James Dean as Cain

I read the book a long time ago, and liked it a lot, but at that point, I had decided it didn't warrant an encore and I planned never to read it again--the book (especially Kate's evilness) was my first exposure to some very bad things.  So I wimped out like Alvin, and rented the old movie for the first time instead of reading the book again.  While I did enjoy Jimmy Dean's performance, and I generally like anything with Burl Ives, I realize, like Alvin, I think, that the film only touches a very small portion of the story . It attempts to, and does well at getting some of the themes in, but it really only hits the tip of the iceberg.  That being said, I've been fascinated with Steinbeck for a while (ever since the Grapes of Wrath in high school--I can't believe not everyone has read that!), and while some of his books are very good, this is definitely his masterpiece, and I've put it back on my list.  Incidentally, the movie does have a little Timshel--Cal recalls at the end that Adam always taught them that they had a choice--he doesn't have to be bad.  Cain to me is a special case, and I'll have to have another read or two of the Bible text and Steinbeck's novel to think it through.

I'm planning on posting for David O McKay book soon; I wanted thoughts from Eden to settle. 

Don't Judge a Book Based on it's Movie?

OK, so I didn't read the book. I saw the movie, and I thought that would be enough to get me in on the discussion. But this Timshel stuff wasn't in the movie at all. It's a nice flick, though. I'll comment on other's comments (mostly Karl's), since I can't talk about the book.

Karl - We just purchased a foreclosed home, so I totally understand the fix-it-up lifestyle, except my wife isn't about to give birth. (That's a pretty big difference.) Actually, I made my father-in-law do most of the "fixing", and we've mostly being doing painting, cleaning, and more painting and cleaing. Everything takes longer than you think. We moved in last week, and we've been busy preparing for the visit of another PVS member.

As for losing weight, we bought an elliptical machine after Thanksgiving last year, and I began to exercise while watching things on the computer. I've lost 10 pounds and am about back to pre-marriage weight. Painting is also great exercise, and it has covered for some terrible eating habits of late.

And speaking of Lost, you'll recall my previous dilemma with the show. Ultimately, I decided I wasn't going to sit on the couch and watch it without my wife. Then I started exercising, and as I was consuming media alone anyway, I started watching Lost again. I saw the season finale, an excellent episode, and I am now faced with the new dilemma of waiting to find out what happens next.

On the positive side of cleanliness in media, we did get a ClearPlay DVD player. It seamlessly edits movies, according to the settings you choose. You download the edits, and the DVD player skips or mutes the movie accordingly, so it works on rentals or borrowed library movies. If a movie's entire theme is sinister, there's not much that can be done, but it does an amazing job of cutting out the "one bad scene" or violent moment or bad word. It can edit TV shows on DVD like Lost, but the downside is you have to wait for them to come out on DVD.

As for your profession, didn't it produce some of Einstein's greatest work? Who knows where our understanding of the universe would be without the patent system.

Robert- No Steinbeck here either. (Rural Illinois education.) The biggest difference is that I still haven't read a Steinbeck.

Peter- I was expecting/hoping for more comparisons between the book and the movie, since you mentioned how much you enjoyed the film. No thoughts on the tragic career of James Dean? I'm also jealous that your library system has the David O McKay book, since mine doesn't.

Doug - Good luck with the unpacking. Know that you're not alone. I think you'll really like North Carolina. I sure did. I have a cousin that's in Durham (Spencer and Brooke Cutler); my brother is serving in the mission and was just transferred from Durham; and my in-laws live in Cary. We come to visit often, so we'll have to stop by sometime after you've unpacked.

In reference to your marriage comments, I often get the feeling that there are more disfunctional relationships than functional ones, so I am constantly grateful for my marriage. Still, people keep getting married, so maybe successful relationships aren't as rare as they are often portrayed.

Glenn- See you tomorrow! Bring a good book to listen to, as it will be a commute to your conference.

Quick Steinbeck Comments

Oh man. I am usually pretty immune to tech blunders but I just lost my post. This is my substitute post. Mostly this is just my demonstration that I'm still participating and enjoying this forum.

Thanks to Karl for picking the book; I loved it.

Writing - I agree that Steinbeck is a fantastic writer. I have given some thought to re-reading his books I read long ago; I may like them much more as an adult.

Timshel - My old post was longer; the point is I think that the exercise of agency is a vital part of life. We can't buy our own salvation, but can do something great nonetheless. An unrelated example of this comes from the medical world: it is sad how many people live their lives as a "victim," medically speaking. Obesity (possibly the single biggest epidemiologic challenge facing America), diabetes, lung disease, HIV, and several other conditions are largely avoidable, and yet the incidence grows. Why? A bad decision made, nobody chooses to reverse course. It's easier to be a victim. Oh, and I love the seminary video reference, Peter.

Prostitution - also longer in my lost post, I just wanted to say that I think someone with Steinbeck's abilities could have written this story without the promiscuity. I know prostitution is common today and was then (and promiscuity without payment is nearly ubiquitous). This is art and a representation of things as they are in the eyes of the artist. But I personally don't want to read about it.

Caricature - I usually get sucked in to a story this long and well-written. The thing that kept me from "believing" this book was the fact that all the characters are one-dimensional, basically representing one part of human nature. Of course I'm sure this is on purpose and did make me ponder what in my nature is represented by a Charles, an Adam, a Kate, or a Lee. But I do not find any of the characters believable as individuals.

Marriages - There are a few uplifting relationships in the book, mostly involving Lee and others, or Sam Hamilton and others. But it seems like every marriage in this multigenerational, multi-family saga is a shell of a relationship. I actually began to wonder if Steinbeck himself was unaware of how good a marriage can be. Kate was blind to goodness; was this Steinbeck's blindness? Like I said above, he's really caricaturizing, but it does always tend to be in the direction of less-meaningful marriages.

Religion - Although there are multiple references to religious individuals, there is no reference to uplifting religiosity. I again questioned whether this was a little of Steinbeck's personal bias slipping through.

Anyway, this was a fun read. I look forward to David O. McKay, which I will start reading as soon as we unpack in North Carolina. Becky packed the bookshelf before I could nab the book.

The Tree of Knowledge planted Eastward in Eden

Thinking about what Glenn said, about Aron and Kate being alike, I realized that knowledge plays a significant role in the development of all the main characters. Adam is perhaps the most striking example; at first he's unable to receive or process knowledge, hence his inability to consider his father's embezzlement and his blinders with regards to Kate, when in both instances Charles was able to see the situation clearly. Adam is presented with knowledge dramatically, when Kate leaves him; it takes him some time, and the help of a couple of his friends, to come to grips with that knowledge, but it eventually leads him to become a moral man. It gives him power over the scheming Kate, and an ability to face the challenges of life.

Kate, on the other hand, refuses (or is unable*) to process knowledge (of good, not evil). Aron is unable to process knowledge of evil (at least, within the scope of the book. Who knows whether his final scene is just him embarking on a journey of discovery similar to Adam's). Cal is an interesting case; he seems to seek out knowledge. This leads to abuses when he's young and unable to control the power the knowledge gives him, and later when his passions are inflamed over the slighting of his present. But he grows through the novel in wielding the power, and in the end shows a level of maturity and even responsibility.

As far as timshel goes, I think I side with Glenn. As presented, it's more or less the embodiment of agency. Which, as we all remember from the Book of Mormon seminary videos, is dependent on knowledge.

With regards to Cal's gift, and why it was rejected, I don't know about the "cultural" interpretation. I know it can be many things at once, but to me Cal's gift is steeped in an instrumental view of the world, where things (and other people) are there to be manipulated and used, rather than a respect for others as co-equals. I think it reflects very much the aspects of socialism and communism that Steinbeck believed so strongly in. This isn't a uniquely "American" question, in that sense, but America, particularly the West, where things are new and ready to be remade into other things is a perfect setting to work out these issues.

Finally, on the actual text, I'll just say that while I read it I was struck by how much better the writing was than a lot of the stuff I choose to read. I'd been thinking about whether classics were simply popular novels that got enshrined because they ended up on some English teacher's reading list. But in this case, the writing really is, IMO, sublime.

* On the issue of Kate's inability to process knowledge, it strikes me as counter to Steinbeck's conceptualization of timshel. He protrays her frequently throughout the novel as being incapable of good, thus the "thou mayest" construct doesn't seem to apply to her. Perhaps that's why he introduces her as being sub-human, a demon, etc. in the opening section; otherwise he couldn't rectify his thesis with one of his main characters.

~ 2 hrs East of Eden (give or take several thousand years)

I generally like central Missouri, except summers: hot, humid, plenty of ticks.
I miss California, except for budget shortfalls and crazy politics, and it was in a way fun to read this book and catch the names of somewhat familiar places.

I finished the book a couple of months ago and didn't write anything down as I was listening to it while I worked in the yard, walked the dog, etc. Though I do remember more of this book that I do of Grapes of Wrath, I don't have any worthwhile excerpts that I could quote.
I really enjoyed reading it, except some of the descriptions of Kate's vulgarness. Steinbeck is a master storyteller. His descriptions of people/places/events came across as very natural, as though they would be the words that would scroll across my mind if I were watching the story. Though Steinbeck is not quite as masterful as Tolkein in being able to tell a story with effective brevity, I felt as though he was able to keep the story flowing.

The character Kate reminded me somewhat of Benjamin Linus from the series LOST. She is a dangerously clever individual who is able to think several steps ahead of everyone, but ultimately she gets caught in her own game.

On the topic of Karl's first point, I agree and disagree. Karl says that Lee's take on timshel "ignores the role of Christ in overcoming sin, and places all of the responsibility of overcoming sin on the individual." Perhaps I am misunderstanding Karl's interpretation of the novel's commentary, but I believe that the Plan of Salvation truly tells us - "thou mayest." The only certainty is Christ. We will all be resurrected, and we all have the opportunity to accept the Savior's atonement and offer a proper sacrifice of our own will, but it is not a certainty. Despite everything Heavenly Father offers me, I may or I may not accept it.
But of course, Lee doesn't express it quite that way in the book (at least from what I can remember, I'd have to go back and look). Nevertheless, I remember my feeling as I listened to Lee while I washed the dinner dishes; timshel is a wonderful truth.

Thanks, Karl for getting me to read this book, and for initiating a good discussion. And congrats on the house. I look forward to seeing before and after photos.

C & A : East of Eden

I enjoyed reading East of Eden and I have to confess that I had never read Steinbeck before...nope, not even Grapes of Wrath. (That is Idaho education for ya)


Steinbeck had great character developement. There were characters I loved, some that I hated, many I related to, and some that simply disturbed me. I can see why this book was of "moral concern" when it was originally published in the early 50's. A few seasons of Law & Order SVU will pretty much desensitize a fellow.

I don't know that I have anything brilliant to say about the book. I expected the Genesis analogy to be more difficult to extract from the abstract, but it was pretty straight forward. I read reviews of the book after I finished it just to make sure there wasn't something I missed.


The prinicple of "thou mayest" struck a chord with me and fit perfectly into my understanding of agency. As Karl said, the role of a merciful Savior is essential for us to overcome justice.

East of Eden Discussion Starters

First, a little personal news. Angela and I bought a fixer-upper at the end of last month and, wow, has this month flown by as we've been fixing it up. Except for Sundays and the season finale of Lost, I can't remember the last time I sat on my couch. The sad part is, there's no way we can finish it now before Angela is scheduled to be induced. But hey, it's fun, I'm losing weight, and I'm sure it'll all be worth it in the end.

And now for East of Eden. The problem with discussing this book is that there's so much to discuss. I think my notes below are just scratching the surface.

1) Timshel. I've read several debates on whether Steinbeck got this right from a linguistic standpoint, and the reviews are mixed. So I'll back off from the linguistic side of things and focus more on the doctrine. On the one hand, Lee's interpretation seems somewhat dangerous--it ignores the role of Christ in overcoming sin, and places all of the responsibility of overcoming sin on the individual. This, as we know, is an impossible task. So it sets us up for failure. Instead, "will" may be a more accurate word than "may" because Christ overcame sin for everyone. On the other hand, I believe that Lee's interpretation is true in the sense that it imparts upon Adam and Samuel the possibility of man improving his own condition--so if by "overcome sin" we mean to learn form our mistakes, then yes it's an accurate interpretation.

An interesting side thought--Jehovah (at least, my understanding is that by "the Lord" the text refers to Jehovah at this point), is addressing not only Cain but all of mankind. Is He therefore including himself? Could it be that the prospect of "overcoming sin" was still conditional, in His mind, because he had not yet done it?

2) Could this story have worked without Kate being a whore? I think Steinbeck does an A- job of leaving things to the imagination instead of spelling things out, but I worry about the movie version of this that is supposed to come out in the next year.

3) Steinbeck goes out of his way to call Kate a half-human. But is Adam also a half-human? Is Adam the half that Kate is missing? I was initially inclined toward this interpretation, but towards the end I began to think that Aaron was in fact the other half of Kate. His inability to accept sin was just as pronounced as Kate's inability to understand good. I think this statement about Aaron describes both Aaron and Kate: "[He had] the ability for generalization that only the inexperienced have."

4) Steinbeck walked a fine line throughout the novel between writing an epic and writing a sermon. In fact, my chief complaint in the novel was that he used Lee and Samuel more to give sermons than as characters. All in all, I think Steinbeck writes well enough that I don't mind the sermons so much.

5) Lee--I just don't buy him. Especially the pidgin thing. I know Steinbeck was trying to make a point about cultural attitudes towards Asians, and I give Steinbeck props for being a little ahead of his time as far as multi-culturalism goes, but I think he's still a little guilty of stereotyping.

6) One thing I think Steinbeck did very well was constantly tease us. We all knew where the story was going. But the way he danced around the inevitable was what made the story entertaining. For instance, how many of you thought that Charles was going to kill Adam? But instead of resolving it there, he backs off completely and resets the story for a second movement.

7) Favorite metastory narrative observations: "I think the difference between a lie and a story is that a story utilizes the trappings and appearances of truth for the interest of the listener as well as the teller." and "If the story is not about the hearer, he will not listen."

8) Narrative statement most packed with hidden meaning: (with regard to Adam) "Perhaps the hard flat light of the West was blotting out his birthplace."

9) Just another thought-provoking quote: "if the Lord God wanted you to understand it He'd have given you to understand or He'd have set it down different." (from Liza)

10) Why was Cal's gift to his father so "wrong?" In Steinbeck's description of the Cain story, Steinbeck suggests that the unsuitability of Cain's gift was largely cultural. So was Cal's gift wrong because it went against the culture of the era to profit off of the war? Or is Steinbeck, as I suspect, saying something more fundamental about capitalism?

11) To what extent is it important that this is an American novel. Lee's discussion with Cal in Chapter 51 sets forth the paradox that is America--e.g. "we're overbrave and overfearful--we're kind and cruel as children." And I can't quite figure out if this is side commentary, or somehow crucial to the story.

12) When I first finished the novel, I was so distracted by Timshel, that I thought Timshel was the main point to the novel. I don't think so anymore. I think the story is more about fathers and son, birth and rebirth, the quest for immortality and perfection. It can be summed up with Lee's question to Cal: "Can you think that whatever made us--would stop trying?"

13) And finally, Samuel Hamilton (and the patent system). I don't know how accurate Steinbeck's depiction of his grandfather is (certainly, his character seems a little over-idealized and flat, with the exception of his last conversation with Adam). Clearly John admired his grandfather greatly. At any rate, Steinbeck wasn't exaggerating too much when it came to Samuel and the patent system. John's grandfather actually had three U.S. patents.

I probably ought to be defending my profession after passages like this:

Meanwhile Samuel got no richer. He developed a very bad patent habid, a disease many men suffer from. He invented a part of a threshing machine, better, cheaper, and more efficient than any in existence. The patent attorney ate up his little profit for the year. Samuel sent his models to a manufacturer, who promptly rejected the plans and used the method. The next few years were kept lean by the suing, and the drain stopped only when he lost the suit. . . But he had caught the patent fever, and year after year the money made by threshing and by smithing was drained off i npatents. The Hamilton children went barefoot, and their overalls were patched and food was sometimes scarce, to pay or the crisp blueprints with cogs and planes and elevations.

But, well, it's true. The patent system has a lot of flaws. Anyway, it's very rare that my profession pops up in literature, so I found this link to be a pleasant surprise. (Ironically, about the same time I was reading East of Eden, I was watching Dickens' Little Dorritt on Masterpiece, and Dickens also paints unkind pictures of the patent system, at least as it's implemented in the U.K.).

---

I hope everybody enjoyed the book as much as I, and I hope it wasn't too long for some of you. Namely Jesse :)

April 2009: East of Eden

Being now a resident of California, and having spent a little touring/camping/driving time in Monterey and the Salinas Valley, I've decided it's time for me to revisit John Steinbeck. So I've decided upon "East of Eden" for our April book. Yes, I know it's long. Sorry. Deal with it.