East of Eden by John Steinbeck (+ Book Club Discussion)

“'Isn't it too simple?' he asked. 'I'm always afraid of simple things.' 'It isn't simple at all,' said Lee. 'It's desperately complicated. But at the end there's light.'”

In his journal, Nobel Prize winner John Steinbeck called East of Eden “the first book,” and indeed it has the primordial power and simplicity of myth. Set in the rich farmland of California’s Salinas Valley, this sprawling and often brutal novel follows the intertwined destinies of two families—the Trasks and the Hamiltons—whose generations helplessly reenact the fall of Adam and Eve and the poisonous rivalry of Cain and Abel.

The masterpiece of Steinbeck’s later years,
East of Eden is a work in which Steinbeck created his most mesmerizing characters and explored his most enduring themes: the mystery of identity, the inexplicability of love, and the murderous consequences of love's absence. Adapted for the 1955 film directed by Elia Kazan introducing James Dean and read by thousands as the book that brought Oprah’s Book Club back, East of Eden has remained vitally present in American culture for over half a century.

Thanks for reading Words Like Silver! Subscribe for free to support my work.

Subscribe Now

placeholder

Why I Picked It Up

East of Eden has been — for a long time — one of those books I've constantly bookmarked quotes from. If you sat me down blind in front of a bunch of iconic lines and told me to pick out which ones I love most, I'd probably pick out nearly all of these by accident.

It's funny also (anecdotally) that it seems to be experiencing some traction in the cultural canon, because I posted about it and had multiple friends and followers respond that they were either currently reading it or just about to.

Knowing nothing else about East of Eden, all I knew was that it dealt with the tension between performance and authenticity and what's most "real" about yourself, which is a thread I've followed through books and essays this year in determining what's a healthy amount of self-knowledge and what you present about yourself to others.

To preface this, I am frequently bored to tears by the subgenre of "epic family sagas," despite my inherent fascination with issues of inheritance and agency. Nature versus nurture, especially as an identical twin who's very close to my sister, is a constant undercurrent to my life. So, it's unusual for one to hook me like this.

Hook me as in: my library hold came in Friday and I started reading it. Decided I wanted it in paperback because it was already a favorite so snagged it from BookEnds on Saturday and read a ton of it on the beach. If I put it down, I felt itchy.

It's Monday evening, I'm absolutely supposed to be writing or cleaning, and I've just finished. I'm processing the story still. East of Eden is a new favorite for me, both solely nestled against other classics and in my broader literary landscape. I probably underlined at least 60% of it—so don't be surprised at my new quiver of quotes and references. I'm deeply sad that it's over and I can no longer read it for the first time again.

I'll have to read The Grapes of Wrath and The Moon Is Down and the accompanying journal detailing how East of Eden came together (which I'm sure would be a fascinating peek into the writing process.)

Distantly, I also have a memory of my high school pen pal reading and loving this one, and writing to me about it in a letter. Recently, a veteran friend (who's sort of an archetypal tech entrepreneur) has been singing its praises on island. It's an identity-affirming book for a lot of people for many reasons, and we all walk away with something different—proving Steinbeck's point (and my writing/reading philosophy) that the best writers are designated as such because of their gift for distilling the universal into the specific. What makes a story or sequence agentic or fated?

“If a story is not about a hearer he will not listen. And I here make a rule—a great and lasting story is about everyone or it will not last. The strange and foreign is not interesting—only the deeply personal and familiar.”

Steinbeck Knows How to Build Characters

East of Eden starts out by describing the Salinas Valley and those who reside there, either buying lofty farms or settling on government land. The sense of place is immediate, which I appreciate, framing the families involved.

My main overarching compliment to Steinbeck is sort of the core of the entire book, which is that his genius is in the wisdom and specificity of his characterization. He has a wry slant to it, depicting dreams and devastations and quirks within the span of two sentences or so: a broad, nuanced outline that then ripples outward in a way that reminds me of the foundational tenets of gestural drawing, which I use to visualize good storytelling too.

He absolutely nailed the texture of personalities and how worldviews clashed. Each figure is so multifaceted and vivid, but he boils down their core into the most astoundingly succinct and satisfying introduction sentences. But he doesn't paint heroes or villains or anything (with one major exception); instead, he uses his precision to be searingly earnest, which I find immensely impressive and moving.

Because of that, East of Eden is spectacular on both the grand scale and the line level. Usually, I find one or the other to be dominant.

His anchoring details are sharp and colorful, but each character still has the room to surprise you—and themselves—as the next 600 pages unfold. I don't say spectacular lightly, but it all feels so calibrated that to shift one element would have thrown the entire ecosystem of the novel off-balance, which made me adore the book on multiple levels.

About the Book

Of course, East of Eden deals with many questions I think of frequently that absolutely define the human experience. His characters are constantly kicking around philosophies or nuggets of knowledge, but the points (which frequently feel accurate) never come off as preachy or pedantic; they're organic to the conversations and situations in a way that feels true to life.

A huge core conflict of East of Eden is this sense of authenticity vs. performance as I said. I think it's very natural that many people want to do good in the world, but have this fear—deeply rooted in shame—that their impulses or greeds or various flaws mean that they are secretly bad.

I've talked about this tension (or paradox, really) of self-awareness as it relates to kindness before. David Foster Wallace talks about fraudulence and the exchange of goodness for love; when discussing one of my favorite commencement speeches by George Saunders (Congratulations, by the Way), I analyzed whether considering kindness at all trapped you into believing your intentions weren't entirely pure. Ditto to Salinger's Franny and Zooey.

The book unfolds in multiple layers. First, there are two narratives. Samuel Hamilton and his family settling with bad luck onto dry land, and Adam and his brother Charles being raised by a father who vastly inflated his military service and raised them on a strict moral code—thus essentially splitting the brothers into a competition for his love over time that manifested in some dark ways. Adam eventually meets and marries Cathy, who we learn quickly is a bad seed (Lilith? Eve? Enter biblical parallels.)

Later, as Cathy wreaks havoc on the family, we meet the twins who characterize the latter half of the book and usher Adam through haphazard fatherhood: Cal and Aron. The dark twin and the light one. (As a twin, I have thoughts.)

The rest of the cast absorbs around these touchpoints, adding friction or tension or warmth where needed. The pacing's fantastic, so I never got bored. And damn, it is just about flawless, in my opinion, to the extent that I have a tricky time writing a cohesive review that doesn't just bounce off of about eighty quotes I loved.

Some Moments I Loved

“We gather our arms full of guilt as though it were precious stuff. It must be that we want it that way...Well, every little boy thinks he invented sin. Virtue we think we learn, because we are told about it. But sin is our own designing.”

“I think if rejection could be amputated, the human would not be what he is.”

My review will undoubtedly feel incomplete no matter how much I write about East of Eden, which is just the price of reading a great book at the right time. If you've read it, I would love nothing more than for you to book club it with me.

• Cyrus boasting about his military service and building a life of blurry truths centered around a patriotic aesthetic that wasn't true to his experience—so well done.
• Questions of who's responsible for the terrors of war, living, etc,. Almost reminded me some of a point I have about Haymitch in Sunrise at the Reaping by Suzanne Collins—that it is so easy to blame yourself in hindsight for not having the full picture of something, contributing to the moral dissonance.
• The book talks a lot about who gets to be seen as good, and how that designation of "oh, so-and-so is so innocent and light" can do such harm. Because the angel feels unseen, like their darkness can't be revealed or else they'll be abandoned, and the supposed "worse" individual frequently punishes themselves for not living up. Both parties are beating themselves up for not being pure.
• Related: a constant parallel between lightness/ignorance/angelicism and darkness/weight/significance that characterizes many of my reads, themes, thoughts, etc,.
• The more I read, the more I'm convinced that most problems people have with others and relationships (myself included) are caused by this exact fallacy: by assuming if someone really sees us for who we are—the good and the bad—that they will believe we are secretly undeserving, whereas other people do good and thus are good. Sort of the reverse of fundamental attribution error, in that we know the murkiness of our confusions and assume they make us bad, but we assume that others aren't just as conflicted, multifaceted, or contradictory. Our actions and intentions may not align, but others' surely always do.
• Despite being a philosophical book, East of Eden never stops being tense. This is a masterclass in literary tension and stakes; although a scene of discussing a life matter over tea may be quiet on the surface, each interaction is stacked with crucial turning points that can shatter someone's life.
• Similarly, thought of my rabbit hole lately about "moments of grace" from Flannery O'Connor—how it's a violent process because grace changes you. The most generous moments in the book are when a character allows their perception of themselves, or their lives, or their systems, to be broken by someone else and reforged. That's where the strength is in it, and characters frequently discuss who has blind spots and who doesn't. Each attempt to shield someone from (inevitable) internal dissonance or confrontation only ends in tragedy.
• I'm also convinced that Steinbeck can only write an epic because each chapter almost feels like a short story. He has fantastic cinematic "edges" and lines ripe with symbolism, weight, and frankly beautiful imagery. The structure reminded me of what I love so much about Alice Munro's work too—a restraint that adds layers and resonance.
• I think and talk a lot about what it means to experience faith in anything at all and the ways in which we nudge people to or from belief. (That was actually an amazing part of the Grand Rounds conversation I joined at 2 A.M. two weeks ago; Daniel Lieberman, author of The Molecule of More, spoke about dopamine's relationship to faith.)
• And where I'm going with this is that I thought in Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami, the author set up this binary between love or understanding, whereas Steinbeck sets up a binary between love and faith. Like maybe you only believe in those you do not love, and vice versa. And wow, what a thought to mull over.
• Adam and Cal finally talking in the kitchen and each feeling so relieved,
• Cal confessing his darkness to Abra and her matching him,
• etc,.

Themes I've Thought About

• how scientifically, our most salient regrets tend to be missed opportunities for connection because of this assumption that if someone sees the wrongness in us, they will see our "true" selves, which may not be entirely good,
• the satisfaction and honesty and relief and warmth of getting that right with someone after thinking they wouldn't understand,
• who feels restlessness and why, what feels performative and why (both to ourselves and to others),
• how identity, shame, and moral agency operate under pressure
• how to bracket, within a sequence of time and events, what all you are responsible for and what's a reasonable amount of responsibility to assume,
• how it's hard—but ultimately right—to remold ourselves and others after initial impressions have calcified,
• (and rebuilding the perception of a whole person after worshipping only the idea of them)
• perfectionism!!!! and the pursuit of greatness,
• loneliness leading to more loneliness because of a self-consciousness about "doing it right,"
• the agency embedded in choosing to be good, even despite flaws or mismatches,
• the cost of wanting to be good, even if that goodness is an act of control,
• repeating inheritance structures, and how we sometimes don't realize what all we mimic,
• the self-fulfilling prophecy that people become what you expect of them,
• and, of course, "thou mayest"

Lines I Loved

Many of these are likely familiar to you, but trust me—I have many, many more.

“And now that you don't have to be perfect, you can be good.”

“But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.”

“Do you take pride in your hurt? Does it make you seem large and tragic? ...Well, think about it. Maybe you're playing a part on a great stage with only yourself as audience.”

“People like you to be something, preferably what they are.”

“You are one of the rare people who can separate your observation from your preconception. You see what is, where most people see what they expect.”

“When a man says he does not want to speak of something he usually means he can think of nothing else.”

“'Dear Lord,' he said. 'let me be like Aron. Don’t make me mean. I don’t want to be. If you will let everybody like me, why, I’ll give you anything in the world, and if I haven’t got it, why, I’ll go for to get it. I don’t want to be mean. I don’t want to be lonely. For Jesus’ sake, Amen.'”

“Maybe—maybe love makes you suspicious and doubting. Is it true that when you love a woman you are never sure—never sure of her because you aren't sure of yourself?”

“I wonder how many people I have looked at all my life and never really seen.”

“Sometimes, a lie is told in kindness. I don't believe it ever works kindly. The quick pain of truth can pass away, but the slow, eating agony of a lie is never lost.”

“During the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years, and when the wet years returned, they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.”

& many more.

Overall Thoughts

I could have kept going, but actually restrained myself. I loved, loved, loved this book. I will rave about it forever, I'm sure, and it's now one of the greats in my memory. I'm not kidding when I say that there was a hall of fame quote for me on practically every single page. And then, on a broader scale, I thought the conversations about authenticity, goodness, inheritance, agency, and more so align with my worldview, which maintains that individual autonomy and a gentleness/sensitivity to the effects of others can coexist.

If you're existential and crave the analysis, it satisfies that itch.

If you're escapist and want an all-encompassing narrative, it's sure as hell entertaining. I can't remember the last time I ripped through a book this massive this quickly.

Lee, a servant in the household, reveals near the end that he stole a copy of Meditations by Marcus Aurelius from Samuel Hamilton, and that literary bedrock makes a lot of sense to me, because it's the one I vibe with most too.

It could be warm and tender at times, or shocking and terrible at others. Descriptions called it brutal, so I was bracing myself for a McCarthy-style interrogation of masculinity, or perhaps some significant violence—but none there.

A beautiful, stirring, entertaining, and nuanced book that I'll treasure for the rest of my life! It's no wonder Steinbeck called this his most ambitious novel—and it worked. I'm hoping I love his others even a fraction as much, and they've just moved to the top of my summer reading list. It's absolutely a book I'll push on most people I know.

Overall, do you think you need to 'deserve' love? What does it mean to try to 'earn' it?

For fans of:

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius; The Plague by Albert Camus; To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee; The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas; Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Hayes; It's a Wonderful Life (movie—not the abridged version), I'll Give You the Sun by Jandy Nelson (oddly enough), etc,.

Listen to My Voice Note About the Book

The accompanying voice note is 27 minutes long, and I recommend listening at 1.2 to 1.5x speed. In it, I talk about love vs. understanding, the self-consciousness of aiming for goodness, how we decide we know anyone, the harms of deifying others, etc,. etc,.