So in case you missed it, we had a GREAT conversation here the other day about the psychology of evil. It’s a huge comment-thread, with a ton of differing views – all well-articulated, beautiful personal stuff. One of the things I brought up in the comments thread was my response to the character of Cathy in East of Eden– when I read it in high school. She is evil. Steinbeck makes that very clear. The book is an allegory (I mean, look at the title) … and there are three generations of male characters in the book who are TWINS – one twin has a name starting with C and one has a name starting with A. The twin with the “C” name is wild, a bad seed, has a dark side. The twin with the “A” name is … depending how you look at it … either good, or very naive. Maybe a bit of both.
Into this world comes Cathy. She terrified me, when I read the book as a teenager, and she terrifies me still.
This is an ongoing debate, and I truly do not pretend to have any answers. I only have my opinion. And it is my opinion that Steinbeck was describing something that is TRUE in the character of Cathy, despite the book’s allegorical nature. She’s a very very frightening character.
This morning, over my breakfast, I thought of Cathy again, and I thought of the conversation here about evil. So I went to the shelf, took down the book, and looked up the passage when we first meet this character. Funny. I had forgotten how strongly Steinbeck puts it, how he doesn’t ease his way into it, he makes no bones about it. That’s part of why it scared me so much when I was a kid.
It goes so hand in hand with what we were discussing in that “psychology of evil” thread that I want to post it here. It’s uncanny.
Here is Steinbeck’s opening discussion of this girl, this Cathy. It’s long, but it’s worth it:
I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents. Some you can see, misshapen and horrible, with huge heads or tiny bodies; some are born with no arms, no legs, some with three arms, some with tails or mouths in odd places. They are accidents and no one’s fault, as used to be thought. Once they were considered the visible punishment for concealed sins.
And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or a malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?
Monsters are variations from the accepted normal to a greater or a less degree. As a child may be born without an arm, so one may be born without kindness or the potential of conscience. A man who loses his arms in an accident has a great struggle to adjust himself to the lack, but one born without arms suffers only from people who find him strange. Having never had arms, he cannot miss them. Sometimes when we are little we imagine how it would be to have wings, but there is no reason to suppose it is the same feeling birds have. No, to a monster the norm must seem monstrous, since everyone is normal to himself. To the inner monster it must be even more obscure, since he has no visible thing to compare with others. To a man born without conscience, a soul-stricken man must seem ridiculous. To a criminal, honesty is foolish. You must not forget that a monster is only a variation, and that to a monster the norm is monstrous.
It is my belief that Cathy Ames was born with the tendencies, or lack of them, which drove and forced her all of her life. Some balance wheel was misweighed, some gear out of ratio. She was not like other people, never was from birth. And just as a cripple may learn to utilize his lack so that he becomes more effective in a limited field than the uncrippled, so did Cathy, using her difference, make a painful and bewildering stir in her world.
There was a time when a girl like Cathy would have been called possessed by the devil. She would have been exorcised to cast out the evil spirit, and if after many trials that did not work, she would have been burned as a witch for the good of the community. The one thing that may not be forgiven a witch is her ability to distress people, to make them restless and uneasy and even envious.
As though nature concealed a trap, Cathy had from the first a face of innocence. Her hair was gold and lovely; wide-set hazel eyes with upper lids that drooped made her look mysteriously sleepy. Her nose was delicate and thin, and her cheekbones high and wide, sweeping down to a small chin so that her face was heart-shaped. Her mouth was well shaped and well lipped but abnormally small — what used to be called a rosebud. Her ears were very little, without lobes, and they pressed so close to her head that even with her hair combed up they made no silhouette. They were thin flaps sealed against her head.
Cathy always had a child’s figure even after she was grown, slender, delicate arms and hands — tiny hands. Her breasts never developed much. Before her puberty the nipples turned inward. Her mother had to manipulate them out when they became painful in Cathy’s tenth year. Her body was a boy’s body, narrow-hipped, straight-legged, but her ankles were thin and straight without being slender. Her feet were small and round and stubby, with fat insteps almost like little hoofs. She was a pretty child and she became a pretty woman. Her voice was huskily soft, and it could be so sweet as to be irresistible. But there must have been some steel cord in her throat, for Cathy’s voice could cut like a file when she wished.
Even as a child she had some quality that made people look at her, then look away, then look back at her, troubled at something foreign. Something looked out of her eyes, and was never there when one looked again. She moved quietly and talked little, but she could enter no room without causing everyone to turn toward her.
She made people uneasy but not so that they wanted to go away from her. Men and women wanted to inspect her, to be close to her, to try and find what caused the disturbance she distributed so subtly. And since this had always been so, Cathy did not find it strange.
Cathy was different from other children in many ways, but one thing in particular set her apart. Most children abhor difference. They want to look, talk, dress, and act exactly like all of the others. If the style of dress is an absurdity, it is pain and sorrow to a child not to wear that absurdity. If necklaces of pork chops were accepted, it would be a sad child who could not wear pork chops. And this slavishness to the group normally extends into every game, every practice, social or otherwise. It is a protective coloration children utilize for their safety.
Cathy had none of this. She never conformed in dress or conduct. She wore whatever she wanted to. The result was that quite often other children imitated her.
As she grew older the group, the herd, which is any collection of children, began to sense what adults felt, that there was something foreign about Cathy. After a while only one person at a time associated with her. Groups of boys and girls avoided her as though she carried a nameless danger.
Cathy was a liar, but she did not lie the way most children do. Hers was no daydream lying, when the thing imagined is told and, to make it seem more real, told as real. That is just ordinary deviation from external reality. 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 of the teller. A story has in it neither gain nor loss. But a lie is a device for profit or escape. I suppose if that definition is strictly held to, then a writer of stories is a liar — if he is financially fortunate.
Cathy’s lies were never innocent. Their purpose was to escape punishment, or work, or responsibility, and they were used for profit. Most liars are tripped up either because they forget what they have told or because the lie is suddenly faced with an incontrovertible truth. But Cathy did not forget her lies, and she developed the most effective method of lying. She stayed close enough to the truth so that one could never be sure. She knew two other methods also — either to interlard her lies with truth or to tell a truth as though it were a lie. If one is accused of a lie and it turns out to be the truth, there is a backlog that will last a long time and protect a number of untruths.
Since Cathy was an only child her mother had no close contrast in the family. She thought all children were like her own. And since all parents are worriers she was convinced that all her friends had the same problems.
Cathy’s father was not so sure. He operated a small tannery in a town in Massachusetts, which made a comfortable, careful living if he worked very hard. Mr. Ames came in contact with other children away from his home and he felt that Cathy was not like other children. It was a matter more felt than known. He was uneasy about his daughter but he could not have said why.
Nearly everyone in the world has appetites and impulses, trigger emotions, islands of selfishness, lusts just beneath the surface. And most people either hold such things in check or indulge them secretly. Cathy knew not only these impulses in others but how to use them for her own gain.
It is quite possible that she did not believe in any other tendencies in humans, for while she was preternaturally alert in some directions she was completely blind in others.
And that’s just the first 3 pages. He goes on like this – dissecting her character – for 20 pages more. It scared the beJESUS out of me in high school.
Re-visiting that one chapter made me realize how I need to go back and read that book again. I’ve read it twice – but the last time was in 1993. I remember because … well. It was a crazy time, and I remember reading East of Eden during that time, and thinking: “Did I really read this book in high school?? i don’t remember ANY of it.”
But I sure remembered Cathy, I’ll tell you that.
It’s no wonder we, as writers, actors etc., are so fascinated by this topic. Look how brilliant Steinbeck was. We are drawn to the psychology of the human race. Sheila, I know you remember Kimber’s invaluable advice to us as actors, “Never paint the character you are portraying with a negative brush”. Great actors find the truth, dare I say, compassion for every character they play in order to let them inside, bring them forth. We must justify every action, every thought, the very psychology of our characters. The deeper we are able to justify why, say if I was playing a child abductor, I do these things, and make perfect sense of it, the more successful I will be at portraying this person. No simple task but Steinbeck’s words this morning, and Peck’s book, and these threads certainly will aid me. I can’t believe it’s not even 8 am and I’m writing this while hurrying my kids through our pre school ritual.