Talk:East of Eden (novel)

Novels High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Characters

Are the characters in East of Eden based on Steinbeck's relations at all? The book seems to indidicate this is so, and while Steinbeck's mother was named Olive, his father is named John, not Ernest (as in the book). The Jade Knight 09:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The story is somewhat based on his life, as he was born in the Salinas Valley (and the intent was to describe that place to his own children). Indeed, a character named "John Steinbeck" is even the narrator of the book! I would speculate that he would have to draw upon his real-life experiences and relations from Salinas in order to convey such great imagery as he does in this book.

Twas Now 14:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hamiltons seems to be based on reality. There are a few differences, including Ernest instead of John Steinbeck. This page talks about the similarities and differences: http://www.oprah.com/oprahsbookclub/The-Hamiltons-and-Steinbecks-in-Fact-and-Fiction/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.70.144 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The narrator is in fact John Steinbeck the author. John Steinbeck's full name is John Ernst Steinbeck Jr. The Olive Hamilton mentioned in the book is his real mother and Ernest Steinbeck (John Ernest Steinbeck Sr.) is his real father. Why his father's name was not also John is because I'd imagine that he preferred to go by his middle name.

This section contains character summaries copied from http://www.novelguide.com/EastofEden/characterprofiles.html. Goldnpuppy (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyvio material. Thanks for letting us know! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?

"Howard is rumored to be considering the following actors as Cal: Tom Welling, Ben Mackenzie, James Franco, Paul Walker, Oliver Hudson, Jimmy Fallon, and Jason Bateman."

And where might the source of this be? I can't find any articles that name any names listed on the IMDB. Given that some of these actors aren't really known for serious drama, I would wager that this is a joke, added sometime around July 8th of last year. But well then again, I could be wrong: the fact is that there just don't seem to be any sources with even any rumored actors. So I'm removing this for now.Gershwinrb 10:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

What's the deal with the paragraph-long redirect? The chavi 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plot described is the summary of the movie not the book. What makes this one of the beloved american novels of all time is the richness of the prose on all generations, including the realtionship adam trask's brother and military father, kathy's parents and death, steinbecks anscestors and each of his aunts and uncles travails, and the man servant Lee, who is the protaganist of the entire story. None of this appears in the plot summary... All the richness is lost in the description, by someone who doesn't appear to have remembered the book. What makes the story so magnetic is the duplication of relations with adam and his brother and adam's sons, and the beautiful girlfriend. The inventivenss of the irish immigrants and their richness in spirit is an inspriation to everyone who reads it.Joepah 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)joepah[reply]

I fully agree with this remark. For one the summary is to short, and second: it only tells one part of te story, namely the Trasks'part. Is the Hamilton part not just as important? Although my knowledge of English is to limited to edit the part myself without mistakes, I would like someone else to edit it, so that the summarry brings the book to its right. - With excuses for mistakes both content wise, spelling wise and form wise, my goal was never to do harm to this article, but to improve it. Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.173.227 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

Several questionable deletions have been made to this page recently, notably this one and this one.

The Anna Nalick's reference was removed "because she infringed upon the Steinbeck copyright." (User_talk:Catbird222). No source has been given to confirm this was, in fact, a copyright infringement. I think that despite possible copyright infringement in the Anna Nalick case, the fact that the song was inspired by the book warrants recognition in the "Popular culture" section of this page.
The other two (Meg & Dia, and Babyshambles) were removed for no apparent reason.
The removal of the upcoming movie paragraph was because Howard "dropped out of the movie" (User_talk:Catbird222). No source was given for this either, and even if it is true, the paragraph should have simply been modified to reflect this, not removed completely

I have notified Catbird of most of these concerns. Please add your comments.

— Twas Now 21:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. All of these edits have looked distinctly POV-pushing. I'll try to keep an eye on it, too. bikeable (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee

Lee is one of the most significant and memorable characters in the book, in my opinion. Is there any reason that he is only mentioned once in a throwaway comment? 158.104.206.191 05:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Main Characters" section

In regards to the comment (directly) above, I think we should incorporate a section which has character profiles, describing their personality, and their role in the book. It's been a while since I've read it, so I wouldn't feel comfortable adding content on any characters (unless I were to re-read it). However, if someone else would contribute content on the main characters, it might jog my memory and I would be happy to help! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First edition cover

The photo you have under the caption "First edition cover" is not even a cover. It is the title page from the first edition. Perhaps it is a first printing, but I can't really tell judging from the title page. --Smirkboy 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JohnSteinbeck EastOfEden.jpg

Image:JohnSteinbeck EastOfEden.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture, Monster

The song Monster, by Meg & Dia is based on Cathy Ames specifically, atleast it says so on the Meg & Dia page, yet on this page it just says it's based generically on East of Eden, despite other songs on this page bothering to specifically mention being based on Cathy Ames. If that's the standard shouldn't this page say Monster was based on Cathy Ames? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.84.7 (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meg & Dia topic makes the statement without providing a reliable source; this topic provides a reliable source which only states that the song is based on a concept found in the book, and does not mention Cathy Ames. Lacking a more detailed (reliable) source, this topic is the one that's correct. Tedickey (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paternity of twins?

It has been a long time since I read the novel. But I recall that while fraternal twins, Caleb and Aron have different fathers; Cathy had relations with Charles and Adam the same night. I remember that Aron is the son of Adam and Caleb is the son of Charles. I am not going to make the edit just yet. I am throwing it out for response while I seek a secondary reference.--Dstern1 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing any comment in the book, or review that suggested this. Tedickey (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that they both 'knew' her (in the biblical sense) once each, roughly around the same time. Which child really belongs to which father was never explicitly mentioned, and I think is a case for Jerry Springer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.68.165 (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dstern1 is right. The novel lists that Charles slept with Cathy on the wedding night, and that Adam & Cathy left for California the next day. Latery Cathy specifically mentions that she slept with Adam only once before she was pregnant. The twins have two fathers, and the Article's "Major Themes" section is wrong when it assigns paternity of both to Charles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.152.18 (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy episode

Tedickey, I can't believe I'm seriously in an edit war over this. Please read carefully... The statement is tagged as needing a citation but the tag is not needed as the citation is clearly given in the statement itself: "In Family Guy episode 'PTV' ..." This means that if someone doubts what it says all one has to do is WATCH the episode if one wants to verify the statement. Same way as if you have to READ the book to verify a quote right? In this way it meets WP:V; it doesn't need to be stated in the article on the episode itself, and you don't have to take my word for it (even though I have in fact watched the episode and have already verified that that is exactly what happened in that episode). I'm not sure what it is that you have a problem with?.. how would you verify that statement? What kind of citation do you want? Have you read WP:SELFPUB? Anyways, this is really much too trivial to be in an edit war over so I'm not going to revert again but if you really feel like you must win then go ahead and restore the tag.

Here's the point, which you're ignoring: if it's not notable enough for someone to have commented on it outside of the TV program itself, it's probably too trivial to bother including in even a Wikipedia "In popular culture" collection. Tedickey (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning you may as well delete the entire "In pop culture" section then. -- œ ^™ 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people would delete the whole thing. However there do appear to be occasional widely-known items that don't fit into the normal flow of presenting the topic itself. So I'm just focusing on determining which don't even meet that mark. Tedickey (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other major themes

I really appreciate the chart that explains paralles between Genesis and the book. However, I believe the crux of the novel to be in the "other" major themes that Steinbeck mentions. For example:

- Over a handful of times in the book does Steinbeck explain the idea of a "demon." First as the narrator when describing Cathy Ames, then in Samuel's reacted to her, then as Samuel, Lee, and Adam name the boys. If not a major theme, then I'd argue it's at least mentionable only as a subsection of Steinbeck's explanation of good and evil.

- I would also suggest including the element of nostalgia that appears throughout the book. Most notably in the quote, "Oh, strawberries don't taste as they used to and the thighs of women have lost their clutch," but also in the directions to the 'Row' in Salinas (The "Do you remember..." diatribe.)

Just thoughts!

In the comparisons with Genesis section, we could add the mark of Cal according to Lee: "Your son is marked with guilt out of himself" (From the last page of the book.)

On the article, there is a discussion of “Timshel” and it not existing in the Hebrew. I would like to add a comment that this is subjective, and other biblical translators have translated the section as “thou mayest” or “thou can” (which equates to the same meaning). I think it is unfair to quote one person saying it is untrue, as one source often appears true on its own. Could this be edited/could I add a comment explaining?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobyDaniels (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TobyDaniels, it can be improved if you provide a RS or two which cover your concerns. Please provide them here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I added a new section discussing the critical and reading public section of the novel. I thought that it was an important aspect, and greatly contribute to how the novel is regarded today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalpers (talk • contribs) 06:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this must come to your attention, Tedickey ([[User talk:Tedickey|talk]) and Kalpers (talk • contribs). The reception part of this seems for the most part lacking citations and mostly subjectivized. For example, the line "Ironically, these very aspects of the novel are just what the reading public loved so dearly, and what is widely acclaimed now by literary critics" seems very opinionated. Also, weasel words and uncited information fills this part, not including improperly punctuated and formatted writing.

I appreciate what you have done, Kalpers, speaking for the public's opinion on the book, but it needs work, so please you or somebody else fix this, otherwise it will receive its fair share of challengers and removal.

Sincerely, FDJK001 (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Plot summary error

The summary claims that Adam visits Cathy (now "Kate") to give her the money that Charles left her when he died. In fact, in the novel, Charles is still alive when Adam visits her and there is no mention of money or a will. Adam and Charles had not spoken in something like 10 years. Adam visits her after Samuel Hamilton's funeral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:430A:2600:811A:C42B:8069:A8D1 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Runtape (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]