East of Eden by John Steinbeck is a book that has been on my radar for a very long time. When the TV adaptation was announced — starring two of my favorite actors, Florence Pugh and Mike Faist — I knew it was time to tackle the novel so I’d be prepared when the show was released. After finishing the book, I immediately understood why many argue that it is one of the best pieces of American literature ever written. The multigenerational saga takes place in Salinas Valley, following the Trask and Hamilton families, and works as a loose retelling of the biblical story of Cain and Abel. The novel is incredibly gripping, and despite its large page count, I found it impossible to put down. As soon as I finished reading, I ran to watch the trailer, eager to see the book brought to life.
After watching, however, I found myself extremely confused, and I wasn’t the only one. The trailer heavily centered the character of Cathy Ames and barely featured the Trasks or the Hamiltons, who are the focal point of the book. Even the poster centered Cathy, with the other characters shown minimally in the background. While Cathy’s character is extremely important to the story, she is definitely not the main character, and I wasn’t expecting the show to be Cathy-focused. Many fans of the novel were not quiet about their concern for the adaptation, and many complained about what seemed to be an adaptation focused on turning Cathy into a victim.
As more details about the show came out, fans of the novel, including myself, became increasingly more worried. The show-writer, Zoe Kazan, stated in an interview that she didn’t see Cathy as an antagonist, and that, amongst other things, did nothing to dispel the fears that book fans had prior to the show’s release. Following the show’s release, the internet seems split on whether or not the changes to the adaptation make or break the message of the original novel.
In order to understand the debate, we have to understand the story Steinbeck originally set out to tell. East of Eden seeks to answer one question: are humans born evil, or do they make the choice to be so? This question is answered by looking at Cal and Aron Trask, the sons of Cathy and Adam Trask. Adam is meant to represent good, and Cathy pure evil. Her character acts in her own interest throughout the entire book, and she’s willing to hurt anyone to get what she wants. She had no traumatic upbringing and, in fact, starts manipulating those around her at the age of 10. This portrayal of pure evil is important because Cal believes he has inherited Cathy’s evil nature, and that his brother Aron inherited all of the good from their father. Cal struggles with this throughout the entire third act before he realizes he must make the choice to be good, proving that it is possible to overcome one’s nature. Fans argue that if Cathy is sanitized down to a lesser version of herself, it would dampen the significance of Cal actively choosing to be good, therefore diminishing the entire point of the novel.
Now that the show has been released, it is clear that the show made an effort to add more nuance to Cathy’s character. Cathy, played by Florence Pugh, is moved from a passive character to the narrator of the entire show. Many of the episodes revolve around her, which forces characters like the Hamiltons to be moved to the background to create space for her. She isn’t shown as being born bad from childhood, as she is in the book; instead, the show adds circumstances that ultimately create the callous character seen for the rest of the story. The reaction to these changes has created a rift between book fans. Book purists argue that by making Cathy slightly more sympathetic, the entire story is ruined. Others argue that Steinbeck’s two-dimensional portrayal of Cathy in the original novel is actually misogynistic, and this newer adaptation is a needed improvement on the original novel. So which opinion is right?
Going into the show, I was fully prepared to dislike the new adaptation. But after watching, I’m surprised to admit that I side with those defending the new adaptation. Of course, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, but I disagree with those who think expanding on Cathy’s character defeats Steinbeck’s point. Instead of Cathy being depraved just because she was born that way, the show expands on what type of environment would create someone so wicked. Some may argue that in doing so the audience is meant to empathize with Cathy and maybe even root for her, but I have to disagree. Cathy having a traumatic upbringing doesn’t excuse any of the things she goes on to do for the rest of the show. If anything, changing Cathy and showing her repeatedly making the choice to be cruel strengthens Steinbeck’s original message. In fact, the entire novel could be boiled down to the terms “Thou Mayest” or “Timshel,” both used in the novel to express the core message that everyone can choose who they are and how they behave. By giving Cathy more depth in the show, it helps set up that she too had a choice, and she chose to be cruel.
Whenever a beloved novel goes from page to screen, there will always be people upset at any little change. In this case, however, I think this newer adaptation expanded on the core themes of the novel and made changes for the better. Pugh’s portrayal of Cathy exceeded all my expectations and really made the show for me. Stories are meant to grow and evolve with society, and I’m glad that I didn’t let my snap judgement stop me from enjoying what turned out to be an amazing adaptation.