I may be an optomist but I took it as the father did forgive Cal. It seemed like when he said "Timshel" it meant the past is behind you, don't worry about it but going forward it's your choice to live the way you want.
Those Rose colored glasses work wonders.
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
I have a plan: attack!
I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew.
My interpretation of the ending: When Adam said 'Timshel' to Cal, he meant that Cal had a choice/chance but he used it badly; he told his brother about their mother, which led to Aaron's enlisting and subsequent death at the end.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Mine will have to wait a few more days as somebody else has borrowed the only copy of the book. They are supposed to return the book shortly though (I hope).
I have a plan: attack!
er, can I still read the books after my exam next week? yes I know, "Exactly which part of summer reading is it you didn't understand"?
It's summer in Australia now!![]()
(I'm on chapter 22, yep I know it's not exactly summer...)
I think this passage shows that there is an element of choice. but I'm not sure if Kate wants to change and become more human or whether she just panics because her cover gets blown?Kate's chemistry screamed against the wine. She remembered, and she was afraid....
.... The transition came to Kate almost immediately after the second glass. Her fear evaporated, her fear of anything disappeared. This was what she had been afraid of, and now it was too late. The wine had forced a passage through all the carefully built barriers and defenses and deceptions, and she didn't care. The thing she had learned to cover and control was lost. Her voice became chill and her mouth was thin. Her wide-set eyes slitted and grew watchful and sardonic
Maybe she's only willing to suppress her evil nature in order to reach her aims (whatever they are) and once she's reached them she'll be as evil as she likes???
***about Steinbeck's language:
sometimes his language/characterisations seem a bit rough-hewn (in my humble opinion). It's like he only scratches the surface and you have to think about the characters a lot??? Sometimes their dialogues seem a bit awkward too (Hamilton - Adam, Hamilton - Lee; although I love Lee). It's like they talk about meaningful things all the time and expect each other to know what they are on about. There's not much small talk or 'getting to know each other' is there???
I suppose, he wrote it that way on purpose, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Somehow the whole atmosphere of the book and the character's relationships strike me as a bit surreal, despite the detailed descriptions of the settings....
I am still in the initial chapters of this book and I am surprised to see that Adam who has been places, been with different kinds of people, in other words has more worldly experience than Charles could not understand what Cathy was upto. I am still reading the part when they get married and how Charles warns Adams, maybe when I read further it will become clear.
I think the kind of experience Adam had had little to do with the type 'necessary' to understand Cathy. Charles, on the other hand, being on a more equal moral ground to Cathy's, naturally feels and understands her nature. I think Adam is too naive to realise all Cathy represents and is capable of.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
i finished the book over Christmas.
what do you think of Aaron? In my opinion, he's got a lot in common with Cathy, even if he's supposed to be good and she's evil. It's like he's missing something, too, i.e. the ability to be evil at all and the ability to make a choice. He's just 'good' right from the start and in his own way he is just as one-sided as Cathy.
For the ending of the story I had the same thought as Papaya.
I didn't care for East of Eden at all. It's been a couple of years since I read it, so the details are very fuzzy, I think I must have tried to wipe it out of my mind.![]()
But I couldn't see any real depth to the characters, I shouldn't say depth, that's not quite fair, but most were nothing but cardboard for me. I didn't feel the motivations of the characters was really put across all that well, and found it difficult to sympathise or empathize with any of them.
But do agree with you in that the father did forgive Cal.
Lee was about the only character I felt was interesting.
It seems clear to me that Steinbeck had three actual men in mind, and that he thought his audience should know who he meant - that it was fairly obvious, at least at that time. Someone on another site suggested JD Rockefeller for the first, William Randloph Hurst for the second, and FDR for the third. I'm no historian, but from what little I know, they fit Steinbeck's description perfectly, and I can't think of any others that do.
Is it just me, or did East of Eden kind of make the idea of working in a brothel seem not that terrible (so long as it's a nice one)? Especially considering the times, when a woman could be a wife or a maid, maybe a schoolmistress. I wouldn't mind being an old-timey madam, I'd run a nice brothel.
...Just me?
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi