The masterpiece of one of the greatest American writers of all time. East of Eden is an epic tale of good vs. evil with many biblical references and parallels. The story is ultimately that of good's triumph over evil and the human will's ability to make that happen.
Mass Market Paperbound, (Centennial Edition), 601 pages
Published
February 5th 2002
by Penguin Books
(first published 1952)
I hate this book. Hate. Ponderous, pretentious, melodramatic, self-satisfied, patronizing to its readers, with ultimately nothing to say. Can be summarized thus: a bunch of people with no formal education whatsoever sit around discussing the time they read the Old Testament in Hebrew. They then tell us all how to live. Uh...right. I knew we were in trouble with the unbelievably lame introduction -- some forced, self-congratulatory metaphor about a box, if memory serves -- but it's hard to believ...moreI hate this book. Hate. Ponderous, pretentious, melodramatic, self-satisfied, patronizing to its readers, with ultimately nothing to say. Can be summarized thus: a bunch of people with no formal education whatsoever sit around discussing the time they read the Old Testament in Hebrew. They then tell us all how to live. Uh...right. I knew we were in trouble with the unbelievably lame introduction -- some forced, self-congratulatory metaphor about a box, if memory serves -- but it's hard to believe it actually got worse from there. In any event, with its smug aura of "Here you will find WISDOM," it's certainly no wonder that it's right up Oprah's alley.
The fact that people worship this misbegotten mess of a book as they might worship pieces of the True Cross is just plain depressing. Apparently the way to literary immortality is to give 'em a decent narrative, throw in some breathless nonsense about free will and the Bible, and don't forget to puff out your chest and tell everyone that you've written a masterpiece. Gack. For this they gave him the Nobel Prize?
********
I'm sorry I have to add this note, but after deleting I don't know how many comments calling me names and getting one piece of hate email, I do, because it will save both me and a bunch of other people from wasting time: I'll delete any comments that I consider abusive or that I think constitute ad hominem arguments. (less)
This book is mind blowing. It is John Steinbeck at his sharpest. He said that every author really only has one "book," and that all of his books leading up to East of Eden were just practice--Eden would be his book.
I could write a summary of the book, but it would be more trouble than it's worth. You will often hear it referred to as a "modern retelling of the Genesis story of Cain and Abel" but that is too simplistic. Steinbeck takes the story of Cain and A...moreThis book is mind blowing. It is John Steinbeck at his sharpest. He said that every author really only has one "book," and that all of his books leading up to East of Eden were just practice--Eden would be his book.
I could write a summary of the book, but it would be more trouble than it's worth. You will often hear it referred to as a "modern retelling of the Genesis story of Cain and Abel" but that is too simplistic. Steinbeck takes the story of Cain and Abel and makes Cain (in the form of Cal Trask) the sympathetic character. Cal Trask does not act destructively for the sake of destruction, but he is desperately clawing for approval and love from his father, Adam, who prefers Cal's twin brother, Aron. The story isn't that pat, though--Cal and Aron really don't make their entrances as major characters until the last quarter of the 600 page novel. So, to say that this book is simply the retelling of Cain and Abel is to oversimplify the book. The main theme of the book is the desire within everyone for love, and how this desire can make people turn to destructive behavior.
This book has been criticized for being too verbose, meandering, inconsistently paced, and heavy handed in its parallel with the story of Cain and Abel. Yes, it is verbose and meandering, but that's Steinbeck. It gives a full picture of the Salinas valley. It gives you insights and perspectives you might not otherwise have. If anything, Steinbeck's constant forays into unrelated sidebars give the reader a break in pace, a rest that makes the more important parts of the books feel as though they flow more smoothly. As for the parallel with Cain and Abel, it is heavy-handed. That being said, the heavy-handedness didn't bother me. Going in to the novel with the expectation of it being a retelling of Cain and Abel (at least for some of the narrative) is enough to make the obvious references to Cain and Abel seem natural. If Steinbeck had given the impression that he was trying to hide the parallel, it would have been insulting. But Steinbeck isn't trying to hide it--he makes it clear that the story of Cain and Abel are an integral part of his story.
East of Eden is an amazing novel. Its strong points more than compensate for the very few shortcomings. Steinbeck is such a tremendous writer that his shortcomings become strengths. I highly recommend it.(less)
I am on a golden roll of amazingly fantastic books!! East of Eden by John Steinbeck was our book club pick for this month. I almost didn't read it. You see, it's an old friend...and I ALMOST didn't re-read it... and that would have been tragic.
East of Eden is an epic story about good and evil. It tells the story of two families: the Trasks and the Hamiltons. It spans 3 generations and retells the Biblical story of Cain and Abel set in the Salinas Valley of Northern California.
...moreI am on a golden roll of amazingly fantastic books!! East of Eden by John Steinbeck was our book club pick for this month. I almost didn't read it. You see, it's an old friend...and I ALMOST didn't re-read it... and that would have been tragic.
East of Eden is an epic story about good and evil. It tells the story of two families: the Trasks and the Hamiltons. It spans 3 generations and retells the Biblical story of Cain and Abel set in the Salinas Valley of Northern California.
Perspective...life experience...testimony. Do they change who we are? Do they change our world view? Most definitely. The first time I read East of Eden I had just turned 17 years old. It was summer vacation and I was looking for a good book to read. This book had such a powerful impact on me that I clearly remember where I was when I read it (laying on the couch in our living room) and the feelings it provoked. At this time I had only the smallest fleeting shadow of religion and virtually no knowledge of the Bible, and not much interest in philosophy. This was about 4 months before Stacey and I met the Nolan sisters and I returned to church. The discussion between Samuel, Lee, and Adam about the story of Cain and Abel was so profound to me that I began scribbling in the margins, underlining/highlighting things, and actually "pondered" on the nature of man. I grabbed my scriptures untouched since my baptism and turned to Genesis and began to read. God works in mysterious ways...and the spirit recognizes truth. Free will...of course...that made sense to me. "Thou mayest..." I had no understanding of Mormon Doctrine and Free Agency. But something rang absolutely "true" to me...that we have a choice and it is that choice that defines who we are. Powerful stuff for a religionless, scriptureless, self-involved 17 year old.
Fast forward 18 years and what a difference those 18 years have made. What a gift it was to read this book again farther down the road of life. At 17 years old I identified with the rejected child and at 35 years old I felt more the emotions of a parent who doesn't ever want her children not to feel loved and accepted. When I came to the chapter on the discussion of Cain and Abel I wasn't blown away by the "truth" of "thou mayest..." I felt more like..."Yep! That's how it works". But I was struck again by how powerfully important free will is. Isn't that why we fight for freedom and for the freedom of those around us? Without freedom there is no free agency and without free agency there is no plan of salvation. It IS the oldest story...it is what we fought for in the premortal world...and it what we continue fighting for today. Freedom...choice...free agency...the ability to do "otherwise".
At 35 years old I am much more knowledgeable of the scriptures and what is the major theme of the Old Testament in particular? Choice and consequences. Simple huh? Not only that but as is pointed out in the Introduction of East of Eden written by David Wyatt that the Bible "Has only one set of first parents but many Cains and Abels: Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, the Prodigal Son and his brother, Satan and Christ--in each one of these twosomes one is somehow lucky, or better, or preferred." (pg. xxii)
Steinbeck 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 the crime guilt--and there is the story of mankind."
Some are put off by Steinbeck and his details and descriptions. I have criticized him myself while reading Grapes of Wrath. I felt like...come on...enough of the scenery let's get back to the story but in East of Eden I loved his details and descriptions. Steinbeck was also criticized by reviewers by leaving the story every so often for his monologues. I must say that at 17 years old I too found it annoying but at 35 years old I loved it. You see I have since developed a deep love of philosophy, politics, and history. I am continually reminded that history repeats itself. Each generation is always surprised that we feel and can relate to the same things as generations past. Many of Steinbeck's monologues that were relevant to the story which takes place in the late 1800's and early 1900's were also applicable to the time Steinbeck wrote the novel, the 1950's, and are still relevant today in 2008.
I particularly loved this quote:
"I don't know how it will be in the years to come. There are monstrous changes taking place in the world, forces shaping a future whose face we do not know. Some of these forces seem evil to us, perhaps not in themselves but in their tendency to eliminate other things we hold good...when our food and clothing and housing all are born in the complication of mass production, mass method is bound to get into our thinking and to eliminate all other thinking...has entered our economics, our politics, and even our religion, so that some nations have substituted the idea collective for the idea of God. This in my time is the danger. There is great tension in the world, tension toward a breaking point, and men are unhappy and confused. At such times it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions. What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against." (pg. 131-132)
Steinbeck wrote that he worried about his monologues and commentaries that "...had he not too often stopped the book and gone into discussions of God knows what. His only answer was 'Yes, I have. I don't know why. Just wanted too. Perhaps I was wrong.' " I don't think he was.
If it isn't blatantly obvious I LOVE this book!! One of my all-time favorites. Steinbeck is a genius and this book is his crowning glory. I love books that you come away from still have you thinking...for days...weeks. Was Adam Trask like what the original Adam would have been like if he had never fallen and only Eve did? WHY was Cathy the way she was? Are monsters born or created? What happens to Cal and Abra? What happens to Cal's children? Does the cycle continue? Is the cycle broken? Why is there only one lovable woman in the story?
READ THIS BOOK!! If you've already read it...read it again.
I finished this last night and afterwards, I lay back on my pillow extremely satisfied just thinking about it. It's so rare that I read something that delights me from beginning to end. While there were a few turns on the journey that confused me and seemed to take the book in a different direction, his connecting all the characters, the stories and do it with profound meaning is nothing short of brilliant. And to do it through his own person history, and one of the oldest stories of the Bible o...moreI finished this last night and afterwards, I lay back on my pillow extremely satisfied just thinking about it. It's so rare that I read something that delights me from beginning to end. While there were a few turns on the journey that confused me and seemed to take the book in a different direction, his connecting all the characters, the stories and do it with profound meaning is nothing short of brilliant. And to do it through his own person history, and one of the oldest stories of the Bible only adds to his brilliance.
I'm always surprised when I love a classic. Perhaps because there are a lot that I haven't liked, or merely tolerated, but this was a joy to read. The characters are so multi-dimensional and interesting that their stories and development become almost personal. Adam, Samuel, Lee, Abra, Cal, Aron, Kate/Cathy and even Liza were real for me. Their homes were real. Their towns were real. Best of all, the consequences to their actions were real.
How do you summaraize East of Eden? It's a story about good and evil. But most of all, it's a story about choice. For me, the central part of the book was the realization made by Lee, Adam and Samuel when they were dissecting the story of Cain and Able and their offerings. In one translation, the Lord rebukes Cain's offering by saying, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
It was while reading a different translation that Lee, a Chinese servant, noticed a difference. In it, rather than saying "thou shalt rule over him" it said "do thou rule over him" They noticed that it wasn't a promise, it was an order. Such a difference got Lee wondering what original word different translations came from.
After years of studying with Chinese philosophers and a rabbi, the consensus was that the original Hebrew word, Timshel, actually means "Thou mayest". Therefore, the bible does not order that man triumph over sin or promises that it will. It says that the way is open. For if thou mayest...that mayest not.
Brilliant! Because that's what I think! Agency is so important to Heavenly Father that he allowed 1/3 of His children to leave him permanently. Of course we have a choice over sin.
Steinbeck leaves the story briefly in Chapter 34 when he writes a short essay about the one story that exists. He says,
Humans are caught - in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too - in a net of good and evil....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? In uncertainty I am certain that underneath their topmost layers of frailty men want to be good and want to be loved. Indeed, most of their vices are attempted short cuts to love. When a man comes to die, no matter what his talents and influences and genius, if he dies unloved his life must be a failure to him and his dying a cold horror. It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world. We have only one story. All novels, all poetry, are built on the never-ending contest in ourselves of good and evil. And it occurs to me that evil must constantly respawn, while good, while virtue, is immortal. Vice has always a new fresh young face, while virtue is venerable as nothing else in the world is.
This is what his book is about it. Man's struggle over good and evil. In a completely human story, Steinbeck captured THE story with his characters and storylines. This is a book I happily recommend to anyone and will buy for my all-time greatest books library.(less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.It is difficult to describe a story as heartfelt as East of Eden. It is utterly absorbing and completely breathtaking, in depth and scope. Steinbeck has a divine gift for finding the beautiful within the simple; perhaps matched only by his ability to make the complexity of human emotions easily accessible. It would be a cold and cruel reader to finish East of Eden without shying away from mirrors for weeks afterward.
Although critics will say that East of Eden is modeled after the ...moreIt is difficult to describe a story as heartfelt as East of Eden. It is utterly absorbing and completely breathtaking, in depth and scope. Steinbeck has a divine gift for finding the beautiful within the simple; perhaps matched only by his ability to make the complexity of human emotions easily accessible. It would be a cold and cruel reader to finish East of Eden without shying away from mirrors for weeks afterward.
Although critics will say that East of Eden is modeled after the Book of Genesis, it is not completely so. To say it is an allegory and leave it at that is far too naïve. No one character fills any single role (not in the same way, for example, Aslan is Christ, in Lewis’s Chronicles of Narina.) Rather, Steinbeck focuses on the recurrence of the story of Cain and Able. Inheritance, sin, redemption and corruption are all themes prominently displayed in any given character; often all at once. Never do we see archetypal characters: paragons of goodness, manifestations of justice, or unforgiveable demons. Each character can be glorified for their goodness only moments before committing reprehensible crimes.
In my opinion, modern Christianity is very much a religion of black and white. Being a Catholic myself, I find it difficult to ignore the “us and them” mentality often shared by members of the Christian community. There seem to be only two modes of humanity; a “Sin Switch” if you will. The switch is flipped on at birth, and turned off at Baptism, only to be reversed back and forth again countless times throughout life. The sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist are opportunities to again wipe the slate clean. And yet, days later, the Sin Switch is again in the “On” position. Sin is a wall which we must scale, an obstacle that we must conquer. And we must either conquer it, or not.
This is not the way Steinbeck sees the world. Rather than only two states of humanity, Sin and Salvation, he sees life as a very slippery slope. Even those at the top may be muddy from the journey, and the clean may be so because they have not tried to rise up. In Steinbeck’s view, humans are born in Sin, at the bottom, and strive to reach Salvation at the top.
This process of Redemption is one that nearly every author has, at some point, attempted to convey. I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that this novel encapsulates this idea more beautifully, painfully and realistically than any other I have encountered. In my experience, most characters struggle upwards, undergo some sort of life-altering event, and achieve Redemption, looking back lovingly upon the trials that made them who they are. These are but pictures drawn in crayon by young children. The difficulty of the Redemption process is far more harrowing than such broad strokes of the brush suggest.
Cal, the novel’s most complexly anguished character, is the prime example of this process. His childhood thoughts match him much more closely with his devil of a mother, Cathy than his kind-hearted father, Adam. The second half of the novel is very much the tale of Cal’s attempt to rise above the Sin innate within him. And, much to his (and our) dismay, he fails much more than he succeeds. His best intentions, repaying his father in the only way he knows how, are shunned. Cal strikes back with a cruelty worthy of the most villainous of villains. With only a few short chapters to go (a place where the typical novel would have the protagonist finally conquer Sin,) Cal causes the death of his innocent brother. The novel ends, however, on a note of hope. Cal refuses to be overcome by the despair that would affect most men in his place, and continues to gaze out of that pit, still striving to reach the top.
Cal has but a grain of hope amidst a world of darkness, and the reader is left to his or her own conclusions about the path Cal’s life will take. I, and most readers, I am sure, believe that Cal will eventually Redeem himself. However, Steinbeck offers little more than that tiny grain. The path has been phenomenally difficult for Cal, and it will be no easier as time goes on. He knows this, and offers no cliché statements regarding his own fate. He knows that Sin may envelop him, that he may fall to the bottom of the pit, that all of his strength may be for naught, and he has no reason to believe that he will ever reach Salvation. It is this level of difficult, this utter darkness that makes East of Eden so realistic. There is no sugar-coating, there are no heroes. Only normal, simple men striving to overcome their complex problems with no certainty of success. That is why I feel so drawn to Cal, and the other characters of East of Eden: because they are not special, they are not heroic; they are real humans in every sense of the word. They are exactly like us.
Steinbeck offers a point of view that, till now, I would have vehemently opposed. Reading between the lines, he rejects the idea of moral evolution. Americans in Salinas California in the early 20th century fight and often fail against the same foes as the first children born on this earth. It is that idea that makes this novel timeless. If Steinbeck is correct in this idea, then every human ever born will be faced with the same dilemma as the Trask family. That is why I can stare into these pages and see myself looking back out. These characters are vastly different from myself, but we are held together by a common condition. This struggle is in all of us.
Even the most casual reader must dispute me though. For all this talk of shades of grey, success and failure, the yin and yang that define us as humans, some characters are rather one sided. And to this, I must partly agree. Lee and George come to mind. And yet, I must think to myself, Lee was born in horrid conditions, and had to struggle in a world where his family was undefined. George is guilty of loving his eldest daughter more than the others.
But, of course, the real deal-breaker for everything I’ve said so far is Cathy. She is as close as Steinbeck gets to an absolute. Really, she is as close as most authors get to placing the Devil on earth. Even I called her a devil earlier. She is sadistic, wretched, horrifying, evil, evil, evil. And yet, I cannot help but see through that darkness. I do not know if calling it a light would be appropriate, but there is a part of Cathy that is still surprised by the events that take place. Her reactions to the confrontations with Adam’s indefatigable goodness and her conversations with Cal made me believe that there are a few seeds of doubt in her mind. Must of it was reading between the lines, and I regret that I cannot give any examples directly from memory, but I often felt Steinbeck’s tone with Cathy was more confused than evil. This tone seemed to increase as she aged. As her own death approached, I found that Cathy ignored the existence of goodness, rather than being unable to see it. That same grain of hope in Cal, I believe, can be found in Cathy. Both stand near the bottom of the pit, looking up at the tiny pinprick of light at the end of the tunnel. Cal climbs toward it, while Cathy remains static out of fear. And on that downward slope, to remain static is to fall backwards. The mere fact that Cathy can see the goodness in the world proves that she knows she can attain it. That tiny difference is all it takes. She may be a dark grey, but she is not thoroughly blackened by Sin.
A final thought on the book as a whole. I often say that a book is my favorite after I finish it. In a little time, however, I remember my old favorites and return to them. With East of Eden, I knew five pages in that it would be my favorite, and it still is. I have never read a more compelling book. Sure, The DaVinci Code was a page-turner, and I waited in line for the final Harry Potter book for six hours, only to finish reading it at 7:30 that morning. Never in all my days have I found anything that has drawn me in more quickly or thoroughly. Yes, I hungered to know what would happen to Robert Langdon, or whether or not Harry Potter would live, but I never truly cared about them. Steinbeck made me care. I heard once, loosely paraphrasing, “When you leave the theater discussing the play, that is a good play. When you leave the theater discussing your life, that is art.” Yes, it was hard to put East of Eden down, but that is hardly the point. I could stop reading any time I wanted, but I could not stop thinking about it. I cared for every single character from start to finish. Their lives and struggles engrossed my own. I have laid this novel down a changed man. I cannot recommend it highly enough. There are novels that fill your head, and then there are novels that fill your soul. I am not a smarter person for having read East of Eden, but I feel there is something in my gut that has changed. Those cracks in the foundation have been repaired and a gaping hole in my heart I never knew was there has been filled.
i been lovin' on this book REAL hard. don't know how else to put it, really. too many different directions for praise. i adore the characters in this story, even the chillingly evil ones. and i love the short little chapters that steinbeck just shoved in every once in a while in order to assert his musings on the state of america. or writers. or war. or life. here's probably my favorite chapter in the whole book--it's one of the few random times Steinbeck writes in second person:
...morei been lovin' on this book REAL hard. don't know how else to put it, really. too many different directions for praise. i adore the characters in this story, even the chillingly evil ones. and i love the short little chapters that steinbeck just shoved in every once in a while in order to assert his musings on the state of america. or writers. or war. or life. here's probably my favorite chapter in the whole book--it's one of the few random times Steinbeck writes in second person:
"You can see how this book has reached a great boundary that was called 1900. Another hundred years ground up and churned, and what had happened was al muddied by the way folks wanted it to be--more rich and meaningful the farther back it was. In the books of some memories it was the best time that ever sloshed over the world--the old time, the gay time, sweet and simple, as though time were young and fearless. Old men who didn't know whether they were going to stagger over the boundary of the century looked forward to it with distaste. For the world was changing, and the sweetness was gone, and the virtue too. Worry had crept on a corroding world, and what was lost--good manners, ease and beauty? Ladies were not ladies any more, and you couldn't trust a gentleman's word.
There was a time when people kept their fly buttons fastened. And man's freedom was boiling off. And even childhood was no good any more--not the way it was. No worry then but how to find a good stone, not round exactly but flattened and water-shaped, to use in a sling pouch cut from a discarded shoe. Where did all the good stones go, and all simplicity?
A man's mind vagued up a little, for how can you remember the feel of pleasure or pain or choking emotion? You can remember only that you had them. An elder man might truly recall through water the delicate doctor-testing of little girls, but such a man forgets, and wants to, the acid emotion eating at the spleen so that a boy had to put his face flat down in the young wild oats and drum his fists against the ground and sob 'Christ! Christ!' Such a man might say, and did, 'What's that damned kid lying out there in the grass for? He'll catch a cold.'
Oh, strawberries don't taste as they used to and the thighs of women have lost their clutch!
And some men eased themselves like setting hens into the nest of death.
History was secreted in the glands of a million historians. We must get out of this banged-up century, some said, out of this cheating, murderous century of riot and secret death, of scrabbling for public lands and damn well getting them by any means at all.
Think back, recall our little nation fringing the oceans, torn with complexities, too big for its britches. Just got going when the British took us on again. We beat them, but it didn't do us much good. What we had was a burned White House and ten thousand widows on the public pension list.
Then the soldiers went to Mexico and it was a kind of painful picnic. Nobody knows why you go to a picnic to be uncomfortable when it is so easy and pleasant to eat at home. The Mexican War did two good things though. We got a lot of western land, damn near doubled our size, and besides that it was a training ground for generals, so that when the sad self-murder settled on us the leaders knew the techniques for making it properly horrible.
And then the arguments:
Can you keep a slave?
Well if you bought him in good faith, why not?
Next they'll be saying a man can't have a horse. Who is it wants to take my property?
And there we were, like a man scratching at his own face and bleeding into his own beard.
Well that was over and we got slowly up off the bloody ground and started westward.
There came boom and bust, bankruptcy, depression.
Great public thieves came along and picked the pockets of everyone who had a pocket.
To hell with that rotten century!
Let's get it over and the door closed shut on it! Let's close it like a book and go on reading! New chapter, new life. A man will have clean hands once we get the lid slammed on that stinking century. It's a fair thing ahead. There's no rot on this clean new hundred years. It's not stacked, and any bastard who deals seconds from this new deck of years--why, we'll crucify him head down over a privy.
Oh, but strawberries will never taste so good again and the thighs of women have lost their clutch!"
So, I'm going to take a stab at this...before I get too busy and before I forget what I've read -- and thought. (I've already moved on to another book...;-)
Overall, I thought this was a masterful piece of work - and realized this on the first page. I've glimpsed around a little bit on the internet and know that J.S. has received some criticism for this book (along with praise, too), but I didn't look too closely because I wanted my thoughts to be my own. I definitely saw/heard some...moreSo, I'm going to take a stab at this...before I get too busy and before I forget what I've read -- and thought. (I've already moved on to another book...;-)
Overall, I thought this was a masterful piece of work - and realized this on the first page. I've glimpsed around a little bit on the internet and know that J.S. has received some criticism for this book (along with praise, too), but I didn't look too closely because I wanted my thoughts to be my own. I definitely saw/heard some pretty laudatory reviews though, and therefore I had pretty high expectations for this book. Needless to say, it didn't let me down.
Don't get me wrong, there were points when I wondered, "Why is this book considered to be great?" and "Where is this going?" and "What does this mean?" But as I went along with it, I fell in love with it. I guess partly because it did make me think those things, and those things - and the way they were written - made me want to keep reading. (As simple as it may sound, this is always a basic sign of a good book, in my opinion, as there have been many that I have started and not gone back to.) I will admit it was not always an easy book to read; not a fluffy book that you could pick up here and there. I felt like I had to really prepare myself and focus for when I was going to read this, which is largely what kept me from getting it read on time.
So what did I like about it? J.S.'s keen insight into characters, people, families and their motivations. The people were very real, and developed, and flawed, and multi-dimensional. Cathy/Kate is probably the best evil character that I have ever encountered who was human (yet inhuman?). And how could anyone not be sad when the great Sam Hamilton died? You mourned him along with the other characters who mourned him. And then of course, the writing. Very accessible writing, and for the most part, it kept things moving along (although I know some feel/felt it was bit bogged down with description in some places). However, as things would be moving along, there would be a profound observation dropped into an ordinary paragraph, seamlessly and poetically, and yet without seeming overbearing. For example, on page 530: "One thing late or early can disrupt everything around it, and the disturbance runs outward in bands like the waves from a dropped stone in a quiet pool." These gems were all over the place - you could mine the book for them and be rich.
So overall, here is my summary: amazing, scary, powerful, direct. It reaches to the core of what people are really like.
P. S. Thought the historical background info was educational, too. ;-)
P.P.S. Even though I thought this book was really great, I'm getting into my old fashioned teacher / critical mode: I am reserving 5 stars for excellence beyond compare. If I could give this book a decimal rating, it would probably be about a 4.5, or on a letter grade scale, perhaps a A-. A+ and 5 stars is heaven at this point - attaining the unattainable. Looking back at my earlier reviews, and the my distribution of 5 star accolades, this seems unfair. Perhaps I'm getting stauncher in my reviews? Perhaps, it's because there was such truthful telling of real evil that exists in most of us in this book that it taints my scoring of it? Hmmmm. Another good sign of a good, perplexing book. But my vote remains. For whatever reason, it feels right.(less)
A friend recommended this book to me as Steinbeck's best, and as a somewhat reluctant Steinbeck reader in the first place (I'd read Of Mice and Men in high school), I wasn't ecstatic to begin reading it--as I did at said friend's insistence. I will admit to a certain prideful stoicism in doing so--I felt like I was doing something supposedly "good for me," like avoiding trans fat or reading Beckett. But as I read I discovered that I liked it--Steinbeck had written an expansive, multi...moreA friend recommended this book to me as Steinbeck's best, and as a somewhat reluctant Steinbeck reader in the first place (I'd read Of Mice and Men in high school), I wasn't ecstatic to begin reading it--as I did at said friend's insistence. I will admit to a certain prideful stoicism in doing so--I felt like I was doing something supposedly "good for me," like avoiding trans fat or reading Beckett. But as I read I discovered that I liked it--Steinbeck had written an expansive, multigenerational novel in which he himself was a character, and he'd done so without the slightest apology or self-consciousness. Any meta-narrative about how the narrator (John Steinbeck) came to know all the intricate details about the private and inner lives of other characters, any wry concession to embellishment or (well) fiction, is refreshingly absent. He simply tells the story.
Which, for the most part, seems like it could have been written in the Victorian period that the novel takes as its prehistory. Specifically, it might as well be a great big old Russian novel that happens to take place entirely in America. There's family drama, deceit, struggle, and momentary triumph over despair. Here the notions of Good and Evil are bandied about in a serious way, and while in my own heretical post-modern viewpoint the old dialectic is sort of silly, I found myself taking it seriously as framed in Steinbeck's story. He succeeds because even the evil characters are given real, human complexity. There was never a point, for me, that I lost all sympathy for Catherine, who as a girl kills her own parents just because she can. My main quibble with Steinbeck--and one that I think is problematic for his whole outlook on the world, for all its good and evil--is that over and over Catherine is described as somehow lacking some fundamental thing; Steinbeck never says it so directly, but basically Catherine is drawn to do evil because there is something lacking in her that otherwise might be able to understand good in others. Crudely, she hates because she can't love. But do "evil" people really lack something fundamental? Would it not have been more affecting for Steinbeck to have drawn a character without the excuse of incompleteness, who nevertheless commits heinous acts? Or are the complete people incapable of absolute evil?
Such is the trouble with Evil. It's an easy out, its own excuse. For the sake of argument, you could paint an entire culture, or even an axis of countries, say, as Evil, and it would save you from having to seriously analyze their human complexities and motivations. Steinbeck has the excuse of being dead and, I think, a Victorian writer somehow trapped in the future. Our only excuse is laziness.(less)
This is a long, long sermon masquerading as a novel. Its aim seems clear- to be the great American novel. In spite of, or maybe because of this overreach, it is completely unsatisfying. The characters are mere symbols. Most of the themes pertain to the characters’ moral dilemmas, but it is difficult to be drawn into these since the characters lack any real complexity. The men are various superlatives (greatest, kindest, wisest). There are two women characters, one evil and exaggerated to the poi...moreThis is a long, long sermon masquerading as a novel. Its aim seems clear- to be the great American novel. In spite of, or maybe because of this overreach, it is completely unsatisfying. The characters are mere symbols. Most of the themes pertain to the characters’ moral dilemmas, but it is difficult to be drawn into these since the characters lack any real complexity. The men are various superlatives (greatest, kindest, wisest). There are two women characters, one evil and exaggerated to the point of absurdity, and the other just a plot device. And the ‘chinaman’ has to be one of the most ridiculous characters in all of literature.
The weak characters are further undermined by the stilted and unnatural dialogue, which in no way resembles conversation as I have experienced it. The characters take turns giving soulful, melodramatic speeches on the human condition. The ‘chinaman’ is especially painful in this regard.(less)
PerenePerhaps you just needed to live in the Salinas Valley during the early twenties. Steinbeck was always known for his 'ear' for human speech.
Sep 08, 2011 02:13am
Janetyes - the characters lack complexity - some beautifully written descriptions of the Salinas Valley, though. The “Chinaman”? ludicrous - “Kate”? lud...moreyes - the characters lack complexity - some beautifully written descriptions of the Salinas Valley, though. The “Chinaman”? ludicrous - “Kate”? ludicrous and the most ludicrous of all, Abra - a one dimensional character to display Steinbeck’s transparent misogeny - glad I found this site - I was wondering if I was the only one in my world who felt this way.(less)
Jan 06, 2012 04:42am
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.I can not believe that I have never read this book, until now. I have seen parts of the movie , but only enough to know that James Dean plays Cal (I think). Although it took me forever to read (I was moving while reading it and got caught up in the move instead of the book)I enjoyed this book whole heartedly. Steinbeck's use of descriptions and insightful "asides" is what lead me to enjoy it as much as I did.
The characterisation in this book is awesome, I actually felt for ...moreI can not believe that I have never read this book, until now. I have seen parts of the movie , but only enough to know that James Dean plays Cal (I think). Although it took me forever to read (I was moving while reading it and got caught up in the move instead of the book)I enjoyed this book whole heartedly. Steinbeck's use of descriptions and insightful "asides" is what lead me to enjoy it as much as I did.
The characterisation in this book is awesome, I actually felt for many of the characters. Cal's turmoil over being evil, Abra's realization that Aron didn't love the real Abra but his picture of her. These are things that struck home with me for one reason or another. Steinbeck's revealing his theory of what makes evil, evil and monsters, monsters was quite accurate in my opinion. There are so many quoteable passages in this book also , and things that make you stop and actually think about what was being written. Amazing read I will be picking up more Steinbeck, and sooner rather than later.(less)
My first encounter with Steinbeck was Grapes of Wrath and I did not enjoy that encounter. If my first encounter had been East of Eden, I would probably have already read everything else he's written.
This book is about the age-old struggle between good and evil but with an interesting twist. Steinbeck sees the coexistence of good and evil within the individual as absolutely necessary for the emergence of any degree of character or greatness from that individual but he believes the re...moreMy first encounter with Steinbeck was Grapes of Wrath and I did not enjoy that encounter. If my first encounter had been East of Eden, I would probably have already read everything else he's written.
This book is about the age-old struggle between good and evil but with an interesting twist. Steinbeck sees the coexistence of good and evil within the individual as absolutely necessary for the emergence of any degree of character or greatness from that individual but he believes the responsiblity for that emergence lies solely with the individual and that the exercise of free will (timshel) is the key to that emergence. Some people (Adam, Aron, and Cathy/Kate in the story) possess within themselves only good or only evil and for them true character and true greatness are impossible because for them choice is not possible and is in fact meaningless. Rather than character or greatness, their lives lead inevitably to self destruction. For others (Sam, Lee, and Cal) good and evil constantly struggle for domination of the individual. Even when the good naturally dominates, one must exercise free will in order to exhibit character or achieve greatness. Sam and Lee were both considered good men but they both had to choose actions that hurt Adam and Cal respectively in order to bring them to necessary realizations. Sam and Lee both considered themselves cowards for not having chosen to act sooner or to act in other instances where action was necessary. In Cal, the evil tended to dominate and he tried to shift the blame for his actions to heredity and to use the evil as a balm for his guilt...he felt better about himself by feeling sorry for himself. Through Lee's refusal to let Cal do either, Cal began to take responsibility for his actions and choices and by the end of the book we begin to see some change in his character.
Steinbeck develops the character (in more than one sense) of Lee throughout the book and uses him as the primary vehicle through which he expounds the concepts expressed above. Of all that can be said about Lee, two things stand out for me. First is the influence that Sam Hamilton had on him. In a passage near the end of the book much of what Lee says to Cal is what he learned from Sam early in the book and sounds almost like Sam speaking to Cal through Lee. Second is that Lee understands the difference between heritage and culture. His life demonstrates that both are important and that they overlap but he never confuses or equates the two. (less)
Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Where is your brother Abel?' 'I don't know,' he replied. 'Am I my brother's keeper?'
In the famed Biblical tale of Cain and Abel, the two brothers both make an offering to God. God likes Abel's offer, but not Cain's; out of jealousy, Cain slays Abel, and then is marked by God.
East of Eden is John Steinbeck's rather lengthy ode to that story. It follows two families, the Trasks and the Hamiltons. It's the Trask family, though, that represents C...moreThen the Lord said to Cain, 'Where is your brother Abel?' 'I don't know,' he replied. 'Am I my brother's keeper?'
In the famed Biblical tale of Cain and Abel, the two brothers both make an offering to God. God likes Abel's offer, but not Cain's; out of jealousy, Cain slays Abel, and then is marked by God.
East of Eden is John Steinbeck's rather lengthy ode to that story. It follows two families, the Trasks and the Hamiltons. It's the Trask family, though, that represents Cain and Abel, with two sets of battling brothers.
Steinbeck gets a lot of crap from literary critics. He is their Exhibit A as to why the Nobel Prize in literature is a crock. Steinbeck is a realistic writer; I guess, in order to be accepted by your peers, your writing has to be dense and semi-incomprehensible, ala Joyce. (Don't get me started on this. People who say they love Joyce are just part of a racket - a racket full of people who pretend to understand what no one else can understand, and to enjoy what no one else can enjoy, simply so they can understand and enjoy things that others cannot. It reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall when Alvy is standing behind that guy raving about Marshall McLuhan films).
I like Steinbeck's writing. It's simple and direct, and often elegant in its simplicity. There's no one better at describing a piece of geography, of making you feel what it's like to be in a certain place. Despite his simplicity, he creates complex characters. I never quite knew who to root for, who to like; my allegiances were always shifting.
Thematically, the book is about love, but then again, every story is a love story:
Maybe - maybe love makes you suspicious and doubting. Is it true that when you love a woman you are never sure - never sure of her because you aren't sure of yourself?
Love, in Steinbeck's world, is very complicated, and filled with suspicion and doubt. It also shares the same razor's edge with hate, the two grappling for supremacy.
The sprawling, digression-filled story centers on Adam Trask and Samuel Hamilton. Adam moves to Salinas from the East, leaving his brother Charles - complete with a scar on his forehead - behind. Adam is married to Cathy Ames, who is not exactly a shining beacon of womanhood. Adam buys a ranch near Sam Hamilton and his wife, Liza. Sam is a clever man who is good at everything but making money. He befriends Adam, and Adam's Chinese manservant, Lee. Cathy bears two children. They are twins (natch): Aron and Caleb. (Get it? C and A...Cain and Abel, Charles and Adam, Caleb and Aron...it's called a parable because it's simple). Cathy ends up leaving to open a brothel, and Adam is brokenhearted. He really loved Cathy:
A kind of light spread out from her. And everything changed color. And the world opened out. And a day was good to awaken to. And there were no limits to anything. And the people of the world were good and handsome. And I was not afraid anymore.
The book meanders on. You meet characters; the characters disappear or die. There are a lot of subplots spinning around the main thrust of the narrative, which is the eventual - and tragic - replaying of the saga of Cain and Abel, starring Caleb and Aron.
This book is brutal, and surprisingly so. There are some savage beatings, a shooting or two, poisonings, suicides, and other deaths untimely.
Then there's the sex. I guess I should have expected this from the man who gave us Rose of Sharon's breast feeding scene, but still. The use of one word in particular kind of shocked me, not because I'm a prude, but because this book was published in 1952. (The word, for you Seinfeld fans, rhymes with "Dolores").
The characters in this book are all well described and developed, even the secondary characters (which adds greatly to the book's length). The character of Cathy is the exception. She is mostly one-dimensional, a figure of pure evil. By the end of the book, Steinbeck describes her as physically twisted by the ravages of arthritis, blatantly telegraphing what we've known about her soul all along. I liked her. Not her as a person, but the character. Her over-the-top wickedness reminds me of Madame Defarge from A Tale of Two Cities. A short list of Cathy's sins include patricide, matricide, arson, attempted murder, adultery, abandonment, blackmail, fraud on the court, abuse of service, etc. etc. One of the first things we learn about Cathy is that when she was a little girl, she forced two young boys to tie her up and lift her dress, so they could go to town. Thanks Steinbeck!
My gripes are minor. I like Steinbeck's writing, his descriptions, his characters, but this book could've been much shorter. There are entire sections and characters who are introduced in great detail, then dropped entirely. (I'm thinking, especially, of Olive in the airplane).
The second minor gripe has to do with our unreliable narrator. The book is told in the first person, by one of Sam Hamilton's grandsons. He says, right off, that this story he is telling is collected from diaries, memoirs, hearsay, and whatnot. At times, then, he doesn't give you (meaning the reader) certain bits of information, because he claims he doesn't have it. At other times, though, the narrator relates information he couldn't possibly know, unless he is God or conducted a seance. For instance, he gives the reader the last thoughts of a woman who is drowning herself. How did he know that? Then towards the end of the book, the narrator describes a scene without telling us who the person in the scene is, leaving us to guess. Why would he do that? The narrator obviously knows the person in the scene. There's no need to withhold that information unless (a)the narrator is a jerk or (b) the narrator is a stupid narrative device. For some reason, the inconsistency with the narrator bugged me.
East of Eden is too gigantic and un-plot-based to really have a synopsis. I suppose I can say it follows the sometimes-intertwined lives of the Trask family and the Hamilton family for many years, mostly in the Salinas Valley in California. Part of it is a fictionalization of Steinbeck’s family history (he even makes an appearance a few times, both in first and third person), and part of it is allegorical. The Hamilton side was based on Steinbeck’s family; the Trask side retold the stories of Ad...moreEast of Eden is too gigantic and un-plot-based to really have a synopsis. I suppose I can say it follows the sometimes-intertwined lives of the Trask family and the Hamilton family for many years, mostly in the Salinas Valley in California. Part of it is a fictionalization of Steinbeck’s family history (he even makes an appearance a few times, both in first and third person), and part of it is allegorical. The Hamilton side was based on Steinbeck’s family; the Trask side retold the stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. Supposedly, Steinbeck considered this his masterpiece.
There is too much in this book to even begin to talk about everything, so instead of trying to, I’m just going to jot down some brief thoughts and feelings that came to me over the two months that I’ve been reading this. First, Steinbeck is a master of characterization. I feel like I know every single one of these characters as if I’d met them in real life. When they were sick, dying, happy, sad, excited – I felt it all with them. I came to care about all of them, even Cathy, which leads me to:
Second, Cathy Ames is probably the best written villian I’ve ever read, right up there with Humbert Humbert from Lolita. At her finest, she made me squirm. Her crimes were uncomfortably visceral – knitting needles and crochet hooks and ammonia (shudder) – and it doesn’t surprise me that critics rebelled against her when this was published in the early 50s. I’m actually a bit surprised Steinbeck got away with writing/publishing some of the things she did.
Third, I love what Steinbeck did with Lee’s character. Lee’s a Chinese-American who is the butt of severe discrimination. No one will listen to him or trust him if he speaks English, so he has to speak that awful pidgin stuff, and they call him awful stereotypical names like “Ching Chong.” Laugh at me if you want, but I was reminded of Amos Diggery in the fourth Harry Potter book, when he refuses to call Winky the house-elf by her name, and instead addresses her as “Elf” every time. That sort of discrimination, the refusal to see someone as a real person because they’re different from you, really upsets me. I’m happy Steinbeck did Lee’s character justice. He proves himself invaluable and probably the smartest person in the book by the end.
Fourth, the allegorical stuff, particularly surrounding Cal and Aron (Cain and Abel), was a little overdone. When Adam asked Cal where Aron was, and Cal said, “How do I know? Am I supposed to look after him?” I groaned just a little bit. I felt like there was a big neon sign pointing to the line and saying, “Hey! Look! Did you see it? Biblical reference here!!” I think the allegory would have been much more effective had it not been so blatant at times. It was this heavyhandedness and some longwindedness in places that made this book fall below The Grapes of Wrath for me. I think Grapes was a better book.
That’s not to say East of Eden is bad. It’s excellent, it’s beautifully written, and it was well worth the time I spent. I won’t forget it easily. I want to end with my favorite quote, something Lee says about American culture which I think is so relevant today it’s haunting:
We all have our heritage, no matter what old land our fathers left. All colors and blends of Americans have somewhat the same tendencies. It’s a breed–selected out by accident. And so we’re overbrave and overfearful–we’re kind and cruel as children. We’re overfriendly and at the same time frightened of strangers. We boast and are impressed. We’re oversentimental and realistic. We are mundane and materialistic–and do you know of any other nation that acts for ideals? We eat too much. We have no taste, no sense of proportion. We throw our energy about like waste.
Has anyone ever read a better description of American culture? I was completely blown away by that passage.(less)
Back in high school, I was required to read Grapes of Wrath for summer reading. You know what's NOT fun for a moody teen during a scorching August heatwave? A depressing story about dry, parched earth and poor farmers toiling endlessly but still getting screwed.
And then there was my encounter with Of Mice and Men. Not with the book... but with the OPERA. Yet again, courtesy of my high school, trying to inculcate culture into our gum-snapping brains.
Just imagine: George, the...moreBack in high school, I was required to read Grapes of Wrath for summer reading. You know what's NOT fun for a moody teen during a scorching August heatwave? A depressing story about dry, parched earth and poor farmers toiling endlessly but still getting screwed.
And then there was my encounter with Of Mice and Men. Not with the book... but with the OPERA. Yet again, courtesy of my high school, trying to inculcate culture into our gum-snapping brains.
Just imagine: George, the mildly-retarded Lenny, the rabbit, the girl, and the rest of the flannel-n-overalls crew... ceaselessly aria-ing. It was bizarre and awful. During the big murder scene, we all laughed while the poor victim screamed in perfect E-flat.
So I wasn't too keen on Steinbeck. But a recent trip to Salinas, California (Steinbeck's hometown and the setting to many of his novels) made me reconsider. And after a handful of chapters into this book, I've undergone a "how-could-I-be-so-quick-to-judge?" change of heart.
I'm not going to finish the book before school starts up again. Moo moo, since the quality of writing is unparallel.
So, what have I learned? Steinbeck is the zucchini bread of the literary world: not appealing if forced onto you by well-meaning grownups, but every crumb is scrumptious when you give it a chance on your own time.
(I realize said anything about the book.. but isn't that what the back of the bookjacket is for?)
(less)
I have read this book at least ten times. It is one of my favorties of all time. Steinbeck's tendency to digress with scrillosophical passages that are in no way (?) connected to the story being told is probably the most egotistical and easily critiqued feature of his style of writing. It also accounts for some of my favorite passages.
"The spring flowers in a wet year were unbelievable. The whole valley floor, and the foothills too, would be covered with lupin and poppies. ...moreI have read this book at least ten times. It is one of my favorties of all time. Steinbeck's tendency to digress with scrillosophical passages that are in no way (?) connected to the story being told is probably the most egotistical and easily critiqued feature of his style of writing. It also accounts for some of my favorite passages.
"The spring flowers in a wet year were unbelievable. The whole valley floor, and the foothills too, would be covered with lupin and poppies. Once a woman told me that colored flowers would seem more bright if you added a few white flowers to give the colors definition. Every petal of blue lupin is edged with white, so that a field of lupins is mre blue than you can imagine. And mixed with these were splashes of Calfornia poppies. These too are of a burning color--not orange, not gold, but if pure gold were liquid and could raise a cream, that golden cream might be like the color of those poppies."
...
"I remember clearly the deaths of three men. One was the richest man of the century, who, having clawed his way to wealth through the souls and bodies of men, spent many years trying to buy back the love he had forfeited and by that process performed great service to the world and, perhaps, had much more than balanced the evils of his rise. I was on a ship when he died. The news was posted on the bulletin board, and nearly everyone recieved the news with pleasure. Several said, 'Thank God that son of a bitch is dead.'
Then there was a man, smart as Satan, who lacking some perception of human dignity and knowing all too well every aspect of human weakness and wickedness, used his special knowledge to warp men, to buy men, to bribe and threaten and seduce until he found himself in a position of great power. He clothed his motives in the names of virtue, and I have wondered whether he ever knew that no gift will ever buy back a man's love when you remove his self-love. A bribed man can only hate his briber. When this man died the nation rang with praise and, just beneath, gladness that he was dead.
There was a thrid man, who perhaps made many errors in performance but whose effective life was devoted to making men brave and dignified and good in a time when ugly forces were loose in the world to utilize their fears. This man was hated by the few. When he died the people burst into tears in the streets and their minds wailed, 'What can we do now? How can we go on without him?'
In uncertainty I am certain...It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world."
Recommends it for: well, everyone i have met in the last two years!
Recommended to Mme. Bookling by:
Jessica Gomes
And i finally finished.
Another thing about the re-read, it takes quite a bit longer! But I am so immensely satisfied that I did it, and I will do it again!
2nd reading: Dec 2007-April 2008
I have been immensely enjoying that a re-read means I go way slower through the text - finding words with meaning, rather than simply being all-consumed by the plot (which is oh so fabulous, by the way)
I also found my favorite chapter this time around. Cal gets the very first taste ...moreAnd i finally finished.
Another thing about the re-read, it takes quite a bit longer! But I am so immensely satisfied that I did it, and I will do it again!
2nd reading: Dec 2007-April 2008
I have been immensely enjoying that a re-read means I go way slower through the text - finding words with meaning, rather than simply being all-consumed by the plot (which is oh so fabulous, by the way)
I also found my favorite chapter this time around. Cal gets the very first taste of how much his father has endured and he loves him ferociously enough to sacrifice himself to build up his brother, Aron. In my fav chapter, Adam finally wakes up from his pain long enough to realize that he doesn't know his own son. The dialogue and gripping language that ensues moves deeply in my core. Daddy issues much? :)
And Steinbeck’s fascinating psychological motif, basically summed up to say that all humans have one need: love. If they are loved, they will be more willing to embrace the choice to overcome evil. If they have never been loved, they will be less able/willing to overcome their evil. In this way, Cal and his mother are set up as foils...and the reader's heart hopes so desperately for Cal. (BENJI, Steinbeck is also a hope whore!)
At the core of the argument about timshol I find that I disagree with Steinbeck. I really believe our lives are destined by a greater entity and our paths are chosen for us, even more than we are willing to admit. I do not feel controlled or manipulated by my destiny, in fact, I believe that the cosmos or god (pick your term) are mysterious enough, so entirely OTHER than my human understanding, that it can weave my choices into a pre-existing destiny. I will take issue with anyone (including my beloved John) who says that man always has the ability to simply pull himself up by the bootstraps and overcome his lot in life. Many are simply not equipped to deal with their own destiny, and this is the responsibility of god. But these are my theological thoughts...
That being said, Steinbeck sells his hope into the most gorgeous mini-pill of optimism and redemption that I cannot but swallow and flourish at the imbibing of his words.
First Reading: Jaunary 2006
I picked up East of Eden on a friend's recommendation. I remember being surprised that it read nothing like Grapes of Wrath--no unabashed socio/political themes or propaganda.
East of Eden was Steinbeck's favorite work; it also took him most of his life to complete. He takes a myriad of storylines and expertly weaves them into this novel. Steinbeck states about East of Eden: "It has everything in it I have been able to learn about my craft or profession in all these years." He further claimed: "I think everything else I have written has been, in a sense, practice for this."
I really resonated with the themes he masterfully explores throughout--depravity, beneficence, love, and the struggle for acceptance, greatness, and the capacity for self-destruction, and especially of guilt and freedom. It ties these themes together with references to and many parallels with the biblical Book of Genesis.
"It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world.
We have only one story. All novels, all poetry, are built on the never ending contest in ourselves of good and evil. And it occurs to me that evil must constantly respawn, while good, while virtue, is immortal. Vice has always a new fresh young face, while virtue is venerable as nothing else in the world ...more"It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world.
We have only one story. All novels, all poetry, are built on the never ending contest in ourselves of good and evil. And it occurs to me that evil must constantly respawn, while good, while virtue, is immortal. Vice has always a new fresh young face, while virtue is venerable as nothing else in the world is."
From the very first sentence, I was pulled into Steinbecks world. He has such control of the english language.
The characters were drawn to perfection. He didn't overlook the smallest detail.
My only complaint is that the end of the novel seemed rushed. Steinbeck took all this time to weave a wonderful story, taking his time, wandering in and out of each characters lives... and then the last 50pgs came at me like a mad rush.
Still, such a great novel. Everyone should read it!(less)
Even after a BA in English, the only Steinbeck I'd ever read was "Of Mice and Men" and really didn't like it. I read this on a friend's recommendation and WOW! Let's hear it for a modern-day classic! Besides the increcibly beautiful writing, this book has given me a lot to think about, both during and after reading. I've mostly been thinking of how many times a day, all through the years, we choose between good and evil, even in its lesser forms. East of Eden was a powerful story of wh...moreEven after a BA in English, the only Steinbeck I'd ever read was "Of Mice and Men" and really didn't like it. I read this on a friend's recommendation and WOW! Let's hear it for a modern-day classic! Besides the increcibly beautiful writing, this book has given me a lot to think about, both during and after reading. I've mostly been thinking of how many times a day, all through the years, we choose between good and evil, even in its lesser forms. East of Eden was a powerful story of where those choices can lead us.
"I believe that there is one story in the world, and only one. . . . Humans are caught—in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too—in a net of good and evil. . . . 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?"
(less)
I literally could not put this down. Loose biblical parables have been around forever in literature, but what makes this so great is that it never just cops out by reducing down to one. Maybe the characters are fated or whatever, but they're also among the strongest characters he's written. Who wouldn't want to sit down for a beer with someone like Sam Hamilton or Lee? Who wouldn't want to claw out Cathy Ames's eyes? Who wouldn't want to offer some kind of reassurance to someone like Caleb Trask...moreI literally could not put this down. Loose biblical parables have been around forever in literature, but what makes this so great is that it never just cops out by reducing down to one. Maybe the characters are fated or whatever, but they're also among the strongest characters he's written. Who wouldn't want to sit down for a beer with someone like Sam Hamilton or Lee? Who wouldn't want to claw out Cathy Ames's eyes? Who wouldn't want to offer some kind of reassurance to someone like Caleb Trask? A lot of sprawling, multi-generational family novels tend to collapse under their own weight, but Steinbeck is able to ground his so thoroughly in the regional sensibilities and culture of turn of the century California that you never loose a sense of what's happening or why it matters. Forget the Joads and forget George and Lennie, this is the Steinbeck book everyone should read.
(less)
I think that no literary character has ever so terrified me as Cathy Ames. This book troubled me while I was reading it, and it troubles me still now that I'm through.
I'd like to say that I liked the book, and in many ways I did--the plot, characters, narrational commentary, and general development were all compelling and fascinating to a very high degree. Yet I can't help but feel like reading this book and gazing into the soul (or lack thereof) of Cathy Ames ultimately had a net n...moreI think that no literary character has ever so terrified me as Cathy Ames. This book troubled me while I was reading it, and it troubles me still now that I'm through.
I'd like to say that I liked the book, and in many ways I did--the plot, characters, narrational commentary, and general development were all compelling and fascinating to a very high degree. Yet I can't help but feel like reading this book and gazing into the soul (or lack thereof) of Cathy Ames ultimately had a net negative impact on me.
If you read other reviews, you'll see that my opinion is definitely in the minority. Nevertheless, I kind of wish that I hadn't read the book. (less)
I enjoyed the sections about the Hamilton family (Steinbeck's real ancestors) much more than the sections about the primary characters, all of whom are allegorical. Perhaps if there hadn't been the contrast between realism and allegory, I would have been able to enter into the allegorical world and enjoy it more. As it was, I simply wanted to read more about the Hamiltons. I did also enjoy the chapters that filled out the picture of life in Salinas at a particular time in history. The chapte...moreI enjoyed the sections about the Hamilton family (Steinbeck's real ancestors) much more than the sections about the primary characters, all of whom are allegorical. Perhaps if there hadn't been the contrast between realism and allegory, I would have been able to enter into the allegorical world and enjoy it more. As it was, I simply wanted to read more about the Hamiltons. I did also enjoy the chapters that filled out the picture of life in Salinas at a particular time in history. The chapter in which some characters embark on a business venture to ship lettuce across the country is a nice bit of agribusiness history.(less)
I read this book for my Book club (meeting and discussion is tonight) and I am so glad that I did. I know I read Steinbeck in school--The Pearl, Of Mice and Men--you know, the shorter novels--and then of course Travels with Charlie, but there was a dog, what's not to love--but I have never read E of E, never even had a desire. This book is amazing! There is so much going on in it, it tries (and mostly succeeds)in describing an entire world--the people are believeable, and scary at times, ther...moreI read this book for my Book club (meeting and discussion is tonight) and I am so glad that I did. I know I read Steinbeck in school--The Pearl, Of Mice and Men--you know, the shorter novels--and then of course Travels with Charlie, but there was a dog, what's not to love--but I have never read E of E, never even had a desire. This book is amazing! There is so much going on in it, it tries (and mostly succeeds)in describing an entire world--the people are believeable, and scary at times, there is suspense, there is emotion, there is history--and it is beautifully written.
At times it is a bit patchworky--for instance, Charles is a huge character in the beginning of the book, and then Adam moves west and Charles is never heard of again....was he Cal's father, though? He is still bringing in large characters in the last chapters of the book--Tom was mentioned once or twice early on, but it is not until the very end that we learn anything about him.
And Steinbeck leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I did a Google seach to find out what Dessie's ailment was, and was unable to find an answer (though I did come accross other people who are wondering.) And both Dessie and Tom flit across the pages a few times early on, then they take center page for a short time, and then--poof--no more.
This book is a tapestry, a patchwork, an organic work that draws one in--and leaving is a hardship.
I loved the way Steinbeck weaves his own family history in with the Trasks. I also loved Lee, almost as much as Samuel. So--even though this review may not be very great, the book is, and I urge everyone to take the time to read and savor it.(less)
This books jumps to the top of my list for being an all time favorite. I was so skeptical picking it up, because I just hated Grapes of Wrath and assumed all of Steinbeck's work must be politically charged. But I found this to be a gripping page turner full of an authentic desire to seek and understand not only other people but our own motivations and the age old question "what am I here for?" So many layers of complexity to this novel, I think I'll be revisiting it in my mind over and...moreThis books jumps to the top of my list for being an all time favorite. I was so skeptical picking it up, because I just hated Grapes of Wrath and assumed all of Steinbeck's work must be politically charged. But I found this to be a gripping page turner full of an authentic desire to seek and understand not only other people but our own motivations and the age old question "what am I here for?" So many layers of complexity to this novel, I think I'll be revisiting it in my mind over and over, peeling those layers back to reveal new insights.
Favorite characters - Sam Hamilton and Lee. The heart of this book is about their philosophical wonderings, and simply applied to the Trask family. But their thoughts on "timshel" could be applied to any person or family anywhere, in any situation. If you're a Christian, lots of Biblical parallels to mull over too.
Lee...I feel like Lee is a friend. Sort of like how I feel about Samwise Gamgee. A great novel creates a great friend. I will definitely "visit" Lee again. I can see this being a novel to read every few years.(less)
I first read this book in college as a thesis project. I usually end up hating novels once I have had to disect the plot and find all the flaws. This book is flawless. I can not fathom how Steinbeck could keep everything straight to weave such an intricate story of intersecting lives and plot lines. It has numerous levels. Plainly it's a story about a man moving west to find his destiny and about human relations. Digging a little deeper it's a biblical allegory of Cain and able, elements of A...moreI first read this book in college as a thesis project. I usually end up hating novels once I have had to disect the plot and find all the flaws. This book is flawless. I can not fathom how Steinbeck could keep everything straight to weave such an intricate story of intersecting lives and plot lines. It has numerous levels. Plainly it's a story about a man moving west to find his destiny and about human relations. Digging a little deeper it's a biblical allegory of Cain and able, elements of Adam and Eve and of course good vs evil. It also contains interesting elements of history such as the first automobile. It's also about Manifest Destiny...when America moved west believing it was their right to move west and claim the territory. In the struggle to be happy we find we always go back to the story of Eden. Thanks to Eve and her apple...No Matter How far west man moves he'll always be East Of Eden.
I liked East of Eden. I was surprised by the fact that some of the commentary in it seemed as if it could have been written last week.
The reason I'm giving it four stars rather than five is because it had two aspects that bugged me. Characters that exist almost solely to be the voice of the author irk me and always have (I remember vividly my first encounter with this in Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter). I also found Abra's character a little flat. They kept praising her as a good person,...moreI liked East of Eden. I was surprised by the fact that some of the commentary in it seemed as if it could have been written last week.
The reason I'm giving it four stars rather than five is because it had two aspects that bugged me. Characters that exist almost solely to be the voice of the author irk me and always have (I remember vividly my first encounter with this in Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter). I also found Abra's character a little flat. They kept praising her as a good person, but I didn't really see anything particularly virtuous about her. Also, there is nothing subtle at all about the symbolism, and Steinbeck makes no apologies for that. As a professor friend of mine said, he feels this book is a good introduction to symbolism for those who've never studied it before, because it's almost impossible to miss.
Despite those minor drawbacks, I enjoyed the novel. It's well worth reading if only to acquaint oneself with a classic from one of America's most noted authors. I found Chapter 46 especially relevant: although it has little to do with the book's overall themes, Steinbeck's German could easily be our Muslim today. East of Eden was published in 1952, almost 60 years ago at the time of this writing, and, depressingly, it seems we haven't changed a bit in certain ways. The old adage about those who cannot remember the past being condemned to repeat it comes to mind.
I need a little more time to ruminate and to let it sink in before I make any firm conclusions.
NOTE: My review does not contain spoilers, but there may be little bits in the comments. Just giving fair warning. (less)
This is the ninth book by the great John Steinbeck that I have read in my life, and perhaps it is negligence on my part, or happenstance, that I have lived this long and only now gotten around to engaging it--but I finally did so, and I am so glad I did. It might be the influence and impact of my so-recent engagement with it, but I see it as, ultimately, his most significant work. It is certainly sweeping in its purview, inclusive in its aims and references, and noble in its intent.
...moreThis is the ninth book by the great John Steinbeck that I have read in my life, and perhaps it is negligence on my part, or happenstance, that I have lived this long and only now gotten around to engaging it--but I finally did so, and I am so glad I did. It might be the influence and impact of my so-recent engagement with it, but I see it as, ultimately, his most significant work. It is certainly sweeping in its purview, inclusive in its aims and references, and noble in its intent.
The Short Reign of Pippin IV is good for a lark, Of Mice and Men for a freshman high school student as exercise in developing compassion with a reflection on responsibility, and The Grapes of Wrath to shake the comfortable and self absorbed out of the fantasy that pain and suffering are pretty much equally distributed in life. This work, however, addresses what Steinbeck himself sees as the perennial and recurring basic question across all of man’s time on Earth—the struggle between good and evil, and just how much control any of us have upon our own particular roles in the ongoing epic drama that is human existence. He teaches us, subtly but repeatedly, that most vices are really attempted short cuts to get at love.
Heavy in Biblical (and sprinkled throughout with classical) allusions, poetic and sensitive in its appraisal and description of the Salinas Valley as a main setting for this multigenerational review of the interactions across two families (the Trasks with their roots in Puritanical Connecticut and the Hamiltons, Steinbeck’s nod to his own forefathers in California) this novel sets itself an incredible task – and the author responds brilliantly, yet in such a manner that time and time again, the few well chosen details he incorporates to describe any of myriad individuals introduced in passing along the way quickly convey to the reader the sense of “oh yes, I know a person just like that” or “aha, I recognize exactly what he means” without sacrificing to shallowness or demeaning stereotype.
In fact, when it comes to stereotypes, Steinbeck challenges them again and again. My two favorite characters were secondary figures: old Samuel Hamilton, the patriarch of his Irish progeny, and Lee, the Chinese man servant to Adam Trask and maker of a home for the twins Cal and Aron growing up. Both defy typical stereotypes of their ethnicities, even while conveying many often suggested qualities for those of their groups. It is easy to see why I admire these two so much—they provide role models for how I believe Steinbeck suggests we all should aim to live, open to learning from all around us, choosing our fights wisely, and nurturing others with the heartfelt belief that seeking knowledge and cultivating the good that is possible in all around us should be our ultimate life’s purpose.
I read this novel deep into the night, and when it was finished, although I totally understood why and how it concluded the way it did, I wanted it to continue. It enriched me, it inspired me, it reminded me, it taught me. It was a pleasure to engage language and ideas organized in this fashion. This, my friends, is truly great literature.
(less)
What a cracker of a book! This was my first read on the Kindle and I have to say that it's a very good way to consume a book. Between the Kindle app on the iPhone, Kindle 3G and iPad, it was easy to read small chunks or large chunks as time permitted.
I recently read Grapes of Wrath and went straight on to East of Eden. Steinbeck is without doubt one of my favourite writers; it's just something about his knack of writing about the human spiritual condition that I can really relate to. ...moreWhat a cracker of a book! This was my first read on the Kindle and I have to say that it's a very good way to consume a book. Between the Kindle app on the iPhone, Kindle 3G and iPad, it was easy to read small chunks or large chunks as time permitted.
I recently read Grapes of Wrath and went straight on to East of Eden. Steinbeck is without doubt one of my favourite writers; it's just something about his knack of writing about the human spiritual condition that I can really relate to.
It's quite a grand tale in terms of the span of time it covers, but in essence it's the tale of two brothers from birth to death. The tale of how the brothers' father comes into his own is handled very well and shows that we can shape our own destiny.
I don't really know how to put into words the sense of spiritual well being that I get from Steinbeck's novels. He lived in a different time in a different place, but still I can relate to his characters so well. It's the human flaws, the inner monologues and struggles, the spiritual condition, all of those things make it seem so real. It's philosophical, that's what it is. I'm just at the right age for discovering Steinbeck's masterpieces really. (less)
I'm wimping out on this synopsis. It's on the book page.
I am surprised by how much I liked this book. I had to read Of Mice and Men and The Grapes of Wrath for school, and I pretty much hated them both. Of course, I hated almost everything I had to read for school, so I don't know if that says more about Steinbeck or about me. Either way, I was left with bad memories of Steinbeck.
I have several friends on GoodReads comment on how much they love this book, so when I fo...moreI'm wimping out on this synopsis. It's on the book page.
I am surprised by how much I liked this book. I had to read Of Mice and Men and The Grapes of Wrath for school, and I pretty much hated them both. Of course, I hated almost everything I had to read for school, so I don't know if that says more about Steinbeck or about me. Either way, I was left with bad memories of Steinbeck.
I have several friends on GoodReads comment on how much they love this book, so when I found this edition with this cool retro cover at a library book sale, I went ahead and picked it up. It would probably have languished for a few more years in my stacks if I hadn't decided to read it for Banned Books Week. (See, book challengers? You are only hurting your case and giving authors publicity. Leave it alone, and a lot of books will fade into obscurity).
Anyway, I started to love this from the first page. Who could resist this prose?
"I remember that the Gabilan Mountains to the east of the valley were light gay mountains full of sun and loveliness and a kind of invitation, so that you wanted to climb into their warm foothills almost as you want to climb into the lap of a beloved mother. They were beckoning mountains with a brown grass love. The Santa Lucias stood up against the sky to the west and kept the valley from the open sea, and they were dark and brooding--unfriendly and dangerous. I always found in myself a dread of west and a love of east. Where I ever got such an idea I cannot say, unless it could be that the morning came over the peaks of the Gabilans and the night drifted back from the ridges of the Santa Lucias. It may be that the birth and death of the day had some part in my feeling about the two ranges of mountains."
I was blown away. Where was the grim author who had written such depressing books that I had been forced to read against my will? This wasn't the same guy, surely!
And that was kind of how I continued on through the book. Oh, it got dark and grim (more on that momentarily), but Steinbeck can write! Who knew?
Let me just jump right in with Cathy. What a psycho bitch. Seriously. I don't know if they used words like psychopath back in the day, but she really is. My status update after she is introduced: "Wow. *blinkblink* Cathy." That said with wide, surprised eyes. She certainly made her mark on me in a hurry. She is just pure evil.
My edition was deceptively thin, so I didn't realize it was over 500 pages of tiny font until I'd gotten a good start. Still, I made my way through this quicker than I expected to. Cathy was the character that I felt the strongest about, but I'm also intrigued by Caleb. He's the one who is truly struggling to be a better person. He thinks that he was born evil, yet he still tries to fight it and be good. I have much more respect for him than for Aron, who just pretended that evil didn't exist and so of course it couldn't describe him. Cal has a bit of "Jacob wrestling the angel" in him.
I find myself almost wishing that I had read this in school. There's so much to mull over and discuss here. I think my younger self would have hated the ending, and even now I wasn't immediately taken with it. But as time goes on, I keep chewing on it, thinking it over, and liking it more and more. Really, it's sneaking it's way onto a special new list I'll have in my head called "Strongest Ending to a Novel." Right now it's all alone on the list, but I'm sure I could come up with some others if I had to.
There are so many things I loved about this book. I loved the philosophical conversations between Lee and Samuel. I loved that I could follow along with them! They had a way of suddenly getting me to see something in a new light. I loved that Samuel Hamilton loved his land even though it wasn't very good, and the way he loved to invent things. I loved watching his son Tom struggle to become himself. I loved that Lee made me think about my expectations and how they affect my perceptions. I loved how Adam made me think about how we choose to either move on or not, because it is always a choice.
I highly recommend this when you're in the mood for a book that will actually make you think rather than just help you escape. We all know I love escapism, but sometimes even I need something meatier, and this certainly fit the bill.(less)
I can't say it better than Steinbeck did.
This may well be the most beautiful book ever written...
"There are techniques of the human mind whereby, in its dark deep, problems are examined, rejected or accepted. Such activities sometimes concern facets a man does not know he had. How often one goes to sleep troubled and full of pain, not knowing what causes the travail, and in the morning a whole new direction and clearness is there, maybe the result of the black reasoning. ...moreI can't say it better than Steinbeck did.
This may well be the most beautiful book ever written...
"There are techniques of the human mind whereby, in its dark deep, problems are examined, rejected or accepted. Such activities sometimes concern facets a man does not know he had. How often one goes to sleep troubled and full of pain, not knowing what causes the travail, and in the morning a whole new direction and clearness is there, maybe the result of the black reasoning. And again there are mornings when ecstasy bubbles in the blood."
“I believe that there is one story in the world, and only one. . . . Humans are caught—in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too—in a net of good and evil. . . . 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?”
I read this book during the summer before my senior year of high school. I remember really enjoying it, but re-reading it as an adult has really changed my perspective. At the beginning of the "re-reading", I thought that this was such a "guy" novel, it's hard to imagine why I was so interested in it as a high school student. As I read on, I wondered whether Steinbeck hated women - the main female character in this novel are truly "evil" - and he tells you straig...moreI read this book during the summer before my senior year of high school. I remember really enjoying it, but re-reading it as an adult has really changed my perspective. At the beginning of the "re-reading", I thought that this was such a "guy" novel, it's hard to imagine why I was so interested in it as a high school student. As I read on, I wondered whether Steinbeck hated women - the main female character in this novel are truly "evil" - and he tells you straight out. The "good" woman character (Liza Hamilton) is an upstanding, no-nonsense, "god-fearing" and generally no fun and no personality person. (Well, I guess you could argue she had a personality, but not one I like) So it's the old madonna vs the whore thing? okay, there were some minor likeable female characters - like Dessie, but she's plays such a small part. erhaps it is the "epic" like nature of the book that struck me as a high school student. It covers two families over two or three generations. I may have been impressed by that. And the simple declarations of "good" vs "evil" throughout the book - I'm sure that's much easier to swallow as a 17-year-old. You hope the world is so easy; so black and white. Good reading as a high school student - not so digestible in your 40's!!!!
(less)
[close]
East of Eden (Steinbeck Centennial Edition)
John Steinbeck Centennial Edition (1902-2002)
isbn: 0142004235 isbn13: 9780142004234
format: Paperback
[close]
East of Eden (Paperback)
Penguin Classics
isbn: 0140186395 isbn13: 9780140186390
format: Paperback
[close]
East of Eden (Paperback)
Penguin Modern Classics
isbn: 0141185074 isbn13: 9780141185071
format: Paperback
[close]
East of Eden (Mass Market Paperbound)
isbn: 0140049975 isbn13: 9780140049978
format: Mass Market Paperbound
[close]
East of Eden (Library Binding)
(Penguin Twentieth-Century Classics)
isbn: 0808514121 isbn13: 9780808514121
format: Library Binding
John Steinbeck III was an American writer. He wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Grapes of Wrath, published in 1939 and the novella Of Mice and Men, published in 1937. In all, he wrote twenty-five books, including sixteen novels, six non-fiction books and several collections of short stories.
In 1962 Steinbeck received the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Steinbeck grew u...moreJohn Steinbeck III was an American writer. He wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Grapes of Wrath, published in 1939 and the novella Of Mice and Men, published in 1937. In all, he wrote twenty-five books, including sixteen novels, six non-fiction books and several collections of short stories.
In 1962 Steinbeck received the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Steinbeck grew up in the Salinas Valley region of California, a culturally diverse place of rich migratory and immigrant history. This upbringing imparted a regionalistic flavor to his writing, giving many of his works a distinct sense of place.
Steinbeck moved briefly to New York City, but soon returned home to California to begin his career as a writer. Most of his earlier work dealt with subjects familiar to him from his formative years. An exception was his first novel Cup of Gold which concerns the pirate Henry Morgan, whose adventures had captured Steinbeck's imagination as a child.
In his subsequent novels, Steinbeck found a more authentic voice by drawing upon direct memories of his life in California. Later he used real historical conditions and events in the first half of 20th century America, which he had experienced first-hand as a reporter.
Steinbeck often populated his stories with struggling characters; his works examined the lives of the working class and migrant workers during the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. His later body of work reflected his wide range of interests, including marine biology, politics, religion, history, and mythology.
One of his last published works was Travels with Charley, a travelogue of a road trip he took in 1960 to rediscover America. He died in 1968 in New York of a heart attack and his ashes are interred in Salinas.
Seventeen of his works, including The Grapes of Wrath (1940), Cannery Row (1945), The Pearl (1947), and East of Eden (1952), went on to become Hollywood films, and Steinbeck also achieved success as a Hollywood writer, receiving an Academy Award nomination for Best Story in 1944 for Alfred Hitchcock's Lifeboat.(less)
“I believe a strong woman may be stronger than a man, particularly if she happens to have love in her heart. I guess a loving woman is indestructible.”
—
825 people liked it
“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.”
—
413 people liked it
Loading...
view all 60 comments
