1Adam knew his wife Eve intimately, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. She said, "I have had a male child with the LORD's help."[28] 2Then she also gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. 3In the course of time Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also presented [an offering][29] — some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions.[30] The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast.[31] 6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you furious? And why are you downcast?[32] 7If you do right, won't you be accepted? But if you do not do right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it." 8Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field."[33] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
– Genesis 4:1-8
I gather that this story is meant to recounted in East of Eden through Adam Trask's sons (although I haven't gotten that far yet). However it seems to also apply on some level to Adam and his brother as well. There actually seem to be many parallels to various Genesis stories. The ones I have noticed so far have to do with both brotherhood and the father son relationship. In particular the rivalry between Jacob and Esau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob) as reflected in Adam and Charles. Also the sacrifice of Isaac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac) which is paralleled by Adam's relationship with his father.
Something that interests me is the notion of both Charles and Cathy as being scared or marked. I think this is supposed to tie in to the notion of the "mark of Cain" although I am not quite sure how all the pieces fit together as the mark of Cain is apparently controversial. The following is the bible excerpt (with interjections) from Wikipedia about the source of the mark or curse of Cain. More info can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mark_Of_Cain
"What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." (Gen. 4:10–12)[2]
When Cain complained that the curse was too strong, and that anyone who found him would kill him, God responded,
"Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over",[3] and God "set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" (Gen. 4:15).
Hopefully that is helpful. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of all of Genesis, but it seemed a bit long to post here, so if you are interested check it out, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis.
I think this might be best for discussion once we all finish but one of the questions I have been trying to keep in mind while reading is why Steinbeck feels that it is important to re-tell this commonly known story. What lesson or value dose he feel he is imparting to his reader by telling this story?
I am a notoriously bad speller so I am sorry if anything slipped through the spell check.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting. I know next to nothing about the bible, so I think this contextualization will definitely add another layer to the book. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure yet why Steinbeck felt it necessary to retell this story, although perhaps it has something to do with him calling this his "first" book and talking about this book as his final masterpiece? In other words, maybe he felt that in order to be great it had to have biblical relevance? I hope we find out...
All these posts have me chomping at the bit to skip studying and read! I'm hoping to catch up with everyone using my flight time this weekend (heading to Seattle). For the record, a) I was raised Southern Baptist and have read the Bible cover to cover more times than is fit to mention in polite company, so will be happy to elucidate any obscure allusions I stumble across, and b) allusions are a major part of English language literature - often defined as referencing either the Bible or Shakespeare. Faulkner peddled almost exclusively in retellings and revisionings of Biblical stories.
ReplyDeleteWe're on such an Americana kick.... maybe Faulkner should pop up soon? He was also Oprah-worthy, you know!
M, the fact that Faulkner was Oprah-worthy doesn't make him any more readable!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the allusions bit. Isn't there a discussion somewhere in the book about how the only interesting stories are those that have some previous resonance for us? Or am I imagining that?