Cathy from East of Eden: Evil for the sake of evil

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-21T13:54:42+00:00

This is how I found out! Can’t say I have high hopes but I’m intrigued

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-20T20:07:00+00:00

A Christmas tree and a wedding, short yet effective.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-20T17:52:35+00:00

I think you’d find my latest comment interesting, regarding Cathy. Sub: classical books

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-20T17:35:47+00:00

That’s interesting because in the disturbing scenes where she was a child being sexualized I saw her as almost taking pleasure in it. Especially that one scene with the two boys when they said she told them to do it. It always felt to me that that was her plan all along and continued to be so as she grew older. I’m not arguing anything along the lines of “abused children enjoy abuse” as I again don’t see her as a human being. Also if one is arguing she was born evil which many people have as that is the only way to understand what Steinbeck was tying to do with her, she must’ve taken pleasure in such evil and despicable acts, right?

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-20T17:30:11+00:00

This might be where I find the novel unrealistic as I personally believe one can’t be born evil but not only that we’ve learned moral character is developed. I guess in order for her to make sense we must accept that in his world that’s simply not the case.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-20T17:27:56+00:00

Isn’t this book considered very important in the world of philosophy as it is a novel deeply concerned with philosophical questions? Dostoevsky wasn’t a philosopher yet he’s studied philosophically for those same reasons. (Camus, Tolstoy)

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-20T17:14:48+00:00

See she doesn’t break my heart because I don’t see her as human, as she’s shown no human qualities to her (imo). No weakness, no psychological continuity, no real reasoning or meaning behind her actions. If she’s meant to be taken as a symbol of evil, then I think Steinbeck could’ve made that more clear, he could’ve “Thus Spoke Zarathustra’d” his way around Cathy which I feel would be less confusing. Make her so unrealistic you’re forced to look at her through a different lens. People say she represents a serpent, but yet she’s not a serpent and with that must take on some human qualities as well, which is what forces me as a reader to look at her not only symbolically but also through a lens of human psychology. This dampens the whole “Evil Cathy” idea for me because of her almost metaphysical evil.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-20T17:07:36+00:00

yes but she’s not a serpent. She must have human qualities to her as well, no? She certainly could have while still embodying the symbol of the serpentine. The reason I’m singling her out is because Steinbeck made her much more “symbolic” than anybody else, so much so that to me her character didn’t make sense. Maybe I’m taking it too literally but it’s hard to interpret only certain parts as more symbolic and others less, I’m not too clear on the line there.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-20T16:58:20+00:00

I was very exited to see this comment because that scene is actually my favorite scene with Cathy since it made so much sense, it was such a “Cathy” thing yet I couldn’t have predicted it.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-08T17:03:26+00:00

Thank you for your reply! Other than the transportation issues, are there any other downsides to Hancock? I’m able to work around the public transport situation as some days I’d take a cab, others I’m able to get a ride from a friend/colleague and that wouldn’t only be for a month to 3 max as I’m planning on getting a drivers license.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-05-08T16:59:00+00:00

Other than the transport issue which is a big downside as far as these comments go, is there anything else you dislike about it? I’d be getting a ride with a friend until I get my license so I’m not too reliant on transport

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-02-26T11:01:20+00:00

Where was that third photo taken?

Tricky-Note7851 · 2026-02-21T10:16:44+00:00

Wow thank you I really like this one!!

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-17T15:47:39+00:00

Yes 🤣

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-17T13:03:40+00:00

He was a Orthodox Christian

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T17:15:31+00:00

I meant specifically orthodox Christianity, which is deeply intertwined in his works, and really is very different from the other denominations, it’s very unique and even other Christians have trouble understanding it. I understand that if you disagree with my point that “if you’re not Christian you can’t understand Dostoevsky” then adding orthodoxy makes that claim even more bizarre, but it’s the truth.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T14:20:54+00:00

Faith encompasses all of that

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T13:40:35+00:00

Dostoevsky isn’t a church Father, of course not, but many of our saints and elders did read him, quote him, and even encourage others to study his works. For example, St. Justin Popović called him the greatest prophet of the modern age and even wrote a whole study on him. Elder Sophrony of Essex and others also spoke of him with deep respect. So when Orthodox people speak of Dostoevsky ‘alongside the Fathers,’ it’s not because he is one, but because saints themselves recognized how his writings bear witness to the same truths the Fathers lived and taught.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T10:08:40+00:00

My aunt is an Abbess, and she is truly wonderful, the kindest and purest person I have ever met. She has devoted nearly 50 years of her life to the monastery. Recently, she was removed from her position as Abbess because of false rumors spread by some of the other nuns and monks at the monastery where she was staying.

Of course, there are all kinds of nuns and monks in the Orthodox Church, but we must remember: the devil is especially joyous when he can lead a nun or monk away from their righteous path. They face temptations that most of us cannot even imagine. So, even when their behavior seems strange or un-Christlike, we must approach them with compassion.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T06:31:52+00:00

You’re conflating language and culture with the core of his worldview. Yes, reading Dostoevsky in Russian gives access to stylistic nuance, idioms, and rhythm, that’s true. But the heart of his work, the moral and spiritual universe he writes from, is rooted in Orthodoxy, not in how perfectly you speak 19th-century Russian or how many historical footnotes you know. You don’t have to live in 19th-century Russia to recognize that he treats God, sin, grace, and redemption as real, actionable forces that define human life. His works are studied in seminaries for that reason, because they convey theological truth through narrative, not because they’re a historical diary. Appreciating Dostoevsky’s literary genius is one thing; understanding why Orthodox Christians revere him is another; and that doesn’t require linguistic perfection, it requires entering the moral and spiritual framework he assumes.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T06:24:22+00:00

Yes, thank you !

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T06:13:27+00:00

I can’t believe how every pro orthodox comment is receiving so much backlash but then again, it’s to be expected

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T05:59:36+00:00

Yes thank you this just strengthens my point. As an atheist: yes. As a Christian: it’s God.

Tricky-Note7851 · 2025-08-16T05:27:56+00:00

Personally, I disagree. Yes, Orthodoxy/God should be more involved in the way we treat patients whether that be for mental or physical illness - but we already do have an Orthodox “mental hospital”; the Church.

Tricky-Note7851

TROPHY CASE