| John Steinbeck | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This property was reserved by lostnabook I'm 25 years old, from California, USA. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Through much of his creative literature, John Steinbeck discusses profound issues including the practicality of Communism verses Capitalism, philosophies of religion and humanitarianism, and the importance of the family in an intriguing and masterful way. Steinbeck could have chosen to write his philosophies in a textbook manner, discussing each issue individually and abstractly. If he had done so, he likely would have been included with the other philosophers of the 1900s and read only by aspiring philosophy students. Rather than suffering the fate of such a small audience, Steinbeck dwells on these issues through his creative writing, while telling stories of realistic people in realistic settings. Steinbeck is able to develop believable characters, placing them in historic or otherwise palpable settings and circumstances, and discuss issues of great philosophic, political and humanitarian consequence without interfering with the reader�s perception of the characters or the story. In The Grapes of Wrath and In Dubious Battle, he discusses these issues without hampering the stories he is telling by using the words and actions of minor characters and through narration. In many of his shorter works, including Burning Bright and Of Mice and Men, Steinbeck frames his story with the issue that he wants to present and places normal or realistic characters within the frame. Steinbeck is able to effectively present and argue his point without interfering with the way that the characters are expected to function. In The Winter of Our Discontent, Steinbeck�s artistic skills have been masterfully developed and he is able to poetically discuss profound issues in a more integrated and functional manner through the thoughts of the main character. By integrating his philosophies within novels he attracts many different types of people to participate in his discussions and makes his philosophies much more comprehensible to the average reader. In Tortilla Flat, one of his earlier works, published in 1935, Steinbeck�s characters are not quite as realistic and believable as in his more refined literature; however, he uses the same type of mechanism to facilitate his philosophic discussion. Here, the characters are simplistic and ridiculous; they are greedy and drunken, refusing to work except on occasion to buy a bottle of liquor. They gain their subsistence through thievery. However, their lifestyle serves as an example of Communism and finally of its failure because of the unwillingness of individuals to work together and share their subsistence. Danny and his friends are Communistic in the sense that they live communally in Danny�s house, sharing their food, wine, and lives with one another. They illustrate the profound issue of Communism�s failure because they are greedy and attempt to hide their food and wine until their companions discover that they have it and they are forced, out of politeness, to share. In addition, their refusal to work and their thievery illustrates the extreme side of Communism�s inability to motivate workers. It is not until the end of the story that they finally work together to give their friend, Danny, a party to bring him out of his depression. When Danny dies, they decide that their lifestyle needs to die with him and they burn down the house that they have been living communistically in. They then part to pursue their own paths and, once again, fend for themselves. They are too selfish to continue to live communally and to succeed at working together for any long period of time. Thus, Steinbeck gives an example of Communism�s ultimate failure, exploring his own beliefs on the subject, as a frame to this story of paisanos in Monterey. Steinbeck illustrates his point without affecting the reader�s view of his characters. These characters remain simplistic, lazy, and loathsome; however, they live communally and share in a communistic manner. Their selfishness is an example of the normal human weakness that hampers Communism�s success. They do not take part in the discussion as characters. They are portrayed as being simplistic and idiotic, philosophizing about such issues would be uncharacteristic of them; however, Steinbeck is able to use their actions as an illustration and tool to discuss his own feelings, without affecting their character types. Through these simplistic characters, Steinbeck shows the base human weaknesses that make Communism unrealistic and ultimately impossible in our imperfect world. Through many of his works, especially the California stories of the 1930s, Steinbeck continues this discussion and deals with many of the other various facets of Communism. He defines Communism according to the views of many different groups of people and explores its potential and work-ability in realistic terms. Through a cursory look at these discussions, it is easy to determine that he was a Communist as many people did; however, this is not necessarily true. Steinbeck may have agreed with the Socialist party on many issues; yet, through a close analysis of the way he presents his arguments, it is evident that he is discussing both negative and positive aspects of Communism. It is likely that he was exploring the negative and positive aspects of Communist policies in order to determine where he stood. His use of satire, such as in Tortilla Flat, and the way he maintains realism in The Grapes of Wrath and In Dubious Battle shows that he is less communistic and more moderate in his views. His writing argues for change, but he does not necessarily think that Communism is the answer for the American people. Critic, John Taylor states in his article �The Liberation of Jesse Hill Ford,� that �John Steinbeck still believed in the power of the novel to expose injustice and initiate social change� (74). Stephen Allison describes Steinbeck as having �a highly developed social vision� (245). Steinbeck believed that through his writing he could initiate social and political change by inspiring his readers to action. He discusses issues of great magnitude in order to both decide how he feels about the issues and to help his readers explore their own feelings and determine a need for change. Steinbeck viewed writing �as a pragmatic, even a therapeutic activity� (Wyatt 155). He used his writing to work through complex issues for himself, first, and for his readers, second. Wyatt explains that he used �writing as a way of working through that frees up energy needed to experience pleasure in his personal life� (Ibid.). Not only did Steinbeck believe that writing would help him work through these difficult issues, but he also believed it was impossible to write without bias and opinion. He believed that no matter what style of writing was being done, �A man�s writing is himself� (Steinbeck-Critics 49). In a letter that Steinbeck wrote from Rome in 1957, he explains: A novel may be said to be the man who writes it, . . . Now it is nearly always true that a novelist, perhaps unconsciously, identifies himself with one chief or central character in his novel. Into this character he puts not only what he thinks he is but what he hopes to be. We can call this spokesman the self-character. You will find one in every one of my books and in the novels of everyone I can remember. (Wyatt 155) Steinbeck believed that it was impossible not to include his own beliefs in his works and he quite often did not try to keep them out. He used minor characters to illustrate his beliefs so that they would not interfere as much with the story and with the personalities of the major characters. In his novel, In Dubious Battle, Steinbeck represents his philosophies toward many important political, religious and humanitarian issues through the words of his minor characters, while using his major characters to reflect events in a fairly historical, though fictional, manner. Mac and Jim are two of the novel�s main characters. They are the political leaders of the �party,� ostensibly, the Communist Party. Mac and Jim are central to the action of the story and they are realistic and believable characters because political leaders such as they very likely existed during this era and attempted to guide the workers� movement in the direction of Communism. However, they are relatively flat characters in that they do not greatly develop through the story, but are defined by their roles as party leaders. Steinbeck�s beliefs are more fully reflected in the minor characters of the novel, such as Doctor Burton. Burton is not a member of the party, but he cares about people and wants to improve conditions for the workers. Through an analysis of the interaction between Dr. Burton and the orthodox party leaders, it is possible to understand why Steinbeck would write novels about Communism as he did, if he did not himself completely accept Communist policies. The actions and conversation of these minor characters, in comparison to those of the main characters, can help the reader come to a closer understanding of Steinbeck�s philosophies and, in turn, the reader can gain a firmer grasp on the message he is trying to share. Dr. Burton seems to more fully embody Steinbeck�s political beliefs and their place within this environment than do any of the novel�s main characters. It is interesting that though Burton is the least �red� of the three men, when speaking to Jim, a �rat� strongly accuses Burton of being a communist. His actions seem to the other characters to be the least democratic and capitalistic and the most communistic of the group. He is, seemingly, giving his labor for free, and they cannot understand why he would be willing to give so much of himself and his talents for no financial, or otherwise material, benefit. So, the strikers make up stories to explain his actions in the only manner that is logical to them. Steinbeck uses this as an example of what is being done to him and many other artists during this era. He is able to make a statement declaring the ridiculousness of these conclusions without it detracting from the quality and believability of his story. In the same manner, it is understandable that someone could read Steinbeck�s novels and consider him to be a communist, especially during this period, when the �red scare� was driving people toward more suspicion. Anything that seemed even remotely non-democratic or capitalistic was automatically given the label of Communist. In fact, a search of government files after Steinbeck�s death proved that he was not given more government jobs because he was blacklisted as a communist (Buitenhuis 10). Through Dr. Burton�s words Steinbeck seems to be arguing against this assertion. Steinbeck�s reasons for writing this literature can be understood through Burton�s explanation of his willingness to aid the workers for free. He explains to Mac and Jim that though he does not support the cause in the way they do, he is trying to understand people and the events that make people do things. �I want to see the whole picture�as nearly as I can. I don�t want to put on the blinders of �good� and �bad,� and limit my vision. If I used the term of �good� on a thing I�d lose my license to inspect it, because there might be bad in it. . . . I want to be able to look at the whole thing� (103). In this same way Steinbeck is trying to look at all sides of Communism, both good and bad, so that he does not lose his license to inspect it. If he only showed the good or the bad, then his philosophies would be dismissed because of his prejudices. He attempts to come to an understanding of Communism and the events of this era by discussing them in his literature. He explores both the negative and the positive aspects of �the party� through realistic examples in The Grapes of Wrath, In Dubious Battle, and Tortilla Flat. If he was a rigid Communist, he would be more likely to only show the positive side of Socialism; however, his illustration of both the negative and the positive shows that he is not a rigid Communist, if one at all. In addition, the doctor likes to help people, therefore, he sacrifices his own needs and philosophies, donating his time and abilities to the people, although he dislikes the violence of the strike and disagrees with the philosophies of the party. Steinbeck seems to be stating, through Dr. Burton, that he also disagrees with many of the means used for achieving equality and justice by the workers, but that he does believe that they deserve better treatment. He uses his writing to help his readers better understand the issues and gain a desire to work toward the changes that need to be made. In Dubious Battle (1936) and The Grapes of Wrath (1939) are very similar in the way that Steinbeck discusses the politics of Communism and workers rights. However, in many ways they are vastly different. In Dubious Battle discusses the events primarily from the perspective of the party leaders, while The Grapes of Wrath discusses them from the perspective of an individual family of workers, the Joads. One of the major differences between The Grapes of Wrath and In Dubious Battle is the way that Steinbeck sets up his chapters. From chapter to chapter, he switches back and forth from the plot line of the Joad family to abstract or more general narratives of the people, land, politics and other important aspects of the age. This allows him to incorporate important philosophical discussions of the causes and effects of the Great Depression without it interfering with the plot of the Joad family story. This makes the story more realistic and relevant, placing it in the context of the surrounding events and giving the reader a more complete perspective of the issues and the characters. For example, it allows the reader to see the orchard owners as more than heartless villains, but rather as human beings that were blinded and adversely affected by their circumstances. The philosophies discussed within The Grapes of Wrath are generally presented by either minor characters in the Joad plot or through the abstract discussions of the land and politics of the time. The preacher, Casy, presents many of the philosophies that can be seen as Steinbeck�s own views of the events. Though he plays a fairly important role in the novel, he is not present for the larger part of it. He leaves the family when they first arrive in California and is not seen again until just before his death in the middle of the novel. By presenting his philosophies through a character such as Casy, Steinbeck succeeds at doing many different things that benefit the story. One is that he is able to present his views without interfering with the honesty of his main characters. The Joad family is very typical of migrant families of this era. They do not hold strong political beliefs or do a lot to change the way they are treated by the big farmers. They are not �Reds.� They are typical of the historical migrants of this era in the way they act, live and survive the Great Depression. They are therefore, believable. Their experiences are the epitome of the average experiences and trials faced by these migrants. Tom Joad could have decided early in the story to think more thoroughly about the issues affecting his pay and ability to get work, but he pushes these thoughts aside as he struggles to help feed his family and keep their truck running. He does some thinking throughout the story based on his experience with prison life, but when he finally decides to pursue these �Red� thoughts, he also decides to leave the family and pursue life on his own. This takes him out of the story and, so, the family that remains to be presented by Steinbeck is still a normal example of a migrant family struggling for survival. Steinbeck discusses what it means to be �Red� satirically by having the migrants discuss the definition amongst themselves jokingly. However though the Joads participate in the discussions they are not deeply affected by them until Tom decides to leave the family. �Red� is a new term to the migrants, who are often called �agitators� by the police and the work contractors. For example, Tom asks one of his neighbors at the government camp what a �red� is, and Timothy, the neighbor, responds: They�s a lot a fellas wanta know what reds is. . . . One of our boys foun� out. . . . Fella named Hines�got �bout thirty thousan� acres, peaches and grapes�got a cannery an� a winery. Well, he�s all a time talkin� about �them goddamn reds.� �Goddamn reds is drivin� the country to ruin,� he says, an� �We got to drive these here red bastards out.� Well, they were a young fella jus� come out west here, an� he�s listenin� one day. He kinda scratched his head an� he says, �Mr. Hines, I ain�t been here long. What is these goddamn reds?� Well, sir, Hines says, �A red is any son-of-a-bitch that wants thirty cents an hour when we�re payin� twenty-five!� Well, this young fella he thinks about her, an� he scratches his head, an� he says, �Well, Jesus, Mr. Hines. I ain�t a son-of-a-bitch, but if that�s what a red is�why, I want thirty cents an hour. Ever�body does. Hell, Mr. Hines, we�re all reds.�� (406-407) With this discussion, Steinbeck explains to Tom and to the reader that the workers, who are considered �reds� by the owners, are only normal people trying to make enough money to survive and feed their families. These �agitators� are only trying to get the rights that any human being deserves. They are considered to be agitators or communists only because they are not willing to work for wages on which they will starve to death. Though Tom, a main character, is part of this discussion, a minor character presents the story and the subject is quickly dropped. The Joad family hears discussions like this throughout the story, but they do not become deeply involved in the workers� movement. In these two novels, The Grapes of Wrath and In Dubious Battle, Steinbeck also uses his minor characters to portray non-Communistic beliefs. For example, his attitude toward marriage and trust can be seen in London�s son. London is the natural leader of the workers and eventually the elected leader of the strikers. His son is sufficiently minor that he is never given a name in the text. At the beginning of the story Mac and Jim assist his wife, Lisa in giving birth. Later, after Jim is shot in the shoulder while picketing, Jim lies down on Lisa�s bed from exhaustion. While he is in the tent alone with Lisa, Lisa�s husband walks in and Lisa quickly defends herself and Jim explaining about his injury. London�s son, Lisa�s husband, quickly assures Lisa that he did not think anything and explains to Jim that �if you can�t trust a girl, it don�t do no good to try to watch her. A tramp is a tramp. Lisa ain�t no tramp. I got no call to treat her like a tramp� (175). This is an extremely profound statement to come from a nameless, minor character. It has a more assertive tone than the text surrounding it-as though the author steps in for a moment and gives his own beliefs about women, trust, and marriage through the words of his character. This does not have a lot to do with the theme of the novel, but Steinbeck artistically includes this lesson in love within the turmoil of the strike in order to show a more well rounded and human side of the workers. One of Steinbeck�s much more mature novels, The Winter of Our Discontent, takes a different approach toward the discussion of profound philosophic issues. This novel, published in 1961, shows Steinbeck as a highly developed, mature writer and thinker. Here, Steinbeck integrates his philosophic discussions within the private mental dialogues of the single main character, Ethan Hawley. The prose of this story is written poetically with highly descriptive language that draws the reader into Ethan�s physical and mental (or emotional) world. This allows the reader to become involved with and enjoy the text while allowing Steinbeck to discuss his philosophic issues unobtrusively. Ethan Hawley is a store clerk from a once wealthy, patrician family of his small town, New Baytown. He has received a good education from Harvard, after which he was a captain in World War II, where he served honorably. However, while he was off at war his father lost a large part of their wealth through bad investments. Ethan lost the rest of the family�s fortune when he returned from war. He had to sell all of their assets to pay off their debts and save their ancestral home. This is how an intellectual, well-bred man became a simple store clerk. Ethan�s detailed analysis of life�s problems and dilemmas is realistic and within the character expectations of a Harvard graduate. In addition, his financial failure is realistic and unsurprising for the time period. These two aspects of his character set the stage for the transformation he undergoes through the story. He is, therefore, a believable character in unusual, though realistic, circumstances. The reader is not busy doubting Ethan�s authenticity as he philosophizes about deep issues; rather, the reader is able to focus on the story being told. Steinbeck also chooses symbolic titles for his literature in order to direct the reader to the issues being discussed without greatly interfering with the story by including extra explanation of symbolic connections. For example in East of Eden the reader should know that the novel is dealing with events connected to the Garden of Eden in the Old Testament of the Bible. Using this symbolic title as a guide, it is easier for the reader to find the connection between Cain and Abel and Charles and Adam Trask at the beginning of the novel and to more fully understand the work as a whole. Steinbeck also uses symbolic titles to prepare the reader for the upcoming philosophic discussion with the title of the novel, The Winter of Our Discontent. This title comes from Richard�s introductory soliloquy in Shakespeare�s play, �Richard III,� and refers to Richard�s upcoming treachery toward his family and close friends geared toward his rise to the throne. Richard�s treachery is much more brutal, yet is a parallel to Ethan�s own cunning brutality to his friends and boss. Both characters create their own destruction. By taking the title of this novel from Shakespeare�s Richard III, Steinbeck sets the philosophic stage for the reader without interfering with the story being told. He is able to communicate a comparison between Ethan and Richard in the reader�s mind, without doing so directly in his text. However, Ethan Hawley is not identical to Richard III. Richard is cold and calculating. The only time he regrets his actions in any way, showing a little bit of his humanity, is during the final ghost scene just before his defeat. Ethan shows his humanity throughout the story. He decides to sacrifice that humanity in order to give his family and peers what they expect of him. He is not striving for power and financial gain for his own benefit, but rather, for the benefit of his wife, children, and for his ancestors. The whole town pushes him toward the sacrifice of his morality for financial success, over and over telling him that he is too nice and too honest. In addition to symbolic titles, Steinbeck uses many different methods to discuss his ideologies in The Winter of Our Discontent. One of the most brazen methods used is the philosophic sermons given by Ethan to his grocery store shelves. These discussions are extremely profound and engaging. They would make for the base of many excellent discussions among philosophy students pondering the relativity of moral values and other issues of humanity. He even delves into the existence theories of Descartes-satirically commenting that man has decided that nothing exists that is not directly experienced. All of these issues are discussed in the context of the story, enriching the story without detracting from it in any way. It is actually difficult to stop reading long enough to take note of the philosophic discussions because the story is so well written An example of one of the discussions Ethan has with his groceries is his explorations of the different character requirements for a successful businessman. He finally decides that he can step out of his kind nature, become successful through treachery, and then return to the same kind, humane person he has always been. He compares this relativity of values and �good� to the justification of killing in war and the ability of soldiers to return to normal lives after this killing. The different sides of this debate are taken up between Ethan and his groceries, allowing Steinbeck to debate the issue in a unique and creative manner, while telling an intriguing and realistic story. However, after Ethan has succeeded in becoming wealthy through killing his best friend and betraying his boss, he discovers that his son is already following in his dishonest footsteps; Ethan cannot bear this in addition to his own sins. It is only through the insight that his daughter�s life and soul are also at risk that he refrains from killing himself and returns to his family at the story's conclusion. Ethan�s progress from a cautious store clerk to a treacherous villain is closely analyzed through his sermons to the unresponsive groceries on his market shelves. He does not philosophize with his wife or children, or with the neighbors, but only with himself and his groceries. To the neighbors he is a simple-minded quitter. He hides his true intellect at first because he has no reason to show it, but later, through his development as a villain, because to show his mental capacity would be to insure failure. In these soliloquies, Ethan discusses many different philosophic issues. For example, he debates the way that he and his wife fail to talk and listen to one another, but rather communicate feelings through listening to each other�s tone of voice and watching facial expressions. On another occasion, he discusses the rules of successful bank-robbery, which his friend Joey, the bank clerk, gives to him and he expands upon. All of these issues are discussed contextually within the story, in a profound and engaging manner-enriching the story without detracting from it in any way. Steinbeck very artistically interweaves the plot and philosophy together so that the average reader would not be held up by discussions he/she does not understand, but would be able to read through them and learn something from the story despite these discussions. His writing, both of this novel and, to a lesser extent, many of his other works, can be compared to the parables of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ taught his religious doctrine through parables because his followers were at many different levels of understanding. Through teaching in parables Christ is able to reach all of his followers at the same time. Each individual follower can listen to and read his stories growing a little bit toward an understanding of his message. As human beings we learn one set of lessons and then we are ready for the next set. �For precept must be upon precept, . . . line upon line; here a little, and there a little� (Isaiah 28:10). For example, in math we must first learn to count, then add, then multiply and after many years, we are ready to learn algebra and eventually calculus. If we were to delve straight into calculus, we would be lost. If Christ had given his doctrine straight many of his followers would not have been able to accept it and would have fallen away. Steinbeck understands this and does the same thing throughout his literature, especially in The Winter of Our Discontent and East of Eden. He interweaves his philosophies within his stories in a way that the average reader can glean a minor understanding without being completely confused, but his more advanced readers can still learn and develop through their third and fourth reading of the text. Despite the fact that Ethan, the main character, philosophizes throughout the text discussing many profound issues, it is often difficult to determine when Steinbeck does and does not agree with him. Throughout the novel the minor characters play a significant role in clarifying when his statements are in harmony with Steinbeck�s own philosophic views, or whether Steinbeck is challenging the concepts through their implementation in the story. This is especially true when Ethan begins to reap the rewards of his treachery. One of the first instances is Saturday morning, July 3rd, when at the last moment he is stopped from robbing the bank by the appearance of Richard Walder, a FBI agent. Walder has come to do Marullo, Ethan�s boss, a last favor before deporting him for illegal immigration. His appearance shows that Steinbeck does not agree wholly with Ethan�s philosophy of relative morality. Earlier in the story, Ethan called the FBI to report Marullo�s illegal entry in hopes that Marullo would try to sell him the store in desperation before being caught. However, Marullo was used to dealing with people always trying to take him for all he had and in Ethan he saw the opposite, an honest man, who �didn�t try to cheat him, didn�t steal, didn�t whine, didn�t chisel . . .. He tried to figure out your racket, and he discovered your racket was honesty� (255). Marullo saw Ethan as all that the Statue of Liberty, Declaration of Independence, and America in general stood for: that if you do something wrong, you have to pay for it. So, Ethan became a �kind of monument to something he believed in once� (255), a �down payment, kind of, so the light won�t go out� (256). As Ethan and Walder discuss this view of Marullo�s, it almost seems as if Steinbeck is sharing his own feelings on the subject of morality. It reads with the tone of something the author considers as being true. Steinbeck seems to be telling the reader that we, as humanity, have to do good to make a down payment and have good as a reward. He shows through Marullo that though things may not always turn out as we would wish them to, we need to continue to keep up the effort to build an account of good deeds. Through Ethan�s reaction to this good deed done by Marullo, the reader can see more fully and accurately how Steinbeck feels about this issue. Ethan became a light for Marullo to keep his hope alive despite the treachery of the America he discovered upon his arrival. He felt that he had to give Ethan the store in order to keep his light from burning out, to keep his vision of the world�s potential beauty and honesty alive. His giving Ethan the store saves Ethan from needing to rob the bank in order to buy it, but it also signifies the deterioration of Ethan�s belief that he can return to a normal moral life after obtaining his fortune. By giving him the store, Marullo returns a reward for the betrayal that Ethan has served him. Therefore, Ethan is receiving benefits for treachery, rather than punishment for his sins. This really hits home for him and begins his journey into �desolation� (256). Through Ethan�s emotional reaction to this incident, Steinbeck discusses his belief that morality is not relative. It is not something that can be taken off and then put back on with the day�s fashion. Ethan believes at the beginning of the story that he can commit these moral atrocities, gain the wealth that will give his family back the dignity and nobility they once had in the town, and not be permanently affected by the sins he commits. He compares this to killing in war. He was able to kill in the war and never do so again, and though he occasionally had nightmares about it, he was able to overcome them. He believes that he can do the same with the dishonest deeds needed to obtain wealth. When he realizes that he had been respected by Marullo the way that he had, that he was a light to him, Ethan�s already dimming inner light began to fade more rapidly. He took one more step toward not being willing to continue to live with himself after the atrocities he had committed. Ethan�s sudden desire to kill himself as a compensation for his sins, shows Steinbeck�s disgust and opposition toward people who think they can do these type of things without suffering or being affected by them long term. He illustrates his feelings toward relative morality by having Ethan discuss the possibility of it and by then having Ethan react toward the repercussions of his actions in relation to the minor characters of the story. Steinbeck has filled The Winter of Our Discontent with discussions of various philosophic topics dealing with human nature and religious issues. The reader can easily discern most of them, but a few are deeply imbedded in the moralistic structure of the story. In East of Eden the debates are more difficult to separate from the story's structure. This novel reads more like Christ�s parables and less like a philosophy textbook than The Winter of Our Discontent. In East of Eden, Steinbeck uses the Cain and Abel story from the Old Testament as a motif to philosophically explore the issues of man�s free agency and relationship with God. He uses doppelganger characters to illustrate different paths that might be chosen by humanity in our struggle to overcome sin. While the issue of free agency verses predestination is openly discussed by some of the characters, the point is more efficiently made through a discussion of the choices made by the Cain and Abel characters primarily, and further illustrated by Catherine Trask�s and Abra Bacon�s attitudes toward evil. In this novel, Steinbeck discusses most of his philosophic issues either through his own real, or contrived, memories as the narrator, or through discussions between Samuel Hamilton and Lee, Adam Trask�s house servant. These are two relatively minor characters though they play important parts in the story; they are not the stories central figures and are not the characters that the reader is watching the development of. An example of Steinbeck using the narration to philosophize, is his debate of what a lie is when he introduces Cathy Ames, who later becomes Adam�s wife, Catherine Trask. He begins by calling Cathy a monster with a malformed soul, explaining that as a child she was a liar, and not in the sense normal for children. Cathy did not daydream or tell stories. Steinbeck explains: �I think the difference between a lie and a story is that a story utilizes the trappings and appearance of truth for the interest of the listener as well as the teller. A story has in it neither gain or loss. But a lie is devised for profit or escape.� (74) This explanation of the difference between a child�s daydreamed story verses a devised lie, meant for gain or escape, is a creative way of preparing the reader for the upcoming discussion of the difference between sin and an innocent mistake. Sin is something that a person does intentionally knowing that it serves an evil purpose. A mistake is closer to the child�s story; it is not meant to do harm to others or to purposefully be profited from. The way that Steinbeck introduces this concept, then develops it by discussing Cathy�s evil progression, allows him to give the reader a doppelganger character for comparison with the novel�s Cain characters, without making them worse than is realistic. Steinbeck does not do the same thing with a good character, and therefore his Abel characters seem to be better than believable and somewhat unrealistic. Steinbeck�s focus is on the characters overcoming evil. Therefore, the Abel characters do not need to be juxtaposed against a character who is better than they, because they are not working to overcome the good or evil inherent in their characters. Throughout East of Eden this Old Testament story of Cain and Abel is used to discuss the concepts of free agency verses predestination. It deals with the Cain and Abel story both symbolically and directly, with the main characters, Adam and Charles Trask and later, Caleb and Aron Trask replaying the parts of Cain and Abel as they grow up. Steinbeck discusses man�s ability to overcome evil, such as is represented by Cain, and the failings of the lone goodness of the Abel characters. In other words, the Cain characters struggle with their evil, the Abel characters have no evil to fight against and so they do not understand evil when they see it. They do not accept it. Rather they deny its existence and imagine other people and things to be as good as they are. This goodness is a flaw in its hollowness and naivet�. For example, with the first set of Cain and Abel characters introduced, Adam and Charles Trask, Adam (Abel) is inherently good. This is emphasized when his father forces him into the military during the wars against the Indians of the late 1800�s. Adam does his best to be a good soldier, but he is not capable of killing and becomes adept at aiming to miss. The Abel characters� incomprehension of evil is illustrated in Adam Trask�s inability to see his wife Catherine for who she really is: a heartless whore. He imagines her to be a good, innocent and beautiful woman and he wants to create an Edenic garden for her to enjoy. However, she is not an Eve in the sense of deserving admiration for being the mother of all living. Rather, she is symbolically Eve only in the sense of being mother of all sin. She is not interested in a Garden of Eden and after bearing her sons, she leaves Adam. His lack of evil makes him unable to handle this blatant wrong in Catherine; he is destroyed and unable to bounce back after she leaves. After many lectures and a beating by his friend Samuel he does bounce back a little, but he is never again the same. His son Aron has the same type of failing, he can not see the world for what it is, and when he does discover that the world is not so good and clean, he is shocked and destroyed. When Aron begins hearing rumors of his mother he refuses to believe she is alive because it would make his father and Lee liars and he is unable to accept them as good people if they lied. In addition, when he is dating Abra, he does not see her for who she really is, but rather for what he imagines her to be. He creates a perfect, angelic woman and is blind to her faults and shortcomings. Abra is not the evil woman that Aron�s mother is, but she is not perfect. She has evil within her and she recognizes it. When she is freed from Aron�s love she feels a release like she has been freed from a prison. She is now free to be good, where previously she did not feel like she could be good enough for Aron. Abra and Catherine are doppelganger characters to the Cain characters, Charles and Caleb. They are examples of the different paths that these characters can follow. Catherine lacks good; she is purely evil and does not believe that anyone is really good. The Cain characters can choose to give in to their evil and become as she is, or they can continue to struggle against their inherent evil as Abra does. These characters further illustrate Steinbeck�s arguments about free agency by giving examples of the different paths available to the Cain characters. The reader�s understanding of them will be greater after a second and third reading of the text and after further study of the biblical story. At various points in their development the Cain and Abel characters are aware of their aptitude toward good or evil, but their awareness is more of an agreement with God to the terms given them, then an actively aware participation in the discussion. They therefore struggle with the issue without being fully aware of what they are doing. In consequence, they more accurately illustrate Steinbeck�s discussion than they would if they actively participated in the discussion. Steinbeck begins East of Eden with the story of Adam and Charles�s boyhood, which tells of Charles�s jealousy of Adam, comparable to Cain�s jealousy of Abel. Charles is jealous of Adam�s opportunity to go to war and of the favoritism shown him by his father. Before Adam leaves, Charles attempts to kill him as Cain killed Abel, explaining as his reason that their father accepted and loved Adam�s Christmas gift of a pet dog, but did not care for the gift of a knife that Charles gave him. These gifts are symbolic of the sacrifices made by Cain and Abel to God and their acceptance and rejection by God. While Adam is away at war, Charles remains home and prosperously tends to the farm. He eventually has an accident where he is left with a scar on his forehead. This scar represents the mark placed on Cain for the murder of his brother. It is interesting that this mark was placed on Cain to spare his life so that his brethren would not kill him, rather than necessarily as a punishment. It represents the evil that Charles (or Cain) has within him and is placed on him to give him the opportunity to overcome this evil. The main discussion, centering on free agency verses predestination, focuses in on the Cain brothers. First Charles, who generally gives in to the evil and is marked for life for his sin, and later Caleb, who struggles against sin and finally receives the tool necessary to overcome it at the peak of his despair. This tool is the Hebrew word �Timshel,� which his father speaks when Lee presses him to speak his son�s name after suffering a stroke. �Timshel� is the original Hebrew word used in the Old Testament by God telling Cain that he has the choice to overcome sin. The King James Version of the Bible uses the term �Thou shalt,� which according to Lee is stating that man is predestined to overcome sin or not to. Humankind has no choice and nothing that we do can change the eventual outcome. We are destined. The American Standard translation of the Bible uses the phrasing, �Do thou,� which is an order from God for man to overcome sin. The original Hebrew word �Timshel� can be translated to mean �Thou mayest,� which gives man a real choice. This means it is ultimately man�s choice to let the evil within overcome the good or vice versa. If we make bad choices and give in then we fail, but the responsibility is our own, not Gods. Maybe he has commanded us to be good and overcome evil, but he has left the choice up to us. (302-304) Midway through the novel the sixteen verses of the Old Testament that include the Cain and Abel story are read and discussed by Samuel Hamilton, Lee and Adam Trask. By this point in the novel, Adam�s role as Abel in conjunction with his brother as Cain is basically finished. Through the discussion of this story, Cain and Abel are connected to Adam and Charles in both the reader�s mind and in Adam�s own thinking. He comes to understand his brother and their relationship more completely through this discussion. However, he does not embrace the story in his mind the way that Samuel and, more especially, Lee do. He seems to grasp onto a bit of understanding and then store it away, forgetting about it until the next discussion, ten years latter. The placement of this story at this point in East of Eden serves many purposes. In addition to connecting the biblical story to the lives of Adam and Charles for Adam and the reader, it also sets the stage for Adam�s children to play out their roles as Cain and Abel figures and it promotes the discussion of good and evil begun with the discussion of Cathy�s lying. Possibly the most important reason for including the story at this point is that it ensures that all of Steinbeck�s readers have some contact with the story. Steinbeck does not just assume that his readers will understand the references he makes to the biblical story, but presents the story in full so that all of his readers will have it. This verbatim quotation of the biblical text within his novel tells the reader that he considers this story to be important and clues the reader in to looking for additional connections between the characters and this story. He further emphasizes the story�s importance by discussing its importance to a non-Christian character such as Lee. In doing so, Steinbeck masterfully includes his own view of the importance of the study of literature and the aspects of literature that makes one piece of literature a work of art and a classic and not another. Lee explains that: �No story has power, nor will it last, unless we feel ourselves that it is true and true of us� (268). Then further emphasizes this rule stating that �The strange and foreign is not interesting�only the deeply personal and familiar� (270). In these two statements, Steinbeck, through Lee, validates the importance and necessity of the secular study of the Bible. It does not matter whether the Bible is true literally, it matters that the Bible contains truth about humanity and helps us to better understand ourselves and the world around us. This is further stressed, in relation to any piece of writing, when the three meet again ten years latter and discuss the story with more depth. Samuel asks Lee why he is so interested in this story if he does not believe in its divine origin, and Lee explains: �Any writing which has influenced the thinking and the lives of innumerable people is important (303),� and that � . . . these sixteen verses are a history of humankind in any age or culture or race� (304). A classical piece of literature, which survives the test of time to be studied by ages of scholars, includes this type of �history of humankind� and influences innumerable people. If something influences the decisions and actions of a lot of people, it is important to understand why and how, so that we can know how to react to the influence that it exercises both on ourselves and on those we interact with or are ruled by. With Lee�s statements about literature�s power to influence the minds of humanity, Steinbeck is also validating and explaining his own purposes in writing. Through his writing he attempts to sort out some of the �history of humankind� and help his readers to better understand these important issues of Communism, family relationships, relative morality, and such. He delves into these issues as a philosopher, looking for truth, but discusses them through his parabolic stories so that he can reach a more diverse audience. Another important issue that Steinbeck creatively deals with in this novel and in Burning Bright is unconditional love of parents for their children. In East of Eden it is impossible to determine whether Aron and Caleb are truly Adam�s sons or whether they are the sons of his brother, Charles. Catherine slept with Charles after she and Adam were married, but before their marriage was consummated. She tells Adam this when the boys are teenagers and he has to decide whether it matters. He has to decide that it does not matter that Aron and Caleb may not be his children literally, because they are his emotionally. He therefore puts the possibility of their illegitimacy aside and does not allow it to affect his relationship with them. In Burning Bright Steinbeck tells the story of a married couple who are very much in love and desperately want to have children. It is especially important to the husband to have a child who he can pass on his talents and skills to, because they have been in the family for generations. However, unknown to himself, he is sterile. His wife knows it is he that is sterile because she has been pregnant before. She decides to sacrifice a part of herself to give him the child he wants by sleeping with another man. When the husband discovers that he is sterile he has to decide to accept his wife�s gift in the way she intended it. She did not sleep with this other man to cheat on him, but because she loved him. The husband has to decide to love her and the child despite the fact that the child is not his natural child. Steinbeck tells this story using three different settings and sets of characters. He begins the story in a circus, continues it on a farm and concludes with sailors whose wives wait on shore for them to return from sea. The use of these three different life-styles allows Steinbeck to teach his reader that this dilemma is applicable to all types of people and not unique to one group. This change in setting makes the theme a frame for the characters to function within. Most of Steinbeck�s early critics argue that he is a poor writer and that his novels are not worthy of being recognized among classic literature. For example, W. M. Frohock accuses him of being simply sentimental for the plight of half-wits and uncomplicated, simpleminded people. Frohock complains that �Steinbeck�s compassion leads to oversimplification, a distaste for complication which extends beyond a mere dislike of complicating personalities� (324). This assumes that Steinbeck�s focus for writing is on the main characters in his novels. However, these main characters should not be focused on in reading Steinbeck; Steinbeck generally only uses them to illustrate his point as a tool, rather than as the main focal point. Rather, Steinbeck�s focus is on the underlying ideas he is trying to discuss rather than on a particular group of people. By finding and analyzing the �self-character� it is possible to understand Steinbeck�s purpose in writing. It is the way the minor characters interact with and learn from the actions of the main characters that is important in most of Steinbeck�s works. In Of Mice and Men, Steinbeck does not direct the reader�s attention toward Lennie, a half-wit who cannot take care of himself, rather he is using Lennie to illustrate his discussion of mercy killing and of the importance of friendship and companionship. The reader�s focus should be on how George�s understanding of friendship develops through the story. Steinbeck sets the story up so that the reader will come away from it thinking about his/her own relationships, wondering who is benefiting and how. The attentive reader should wonder whether he/she is taking advantage of a friendship in the way that George is taking advantage of Lennie. This is much more than the sentimental story of a half-wit failing to survive in the real world. It is a parable that teaches the reader what friendship is and when it is being abused. In East of Eden, the main characters are a little more important than Lennie is; they are more than just motifs serving to further another character�s understanding of some issue. They are also learning to understand these issues, but their development is secondary to the issue. Readers should not deeply sympathize with the na�ve behavior of Adam or Aron or feel too sorry for Charles and Caleb�s rejection. Steinbeck is not simply telling the story of little boys growing up with uncaring fathers who fail to understand them. Rather, he is telling the story of humankind�s struggle to overcome their evil or na�vely good natures. The story is more about Lee�s development in understanding man�s ability to choose to overcome evil than it is about the boys themselves. Steinbeck successfully experiments with many different forms of writing to illustrate and debate his ideas of politics, family life and humanitarianism. His stories are creative and realistic, but they are parables, serving a much greater purpose than simply entertaining the reader. Fundamentally, they are a tool to teach his readers how to live and improve their lives. He discusses his issues in this parabolic manner in order to attract a larger amount of people to the discussion and affect them more deeply than a lecture or textbook debate would. It is important for a reader to understand what the author is attempting to accomplish with his/her writing in order to understand whether he/she has done it well. Critics such as Frohock approach their reading of Steinbeck�s works from the wrong direction. They focus on the main characters and the plot rather than the ideas that Steinbeck is trying to illustrate and therefore see faults that are not important or even real. When the critic accepts and focuses his/her reading on the philosophies in the text, the skill of Steinbeck�s creation becomes apparent. The reader needs to know what the author is attempting to do in order to be a good judge of how well the author does it. Works Cited Allison, Stephen. �Books.� Antioch Review. 54.2 (Spring 1996): 245. EBSCOhost. Online. August 1998. Buitenhuis, Peter. �Prelude to War: The Interventionist Propaganda of Archibald MacLeish, Robert E. Sherwood, and John Steinbeck.� Canadian Review of American Studies. 26.1 (1996): 1-30. EBSCOhost. Online. August 1998. Frohock, W. M. �John Steinbeck-The Utility of Wrath.� The Novel of Violence in America. Southern Methodist Press: 1957. 124-143. Contemporary Literary Criticism. 1 (1973): 323-324. �Isaiah.� King James Version of Bible. Salt Lake City, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: 1989. Steinbeck, John. Burning Bright. New York, Banam Books: 1970. Original Copyright 1950. - - �Critics�From a Writer�s Viewpoint.� Steinbeck and His Critics. Ed. E. W. Tedlock and C. V. Wicker. Albuquerque, U of New Mexico Press. 1957. - - "The Crysanthmums." Fiction 100. Ed. James H. Pickering. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall: 1995. Original Copyright 1937. - - In Dubious Battle. New York, Bantam Books: 1961. Original Copyright 1936. - - East of Eden. New York, Book of the Month Club: 1995. Original Copyright 1952. - - The Grapes of Wrath. New York, Book of the Month Club: 1995. Original Copyright 1929. - - "Leader of the People." The Long Valley. New York, Book of the Month Club. 1995. Original Copyright 1941. - - Of Mice and Men. New York, Book of the Month Club. 1995. Original Copyright 1937. - - The Pearl. New York, Bantam Books. 1983. Original Copyright 1933. - - The Red Pony. New York, Penguin. 1992. Original Copyright 1933. - - Tortilla Flat. New York, Book of the Month Club. 1995. Original Copyright 1935. - - Winter of Our Discontent, The. New York, Book of the Month Club. 1995. Original Copyright 1961. Taylor, John. �The Liberation of Jesse Hill Ford.� Esquire. 127.2 (Feb 1997): 74-82. EBSCOhost. Online. August 1998. Wyatt, David. �Books - - Reviews; John Steinbeck.� Virginia Quarterly Review. 72.1 (Winter 1996): 155-160. EBSCOhost. Online. August 1998. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My interests: |
|
Favourite links
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been visited
|