have the answer :gasp of shock: :lol:

Quote:

---

I thought that the incident with the German tailor Mr. Fenchel was very touching, and I felt quite terribly after reading it. :(

---

Do you have a chapter # for me? I can't find it. :flare: Want . . . to. . . . participate. . . .grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

Do you have a chapter # for me? I can't find it. :flare: Want . . . to. . . . participate. . . .grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. :p

---

Sorry. It's a few pages into chapter 46 in my edition. :nod:

I just found it. . .thanks.
I'm glad I read it again. I had forgotten that section, although it underlines another theme: race and perception. Mr. Fenchel's story and those tied to it serve as a nice, but small counterpoint to Lee. No one is trying to get Lee now, but imagine what his plight would be like during WWII. Just as no one figured out that the tarred Polish person was not German, so, too, Lee might be mistaken and made to suffer for the crimes of a nation. Human nature wants a scapegoat for the world's ills, and they will go to the "other", the outsider, to find it.

Almoooooooooooossssssssttttttt Dooooooonnnnnnnnnneeeeee!

Okay, am back from vacation and done with the novel. I find the notion of "thou mayest" interesting in light of the fact that Adam may not. . . everything he does is fated, unlike Caleb and Aron. For example, when Adam is discussing Charles' will with Lee, Lee tells him that he will inform Kathy because he CANNOT do anything else. Toward the end of the novel, one gets the sense that Adam is caught in a stream of events and every action he takes is dictated. This serves as a counterpoint to Caleb. Every major action he takes is by choice, again emphasized by Lee. He chooses to behave in a right or wrong manner, he chooses to wallow in his guilt, etc. That is Adam's final blessing, as well as his final curse - Caleb has the freedom to act that Adam never had.

I have had this book on my to read shelf for 12 years. I cant wait to start it. I am half way through One Hundred Years of Solitude. This is my mothers all time favorite. I really have not established an opinion as of yet. Jean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

For example, when Adam is discussing Charles' will with Lee, Lee tells him that he will inform Kathy because he CANNOT do anything else . . . . . Every major action he takes is by choice, again emphasized by Lee.

---

What do you think of Lee? He was definitely my second most favorite character ;). What is he, like the facilitator or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbassett

I have had this book on my to read shelf for 12 years. I cant wait to start it. I am half way through One Hundred Years of Solitude. This is my mothers all time favorite. I really have not established an opinion as of yet. Jean

---

Well, I can't wait until you do. :thumbs_up Be sure to come back and post your thoughts and opinions here whenever you get a chance! :D

Lee is my favorite character in the entire novel. I think he represents wisdom, and I also think he serves as a counterpoint to Samuel. He was also a source of wisdom, but that of a prophet, of otherworldliness, whereas Lee represents the wisdom of man, the wisdom of the ages. That is, I think, the purpose of his tales involving consulting the elders. . . he is a font of knowlege built upon the knowledge of the past, whereas Samuel seems more intuitive.

I still do not have a copy of the book! If the library does not deliver its promise by Wednesday, I will order it from amazon!

Bad library! Love the new avatar, by the way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I still do not have a copy of the book! If the library does not deliver its promise by Wednesday, I will order it from amazon!

---

You must. The book is certainly worth a read! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

. . . . everything he does is fated, unlike Caleb and Aron.

---

Sorry to take you out of context. :D

I thought this was funny, at the very end of part two, when Lee, Adam and Samuel are naming the children (or rather, Lee and Samuel convince Adam to name his children :rolleyes:), it reads :

Quote:

---

" . . . well, Aaron I've always liked, but he didn't make it to the Promised Land."
The second boy almost joyfully began to cry.
"Thats good enough," said Adam.

---

Here, then, does Steinbeck equate "thou mayest" and conquering your fate with the "Promised Land"? (whether in a purely Biblical sense or not?)

I also didn't realize that the foreshadowing was that blatant. :p

Also, why do you think the words "almost joyfully" are placed? Does it mean anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

Lee is my favorite character in the entire novel. I think he represents wisdom, and I also think he serves as a counterpoint to Samuel. He was also a source of wisdom, but that of a prophet, of otherworldliness, whereas Lee represents the wisdom of man, the wisdom of the ages. That is, I think, the purpose of his tales involving consulting the elders. . . he is a font of knowlege built upon the knowledge of the past, whereas Samuel seems more intuitive.

---

That's a great way to say it (and also describes why Samuel slips ahead of Lee for me :D :D).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

You must. The book is certainly worth a read! :)

---

Then, I am glad I nominated it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

Here, then, does Steinbeck equate "thou mayest" and conquering your fate with the "Promised Land"? (whether in a purely Biblical sense or not?)
I also didn't realize that the foreshadowing was that blatant. :p

Also, why do you think the words "almost joyfully" are placed? Does it mean anything?

---

IIf I remember correctly, AAron was the first priest to come out of Egypt, and was the right hand of Moses. He was a flawed being who did not reach the Promised Land due to his turning away from the truth. (Please correct me if I am mistaken, I am going from memory here).
In some respects Aron is not AAron - Not only is his name spelled differently, but by his struggle to escape the notion of being predestined, he breaks the cycle implied by his name. By accepting the truth of "thou mayest" he does not choose to believe himself a product of his heritage, but accepts the responsibility of choice and thus may reach the Promised Land, the second Eden.
I took "almost joyfully" to refer to the fact that the noise Aron makes is a cry, an expression of discomfort or sadness or anger. It creates a tension and lends a significance to the act. . . Aron cries for joy, or acceptnace of his name, not from any bodily need. Also, I think it implies that he accepts the challenge of his name and its implications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I still do not have a copy of the book! If the library does not deliver its promise by Wednesday, I will order it from amazon!

---

I feel so spoilt now! Not only did the library delivered the book today, but also when I got home in the evening, I found a brand new copy of the book waiting for me... as a gift! :D Who says men are predictable? I think they can be unpredictable in the sweetest and most considerate way!

I will start reading it tomorrow hopefully and try to catch up with you guys asap!

PS: Which copy should I read do you think; the library's or my own? :D:banana::D:banana::D:banana:

Your own, definitely! :D

I have finally got some time to go back and read the comments from the beginning. I am sorry if I end up repeating some of the things which are said in later posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

Was anybody else thrilled that Cathy finally got beat up?

---

I cannot say I was happy when Cathy got beaten up because (well, I didn't expect her to die) I thought she would come back with a vengeance and harm more people (in both her father's case and Mr Edward's). It only helped firing her up, I think.

Quote:

---

Cathy is horrid. Steinbeck calls her a 'monster' but also tries to lessen her own liability, I think:

"Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or less degree. You must not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the norm is monstrous. It is my belief that Cathy Ames was born with the tendencies, or lack of them, which drove and forced her all her life."

---

I am not sure if Steinbeck is trying to lessen her liability but, I felt, he is offering another angle for us to look at her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SG

I think that this is bourne out explicitly in the narrator's discourse in chapter 34 (a heavy, quick chapter - I liked how Steinbeck interspersed these little homilies in between the actual plot developments; I have also concluded that they contain a large portion of the meaning and authorial intent to be found in the book)

---

Chapter 34 is one of the best ones in the book I think and Steinbeck often uses this method in his book; he takes a little breaks from the story line and discusses different aspects with his readers. Sometimes they seem off-topic but they always fit in nicely at the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tal

"timshel" didn't have much effect on us. It seemed a bit like breaking through an open door to us

---

I think 'timshel' concept is interesting in the sense that people do have choice; they can determine their actions (as opposed to 'fate'). However, how does this fit in with the notion Steinbeck introduces at the very beginning of the book that some people are born lacking something? Does that mean that they don't have choice? Or even they have a choice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HG

By putting the reader in the position of monster, Steinbeck not only discusses the role of perception, but also lays a foundation for the reader: we can dislike Cathy, but we cannot condemn her for not possessing what we have: a conscience. She acts according to her nature, which is different from us and monstrous to us, but we the reader would be the same to her.

---

I agree with this; I believe Steinbeck does want us to look at 'good and evil' from a different perspective; rather than passing on judgement quickly, we need to take a moment and try to understand why that person is behaving in a certain way.

At this point, I would like to bring up something. Thinking about the story of Adam and Eve and how they were expelled from Heaven, is it possible to find a connection here? Eve, owing to her rebellious and curious nature, caused them lose their place in Heaven and is considered as the 'bad' one but, following Steinbeck's comments on 'monsters', is it possible to absolve her of her mistake/sin?

And bringing in the 'timshel' again here, should we say 'hey, she had the choice' or should we say 'some people do not have the choice because of the way they are created?' (since it is God himself who gives us our qualities...)

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the book. I find myself not wanting to read any further, not that the books stinks but I know trouble is coming for the characters...

dum de, dum de, dum de dum de dum de duuuuum! Gotta love Steinbeck.

In answer to Scher's question of timshel in light of Cathy's total lack of conscience, I think there are two ways to look at it:
1) Kathy is the "Satan" figure, a flat character, and thus had no choice, because the devil is the devil. Of course, you can play devil's advocate (he he he, aren't I clever) and say that even Lucifer had a choice whether or not to challenge God prior to his being cast out of heaven.
2) Kathy has the power to choose, and does so. Throughout the novel, she gets inklings that something is wrong with her, but she makes the choice to shrug them off and instead posits everyone else as messed up - that is a core difference between her and her son. He fights against it, she ignores it.

@ Papaya: I wouldn'tbe able not knowing how it ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Girl

In answer to Scher's question of timshel in light of Cathy's total lack of conscience, I think there are two ways to look at it:

---

Hello HG,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that we could look at it from those angles (that is what I was trying to say in my previous post when I said 'should we say 'hey, she had the choice' or should we say 'some people do not have the choice because of the way they are created?' (since it is God himself who gives us our qualities...)'); however, I am wondering what your personal opinions on this are...

Papaya> Even if you don't have the time now, please do finish this book sometime... :)