I have finished reading this book by John Steinbeck. In the end of the story, Kino refuses to sell his Pearl of the World to the local pearl buyers, and he decides to travel to the city to get more money for the pearl. He does not get a chance, though, before somebody sneaks into his house to steal it – prompting Kino to kill this somebody and Juana to try to throw the pearl back into the ocean. One of the most striking scenes in the book, I think, is when Kino attacks and beats Juana to prevent her from doing this. It contrasts so harshly with the opening scene of the novel when Kino and Juana wake up together, see their baby son, and eat breakfast together happily and peacefully. Were they ever as happy when they had the pearl as they were in that moment? Because Kino has killed a man, he and Juana flee into the mountains with Coyotito. However, they are tracked by people who are after the pearl and after a few days disaster strikes when Coyotito is accidentally shot by a stray bullet aimed at Kino, who had just risked his life to try to kill the trackers. The following scene of Juana and Kino returning to their village with Coyotito’s body brings home the theme most clearly: greed is tempting and hurtful for humans, and you can be happier living a simple life than one with riches. Kino did what so many good people would: he was happy with his life before, but when he got something that he didn’t even need, he couldn’t resist trying to make his life “better.” How he wanted to do this and how horribly that effort ended up is best summarized when Steinbeck writes, “[Kino] looked into his pearl to find his vision. ‘When we sell it at last, I will have a rifle,’ he said, and he looked into the shining surface for his rifle, but he saw only a huddled dark body on the ground with shining blood dripping from its throat. And he said quickly, ‘We will be married in a great church.’ And in the pearl he saw Juana with her beaten face crawling home through the night. ‘Our son must learn to read,’ he said frantically. And there in the pearl was Coyotito’s face, thick and feverish from the medicine” (Steinbeck 597). Each of these goals is good and none of them scream of sin, and that is why Kino never realizes what he obviously already knows: he doesn’t need a rifle, Juana doesn’t need to get married, and Coyotito doesn’t need to read to be happy. He already knows this because he is happy without these things, but he just can’t realize or understand that.

Kino is a good person, but I don’t feel mad at the writer for putting a kind-hearted man through these torments, because I know that that story is true. It is not the author that puts men through this, it is the world – because things really do work that way. Maybe not in ways as striking and obvious as what happens to Kino, Juana, and Coyotito, but in the same fashion. Perhaps if we had John Steinbeck there to comment on the lives of the people around us, we would be able to see the world that clearly. In fact, this book really reinforces to me what a great writer Steinbeck is. When I think of that first introductory scene and how, when I first read it, it completely hooked me into the book and the beautiful writing style of it, but when I think of it now it is a huge point for the theme of the book – something I didn’t even know about when I first read it!

Is it good or bad that it is human nature to always keep trying, always want more? In this book, it is bad. In lots of other cases it can be good, but the theme of this book is so strong and well-presented that I will certainly consider it more whenever I find myself reaching for more. I suppose the real, underlying message I can take from the story is that more isn’t better, and it doesn’t bring happiness.

I have really enjoyed doing English Honors this year. Although the extra work is sometimes challenging time-wise, I really enjoy reading these books and writing about my thoughts on them. I don’t think that I would motivate myself to challenge myself with my reading without this program, and I certainly wouldn’t have as many thoughts about them without my reflection. I will certainly do English Honors next year.

Work Cited

Steinbeck, John. “The Pearl.” The Short Novels of John Steinbeck. New York: Penguin Books, 2009. 547-610. Print.

I am halfway through this short novel by John Steinbeck. My favorite part about the book is the writing style. The writing is really beautiful. It is descriptive in the best way possible and makes everything that it describes seem good and true. For example, in the very beginning when Kino wakes up it describes the sounds of morning, “Kino heard the little splash of morning waves on the beach. It was very good – Kino closed his eyes again to listen to his music. … In Kino’s head there was a song now, clear and soft, and if he had been able to speak of it, he would have called it the Song of the Family” (Steinbeck 549). This passage perfectly captures the routine and calm of a morning.

The writing style is great, and as for the plot I think that, although I am halfway through the novel, it is still setting up for the main happenings and conflict of the story. Kino lives with his wife Juana and their son Coyotito, and one morning a scorpion stings Coyotito. When the doctor will not treat him Kino and Juano go fishing and find a huge pearl – “The Pearl of the World” – and it is going to make them rich and change their lives.

I have read several books by John Steinbeck, but this one is remarkably different. It doesn’t take place in California – I have been trying to figure out where the setting is, maybe somewhere in Mexico – and it doesn’t really have an overbearing social message. Granted, when they bring the baby to the doctor he refuses to treat him because Kino is poor and of a native race. Maybe the way that the drama with the pearl plays out will have a social message, though. Anyway, the differences between this book and the other books I have read make me wonder what the circumstances surrounding its creation were. Where, when, and why did he write this book?

One possible theme I see emerging in the book is the idea of community. Kino and Juana are just like their neighbors, and they don’t really speak, which leads me to believe that they represent all of the socially oppressed people like them. The involvement of the neighbors in the finding of the pearl is expressed when Steinbeck writes, “All manner of people grew interested in Kino – people with things to sell and people with favors to ask. Kino had found the Pearl of the World. . . . The news stirred up something infinitely black and evil in the town; the black distillate was like the scorpion, or like hunger in the smell of food, or like loneliness when love is withheld” (Steineck 564). This quote could also be some foreshadowing for what the pearl will do in the town, and the message that that will send within the novel. I think it is funny that all of the neighbors have already crowded into Kino’s little thatched house three times, because it just seems like a comical sight to me.

Overall, I am really enjoying this story because it is so calming and truthful to read. I am really looking forward to reading the rest of it and finding out what the main message of the book is.

Work Cited

Steinbeck, John. “The Pearl.” The Short Novels of John Steinbeck. New York: Penguin Books, 2009. 547-610. Print.

I have finished this book by William Shakespeare. The story continued to play on the theme of love, which plays out  in ridiculous and twisted ways in the Forest of Ardenne. Celia and Rosalind reside in the forest in disguise, with Rosalind dressed as the boy Ganymede. In the forest they run into Orlando, who has fled Duke Frederick, and he declares his painful love for Rosalind, who, dressed as Ganymede, tells Orlando to pretend that she is Rosalind and act like he loves her. This is wacky because if you were watching this as a real play in Shakespeare’s time it would be a male actor playing a female who is cross-dressing as a male, but Orlando is pretending that s/he is a female. Other antics in the forest also happen: Touchstone the clown is trying to marry Audrey the shepherdess, and Silvius the shepherd is in love with the cruel Phebe – who comes to love Ganymede. When Orlando’s disrespectful brother Oliver is sent to the forest by Duke Frederick to retrieve his brother, he falls in love with Celia (in disguise as Aliena) and, forgetting his mission, cheerfully reunites with his brother. This tangle of love affairs is expressed best in the play when Rosalind asks Silvius to define love and everybody states who they feel it for:

 PHEBE.               Good shepherd, tell this youth what ’tis to love.

SILVIUS.                 It is to be all made of sighs and tears;

And so am I for Phebe.

PHEBE.                  And I for Ganymede.

ORLANDO.            And I for Rosalind.

ROSALIND.            And I for no woman. (Shakespeare 5.2 79-84)

This quote really shows how ridiculous the situation is.  Throughout the play some characters mock the love sickness of others, giving the play an overall theme of mocking those who cause themselves pain through their love.   Love should be something that makes everybody happy, not something that causes pain. Still, all of these love affairs can be tied up by Rosalind/Ganymede when she makes a plan that allows everybody to marry the one they love. She does this by making everybody promise to marry somebody. These promises are summed up when Rosalind, still dressed as Ganymede, announces to the company in the forest:

I have promised to make all this matter even.

Keep you your word, O Duke, to give your daughter [Rosalind]

You yours, Orlando, to recieve his daughter;

Keep you your word, Phebe, that you’ll marry me,

Or else, refusing me, to wed this shepherd [Silvius];

Keep your word, Silvius, that you’ll marry her

If she refuse me; and from hence I go,

To make these doubts all even. (Shakespeare 5.4 18-25)

And so, everybody ends up with the person they wanted (or at least somebody they can happily settle with, in Phebe’s case. She wasn’t very nice anyway.) and this play ends happily with another brother of Oliver and Orlando arriving with the news that, upon arriving in the forest to kill Duke Senior, Duke Frederick has decided to join the church and return the Dukedom to his brother. This is a rather odd and out of character decision, but I think it goes with a theme that the country is better and happier than the city and makes people happier. As soon as characters leave the city and enter the forest they feel safe and most of them fall in love, usually with the first person they see. In the Duke’s case, he decided to let go of the hostility towards his brother and give back the power that had been . Just like the others who come to the Forest of Aredenne, the Duke decided to lead a simple and happy life. Personally, I prefer more rural areas where nature can be enjoyed to the chaos of big cities, and I think being there can make people happier. Overall, this play had an entertaining story and lively characters, and I feel I have gotten better at reading Shakespeare’s writing.

Works Cited

SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on As You Like It.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2003. Web. 20 Mar. 2012.

Womack, Mark. “How to Quote Shakespeare.” Dr. Mark Womack. WordPress, 22 December 2011. Web. 20 March 2012.

Shakespeare, William. “As You Like It.” New York: Penguin Books, 1970. Print.

I am halfway through this play by William Shakespeare. The play has several pairs of characters: it begins with Orlando and his problems with his older brother Oliver, who won’t give Orlando any of the money that their father left him and won’t allow him to go to school to become a gentleman. Then we learn about another pair of brothers and how the younger brother, Duke Frederick, has usurped his older brother Duke Senior and banished him to the idyllic Forest of Ardenne. Duke Senior’s daughter, Rosalind, isn’t banished because she is best friends with Duke Frederic’s daughter, Celia.

I couldn’t help but notice that, though not all of the characters have been introduced yet, most of the characters are in pairs: two sets of brothers and a pair of cousins who act like sisters. The relationships between these people are important as well. In one set of brothers the younger brother is oppressed, while in the other the younger brother has risen up against his older brother. I don’t know if this connection will end up being a theme of the story, or if it is just a plot device to make the oppressed brothers (Orlando and Duke Senior) flee to the Forest of Ardenne, or maybe the cruelty of Duke Frederick and Oliver serve to illustrate the immorality and harshness of society, in contrast to the Forest of Ardenne. The relationship between Rosalind and Celia is largely different though: it is between two female cousins who get along instead of two brothers in a power struggle. It does seem, though, that in their relationship Rosalind is the more forceful person and Celia is more affectionate. I suspect that Celia loves Rosalind more than Rosalind loves Celia, because of things like when Duke Frederick banishes Rosalind, prompting Celia to suggest that she will be banished with Rosalind. Rosalind disagrees with this and so Celia says, “… Rosalind lacks then the love/ Which teacheth thee that thou and I am one” (Shakespeare I,iii 92-93). Perhaps Rosalind was only being polite by suggesting that Celia not come, not wanting to force her to disobey her father and go to the forest with her. Personally, I am inclined to think that Rosalind would not have made the same sacrifice for Celia (although in some ways she has abandoned her father to be with Celia – but with Celia also meant in the powerful Duke’s favor, so it is not the same trade-off) and so wasn’t expecting Celia to make it for her. It will be interesting to see if this potential flaw in their relationship plays out in the same way as the brothers.

The writing style is what I expected of Shakespeare. Sometimes I find it difficult to understand what is happening in the scene, but then I just re-read it and try to take it line by line. It is also hard to keep track of all of the characters because it seems like they just randomly pop in and out of scenes, and sometimes they won’t appear for a few scenes and then the book will pick right back up again with their story. Sometimes the characters aren’t referred to by name but are just described, which can also be confusing. I imagine that would be more clear if one saw this as a play, because then it would be easier to pair a face with name, story, description, and personality.

This play is a comedy, but so far the only humor I have seen has been in some witty word plays by characters like Touchstone the clown. Despite the difficulty of understanding these puns, I actually do enjoy them. I hope they get easier to understand and recognize, however. So far the play has really only introduced a few major characters, and the plot is bringing them all to the Forest of Ardenne. I am interested to see what will happen once they all assemble there.

Works Cited

SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on As You Like It.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2003. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.

Shakespeare, William. “As You Like It.” New York: Penguin Books, 1970. Print.

I have finished this book by Willa Cather. The book is about Alexandra Bergson and her family, who are Swedish immigrants. She has three brothers: dull, older Lou and Oscar, and younger Emil. Before their father dies he puts Alexandra in charge of the farm, on account of her responsibility and intelligence. Alexandra leads the family through some rough times, convincing them not to sell the farm. Then the book skips ahead a few years and Emil is a young man back from college, Alexandra is a lonely older woman, and Lou and Oscar have families. The first big thing that happens is when Alexandra’s childhood friend Carl returns to visit her. The two want to get married, though they never talk about it, but Oscar and Lou have a problem with it and make Carl leave. After that the main focus of the book is the growing tension and feelings between Emil and Alexandra’s married neighbor Maria. At the end of the book, Maria’s husband finds her and Emil together in the orchid and shoots them both, killing them and sentencing himself to prison. Alexandra is devastated but as time goes by she forgives. When Carl hears the news he comes back and he and Alexandra decide to get married.

When I first started the book it didn’t seem like the type of book I have read recently, and I wasn’t sure how I would like it. As the book progressed and the characters developed, I began to like it. Though I have not read any historical fiction recently, it is actually one of my favorite kind of books. This book actually reminded me of the Little House on the Prairie books I loved as a child. At first I thought the writing style was a little easy, but it is really only simple, which goes with the theme and tone of the book. One of these themes that I enjoyed was about land. The author’s take on humans and their relationship with land is made clear when she writes, “Then the Genius of the Divide, the great, free spirit which breathes across it, must have bent lower than it ever bent to a human will before. The history of every country begins in the heart of a man or a woman” (Cather 44). I think this last statement pretty well encompasses the theme of the book. Alexandra loves the land, and that is why she devotes her life to it. She sacrifices having friends, getting married, having children, and a large part of living to the land — and it pays off. But the land is also tied up with her family, because, though the book says that nobody can really own land, it is they that will benefit from the land. I thought this was a little ironic because she ends up not liking her brothers (Lou and Oscar, not Emil) for their ignorance and trying to prevent her from doing what she wants. Alexandra was very nice and dignified to them about this, but it made me angry. Her stupid brothers didn’t even realize all that she has done for them, attributing the farm’s success to their work in the fields. Without her they would have moved to the city! But anyway, it was moronic of her brothers to stop her from living, when she had already given her whole life to the land and so to them. With this same connection Alexandra has given her life for Emil, who she thinks is the best and most blessed of her father’s children. He had the chance to grow up in America in a prosperous family, and all the advantages that come with that. That is why Alexandra is so completely devastated when Emil is killed. She has dedicated her life to his future, and that no longer exists. It makes sense then that, after this, she is able to leave the land and marry Carl, giving herself something else to live for.

The whole story line with Maria and Emil was engaging enough, but I don’t think it came across to me the same way it would have come across to a 1913 reader. It was supposed to be shocking and sinful that they were in love, but I didn’t find it particularly exciting. I don’t know if that made me miss a theme of the book — maybe something about Emil and American children in general being spoiled and ruined — but nothing special about it came across to me. This also might have made me miss a connection between the land and Alexandra’s work and the whole Emil/Maria love story, because I didn’t really see one. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed reading this book because of its solid theme and vivid characters.

Work Cited

Cather, Willa. “O Pioneers!” New York: Penguin Books, 1994. Print.

I have finished this book by Charles Dickens. Now that I am finished with it, I am enjoying the book more. Towards the end, the plot gets much more intriguing. Pip learns who his real benefactor is when he is visited by the convict that he helped in his childhood, who made a lot of money in his gratitude to Pip. At first Pip is disgusted, but as time goes on and he finds a place for Provis (the convict) to live and learns his story, he grows fond of Provis and feels responsibility for the danger he has put himself in by returning to England (he had been forced to live abroad). So, Pip and his friends attempt to sneak Provis away from the law and his enemy, Compeyson. They fail and Provis is arrested, but not until after he has killed Compeyson and mortally wounded himself in a fight. As he supports Provis through his trial and being sentenced to die – although he is already doing so in a hospital bed – Pip is truly grateful to him for the love he has shown him. It is then, after all of the money Provis gave him has been lost, that Pip feels the most guilty for his ingratitude towards Joe and fully realizes that his expectations have not improved his life (wasn’t that what I was saying?). Once Provis dies Pip falls ill and is nursed back to health by Joe, giving him the chance to restore their relationship and attempt to make up for ignoring Joe for years. In an effort to regain his old life in some fashion, Pip decides to propose to Biddy (Estella had married a brute, fulfilling the destiny Miss Havisham had made for her of breaking many men’s hearts, including Pip’s), only to learn that she and Joe are married. The book ends with Pip returning from his mildly successful job in the east and running into Estella. Other intrigues also happen along the way: Pip is kidnapped by Joe’s old hand Orlick and Pip learns the secret past of Miss Havisham and Estella – including who Estella’s parents are. I feel the need to summarize all this because most of it is written in such an overly-complicated and fancy way that it is difficult to get past the words to form a picture of the scene. I have learnt to understand Dickens’ writing, but that does not mean that I like it.

I was surprised when I realized that this book actually tells a good story. I suppose the writing style and setting made me think for a while that the plot was just as dry and difficult. In fact, both  the plot and characters of this book were very good. Pip’s ingratitude paired with his struggles made me feel both irritated by him and kindly towards him at the same time. Pip was a pretty good character with his relationships with his friends, troubles with Estella (but really, I don’t understand why he likes her either), fears, and guilts. For all that I don’t like it, I will admit that sometimes the writing style helps the reader understand Pip when it over-explains and describes his actions. For example, shortly after Pip meets his real benefactor, he describes his condition and says, “I was greatly dejected and distressed, but in an incoherent wholesale sort of way. As to forming any plan for the future, I could as soon as form an elephant. When I opened the shutters and looked out at the wet wild morning, al of a leaden hue; when I walked from room to room; when I sat down again shivering, before the fire, waiting for my laundress to appear; I thought how miserable I was, but hardly knew why, or how long I had been so, or on what day of the week I made the reflection, or even who I was that made it” (Dickens 329). I think this could have been written much more directly and in half as many words, but then it wouldn’t impart the same feeling and give the reader a chance to truly look inside of Pip and understnad how he feels in that moment.

Something that I thought should have been included in this account of the events and emotions of Pip’s life was when he becomes an adult. The story begins when he is about seven, peaks when is twenty-three, and gives a short epilogue into his thirties. Somewhere in there he should have had a struggle about who he is or what to do with his life. Maybe that was included in his adjusting to his new life with expectations — that itself a very short and perhaps under-emphasized phase — or maybe it wasn’t in the scope or theme of the book, but it is something that I’m sure every human has to go through, regardless of time or place. Having Pip struggle to become an adult definitely would have made me like him more and helped me get past the setting and writing style to the real meat of the book.

Work Cited

Dickens, Charles. “Great Expectations.” London: Penguin Books, 1996. Print.

I am now further into this book, and I am enjoying it a little more. The writing style is still trying but I have found the other elements — plot and character — interesting enough so that I don’t focus on it. Sometimes I actually find it interesting to read in a different and more complicated way. That being said, I probably won’t read any more Dickens for a while.

The plot has gotten more interesting because Pip unexpectedly came into “great expectations” – meaning that he got a lot of money from an unknown source that he is forbidden to speak about. He abandons his apprenticeship as a blacksmith with Joe and moves to London, where he begins to be educated. He makes new friends and a new life in London, and leaves his old life behind almost completely. His new circumstances also changes Pip, and he continues his struggle with his morality. He runs into a few convicts again, which doesn’t seem realistic – how many convicts are there and why does Pip keep having encounters with them? Of course, the whole idea of him just recieving a lot of money out of nowhere is a tad preposterous, but since I don’t really know what went on on that time period, I’m willing to accept it.  I didn’t think Pip was bad at all because of his early encounter with the convict – because he was very young and had been threatened, and who cares if  he steals from his mean sister? – but when he begins to think that he is better than Joe, who has always been such a friend to him, I was annoyed with him. One random girl you don’t know insults your shoes and suddenly you don’t like your friends and want a whole new life? Even for a confused, impressionable young man who’s sister was mean to him, that is a little ridiculous. One bad thing Pip does is when, after moving to London, Joe comes to visit him and Pip says that he, “felt impatiant of him and out of temper with him; in which condition he heaped colas of fire on my head” (Dickens 222). Pip should be glad to see Joe, who he loves and has spent a lot of time with. Then, Pip does something even worse when he goes to visit Ms. Havisham and doesn’t go to visit his old home nearby. Why isn’t he grateful for his good fortune in getting the money, and still realize that it doesn’t make him any better than his family? I realize that Pip sometimes has a hard time with himself, what with him being young and his life changing so quickly, but probably spending more time with his family would help him get through this. I think maybe that this is where the book is going, judging by the overall style of Dickens and the way that Pip is being set up to fail in his rich life.

I think it would have been better for Pip, and he would have been happier, if he had never come into his great expectations. Of course, after he went to Ms. Havisham’s house he  was never satisfied with being a blacksmith and was unhappy. This comes down to Estella’s rudeness and judgement when Pip first went to Ms. Havisham’s, which made Pip embarassed and unhappy with his position in life. From that point on Pip was never happy in his apprenticeship to Joe, and so his expectations had to come in order for him to be happy. If Pip had never been to Ms. Havisham’s and been embarrassed by Estella, he would have been satisfied with a life as a blacksmith.

Work Cited

Dickens, Charles. “Great Expectations.” London: Penguin Books, 1996. Print.

I am not very far into this book by Charles Dickens. The most distinctive thing about the book is Dickens’ writing style. It is overly complicated and decorative, and I don’t like it very much. It makes it more difficult to understand what is happening, and unlike in other books when the descriptive writing style helps to set a certain tone or imagery, I don’t feel that it has anything to do with what is actually happening in the story. For example, when Pip has to go stay with his uncle in the city, he describes the house, saying, “Mr. Pumblechook’s premises in the High-street of the market town, were of a peppercorny and farinaceous character, as the premises of a corn-chandler and seedsman should be. It appeared to me that he must be a very happy man indeed, to have so many little drawers in his shop; and I wondered when I peeped into one or two on the lower tiers, and saw the tied-up brown paper packets inside, whether the flower-seeds and bulbs ever wanted of a fine day to break out of those jails, and bloom” (Dickens 53). I don’t know what some of those words mean, and I don’t see the point of whatever Pip is trying to say about the seeds in bags. Maybe Dickens is trying to show the reader that Pip is imaginative and fanciful, but really it just doesn’t make sense to me.It has no relevance to what is going on in the plot, and I would rather the book focus on that. Of course, I’ll just have to get used to it because that is his writing style. I will say, though, that at other times the descriptive writing style does add to the story and makes for pleasant reading. I really thought it was funny when Pip describes seeing, “speckled-legged spiders with blotchy bodies running home to [a cobweb], and running out from it, as if some circumstances of the greatest public importance had just transpired in the spider community” (Dickens 84). I suppose that when it doesn’t get in the way and distract from the plot, a complicated writing style can be good.

The story centers around young Pip, an orphan who lives with his mean sister and her sympathetic husband Joe. His sister is not very nice to him, and as a result, Pip says, “Within myself, I had sustained, from my babyhood, a perpetual conflict with injustice. I had known, from the time when I could speak, that my sister, in her capricious and violent coercion, was unjust to me. I had cherished a profound conviction that her bringing me up by hand, gave her no right to bring me up by jerks. Through all my punishments, disgraces, fasts and vigils, and other penitential performances, I had nursed this assurance; and to my communing so much with it, in a solitary and unprotected way, I in great part refer the fact that I was morally timed and very sensitive” (Dickens 63). I think this sensitivity to justice is why Pip is so hard on himself and why he struggles with his own morality so much. In the beginning of the story a convicts makes him help in his escape by stealing food from his house, and Pip always felt guilty about that. He is persuaded to do other things of questionable morals, like when a young man insists that they fight and Pip hurts him. That experience is by no means unique in the world, so it is unusual that Pip feels so bad about it. I suppose this is because he is afraid that he is delivering injustice, which he abhors so much for having been done to him, into the world. Pip has a lot of guilt about things that he really shouldn’t, and I will be interested to see where that takes him in the story.

Work Cited

Dickens, Charles. “Great Expectations.” London: Penguin Books, 1996. Print.

I have finished this book by John Steinbeck. I really enjoyed reading it and thinking about it. The book is a retelling of Genesis, including Cain and Abel. It gives me so much to think about, I don’t know if I will be able to process it all any time soon. I think I will need to, and very much want to, reread this book many times throughout my life.

The first time that the story of Cain and Abel was discussed in the book, when Samuel, Lee, and Adam name the twins, I didn’t understand what Samuel meant when he said of the stories, “I don’t understand them at all but I feel them” (Steinbeck 266). After having read the story, essentially retold with Caleb and Aron, I feel it, and I may understand a little of it. It is the story of human nature. We don’t understand the story because we don’t understand human nature, but we feel it. We feel it in ourselves and everybody around us.

Why did Caleb show Aron that his mother was an evil prostitute? His father had rejected Cal’s gift and accepted Aron’s. Even before that, Cal had questioned if his father loved Aron more. How painful that must be. I felt the pain myself when Adam said to Cal, upon receiving the money Cal made for him, “No. I won’t want it ever. I would have been so happy if you could have given me – well, what your brother has – pride in the thing he’s doing, gladness in his progress. Money, even clean money, doesn’t stack up with that” (Steinbeck 544). I cannot blame Adam for this, because I understand why he doesn’t accept the gift, and it is not his fault. It is easy to forgive him because he says right after that, “Have I made you angry, son? Don’t be angry. If you want to give me a present – give me a good life. That would be something I could value” (Steinbeck 544). That is right, it is what he should have said. In fact, I don’t see any part of the story that is wrong – meaning, it feels like every action of it had to happen. I don’t think of any of them and say, “if only that hadn’t happened, and it had been done differently, then everything would have turned out alright.” The story had to happen the way that it did: Adam had to reject Cal and Cal had to show his brother their mother. The only thing that I question is the only part of the story that differs between the book and Genesis. In the book, Cal doesn’t kill Aron. He shows him their mother and that destroys Aron, so that Aron enlists in the army and is killed. In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain kills Abel outright, and he means to do it. I don’t know why Steinbeck made this change, but it makes a difference for me. There is a big difference between murdering Aron – which must be surrendering to evil – and simply telling him something very painful. Caleb did not kill Aron – World War I did. Aron made the choice to enlist, and there was nothing Cal could do about that. Yes, Cal’s actions led to Aron’s death, but not directly, and Aron had a hand in it as well. After all, Aron was also unhappy at the college that his father was so obsessed with him attending, and that must have had a hand in the misery that drove him to enlist. It is not entirely Cal’s fault that Aron died. This makes a difference because Caleb did not surrender to evil – I suppose he still has to make that choice.

Does Cal have to be evil because he has his mother’s blood and is like her? I think the answer to that question is in Adam’s word to his son. When Aron died as a result of Cal’s hurtful act, Adam had a stroke. In a desperate attempt to get the forgiveness he needs from his father, Cal admits what he did. Adam responds by saying, “Timshel!” (Steinbeck 602). Earlier in the story, it is explained that in one translation of the bible, this word is translated as, “thou shalt,” while in another translation it says, “do thou” (Steinbeck 301). Lee is puzzled by this and studies Hebrew in order to know the correct translation, which he discovers is actually “thou mayest” (Steinbeck 303). Thus, the entire sentence is “Thou mayest rule over sin” (Steinbeck 303). In Lee’s words, the difference between these is that, “The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin, and you can call sin ignorance. The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou Shalt,’ meaining that men will surely triumph over sin. 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’” (Steinbeck 303). Caleb can triumph over the evil of his mother, which is surely in him and all humans, but he doesn’t have to. He can or can not, may or may not, the choice is his. This is important.

Work Cited

Steinbeck, John. East of Eden. New York: Penguin Books, 1952. Print.

I’m more than halfway through this book by John Steinbeck. Of the books I have read by him, it may be my favorite. I think this is because it feels like the perfect combination of plot, setting, point of view, and writing style. What I have always liked most about Steinbeck’s books is his writing style, while the plot and theme haven’t always intrigued me. In this book, the plot and writing style go together well. The writing style is very simple and straight-forward, but still remains descriptive enough for the reader to feel the story.

The plot is basically a retelling of the biblical story of Cain and Abel in the two sons  of Adam Trask, Caleb and Aaron, and his marriage to evil Cathy. This biblical aspect of the book also goes with the solemn and simple writing style well, and gives the reader a lot to think about. The characters also analyze the story of Cain and Abel, which helps make the themes of the book very strong. When Samuel, Lee, and Adam sit down to name Adam’s sons, Samuel says of the story of Cain and Abel, “Two stories have haunted us and followed us from our beginning . . . we carry them along with us like invisible tails — the story of original sin and the story of Cain and Abel. And I don’t understand either of them. I don’t understand them at all but I feel them” (Steinbeck 266). I don’t know that the story has as much significance as these men give it, but I do remember being puzzled and troubled the first time I heard the story of Cain and Abel. I think the story captures some universal, elusive human feeling. In our world, brotherly murders don’t happen often, but I think that Cain and Abel’s relationship must not have been very brotherly. They shared the same desire, but Abel was the one that got what they both wanted (approval and acceptance from God, a father figure – what must children want). Cain must have felt not only envious and angry, but also that Abel was too similar to himself for them both to live. There could only be one son of Adam and Eve, and naturally in his anger Cain chose himself to live. I will need to think more about the story after I have seen how it plays out between Caleb and Aaron. This ancient story is also where the name of the book comes from:  when Samuel, Adam, and Lee go over the story Samuel reads aloud from the bible, “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden” (Steinbeck 268). I associated this mythical place which seems important to the story with the other place that is important to the story, its setting of the Salinas Valley. This setting is typical of Steinbeck, and I think as I read the book it will develop how the Valley is like the land that is east of Eden. The term certainly invokes a distinct feeling, if Eden is perfection, maybe humans live in the land east of it.

The book also tells the story of the Hamilton family, from which the narrator seems to be descended from, evidenced when he says, “When I, [Olive Hamilton's] only son, was sixteen . . .” (Steinbeck 150).  Apparently, this book also functions as a familial autobiography for Steinbeck, for when the narrator describes the Hamilton children and their spouses he includes Olive Hamilton and Ernest Steinbeck, whom I assume are the parents of the author (Steinbeck 284). This personal involvement makes the book more vivid and compelling, I think, although it does kind of blur the lines between reality and fiction. Perhaps this is supposed to be like the Bible, which some interpret as history, others as myth, some as truth and others as lies. I am looking forward to reading the rest of this book.

Work Cited

Steinbeck, John. East of Eden. New York: Penguin Books, 1952. Print.