More than 70 years after John Steinbeck published East of Eden, its central question remains as uncomfortable as ever. Are we destined to repeat the mistakes of our parents, or do we have the freedom to become someone different?
It is a question running through generations of the Trask family, whose troubled relationships provide the foundation for one of the great American novels of the twentieth century.
Steinbeck gave that question a name: timshel, his interpretation of a Hebrew word from the Bible, which he rendered as “thou mayest”. It is the idea that human beings have a choice. Our upbringing, our circumstances and our family history may influence us, but they need not determine who we become.
Now a seven-part Netflix adaptation, written by Zoe Kazan and starring Florence Pugh, has brought Steinbeck’s story to a new audience. And something interesting has happened. Viewers have begun seeking out the original novel, with its publisher reporting a sharp increase in sales.
For a book published in 1952, that is quite an achievement. But the more interesting question is why a story written for another generation continues to have such appeal.
Steinbeck’s enduring questions about human nature
Set largely in California’s Salinas Valley, East of Eden follows the intertwined lives of the Trask and Hamilton families across several generations. Its characters struggle with parental expectations, jealousy, resentment, guilt and the desire to be loved.
The novel draws heavily on the biblical story of Cain and Abel, in which one brother kills the other after God favours his offering. Steinbeck returns repeatedly to the rivalry between brothers, particularly the damaging consequences of perceived favouritism within families.
Yet East of Eden is much more than a retelling of an ancient story. Steinbeck uses the relationships between parents and children to examine whether our lives are shaped by forces beyond our control.
His characters inherit family histories filled with disappointment, bitterness and sometimes cruelty. They often seem unable to escape the behaviour of those who came before them.
But Steinbeck refuses to accept that the past must dictate the future.
That is where timshel becomes important. In the novel, the character Lee examines different interpretations of a biblical passage about sin and human responsibility. The translation that interests Steinbeck most is “thou mayest”.
The distinction is fundamental to the book. It suggests neither that goodness is inevitable nor that evil cannot be resisted. People have the capacity to choose, even when their circumstances make those choices difficult.
It is an argument that remains relevant in a society increasingly interested in the effects of childhood experience, family relationships and inherited behaviour.
We understand more about how upbringing shapes personality than previous generations did. But that knowledge also raises difficult questions about personal responsibility. How much of our behaviour can be explained by our past? At what point do we remain responsible for the decisions we make?
Steinbeck was asking versions of those questions long before they became familiar subjects of contemporary debate.
Florence Pugh and the problem of Cathy Ames
One of the most difficult characters in East of Eden is Cathy Ames, played by Florence Pugh in the Netflix adaptation.
Cathy is intelligent, manipulative and capable of extraordinary cruelty. In the novel, her actions leave lasting damage across the Trask family. Yet she is also a character who resists straightforward explanation.
Steinbeck presents her as profoundly disturbing, sometimes suggesting that there is something fundamentally different about her understanding of other people.
For a modern screen adaptation, that creates an interesting problem. How do you portray a character whose actions are so destructive without turning her into a conventional villain?
Zoe Kazan has chosen to give Cathy greater prominence, placing her experiences and perspective at the centre of the television series.
In an interview about adapting the novel, Kazan discusses the importance of inherited behaviour, moral choice and the influence of family history. Her interpretation is concerned with understanding why people act as they do, without necessarily excusing their actions.
That is an interesting distinction. Understanding someone is not the same as forgiving them.
A contemporary audience may be more inclined to ask what happened to Cathy and how her experiences shaped her behaviour. Steinbeck’s original treatment, however, also confronts readers with the possibility that some human cruelty cannot be explained away so comfortably.
There is a danger that an adaptation can explain too much. A character who becomes entirely understandable may lose some of the unsettling qualities that made the original so memorable.
Equally, a different perspective can reveal something that earlier interpretations overlooked.
Pugh is an interesting choice for the role. Her performances frequently involve characters whose emotions and motivations are difficult to reduce to simple categories. The challenge here is to portray Cathy’s humanity without diminishing the damage she causes.
In the following interview, Florence Pugh and Zoe Kazan discuss their approach to the adaptation and the characters at its centre.
Two generations of the Kazan family
The Netflix adaptation also has an unusual connection to the history of cinema.
Zoe Kazan is the granddaughter of director Elia Kazan, whose 1955 film version of East of Eden helped establish James Dean as one of Hollywood’s most compelling young actors.
That earlier film concentrated on the later part of Steinbeck’s novel, particularly the relationship between Cal Trask, played by Dean, and his father.
It was a practical decision. The novel is long, covering different generations and a substantial period of American history. Attempting to reproduce the entire story in a conventional feature film would have required enormous compression.
Seven television episodes offer Zoe Kazan considerably more room to explore the characters and relationships.
But greater running time is not necessarily an artistic advantage. A two-hour film can achieve an emotional concentration that a longer television series sometimes struggles to maintain.
There is also a difference between translating a novel’s events and capturing its ideas.
Steinbeck’s writing moves between intimate family relationships and broader reflections on human nature, morality and American society. Those passages are fundamental to the experience of reading the book, but they cannot always be transferred directly to the screen.
An adaptation must therefore make choices about what matters most.
Elia Kazan focused on one particular family conflict. His granddaughter has attempted a much broader treatment, with greater attention to Cathy Ames and the novel’s intergenerational story.
Neither approach can reproduce every quality of the book. Both provide an opportunity to examine it from a different perspective.
Why Netflix has sent readers back to the novel
The renewed attention surrounding East of Eden is not confined to television.
According to figures published by Netflix on 19 October 2026, the series accumulated 19.1 million views across its first two weeks in the company’s global Top 10 English-language television rankings.
It appeared in the Top 10 in 86 countries and reached number one in 34. These are Netflix’s own measurements, rather than independently audited television ratings, but they demonstrate considerable international interest.
More surprisingly, the series has also helped revive sales of Steinbeck’s novel.
Netflix reported that sales of East of Eden had risen by almost 200 per cent across all formats, citing figures supplied by publisher Penguin Classics. The book also reached number one on Amazon’s bestseller list.
Those figures need some perspective. A percentage increase tells us relatively little without knowing how many copies were selling beforehand. It is also impossible to establish how many purchasers will go on to read the entire novel.
Nevertheless, the reported increase is striking for a book that has been available for more than seven decades.
It also challenges the assumption that streaming television and serious reading are necessarily competing for the same audience.
There is something satisfying about a successful television production encouraging people to spend time with a substantial novel rather than simply look for the next programme to watch.
What a television adaptation cannot reproduce
The relationship between literature and screen adaptations has always been complicated.
Some readers approach a new adaptation with affection for the original book and strong views about how its characters should be portrayed. Others encounter the story for the first time through cinema or television.
Both experiences are legitimate, but they are not identical.
Film and television have obvious advantages. Actors can express emotions that might require pages of written description. Music, photography and performance can bring a particular atmosphere to life with extraordinary immediacy.
Literature offers something different.
A novel allows the reader to spend time inside a character’s thoughts, examine contradictions and reflect on ideas that do not necessarily lend themselves to dramatic scenes.
Steinbeck frequently interrupts the events of East of Eden to reflect on the nature of humanity, the history of the Salinas Valley and the moral questions raised by his characters.
These passages are not distractions from the story. They are part of what makes the book distinctive.
Someone who discovers East of Eden through Netflix may therefore find that reading it offers a substantially different experience.
The television adaptation can introduce the characters and their relationships. The novel asks readers to consider the ideas behind their actions, often at a slower and more demanding pace.
That difference is valuable. A good adaptation need not replace its source material. It can encourage audiences to explore it more closely.
Why Steinbeck still matters
It would be an exaggeration to suggest that the success of one television series proves audiences are developing a renewed appetite for classic literature.
Streaming services continue to rely heavily on familiar brands, established stories and recognisable performers. Adapting a respected novel is hardly a new idea, and a famous title does not guarantee artistic success.
Nor do impressive viewing figures necessarily tell us whether an adaptation is good. Popularity and critical quality are separate questions.
What makes East of Eden interesting is that its central concerns have survived the enormous social changes of the past 74 years.
Steinbeck wrote about families struggling to understand one another, children desperate for parental approval and individuals trying to escape the consequences of decisions made long before they were born.
He also asked whether people can change.
That final question may be the most enduring of all. It offers neither the comfort of believing that everyone is fundamentally good nor the despair of assuming that people are incapable of becoming better.
Instead, Steinbeck places responsibility in human hands. We are influenced by the past, but we remain capable of making choices about the future.
Netflix’s adaptation has brought those questions to a new audience. Its reported effect on book sales suggests that at least some viewers want to explore them further.
For a novel published in 1952, that is a welcome development. And for anyone discovering Steinbeck’s work for the first time, the most rewarding part of the experience may begin after the television has been switched off.
