So this week is more open in terms of blog posts. Feel free to address whatever you find interesting in East of Eden. Below are a few of our thoughts, but you're not obligated to address any or all of them.
What do you think of Aron? He is an admirable, handsome, smart boy, but morally strict, unforgiving, and without much understanding of the complexities of people. Why does Lee curse him as a coward when he hears Aron has died?
How does the idea of 'timshel' apply to Cal and Abra? Will Cal grow into a well-natured adult, or will he continue to be overcome with jealousy and sinful thoughts? Perhaps his evil nature passes away with Aron?
See you all on Monday!
Clay & Bill
See you all on Monday!
Clay & Bill
I think it is hard to say whether Cal will become a kind, good-natured adult or if he will always retain some of his evil nature. But I also think that the ambiguity is partly the point of timshel, that Cal has the ability to choose his own destiny, whether it be good or evil. Aron’s death completes the Cain-Abel story for Aron and Cal, but Cal, unlike Cain, is filled with guilt and misery as a result of his brother’s death. Cal is absolved of his sins when he is blessed by Adam, thereby allowing Cal to confront and overcome the sins of his forbears. The book ends on an optimistic tone, which I think implies that Cal understands the concept of timshel and realizes that his past does not necessarily predetermine his future.
ReplyDeleteI thought Aron was an interesting contrast to Cathy, as they each represent ends of the spectrum of good and evil. Once both Aron and Cathy are dead, Cal is able to live a live of moderation, split between these extremes. Aron seems unable to confront the real world and spends most of his life trying to escape into a fantasy world. His consideration of joining the clergy, his enrollment at Stanford, and his enlistment in the army are all different forms of running away, and this inability to face the difficult moral choices of the real world makes him a coward. I think that Lee, whose voice resonates the one of logic and reason throughout the story, cements this categorization when he denounces Aron’s cowardice.
I agree strongly with Natalie's assessment of Aron, and I'd also like to add that I think that Aron's morally absolute vision of the world is most threatened by the prospect that Cathy--Kate--did not really die and is, in fact, the owner of a brothel. Even when they are children, Cal is more skeptical that the facts presented to him by adults--such as Cathy's alleged death--are not true, and this leads him down the same road as Charles in the first book, questioning the honesty of his father while maintaining a need for his approval.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of "timshel" arises in the second half of the novel as one of the most important themes philosophically. In the sense that human beings are not doomed to destruction nor preordained for salvation, the characters of this novel are infused with the power of choice that comes from the idea of "timshel"--"thou mayest". For Cal, it means that his road ahead is not clear, but it is also not doomed beforehand as a result of the problems that have afflicted his family before him.
I agree with Andrew and Natalie's assessments of timshel, and largely with their visions of Aron and Cal as well.
ReplyDeleteWhile Aron is consistently depicted as angelic (halo of blond curly hair, wide set blue eyes, etc) he is fairly self absorbed. He felt like a less complex character than Cal, and because of this I didn't feel sympathy for him in the end.
Cal, on the other hand, behaved like a human who has bad thoughts occasionally, acts on them less often, and learns lasting lessons from his mistakes. Cal's recognition of his immoral thoughts and actions is the first step for him to repress his malevolent behavior.
The clearest divides among East of Eden's characters are their levels of intellectualism. This is not to say their wits--because the ability to control others' actions are often absent from the most intellectual characters--but the curiosity of their minds.
ReplyDeleteThere are several clear examples of this difference. Samuel and Lee drive the philosophical question of "timshel." Tom lives out the sedentary path of one who cannot get deeper joy from work. At first, it seems Steinbeck may be hinting that inward searching translates to societal impotence. But I think the opposite is true. Samuel's lifelong searching leads to his revealing to Adam the truth about Cathy that sets him free. Lee's choice is duty, to remain with Adam. The one who does flee--a form of shying from action--is Aron, who is never painted as intellectual or conflicted about ideas (as is Cal), despite his higher education.
To name a small and large example of non-intellectual who are able to control outward events (if for a time), there are Will Hamilton and Cathy. Steinbeck explicitly states that Will's business skills are a result of his ability to judge accurately the superficial psychology of people. Cathy, on the other hand, might seem to be more complex. In reality, her anger is childish--caused by resentment at normal parents and deriving joy from dragging others to her depths. To prove the point, her ultimately simple tricks...ultimately fail.
I didn't really believe Aron. He just seemed too rigid to be real. Life is just too messy and complicated for someone to maintain such a rigid moral framework that far along. Cal, on the other hand, felt much more real and believable. While Aron concerns himself with what is pure and right and true, Cal seems mostly worried about getting his father to love him, which seems like a much more believable motivation to me.
ReplyDeleteI also found Adam's attitude toward life to be somewhat bizarre. Adam just seems to stumble through life, lurching from one place and occupation to another. Nothing (except for Cathy) drives him or pushes him. Just when Sam Hamilton wakes him up and makes him love his sons, they take over the narrative of the story and Adam becomes kind of a clueless father figure. He just struck me as kind of a drifter, never particularly engaged by anyone or anything except Cathy.
On a slightly different note, I think the comparisons between the two 'tellings' of the story of Cain and Abel are fascinating. Both Charles and Cal represent Abel, but both of them deviate from the biblical character in very different ways. Charles doesn't kill his brother, and yet never really does anything with the rest of his life but sleep with Cathy on Adam's wedding night hide away on his farm/ the land of Nod. Meanwhile Cal could be said to kill his brother, at least indirectly, but his ability to move past his evil tendencies are the hope of the entire end of the novel.
ReplyDeleteAdam and Aron make an equally fascinating comparison. In contrast to Cal and Charles, these two are remarkably similar. Both never really see the truth of the world. Both are intellectually dull (though for Aron maybe this is just because he's actively running from the world while Adam is just not that sharp). Ultimately, both of the characters are mediocre people who let life do its worst to them (with the exception of Adam moving to California). Is Steinbeck making a statement about the biblical story, or are these characters more important to the themes he's using the biblical story to address?
In the first paragraph, I meant to say both Cal and Charles represent Cain.
ReplyDelete