This is a good book, even if it's not really my favorite style. I know i'm supposed to focus on the similarities between this book and the bible stories it references - Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel - and also its sort of recursive similarity to itself in the way the first Abel's sons are also like Cain & Abel, but that stuff seems obvious. It actually made me think a lot about the Gormenghast series, mainly because the two villains, Cathy and Steerpike, are so similar. There are other similarities among the books: they're both about neglected kids looking for love and trying to decide what to do with their lives. That describes a lot of books, but i suppose it's mainly the psychotic and impossibly clever evil character that makes the two similar in my mind. 
 The main difference between the two works is that Gormenghast is sort of a fantasy, and so the characters in East of Eden are a lot more realistic and less exaggerated. The setting is a real time & place. Apparently the Hamilton family is even based on Steinbeck's own mother's family, so it's interesting that he decided to weave them together with a fictional, allegorical family (the Trasks). I almost feel like the Hamiltons deserved their own book. The Trasks were really who this story was about. The Hamiltons made it much longer and warmer, but i don't really think they were ultimately necessary. Especially Olive and Dessie and Tom. Their stories were interesting but unimportant to the Trasks. Samuel played an important role in the Trask storyline, but i think his part almost could've been played by Lee. 
 Cathy was a great villain, even if she kind of quit being a villain halfway through the book. It's interesting that you don't have to be actively pursued by an evil person to still feel the effects of her long after she's gone. It's interesting to think about who in this book is good or evil and why. Cathy is evil because she was simply born without the capacity for good; she's essentially blameless, and yet i absolutely blame her for all the horrible things she does. Adam, on the other hand, is perceived as pure good by the other characters, but to me he seems inert and unthinking. I think he does more harm than he's given credit for. 
 I identify with Cal more than any other character, which i think i'm supposed to. His internal tug-o-war between good and evil, and the tendency to glorify it are so familiar. I could've used a Lee in my life when i was younger to yell at me for thinking i might as well treat people poorly because that's just who i was. Life is a constant struggle of deciding what the right thing is to do and cleaning up the messes you make when you choose wrong because of how you were treated in the past by other people. Cycles of neglect and need and mistake and guilt repeat themselves. But each generation improves just slightly. People are still evolving morally. I find that idea really intriguing. 
 It's a well-written and memorable book, for sure. I'll be thinking about this one for a long time.