East of Eden question

I believe Steinbeck wanted us to believe that Adam fathered Aron and Caleb belonged to Charles. Was Cal really bad? He didn't purposely slay Aron did he? He merely told him the truth. Cain purposely slew his brother because of rage and jealousy. Aron had a choice: He could have taken the truth and lived with it. Instead he chose to go to war where he was killed by the enemy. Steinbeck did not convince me that Cal was evil or bad. Bad has a million meanings and interpretations. Cal was fighting with his own inner demons of being unloved and having what Steinbeck called a monster for a mother. To me, Aron was spoiled and favored by his father,. He wasn't tough like Cal and didn't have the strength to face the bad things in life. I admired Cal's character. He had a zest for life and the want of the truth. He wasn't content to sit around like Aron and believe that all things in life are good. To me , Aron was more more selfish than Cal. He was content to be loved the most by hos father and he wanted Abra too, but wasn't
t willing to give her his whole heart. Cal was by far the nicer of the two brothers. I could relate to him.

I think it doesn't matter who Caleb's father is. Physical similarities between Caleb and Charles are there to explain better Caleb's character. He is the worse brother for the same reason - he jealous about father's love. But we see how Caleb knows that he isn't good person and he fight with himself. He is bad like Charles and Cathy but he wants to be good. And that can be hеritage from Adam.
And finaly if we return to biology, Adam and Charles share DNA which influence their offspring.

I thought Charles fathered the twins, and that Adam knew this but was able to come to terms with it.

I don't think it's important who the father was, though I personally believe it was Charles. What is important for me in this story though, is that both Aron and Caleb are brothers sharing the same mother and the same father. It gives more of a burden to Caleb's actions and his redemption. That's why I don't think Steinbeck wanted us to believe one of the brother's was Charles' and the other one Adam's.

I feel a little cheated. I think Steinbeck floated that possibility and never came back to it. In a lot of novels that wouldn't be a huge crime but with the comparison to Cain and Abel etc. people are going to give this the xray and microscope treatment. As for those who think one brother fathered one and another brother fathered the other, it may be possible but seems pretty unlikely. We aren't dogs. Children may take after the mother or father, and that can change as they age. I'm also fine with the children resembling an uncle, a cousin, etc. And hey, we carry all kinds of recessive genes that may not be present in one sibling yet expressed in another. Maybe that end part where Lee says that we all have some nastiness in us explains it.

I truthfully feel, in the name of fantastical fiction, that Charles and Adam both fathered a boy. With that being said, the foundational concept of "Cain and Abel" is more of a parallel being drawn than this book being an adaptation of the story into a more modern time.
Cal was not, in my opinion, responsible for Aron's death. He battled with the information of Cathy's identity for quite some time... but ultimately felt obligated to tell his brother. He was a deeply empathetic boy, who went through his life extremely troubled by his thoughts and intelligence. That was proven in black and white when Cal took on the burden of his father's past experiences and the reality of his continued existence. He desperately tried to provide relief to Adam's heavy heart.
I've known men like this in real life, and there is a certain kind of intelligence, emotional and factual... that can be quite plaguing.

From what I gathered, this book was a testament to trauma carried in epigenetics. This can be proven solely with the portion that goes into Cal villainizing himself for his mothers deeds, and how her blood runs in his veins, therefore he is destined for evil. It can also be defined with how Adam and Charles' resulted as people from how paternally negligent their father was.
Steering away from the male characters, however, I think it's important to acknowledge the lack of context we received on Cathy's life and the very high probability that she was a victim of horrendous abuse. There is a line in the book that basically says, if people can have terrifying physical deformities cast upon them at birth, then why is it so abstract for a soul to experience the same curse?
I do believe that this is possible, but with the consistent theme of generational trauma.... I think it is a very real possibility that Cathy was the victim of horrendous abuse. Her hatred for men and her absolute dismissal of any affection from anyone, male or female, is a cut and dry sign of someone who was extremely abused and tortured. Whether sexually, emotionally, physically, or all of the above.
Circling back to the father's of the twins, I think that with the idea of both Adam and Charles fathering a boy.... there is an inkling to the concept that each boy provides the spirit of their father's to be healed and born anew. Hence the consistent "A" and "C" names.