wilkes

I think by writing himself and his family in to the story, he gives the story more believability and credence. While parts of the book may be entirely fictional, his appearance in the book makes one think it might all be true. I think the telling part is when he states that the material came secondhand from others and he wasn't alive to see most of it occur. Secondhand always makes for good novel material as it is almost impossible to retell accurately.

He was hiding. He wrote this novel after having divorced his wife and learning of numerous infidelities. So cathy is likely portraying his exwife. He was able to work out his anger towards his exwife by portraying cathy as a "sweetly" seductive manupilator. (and he gained aninimity) spelling?

Autobiography is straight truth--in the time that it was written it was taboo to give personal truths in that fashion. It would have been considered the perverbial "dirty laundry" to the world. He twists the characters just enough to add elements of truth while providing a shelter of vaguness in which to hide the truth. Does that make sense?

If you are reading or have read East of Eden and would like to join in a discussion about it, please post here.

First question:
East of Eden is a combination novel/memoir; Steinbeck writes himself in as a minor character in the book, a member of the Hamilton family. What do you think he gained by morphing genres in this fashion? What distinguishes this from a typical autobiography? What do you think Steinbeck's extremely personal relationship to the material contributes to the novel?