East of Eden

John Steinbeck

The Perpetual Contest between Good and Evil- one of the main themes
In East of Eden, the narrator articulates his belief that the struggle between good and evil is
the one recurring narrative of human history. In fact, he goes so far as to state that there is no
other story. Writing from the perspective of the Christian tradition, the narrator contends that
every human individual since Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel has struggled with the choice
between good and evil. Because the struggle is an individual one, the narrator implies that no
progress is made through the generations.
Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less degree. As a child
may be born without an arm, so one may be born without kindness or the potential of
conscience. (8.1.3)
Probably Steinbecks point here is that some people are missing the kindness gene
Cathy, from this perspective, is inexplicably evil. It's not like she had an unhappy
childhood, or was bullied, or that her parents didn't show her enough love or affection.
Cathy's evil is a very abstract evil, and she embodies the idea of evil, as opposed to
just doing some evil deeds every now and again. This implies that evil itself can exist
in the world without necessarily having a reason for existing in the first place. It is
almost like shes not only the evil itself but the root, the pure root from where it all
beggins.

Maybe we all have in us a secret pond where evil and ugly things germinate and grow
strong. But this culture is fenced, and the swimming brood climbs up only to fall back.
Might it not be that in the dark pools of some men the evil grows strong enough to wriggle
over the fence and swim free? (13.2.3)
Steinbeck says that we shouldnt judge. He thinks that we all have the capacity for
evil and evil instincts within us, and the only difference between good and bad people
is that the bad people let them loose. So Cathy might be missing that fence that keeps
human evil at bay, but it doesn't necessarily mean that other people are devoid of the
same evil.

Dont you see? . . . The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin,
and you call sin ignorance. The King James translation makes a promise in Thou shalt,
meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel
Thou mayestthat gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world.
That says the way is open.
Lee says these words during his discussion of the Cain and Abel story with Samuel
and Adam. He has just revealed to the other men the outcome of the research he did on
the meaning of timshel, the word that God utters to Cain when exiling him to the lands
east of Eden. According to one translation of the Bible, God orders Cain to triumph
over sin, while according to another, God promises Cain that he will defeat sin. Lees
research, however, has revealed that timshel means thou mayest, implying that God
tells Cain that he has a choice whether or not to overcome sin. Lee sees this idea of
free choice over evil a token of optimism that is central to the human condition. He
attempts to convince Adam and Cal of the validity of timshel and ultimately succeeds,
as Adam gives Cal his blessing and Cal realizes he himself has the power to overcome
his familys legacy of evil.

-The Hamilton plotline in East of Eden seems to run parallel to the Trask one, and
occasionally they intersect. They don't exactly fit into the whole Adam-Eve, Cain-Abel
allegory.
Instead, the dual-plotline thing invites us to think of the Hamiltons as contrasts to the Trasks:
they have a huge, well-established family, they are merry and social, and they aren't haunted
by any biblical curses. At the basis of this contrast are Adam and Samuel. First, the basics:
Adam is rich, Samuel is poor; Adam has the best piece of land, Samuel has the worst;
Samuel's wife is devout as devout can be, Adam's wife is a whore. You see what we mean?
In fact, the way the novel introduces Adam sets him up in contrast to the Trasks. This occurs
when the narrator is talking about how people in Salinas acquired their land. First, he talks
about people like the Hamiltons:
When people first came to the West, particularly from the owned and fought-over farmlets
of Europe, and saw so much land to be had for the signing of a paper and the building of a
foundation, an itching land-greed seemed to come over them [] The early settlers took up
land they didn't need and couldn't use; they took up worthless land just to own it. (2.2.1)

And then we get a description of the second class of people:

While many people came to the Salinas Valley penniless, there were others who, having
sold out somewhere else, arrived with money to start a new life. These usually bought land,
but good land []
Such a man was Adam Trask.
But there is another thing underlying this whole parallel-families setup: while the Trasks are
allegories for biblical characters, the Hamiltons are based on actual people. The Hamiltons
were the very real family of John Steinbeck, though it's hard to say where facts end and
fiction begins.
Samuel plays a particularly important role in the novel. One of his main functions in the story
is to give advice and provide commentary and also be a mentor. He's the one who figures out
that Lee isn't the person he seems to be at first , he's the one who witnesses the odd birth of
the twins. You could think of Samuel as playing the role of the audience in this story: he
witnesses all of the Trask madness and provides the appropriate reactions and comments. This
is what he says to Lee after the birth of the twins:
"This birth was too quick, too easylike a cat having kittens. And I fear for these
kittens. I have dreadful thoughts gnawing to get into my brain." (17.3.88)
A passage like this sends us, the readers, a very simple message: trouble is coming. It makes a
lot of sense that Samuel would be the one to tell us something like this, too, because he is
named after the biblical prophet Samuel (who has an entire book of the Bible named after
him).