欧宝娱乐

"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"

You missed it. Adam Trask's servant Lee had in fact attended Berkley and was interested in translating poetry between languages. Lee was the one who claimed to have read the Cain and Able story in the original Hebrew. So Lee did have formal education.

Ok, so it should read:

Three people, two of whom have no formal education whatsoever, sit around discussing the time they read the Old Testament in Hebrew.

Hm. Doesn't seem to make much of a difference, does it?

I guess you miss the irony that the servant is the one who has the formal education in the group. Samuel Hamilton was self educated. He lacked formal education but was quite well read. Such people did exist at one time. I had many philosophical discussions with friends similar to what is portrayed before I went back to college and got "formally" educated. I guess I am saying I didn't find that part of the book far fetched. Now why the story of the Hamiltons is even included is a different topic altogether.

Such people still exist. But the unlikelihood of people with no formal education reading the Old Testament in Hebrew -- and yes, even among the self-educated, it is unlikely -- was really the least of my problems with this awful book. Really, Steinbeck should have just stopped at The Grapes of Wrath, which isn't a great book but at least had something to say.

And you give Steinbeck way too much credit; I don't think "irony" was what he was going for. In fact, I doubt very highly that word was in Steinbeck's vocabulary, except perhaps for the times that he decried it while shaking his head and clucking ruefully at what cynics people were for disliking his work. (He was good at that.) I think in context, "patronizing" is a little closer to the point.

I can see East of Eden not being your taste, but to hate it vehemently seems a suspicious and skewed emotional reaction having little to do with the book and more the reader. The only people I have ever met who passionately dislike this book have old white man hangups, aren鈥檛 used to reading epics or are closet writers who have no natural ability. It is like actors who hate Meryl Streep. I think it's a visceral reaction to, Why does everyone worship what I can't do? Why can鈥檛 playful mediocrity be celebrated? The fact is that the book does contain wisdom, without being cynical, quirky or dry. If you don't have any real insight and thus don鈥檛 really have anything to say, it is much easier to write something creative and intelligent if it is without sentiment, cynical, off-beat - but it will not be exceptional (not that it can't be both, e.g., Tom Robbins, if you have some depth to offer). You have a right to your opinion, but if you are at all concerned that your opinion is credible your adjectives are again inaccurate (patronizing? to adopt an air of condescension toward; treat haughtily or coolly?) and you come across as reactionary not as an insightful reader (and no, I don鈥檛 think you have to be a cynic to dislike Steinbeck, and no, my loyalty is not such that I would dismiss anyone who did not enjoy this book).

Such interesting theses you've laid out! Let's go through them, shall we?

1) Old white man hangups: Nope. In fact, if you care to read some of my other reviews, you'll see that I've specifically criticized people who do have those hangups. (I'll save you some time and point you to my review of "Reading Like a Writer" by Francine Prose, for one.) And you know, I hate to point out something so simple, but, um, have you by any chance taken the time to make one simple mouse click and look at my list of favorite books and writers? No, I don't suppose you have.

2) Aren鈥檛 used to reading epics: This one is funny on a couple of levels! Yes, that's right -- I didn't like this book because its genius and sweep were too big for my little mind to grasp! Hahahaha no. And I was hardly unaccustomed to reading "epics" before I read this sorry excuse for one.

3) Closet writers who have no natural ability: Nope. I'm not a writer, either for a living or otherwise (unless you count the occasional blog entry), and have never had any desire to be. So no jealousy issues that you can hang this one on, sorry.

Look, it's quite simple: I hate this book, think it has no merit, literary or otherwise, and I've said why. If you want to keep digging for some better ulterior motives than the ones you've come up with (She must be jealous! She must be a feminist! She must not like challenging books! -- I like the first one particularly, very grade seven), knock yourself out, but you won't get any further than you already have.

And hell, if you want to puff yourself up like a little marshmallow, stomping your foot and accusing me of being "reactionary" because I dared to criticize one of your literary idols, that's fine too. But there's really no hidden subtext in what I've already said.

And speaking of "patronizing" -- yes, hon, I do know what that word means, thanks.

Why does the book make you angry?

It's not so much the book itself that makes me angry as people's reaction to it. So many books are under-read and under-appreciated, it annoys me that people spend so much time over-praising this one and telling everyone what a masterpiece it is, so that a whole other generation of readers can waste their time on it.

It also annoys me when people personally attack me, a complete stranger, for not liking the same book they liked. I've deleted the abusive comments I've received on this review, but you'll have to trust me that there were some real doozies. For some reason, none of the other books to which I've given unfavorable reviews have generated such a response. I don't know why that is, but it's been interesting (for lack of a better word) to see.

I only started reading it last night, so I don't have a real opinion on it yet. I saw the movie when I was a teen and really liked it...

I was just curious if there was something particular in the book that got under your skin or if it was more a feeling that the book is esteemed too highly in general.

But already I am struck by certain turns of phrase in his description of the Salinas Valley (I live near this area) that resonate and make me want to read again because they gave me pleasure.

For instance, "Then there were harebells, tiny lanterns, cream white and almost sinful looking, and these were so rare and magical that a child, finding one, felt singled out and special all day long."

I wanted to kiss the page when I read that. :)

Sure, I can certainly see why someone might like it. I don't really understand the worshipful attitude of some, nor do I understand why people get so agitated when someone dislikes the book. (Although I seem to be nearly the only one in the world who doesn't like it, so maybe it's just something about me that sets them off. I don't rule that out. Anyway.)

Name one book better than east of Eden and I could turn your very own rant against you.

I'm sure you could. So what? I'm not saying my view is the only valid one. So I'm not sure what your point is.

And you bring up, probably unintentionally, an interesting point: what do you mean "against you"? I wasn't talking about anyone but Steinbeck, so why do people seem to feel that I've offended them personally by disliking the book they liked? Obviously, I'm a tiny minority, shouting by myself in the corner; at the time of this writing, this book has something like a 4.3 rating. Who the hell cares if someone in another state sits at a computer and rants about a much-beloved book in the American canon?

But hey, I don't have to name a book I think is better than East of Eden. You can see my list of books. Go crazy, if you feel like you have to defend Steinbeck's honor.

ahaha, just noticed you had a shelf called "overrated." of course you do. i haven't read all the books on your "overrated" list, but of those i've read, i agree with most of your assessments. i disagree with your assessments of the mary pipher book, angela's ashes, and the pearl (based on the fact that i enjoyed it in 8th grade).

The biggest thing I remember about The Pearl is that Mr. Walker, my eighth grade teacher, used the Cliff's Notes to teach it to us. That's right, Cliff's Notes. Or maybe Monarch notes. One of those.

Steinbeck bugs me.

really. i hadn't guessed.

I just wanted to voice my appreciation for your opinion. I happened to enjoy East of Eden (long before Oprah instructed everyone to read it and appreciate it)...but that doesn't prevent me from respecting your opinion and feeling grateful for different/intelligent perspectives. I'm headed off to see your "overrated" shelf right now. :) Happy New Year!

Thanks, I appreciate it!

If you had such a problem with the first page discussing the box, what would possess you to read the next 600? Let me guess...just to add another classic to your belt hole?!

Are you seriously maintaining that you really can't think, right offhand, of about half a dozen reasons that people might finish a book even if they didn't like the first page? Really?

Also, help me out here, if you would: what does "add another classic to your belt hole" mean? Are you trying to say something like, "Add another notch to your belt"?

However you want to interpret it

Great! I'll interpret it to mean you're not a native English speaker.

Your opinion of the book, your reaction, was a big motivation in my own reading of the novel. Perhaps you were not in the target audience. It is very strange to have such a one sided view on anything and especially something that so many people do appreciate.

I am sorry you were left out.

WOW! I am surprised by this review although I do agree that the portion of the book where they sit around and discuss "thou mayest" just didn't work for me. I still found it an inspiring novel in so many ways. Oh well, not everyone has the same taste. I hope you find something you like next time.

I agree with you. Its hard to find a novel where every sentence/ word clicks perfectly. But this one came darn close!

This is insane. I am not even on page 200, and I'm in love! Laura, you come off as very negative. I don't really understand why it has you so worked up. I mean, if you don't like the book, you just don't like it. It doesn't mean Steinbeck is any less talented.

I'm about to read this, so I will have your review in mind as I go into it: the only review this negative. No idea whether you're right, but thanks at least for having the guts to go against the grain about a 'great novel'.

Is it the only one? I thought there was one other.

Anyhow, maybe one day I'll read it again to check myself. Maybe I was in a bad mood the week I read it, or something.

Oh, and thank you for not leaving a comment that says, in essence, "You suck."

O, I know how you feel. People don't take kindly in today's literary world to someone who doesn't like Modernism like myself.

I cant but love the mans poetry, but i can see how his ideologys could annoy you. I just try and see it as an old mans last book, you got to expect some rambling/lecturing.

But I am an old woman!

Its a fair point, but i dont remember age was ever being a barrier for my grandaddys lectures. That aside, its a semi-biographical story about nurture and nature, especially the father-son relationship , so its going to have that 'i remember back when' feel to it. May its not for some.

I got to tell you, I really enjoyed reading all the comments to your review! I loved this book ... but have the utmost respect when someone can make a strong statement/review and hold their own when challenged! Well done with defending you review Laura! The fact is we don't have to agree, but isn't that ultimately what makes the world go round?? LOL Rachel :)

I'm half way through this and it's turning my stomach. Nice to hear I'm not alone. I hate putting down a book I've invested in so I'll try to finish it, and hope that somewhere along the way something grabs me and I revise my opinion.

I liked the book, but I have to agree, that being written by Steinbeck and after having read Grapes of Wrath and loved it, I was a little disappointed. A lot of the dialogue seem far fetched and in the end, the message of good vs evil and everyone of us have good and evil in us, yet we have free will and choose whether to do right or wrong is nothing new (has anyone heard of the Bible?), so it's not like he was introducing a new philosophy. In that sense, I can agree that I don't understand why people revere this book.

I was surprised by your review, but impressed nonetheless that you've stood your ground on your opinion :-) Bravo. It's good to see differing opinions on novels such as this.

Thanks for the last three comments, Evelyn, Mariel, and Lyss! I have to admit I shudder a bit when I notice there are new comments on this review, so it was nice to read yours.

This novel showed me that the act of loving in itself is enough, and for that I am grateful. Yes it is verbose at times, and yes there are whole sections that the book could do without. But I loved every page.

I don't see how you can hate this book! I just started it last Sunday because one of my friends has been begging me to read it, and I can't put it down. Heck, I feel like I've learned more in this week than I did in the whole tenth grade. I mean it, too. No book has made me go this crazy since The Catcher in the Rye. And that was back when I was a very Holden Caulfield-esque ninth grader. And I've read a lot of books since then. And I mean a lot.
And maybe some people think this book is great just because Steinbeck wrote it, but I actually sort of hated him before I read it. I was assigned Of Mice and Men last summer and I thought it was pointless...even though I thought Lennie was funny. But that's beside the point. :P
Anyways, I respect your opinion...but I just don't understand it!

The entire middle of the book could have not happened and I would have been a little happier. I felt there was enough good portions of the book to make it readable, but I can see where you are coming from.

What?? People sent you hate mail? Wow. Well, I I know where your review is coming from, because I figured out some things about Steinbeck myself: He puts God into the framework of a naturalist worldview, and makes both God and himself look stupid. (I have to open my copy again, and see whether misunderstood the conversation about Cain and Abel or whether Steinbeck actually claims God rejected Cain's sacrifice because He preferred sheep to vegetables.

Anyway, I know much of the book blathers. It's the drama that I appreciated, especially the bizarre sociopathic behavior of Cathy/Kate.

Well, I should have said "Hate PMs," but yep, I got hate mail. Really, I'm a bit mystified about why people can't simply have their own opinions and move on with their lives, but there you have it.

I read about the first half, and hated it. And everyone kept telling me it would get better, and was the best... But after your reading your review I have decided my first impression of the book was correct, and I wont even be bothered to read the end. Saw the movie. James Dean is dreamy.

You had read half (which by my calculation is about 300 pages) and people kept telling you it would get better? When were they expecting it to get better? Page 500? I don't get people sometimes, honestly I don't. Oh well!

Agree with you about James Dean, though. I love him in Rebel Without a Cause.

Laura, I sent you a friend request (or whatever this site calls them) because I like your sass and your support of the idea that just because something is considered a classic to most doesn't mean it won't completely suck for others. Don't even get me stared on Heart of Darkness...

Hopefully you will accept, and I can continue to read more of your, um, passionate reviews ;)

ps - I am still going to read Eden. I like to have an opinion, regardless of its direction.

Anyone who liked "The Devil All the Time" is ok by me!

I appreciate opinions like yours about books. Your opinion is the kind of opinion that indicates a good book because of the emotion the book has stimulated in you. Good job indicating how the book is worth reading. I鈥檒l be picking this up today. Thanks.

I do not worship the book, but I would say that it is absolutely a well-written book and Steinbeck is absolutely brilliant in how he has constructed the story. The book was deep...even profound to me. I understand that for every book that I have loved, someone else thinks it is the worst thing ever and visa versa. I am just glad that I finally got around to reading it and am convinced that it has earned its place as being considered one of the best American novels ever written.

Gack. For this they gave him the Nobel Prize?
They awarded Steinbeck the Nobel Prize after he wrote The Winter of Our Discontent, not this book. Also, the Nobel Prize is awarded for a body of work as a whole, not an individual novel.