Sarah Mikucki asked this question about
East of Eden:
Does East of Eden want to put evilness/sinfulness in a sympathetic light?
Alex Criscolo
I'd have to say no, East of Eden does not strive to sympathize evil/sin, and here's why. We are offered a thorough variety of characters and personali…mǰI'd have to say no, East of Eden does not strive to sympathize evil/sin, and here's why. We are offered a thorough variety of characters and personalities, some of which may be considered good, others may be considered bad, while several fall in the grey area that we all tend to believe humanity lies--both good and bad. I have seen answers that talk about how no one in the novel is truly good or truly bad, which is a false statement. It was a goal of Steinbeck's to create two distinct and concrete characters, one thoroughly good, and the other, pure evil. Samuel Hamilton was written flawlessly (take that as literal as you please), while Cathy Ames was written harshly, unforgivingly evil, and downright cruel. Just as Samuel carries himself in the same godly manner we are introduced to him as throughout the book, Cathy never redeems herself, nor was she given any grounds for which she could be understood or analyzed. As a matter of fact, it is plainly written out for us that she would NOT be understood. Therefore, since we cannot justify her evilness, we cannot sympathize it, either.
Now, there are a number of different characters that I could use as an example for the human grey area of "good and bad." Because he is the first example that pops into my head, we will go ahead with Cal. Despite being raised alongside Aron, his twin brother who seems to take quite a bit from his dad, and even quite a bit more from Lee, Cal continuously shows flashes of hatred, anger, and resentment, which clearly resemble the personality of his mother. However, when it comes to his father's gift, the intentions are there and they are good, although "intentions are never enough" (just a little Steinbeck quote from The Winter of Our Discontent). Cal is not a bad person, given that he has barely lived enough of his life to establish himself as one. He is not pure evil, like his mother, but he is also strikingly different from Aron and his father. In a way , it is nearly impossible to NOT sympathize for the boy as he learns of his mother's true identity, and as he continously faces rejection from the one man who he seeks out to impress the most. And from this frustration, we do see Cal make irresponsible, immature, and even hateful decisions toward the end of the novel, and because of the sympathy that his situation (and excellently written emotional turmoil) creates, it becomes easy to make excuses for him. Which brings me to my overall point.
We all interpret novels differently. What I have taken away from this book could be completely different than what you may have taken away from it. However, I thought there was a reoccurring theme, not "good vs. bad" and not "can someone be all bad," but the concept that, despite being a sum of our surroundings, our ancestry, and our upbringing, there is a dark corner in most of our hearts that we develop ourselves, that comes from no one, that we must find the strength to silence. Whether you sympathize with Cathy's twisted encounter with Mr. Edwards or Cal's inability to act rationally in moments of heightened frustration, the book does not teach us to justify, sympathize, or excuse evilness. Rather, it teaches us that evilness is around us, and for some of us, it might be inside of us, and that we have the ultimate decision on what we do with it.(less)
Now, there are a number of different characters that I could use as an example for the human grey area of "good and bad." Because he is the first example that pops into my head, we will go ahead with Cal. Despite being raised alongside Aron, his twin brother who seems to take quite a bit from his dad, and even quite a bit more from Lee, Cal continuously shows flashes of hatred, anger, and resentment, which clearly resemble the personality of his mother. However, when it comes to his father's gift, the intentions are there and they are good, although "intentions are never enough" (just a little Steinbeck quote from The Winter of Our Discontent). Cal is not a bad person, given that he has barely lived enough of his life to establish himself as one. He is not pure evil, like his mother, but he is also strikingly different from Aron and his father. In a way , it is nearly impossible to NOT sympathize for the boy as he learns of his mother's true identity, and as he continously faces rejection from the one man who he seeks out to impress the most. And from this frustration, we do see Cal make irresponsible, immature, and even hateful decisions toward the end of the novel, and because of the sympathy that his situation (and excellently written emotional turmoil) creates, it becomes easy to make excuses for him. Which brings me to my overall point.
We all interpret novels differently. What I have taken away from this book could be completely different than what you may have taken away from it. However, I thought there was a reoccurring theme, not "good vs. bad" and not "can someone be all bad," but the concept that, despite being a sum of our surroundings, our ancestry, and our upbringing, there is a dark corner in most of our hearts that we develop ourselves, that comes from no one, that we must find the strength to silence. Whether you sympathize with Cathy's twisted encounter with Mr. Edwards or Cal's inability to act rationally in moments of heightened frustration, the book does not teach us to justify, sympathize, or excuse evilness. Rather, it teaches us that evilness is around us, and for some of us, it might be inside of us, and that we have the ultimate decision on what we do with it.(less)
Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
Rate this book
Clear rating
About ŷ Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the ŷ community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
