East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Like most Americans of my generation, I read a couple of novels by John Steinbeck in the course of my education. In my case—maybe in everybody's case—one of them was Of Mice and Men, but I also read The Pearl. I remember enjoying them, but somehow, as I matured as a reader, I never wanted to continue through Steinbeck's oeuvre. I'm glad that some friends invited me to join in a group read of East of Eden, because, though I probably wouldn't have picked it up on my own, I enjoyed it tremendously.
I tend to dislike books overburdened with "philosophy" and "messages." East of Eden is rich in both, but somehow they don't capsize the ship. Using the story of Cain and Abel as his source, Steinbeck is able to reflect on family, on what he would have called "blood" but we now prefer to think of as DNA, and most effectively on good and evil.
To say that everyone has some bad, some evil, some of the devil in them is banal. What Steinbeck does is remind us of what is too easy to forget: Everyone also has some good. The one exception in the novel is Cathy, but it is clear that she is an exception. She is, in short, a psychopath, though Steinbeck never uses the word. In showing us characters who are, with the exception of Cathy, both good and bad, Steinbeck gives us human beings, not the sort of cardboard cutouts that commonly appear in novels as freighted with philosophy as this one. This is why his novel succeeds.
The one character where he stumbles a bit is Lee, the protagonist's Chinese servant. It's a pleasure to see a non-white character presented as wise and humorous (in contrast to Steinbeck's take on native Americans), but alas, in the end Lee is a stereotype: the wise Oriental (he actually does quote Confucius at one point).
That's a quibble, though. This is a novel well worth reading.
As one of the friends reading this book with you, I really enjoyed your comment--many thanks. I think you enjoyed it a shade more than I did. That the philosophy and messages don’t capsize the ship is a great point. I’d disagree about Lee: I’d say he transcends his Oriental origins to become the wisest character in the whole book regardless of affiliation. OK, here's my note: Stories of settlers in the American West in the late 1800s/early 1900s woven into a roiling soap opera that chugs along generation after generation. All but one of the main characters have complexity – goodness and its opposite (“mean” is a word often used). I never quite got my head around the philosophical currents, free will included. Part autobiographical, part biblical retelling, I came away not knowing what the point of the book was. (2 out of 5 stars)
ReplyDeleteLee is certainly the wisest character in the book, but that is the stereotype: the wise Oriental.
DeleteI think Steinbeck takes pains to make Lee transcend the stereotype, having him become a Hebrew scholar and a specialist in the pathology of the cerebral hemorrhage. And the book of wisdom he keeps under the kitchen breadbox isn't Confucius but Marcus Aurelius.
DeleteGood points. Maybe. But on the other hand, maybe his receptivity to science and to Western philosophy is part of his inscrutable Asian wisdom?
DeleteI don't see receptivity to science and Western philosophy as being a part of the wise Oriental "stoic old man speaking in riddles, teaching martial arts and spiritual enlightenment based on ancient traditions" stereotype.
DeleteSorry, one more. Lee says things like "My Oriental calm seems to have deserted me." He knows the stereotype and that he isn't conforming to it.
DeleteYou convinced me, especially with your final post, though clearly Lee does conform to it when it suits his purposes. Maybe that's what confused me. You're right, though, that he knows exactly what he's doing.
Delete