I just finished East of Eden. I’m not sure that I’ve ever read about quite like it. I find myself just repeating over and over, “What a book. What a masterpiece.” I am changed by it in a deep way. I wept at the end of it. I think it is a beautiful story about this messy human life and the choices we get to make and wrestle with on this other side of paradise.
There’s a lot that I’m still processing, but one area that I’m hoping for some help and discussion around is the use of racist language in various parts of the book.
I don’t know how to tag these next parts as a spoiler and so I’ve just tagged this whole post as a spoiler. But I’m specifically referring to how the name of a particular plant was called a “n-word” -head, and how the one brothel was referred to as being run by the “n-word”.
I get the sense that overall Steinback carried more progressive views towards the treatment and military campaigns (genocide) against Native Americans during the 1800s. And obviously many of the tropes and stereotypes of Chinese are dismantled in Lee.
But when it comes to his use of the N-word, I find myself trying to understand how to contextualize this. And even by asking how to contextualize his use of that word, I’m worried that I’m actually trying to justify it because I enjoyed the book so much. When maybe instead, I should pause and ask myself if I’m willing to compromise my values just because a book is a classic?
I’m not trying to make this into a contentious discussion on identity politics or “wokeness”. Racism is wrong, evil, and bad. Period. That is not up for discussion here.
I’m really looking more for help understanding if I’m missing something, and if Steinbeck was actually trying to highlight something in using that terminology. Or was he a product of his time in the era in which he wrote?
I find that I’d have a hard time recommending this book to some people in my life who I know would be hurt (maybe harmed is a better descriptive) by the use of that language. Or how can I recommend this book to my children, who I have spent so much time educating to be anti-racist and anti-bigoted? I know that that is not the only part or even a significant part in this book, but it is still there and I’d like to learn how to process it in case I am missing something.
I would genuinely appreciate any one who has some background or expertise and literary criticism or exposition and to share their thoughts on this!
by anuneducatedguess
9 Comments
You are just really overthinking it. The word was simply, whether we like it or not, woven into the tapestry of daily life at the time. People are inherently contradictory. They will be progressive in one way and regressive in another. We are all still like this today. Think about Palestine – how many people you think are progressive yet have no problem with what Israel is doing. This is humanity.
Pretending that racism / racist terms never existed, especially in art, will not help your children in any way.
The book was written in 1952. I was born in 1948. The words you are referring to were commonly used during my childhood in the Midwest. People didn’t necessarily think of them as awful. The people I’m referring to are white people. They were words. Certainly society at that time was more racist. My impression is that things have improved greatly, though they aren’t perfect. I don’t use those words. No one I know uses those words. The book is set in a different historical time. It is accurate to that time. You don’t have to be upset about it. Times change. Hopefully things get better, though not always.
I’m curious if you’ve ever read a lot of older books or if this is one of the older ones you’ve read.
If you do read older books there is a lot of casual racism and slurs (and antisemitism. Holy shit is there a ton of casual antisemitism in older books). And yes that’s partly a product of the era. Hell my mom is a boomer who grew up in a fairly progressive place and she said people casually dropped the n word at the time.
Books in a way are a snapshot of the time they were written in. It’s important to read older ones too especially when they reveal the casual bigotry of the past.
They’re just words. I don’t really understand what there is to process? I’m not trying to be mean or rude. But you have to consider that by reading a book written in 1952 you’re bound to have some aspects we now know are harmful. It doesn’t take away how good the work is.
You just have to go in understanding times were different and thats that. You don’t have to agree with or internalize the things you read.
They were more in common usage then, but carried no less sting. They were vulgar. By using them verbatim, Steinbeck was showing you something about the milieu and characters who used them.
You don’t have to process anything. You just need to understand that the way we use the language changes over time.
Others have the bulk of this covered but I will add, even if Steinbeck himself didn’t use the words (he probably did) it’s a reflection of the time period. Think about a book written today set during the same time period as EOE. It would feel extremely strange for the author to say “person of color” or other more modern language. Portrayal doesn’t equal endorsement.
My perspective is the book was trying to get its audience to think about how harmful and dehumanizing slurs are. We get to know Lee. He is the smartest and kindest character in the book. Adam depends on him as a friend and co parent to his kids. Lee basically raised his two boys. That’s why it hurts so much when someone calls him a slur. No matter who Lee is as a person, ignorant people will only see him as a slur and nothing more.
Tom Sawyer