What I find kind of hilarious, is that the first paragraph of the “Major Themes” part of Wikipedia’s page on East of Eden makes explicit reference to Cain and Able and references the quotation from Genesis from which the title is derived. She didn’t even have to read the book, she just needed to do some minimal amount of research on the book. She didn’t bother, which says pretty much everything.
I'm so sick of other people telling me that my reading, my comprehension, my "imagining" is not sufficient when I read something, so I need those same people (who make it clear in every action that they hate me) to "reimagine" it for me. Thankfully I don't watch any of this crap because they always give themselves away, but it disgusts me all the same.
I loved East of Eden. It is one of my favorite books, and I had the same reaction as you did. I read it about the same time (early high school years). I didn't like the Grapes of Wrath, and my English teacher suggested I read East of Eden. When baby Adam is given a rag with whiskey because he wouldn't stop crying, I was floored. I had never read anything like it, and maybe because I tend to be a nurturer, it was a scene that has stuck with me my entire life. (Plus, the beauty of the area, near where I grew up, is so well done by Steinbeck. It reminds me of what California had been during its golden years.) .... You are absolutely correct in your analysis of Cathy Ames. God gave us free will. There is good and there is evil and we ignore evil at our peril.
I'll add, that as a thriller writer I will always seek to understand why my villains do what they do. That doesn't mean I sympathize with all of them, or that they are always justified in their actions, but that understanding villains also helps us understand our heroes.
I've heard of it too, ha. But Adam's father gave him whiskey because he was grieving his dead wife and didn't have milk, nor the will to go out and get it. The baby was basically drunk for a couple days.
Ditto -- but I remember vividly the scene with the whiskey. I didn't remember the fake rape scene until Liza mentioned it in the article, but I did remember Cathy burning down her house with her parents inside.
I'm so glad other readers didn't like The Grapes of Wrath! I couldn't finish it. I've always been a bit embarrassed to admit that because TGOW is supposedly one of the Great American Novels.
I had to read it in high school and just thought it was depressing. East of Eden was depressing, but there was also hope, and it was beautifully written. I also love family sagas. The people in the story made it unputdownable.
I find it rather depressing that so many people now seem unable to recognise the power of The Grapes of Wrath. It is generally viewed as Steinbeck's best work, and is certainly the most widely read. It reveals to the world the true face of the exploitative laissez-faire capitalism of inter-war America, and gives a sign of hope in the devotion of family members to each other. Anyone who is unable to appreciate that needs to carefully review their degree of humanity and compassion.
I agree that the book offered hope within family, but I felt that Steinbeck treated the "Okies" religion (among other things) mockingly. He also had caricatures of "greedy" villains. And Steinbeck got a lot of things wrong. (IMO) -- historically, many of those displaced ended up in cities, not on California farms. The Depression, drought, and hardship were real. So were bad farming, collapsing prices, and local cruelty.
I didn't feel that Steinbeck mocked the Okies in any way, but that he showed understanding and compassion As for the greedy villains being caricatures, I felt them to be an accurate representation of people exploiting the Okies' desperation. He chose to focus on a group who worked in fruit-picking; this was not a denial that many migrants went to cities. I fail to see what point your last two sentences are making.
No reason to watch another retelling of a classic through the eyes of a modern feminist lens. They use the names of tried and true classics only to get people to watch. Full well knowing it’s the only shot anyone would be interested in there awful storytelling. East of Eden was a wonderful story that needs no further interpretation. Making a series that is true to the source material would be wildly popular, no reimagining is needed. These narcissists just don’t see it that way. I suspect they will make Cathy the victim of some sort of abuse at a young age, most likely by her father or some sort of Christian pastor to explain her evil ways. Completely ignoring the text Steinbeck laid out in plain English.
Destruction of the source material and demoralization of the fans is the point.
What gets me is that people keep paying for it. (And then being disappointed.) What did you expect? How many times do you have to be kicked in the face before you realize... there's a 99% chance I'm going to get kicked in the face. When they tell you who they are, believe them!
A classic only becomes that because it continues to be read beyond its publication. People rarely read the forgotten authors and their novels… who knows how good they might be in comparison.
So we have to ask, “Why do people continue to read these classics? What is so relevant to people in later generations?”
What makes this book so special when it came out roughly 74 years ago? I would argue that Cathy and the nature of “evil”, embodied in a human, is the point. We are told to believe she is born bad, but we are not given many clues about her upbringing.
With all that we have learned about the biological and psychological causes for psychopathy, narcissism, and the lingering effects of childhood abuse, we are still unable to fully comprehend how a person can become so toxic. I need to reread this novel for my own personal edification, but I tend to believe that there was a biological predisposition for her actions and her family/upbringing did nothing to prevent the literary train wreck. As a retired teacher, I saw plenty of children who were unable to escape the gravity of their parents’ toxicity.
I know that “trauma” gets thrown about recklessly today. I despise how popular it shows up modern media. At the same time, it is a relevant topic that many people are working through at this very moment.
Avoiding politics, the pandemic and the social isolation was a brain altering experience. There’s plenty of blame to throw around but I am not interested in discussing that: only recognizing the emotional and mental toll those several years have brought upon us all. You can still encounter broken humans who are unable to move on since 2020.
"With all that we have learned about the biological and psychological causes for psychopathy, narcissism, and the lingering effects of childhood abuse, we are still unable to fully comprehend how a person can become so toxic."
If people would just crack open a Bible, they'd know we are all born sinful. That's the most self evident thing in the universe. Anyone who has raised or even just spent time around small children can see that.
Yes, there are degrees. Not everyone behaves like Cathy. But we are all broken to some extent.
Because the novel has a lot of religious themes, I will work within that framework. Yes, humanity was cast out of Eden because the fruit of knowledge imbued them with the concept of sin.
Steinbeck says Cathy was evil. That MIGHT be true. If she was born without a strong sense of empathy, she could have been raised without developing any compassion. She might have grown into a clinical narcissist or sociopath. Neither of us are truly qualified to say for sure.
But at the same time, if this book is so incredible, then we should be able to dissect it from a number of perspectives: including the trustworthiness of the narrator.
So, we look at Cathy. Is she evil? Was something just broken in her rearing? That doesn’t excuse her behavior. I forget which brother she married and then abandoned. If I remember correctly, she gave birth to a boy and then left. This detestable act is common enough. Usually broken adults who are not ready to become parents will abandon their children. Does that make the parents of every orphan “evil”?
Long ago, I was in Salinas (the actual inspiration for this novel) and I spoke with a member of the John Steinbeck museum. There was a discussion about the theory that Cathy was Steinbeck’s ex-wife. If we assume that as part of his inspiration, then Steinbeck may have been processing his own rejection within the novel. Cathy becomes a melodramatic villain for him to vent.
Really? I think this theory is VERY relevant to one angle of literary analysis.
We can and should explore what context an author writes. It isn’t the only way to explore a novel. It just provides insight.
George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. We can discuss one, or the other, but looking back at his past gives us a greater understanding of his writings. George Orwell fought fascism in Spain before he wrote those books.
Additionally, Stephen King is a well documented alcoholic and drug addict. He even admitted to composing some of his novels while “blacked out”. When he recovered from his binging, he discovered a first draft of at least one of his better known works (I believe it was Christine). We can find value in this knowledge when rereading The Shining or Doctor Sleep.
But I do believe that I said it before: There isn’t a single interpretation for any decent novel. Taking the author’s own words as canon is not wrong. Authorial intent is a valid point… just not the only one.
Finally, there are times when an author writes a novel and we are not supposed to trust the narrator: Lolita, Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby. These examples are famously acknowledged as using an unreliable narrator. So, we should be critical of a narrator’s words. Sometimes distrusting an author’s intent can provide food for thought.
Very well said. I can appreciate this idea. I can’t appreciate changing the narrative, based on it. Obviously, most writers are using personal experience in writing there stories. I object to changing there written word based on it. That’s really it. Hemingway was definitely influenced by his experience in WWI, everyone knows this. This doesn’t allow me to rewrite “A Farewell to Arms” or change his narrative, or add some kind of background to a character. This is all I’m saying. Make a movie, stay true to the story. The rest is for students of literature to discuss and argue about.
Fair point. When you see Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, do you get upset by the last monologue from Katherine?
She talks to future brides about marriage: “And dart not scornful glances from those eyes
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor.
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,”
I have seen one recital play it earnestly. The energetic and independent wife has turned tradwife and is encouraging the girls to be submissive.
More often, I see it acted out sarcastically. Katherine mocks those who demand women serve their husbands.
Heck, I once saw an actress put on a red satin devil costume and portray the lines as if they are instructions for damnation. I still don’t understand that logic, but it sort of worked… and it definitely stuck with me.
Returning to cinematic adaptations… it is just impossible to stick to the source at times. There are attempts to stay one hundred percent consistent with a novel and the visual medium just drags or gets lost in the process. Changes have to be made.
I agree that there has to be a limit to full freedom. If I go see East of Eden and the miniseries axes all reference to Catherine, then I will be disappointed. Likewise, if they ignore the fabulous, philosophical discussion about “thou [may/will/must] conquer evil” then I will also get angry. But keeping dense and thoughtful moral conversations is not going to entertain audiences.
That is true, as far as adaptions go. They usually do add certain elements for dramatic effect. Maybe twist the ending a bit. It usually upsets people that loved the book, but millions never read it and don’t care, as long as it’s entertaining. All this talk, and we haven’t even seen the adaption yet, which is kinda crazy when you think about it. Anyway, I appreciate the back and forth, I guess I’ll have to watch it and see if it’s an egregious retelling or just some subtle change that doesn’t really bastardize the original story.
Forgive me if I'm being dense (no coffee yet this morning), but if East of Eden "is the second greatest novel ever written about the power of personal agency," what is the first?
She is not alone. The Brothers Karamazov is generally believed to be the greatest novel ever written; and a primary part of that is its analysis of good and evil.
From what I know about Liza, it would be something by Dostoyevsky. Most likely The Brothers Karamazov but maybe she’d give title to Crime and Punishment.
A necessary and important essay.The relativism, the re-invention of evil as "good," the everybody-has-his-reasons, the sheer inability to see, recognize, and call out evil is killing us
Well, this was timely. Solely on account of this Substack, I ordered a copy of East of Eden a couple weeks ago and started reading this weekend. Read through the first 8 chapters. Imagine my surprise to see this in my email this morning! (I did stop reading today’s post about halfway through to avoid spoilers.)
>“Zoe [Kazan] wasn’t interested in making [Cathy Ames] just a monster. She was interested in understanding her.” In fact, Pugh wants us to “sympathize and maybe fall in love with [Cathy] a little bit.”
“Just” and “a little bit” are the key here. I think Pugh isn’t trying to make Ames sympathetic, let alone a heroine, but to avoid a cardboard “monster” character motivated by nothing we can understand.
If I understand them correctly, their point is actually similar to yours. If Ames had no choice but to act as she did due to her “malformed soul,” she was not evil, but merely insane. Kazan and Pugh argue that she is like us in the sense that she could choose between good and bad.
I need to reread EoE. It's been years. I always struggle with stories with big family trees and multiple generations. (Also, WHY do authors name characters with the same names?!) Most of my mental energy is devoted to keep track of who is who.
But I do remember Cathy. I didn't remember all the details, so thanks for the recap. All I remembered was I had never before hated a character as much as I hated that woman! Never in all my life had I had such a reaction to a book. I LOATHED her.
I wonder if Steinbeck did it intentionally as a "tribute" or callback to Wuthering Heights? I have no idea. Just a wild guess on my part. It maybe has nothing to do with it.
It is possible but there isn’t really a connection between the two characters besides their name. Cathy Earnshaw isn’t evil, she just gets herself into a toxic relationship with Heathcliff. Cathy Ames is the embodiment of evil.
East of Eden is my all time favorite book and I was hopeful about the adaptation until I read the interviews with the cast and director. I doubt I will even waste my time watching it now. It is a sad state of affairs for sure. Also won't be watching the Narnia mess.
Same here. I was hopeful that a 7-part series could capture some of its breadth and beauty. I can’t think of a more ambitious and sweeping book than East of Eden. It is part love letter to California, part family lore, and part remarkable tale of personal agency. It’s also one of my top 10 favorites of all time. Instead, we have been shown that it was taken on by people who seemingly willfully misinterpreted it.
I really like “Grapes of Wrath”. I read it in high school, and then again many years later, partly because my nephew was in a stage production. I don’t think of it as simply “American Dream is gone” but more along the lines of a semi-history. I have mixed feelings about “Of Mice and Men” because I saw the film first and that often makes the book just strange.
I’ve not read much else of his. I found the short stories simply not engaging.
I will give East of Eden a try. Even without any knowledge of it other than the title and the author, it would never occur to me that it wasn’t , in some way, connected to Cain and Abel.
That's the thing, though. You still have some connection to the Bible, even as literature. Even if you have never read the Bible, that reference is in your mind through the culture. Many people today no longer have that cultural memory.
That’s so true. A good friend who is an atheist has said she was very grateful for a course that included a lot of basic Bible literacy because so much of Western civilization - literature, art and music assumes a degree of knowledge.
ANd that knowledge is vanishing. Years ago , a co-worker shocked me when he asked me about ‘that weird play and meal in the middle of a wedding ceremony’ by which he mean a standard communion service.
The Grapes of Wrath cannot be about the death of the American Dream, because its writing precedes the notion of the American Dream by at least 20 years. And the notion of the death of same dream dates from the period after Reagan's election in 1980.
We live in times where people go soft headed on evil foolishly believing that it is okay as long as doesn't blindside them when they least expect it. Only as long as they don't have to take the fall. This seems to be playing out in all aspects of our society and everyone's lives. And so it seeps into Netflix.
What I find kind of hilarious, is that the first paragraph of the “Major Themes” part of Wikipedia’s page on East of Eden makes explicit reference to Cain and Able and references the quotation from Genesis from which the title is derived. She didn’t even have to read the book, she just needed to do some minimal amount of research on the book. She didn’t bother, which says pretty much everything.
Yes she literally just had to look on Wikipedia. 😂
That’s “Cain and Abel…”
I'm so sick of other people telling me that my reading, my comprehension, my "imagining" is not sufficient when I read something, so I need those same people (who make it clear in every action that they hate me) to "reimagine" it for me. Thankfully I don't watch any of this crap because they always give themselves away, but it disgusts me all the same.
Great essay.
I loved East of Eden. It is one of my favorite books, and I had the same reaction as you did. I read it about the same time (early high school years). I didn't like the Grapes of Wrath, and my English teacher suggested I read East of Eden. When baby Adam is given a rag with whiskey because he wouldn't stop crying, I was floored. I had never read anything like it, and maybe because I tend to be a nurturer, it was a scene that has stuck with me my entire life. (Plus, the beauty of the area, near where I grew up, is so well done by Steinbeck. It reminds me of what California had been during its golden years.) .... You are absolutely correct in your analysis of Cathy Ames. God gave us free will. There is good and there is evil and we ignore evil at our peril.
I'll add, that as a thriller writer I will always seek to understand why my villains do what they do. That doesn't mean I sympathize with all of them, or that they are always justified in their actions, but that understanding villains also helps us understand our heroes.
Interestingly, my Grandmother told me about whiskey on a bottle nipple and pipe smoke in the ear for earache.
I've heard of it too, ha. But Adam's father gave him whiskey because he was grieving his dead wife and didn't have milk, nor the will to go out and get it. The baby was basically drunk for a couple days.
Ironically it’s been probably 45 years since I read East of Eden and forget more than I remember.
Ditto -- but I remember vividly the scene with the whiskey. I didn't remember the fake rape scene until Liza mentioned it in the article, but I did remember Cathy burning down her house with her parents inside.
I'm so glad other readers didn't like The Grapes of Wrath! I couldn't finish it. I've always been a bit embarrassed to admit that because TGOW is supposedly one of the Great American Novels.
I had to read it in high school and just thought it was depressing. East of Eden was depressing, but there was also hope, and it was beautifully written. I also love family sagas. The people in the story made it unputdownable.
It’s not as great as East of Eden! Lol
I find it rather depressing that so many people now seem unable to recognise the power of The Grapes of Wrath. It is generally viewed as Steinbeck's best work, and is certainly the most widely read. It reveals to the world the true face of the exploitative laissez-faire capitalism of inter-war America, and gives a sign of hope in the devotion of family members to each other. Anyone who is unable to appreciate that needs to carefully review their degree of humanity and compassion.
I agree that the book offered hope within family, but I felt that Steinbeck treated the "Okies" religion (among other things) mockingly. He also had caricatures of "greedy" villains. And Steinbeck got a lot of things wrong. (IMO) -- historically, many of those displaced ended up in cities, not on California farms. The Depression, drought, and hardship were real. So were bad farming, collapsing prices, and local cruelty.
I didn't feel that Steinbeck mocked the Okies in any way, but that he showed understanding and compassion As for the greedy villains being caricatures, I felt them to be an accurate representation of people exploiting the Okies' desperation. He chose to focus on a group who worked in fruit-picking; this was not a denial that many migrants went to cities. I fail to see what point your last two sentences are making.
No reason to watch another retelling of a classic through the eyes of a modern feminist lens. They use the names of tried and true classics only to get people to watch. Full well knowing it’s the only shot anyone would be interested in there awful storytelling. East of Eden was a wonderful story that needs no further interpretation. Making a series that is true to the source material would be wildly popular, no reimagining is needed. These narcissists just don’t see it that way. I suspect they will make Cathy the victim of some sort of abuse at a young age, most likely by her father or some sort of Christian pastor to explain her evil ways. Completely ignoring the text Steinbeck laid out in plain English.
Destruction of the source material and demoralization of the fans is the point.
What gets me is that people keep paying for it. (And then being disappointed.) What did you expect? How many times do you have to be kicked in the face before you realize... there's a 99% chance I'm going to get kicked in the face. When they tell you who they are, believe them!
A classic only becomes that because it continues to be read beyond its publication. People rarely read the forgotten authors and their novels… who knows how good they might be in comparison.
So we have to ask, “Why do people continue to read these classics? What is so relevant to people in later generations?”
What makes this book so special when it came out roughly 74 years ago? I would argue that Cathy and the nature of “evil”, embodied in a human, is the point. We are told to believe she is born bad, but we are not given many clues about her upbringing.
With all that we have learned about the biological and psychological causes for psychopathy, narcissism, and the lingering effects of childhood abuse, we are still unable to fully comprehend how a person can become so toxic. I need to reread this novel for my own personal edification, but I tend to believe that there was a biological predisposition for her actions and her family/upbringing did nothing to prevent the literary train wreck. As a retired teacher, I saw plenty of children who were unable to escape the gravity of their parents’ toxicity.
I know that “trauma” gets thrown about recklessly today. I despise how popular it shows up modern media. At the same time, it is a relevant topic that many people are working through at this very moment.
Avoiding politics, the pandemic and the social isolation was a brain altering experience. There’s plenty of blame to throw around but I am not interested in discussing that: only recognizing the emotional and mental toll those several years have brought upon us all. You can still encounter broken humans who are unable to move on since 2020.
"With all that we have learned about the biological and psychological causes for psychopathy, narcissism, and the lingering effects of childhood abuse, we are still unable to fully comprehend how a person can become so toxic."
If people would just crack open a Bible, they'd know we are all born sinful. That's the most self evident thing in the universe. Anyone who has raised or even just spent time around small children can see that.
Yes, there are degrees. Not everyone behaves like Cathy. But we are all broken to some extent.
Because the novel has a lot of religious themes, I will work within that framework. Yes, humanity was cast out of Eden because the fruit of knowledge imbued them with the concept of sin.
Steinbeck says Cathy was evil. That MIGHT be true. If she was born without a strong sense of empathy, she could have been raised without developing any compassion. She might have grown into a clinical narcissist or sociopath. Neither of us are truly qualified to say for sure.
But at the same time, if this book is so incredible, then we should be able to dissect it from a number of perspectives: including the trustworthiness of the narrator.
So, we look at Cathy. Is she evil? Was something just broken in her rearing? That doesn’t excuse her behavior. I forget which brother she married and then abandoned. If I remember correctly, she gave birth to a boy and then left. This detestable act is common enough. Usually broken adults who are not ready to become parents will abandon their children. Does that make the parents of every orphan “evil”?
Long ago, I was in Salinas (the actual inspiration for this novel) and I spoke with a member of the John Steinbeck museum. There was a discussion about the theory that Cathy was Steinbeck’s ex-wife. If we assume that as part of his inspiration, then Steinbeck may have been processing his own rejection within the novel. Cathy becomes a melodramatic villain for him to vent.
Really? I think this theory is VERY relevant to one angle of literary analysis.
We can and should explore what context an author writes. It isn’t the only way to explore a novel. It just provides insight.
George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. We can discuss one, or the other, but looking back at his past gives us a greater understanding of his writings. George Orwell fought fascism in Spain before he wrote those books.
Additionally, Stephen King is a well documented alcoholic and drug addict. He even admitted to composing some of his novels while “blacked out”. When he recovered from his binging, he discovered a first draft of at least one of his better known works (I believe it was Christine). We can find value in this knowledge when rereading The Shining or Doctor Sleep.
But I do believe that I said it before: There isn’t a single interpretation for any decent novel. Taking the author’s own words as canon is not wrong. Authorial intent is a valid point… just not the only one.
Finally, there are times when an author writes a novel and we are not supposed to trust the narrator: Lolita, Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby. These examples are famously acknowledged as using an unreliable narrator. So, we should be critical of a narrator’s words. Sometimes distrusting an author’s intent can provide food for thought.
Very well said. I can appreciate this idea. I can’t appreciate changing the narrative, based on it. Obviously, most writers are using personal experience in writing there stories. I object to changing there written word based on it. That’s really it. Hemingway was definitely influenced by his experience in WWI, everyone knows this. This doesn’t allow me to rewrite “A Farewell to Arms” or change his narrative, or add some kind of background to a character. This is all I’m saying. Make a movie, stay true to the story. The rest is for students of literature to discuss and argue about.
Fair point. When you see Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, do you get upset by the last monologue from Katherine?
She talks to future brides about marriage: “And dart not scornful glances from those eyes
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor.
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,”
I have seen one recital play it earnestly. The energetic and independent wife has turned tradwife and is encouraging the girls to be submissive.
More often, I see it acted out sarcastically. Katherine mocks those who demand women serve their husbands.
Heck, I once saw an actress put on a red satin devil costume and portray the lines as if they are instructions for damnation. I still don’t understand that logic, but it sort of worked… and it definitely stuck with me.
Returning to cinematic adaptations… it is just impossible to stick to the source at times. There are attempts to stay one hundred percent consistent with a novel and the visual medium just drags or gets lost in the process. Changes have to be made.
I agree that there has to be a limit to full freedom. If I go see East of Eden and the miniseries axes all reference to Catherine, then I will be disappointed. Likewise, if they ignore the fabulous, philosophical discussion about “thou [may/will/must] conquer evil” then I will also get angry. But keeping dense and thoughtful moral conversations is not going to entertain audiences.
That is true, as far as adaptions go. They usually do add certain elements for dramatic effect. Maybe twist the ending a bit. It usually upsets people that loved the book, but millions never read it and don’t care, as long as it’s entertaining. All this talk, and we haven’t even seen the adaption yet, which is kinda crazy when you think about it. Anyway, I appreciate the back and forth, I guess I’ll have to watch it and see if it’s an egregious retelling or just some subtle change that doesn’t really bastardize the original story.
Indeed. 😉
Forgive me if I'm being dense (no coffee yet this morning), but if East of Eden "is the second greatest novel ever written about the power of personal agency," what is the first?
I believe she puts The Brothers Karamazov in the number one spot.
She is not alone. The Brothers Karamazov is generally believed to be the greatest novel ever written; and a primary part of that is its analysis of good and evil.
Cat in the Hat. 😉
I would say that she would say Brothers, for sure…
Or possibly Anna Karenina 🤓
From what I know about Liza, it would be something by Dostoyevsky. Most likely The Brothers Karamazov but maybe she’d give title to Crime and Punishment.
‘Just William’ - the bits with Violet Elizabeth Bott.
I also want to know!
Maybe Huck Finn?
A necessary and important essay.The relativism, the re-invention of evil as "good," the everybody-has-his-reasons, the sheer inability to see, recognize, and call out evil is killing us
"Great literature must contain a moral vision." This, in a nutshell. That same actually applies to good commercial fiction, too.
Well, this was timely. Solely on account of this Substack, I ordered a copy of East of Eden a couple weeks ago and started reading this weekend. Read through the first 8 chapters. Imagine my surprise to see this in my email this morning! (I did stop reading today’s post about halfway through to avoid spoilers.)
>“Zoe [Kazan] wasn’t interested in making [Cathy Ames] just a monster. She was interested in understanding her.” In fact, Pugh wants us to “sympathize and maybe fall in love with [Cathy] a little bit.”
“Just” and “a little bit” are the key here. I think Pugh isn’t trying to make Ames sympathetic, let alone a heroine, but to avoid a cardboard “monster” character motivated by nothing we can understand.
If I understand them correctly, their point is actually similar to yours. If Ames had no choice but to act as she did due to her “malformed soul,” she was not evil, but merely insane. Kazan and Pugh argue that she is like us in the sense that she could choose between good and bad.
Those who deny evil are the ones who will commit evil.
I need to reread EoE. It's been years. I always struggle with stories with big family trees and multiple generations. (Also, WHY do authors name characters with the same names?!) Most of my mental energy is devoted to keep track of who is who.
But I do remember Cathy. I didn't remember all the details, so thanks for the recap. All I remembered was I had never before hated a character as much as I hated that woman! Never in all my life had I had such a reaction to a book. I LOATHED her.
And then I read Wuthering Heights.
What is it with woman named Cathy with a "C"?!
Well Catherine with a C used to be the more common spelling.
I wonder if Steinbeck did it intentionally as a "tribute" or callback to Wuthering Heights? I have no idea. Just a wild guess on my part. It maybe has nothing to do with it.
It is possible but there isn’t really a connection between the two characters besides their name. Cathy Earnshaw isn’t evil, she just gets herself into a toxic relationship with Heathcliff. Cathy Ames is the embodiment of evil.
East of Eden is my all time favorite book and I was hopeful about the adaptation until I read the interviews with the cast and director. I doubt I will even waste my time watching it now. It is a sad state of affairs for sure. Also won't be watching the Narnia mess.
Same here. I was hopeful that a 7-part series could capture some of its breadth and beauty. I can’t think of a more ambitious and sweeping book than East of Eden. It is part love letter to California, part family lore, and part remarkable tale of personal agency. It’s also one of my top 10 favorites of all time. Instead, we have been shown that it was taken on by people who seemingly willfully misinterpreted it.
I really like “Grapes of Wrath”. I read it in high school, and then again many years later, partly because my nephew was in a stage production. I don’t think of it as simply “American Dream is gone” but more along the lines of a semi-history. I have mixed feelings about “Of Mice and Men” because I saw the film first and that often makes the book just strange.
I’ve not read much else of his. I found the short stories simply not engaging.
I will give East of Eden a try. Even without any knowledge of it other than the title and the author, it would never occur to me that it wasn’t , in some way, connected to Cain and Abel.
That's the thing, though. You still have some connection to the Bible, even as literature. Even if you have never read the Bible, that reference is in your mind through the culture. Many people today no longer have that cultural memory.
That’s so true. A good friend who is an atheist has said she was very grateful for a course that included a lot of basic Bible literacy because so much of Western civilization - literature, art and music assumes a degree of knowledge.
ANd that knowledge is vanishing. Years ago , a co-worker shocked me when he asked me about ‘that weird play and meal in the middle of a wedding ceremony’ by which he mean a standard communion service.
Yep! We took it for granted for generations that people would simply know basic concepts, names, phrases, etc. In many places, it's nearly gone now.
The Grapes of Wrath cannot be about the death of the American Dream, because its writing precedes the notion of the American Dream by at least 20 years. And the notion of the death of same dream dates from the period after Reagan's election in 1980.
Give The Pearl a try too! I reread it a couple of years ago and was blown away by it. The way music threads through it is exquisitely done.
I will !
Bravo!
We live in times where people go soft headed on evil foolishly believing that it is okay as long as doesn't blindside them when they least expect it. Only as long as they don't have to take the fall. This seems to be playing out in all aspects of our society and everyone's lives. And so it seeps into Netflix.
This is one of the best takes I’ve read on the zeitgeist of suicidal empathy. Excellent article.