I have recently finished Rebekka and Sarah, and i find them to be incredibly interesting. Is there any way to contact Orson Scott card? I too am Jewish (Orthodox - closer to traditional forms), and the most commentaries on the bible are held by Jewish tradition. Seriously, these guys have poured over the text much like Isaac and Abraham in Card's books. I am concerned that Mr. Card was not directed to these sources that really help to explain the text, solving some of the unbelievable stuff. If there is any way I could get into contact with Mr. Card, thatd be really cool, hes missing out on a lot of interesting stuff! -Armoth
[ March 23, 2004, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Armoth ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
There is a way to contact him, though I'd warn you not to couch your observations in terms of "Hey, you made a mistake!" or "You're clearly very ignorant about the subject!" ... those wouldn't go over too well.
Also, you may not be aware that Card is a Mormon, and his interpretation of the Bible is formed through a combination of many separate Jewish, Christian, and uniquely-Mormon sources. So if there are differences between his version and what you see as the accepted orthodoxy, that may be the true explanation.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Dog put his comments in such terms, which is why he now uses the name Dog instead of Card.
The preferred manner for such comments is by using the OSC Help Desk link at the top of the page, and choose "Questions For and About OSC" as your topic.
Welcome to Hatrack.
--Pop
Posted by Crux (Member # 6364) on :
I for one am quite impressed with Cards open mind. I grew up and still live in Utah, mecca of the mormons, and find that many utahns that claim that religion are quite close minded and unwilling to accept new ideas. I for one am not LDS as of now, but will be converting when my good friend returns from his mission. In my many years of discrimination i read over the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price, searching for the cause of my mal-treatment (is that a word?). I never found out where those books said to treat non-members that way... what i did find was a beautiful open minded religion hidden behind a mask of many ignorant people.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
[laughs] An excellent way to put it, Crux! Sorry for all the ignorant folks you met in Utah. I try to kick them in the butt whenever I can, I promise.
Welcome to Hatrack!
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
No no, i know Orson Scott Card is a mormon. I love the fact that he is - I love the religious themes of Xenocide, The Memory of Earth series, and especially The Lost Boys. Orson Scott Card mentioned something of the sources that he had found in the back of Sarah. All i meant was that the Old Testament, the book of the jews, read in its original language by the jews, had its commentaries from old traditional sources, something that shouldnt be overlooked. It really doesnt throw a jewish tint on things, its just more of an explanation. Trust me, the OT is waaaay deeper than its simple english translation.
I also find no problem in OSC's interpretation. I love the idea of the story portrayed through the women of genesis; I also enjoyed OSC's interpretation of Isaac and Abraham's personality. However, i think OSC would be interested in these commentaries that answer many questions.
Thanks for the response, and the welcome ;-)!
Posted by Crux (Member # 6364) on :
I do my fair share of... (can we curse on here?) kicking as well. Lot of great people out here though. My best friends are as listed: Seyi, a 6'5 black baptist that deals with his discrimination by becoming terribly introverted
Tim, a 5'8 asian lutheran who has traveled much of the world
K.C, a .... large... white guy who has quit religion since the death of his father
Chase, a 6'0 white mormon, that was born in guatamala and has lived in 6 or 7 spansish speaking countries and is currently serving a mission in Venezuela
Bun-Z aka Trustin, a short, stalky, native american who has a taste for alcohol, riding horses, and rap music.
and Caden, who despite his all american look is obsessed with all things japanese... currently serving a mission in korea.
pretty diverse people if you are open to befriend them
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: However, i think OSC would be interested in these commentaries that answer many questions.
Armoth, he's aware of them. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Sforno, Gemara? I dont think so. There was much to be explained by em...i mean, especailly rashi. OSC didnt say he did in his source in the back either.
Posted by Crux (Member # 6364) on :
look, i'm new here. I probably am out of line saying this, but i'd bet he is aware of them and didn't put them in his sources simply because he didn't use them. Even if he isn't aware of them, you've said what you came to say. You've listed these mystical unknown-to-anyone-but-you sources and you have enlightened Mr. Card. Let all pride be swallowed, and everyone return to their other hatrack posting pleasures.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Keep in mind that you're really discussing midrashim, Armoth. That is, all the sources you listed would be primarily discussing midrashim. And yes, he is aware of many midrashim -- I had an email conversation about Rebekkah with him.
If I understood correctly, from the Mormon point of view (but not mine) these are later additions to the text, and thus no more valid than any other source.
Hey, it's OSC's book -- he gets to write it based on whichever sources he chooses, neh?
Crux, is the sarcasm and snideness necessary? I'd be happy to link you to more information about any of the sources Armoth listed, if you like. Regardless, they are certainly not "mystical unknown-to-anyone-but-him."
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Dear Armoth, Rivka is right, OSC is aware of midrash, but did not base his story interpretations on it, so did not sight them as sources. Obviously, as the stories of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel and Leah are the founding stories of three great religions -- there are going to be differences of interpretations. We do appreciate your thoughts on the subject however and we welcome you to Hatrack.
Dear Crux, We welcome you also, but I do caution that the tone of posts here at Hatrack is very important. We are polite and welcoming of all views. Sometimes it's hard to realize that the written word can sound harsher that the spoken word -- that's why we are extra careful.
Best, Kristine Card
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Im not talking about midrash, im talking about pashut pshat, which rashi discusses. Nevertheless, if you think he took these sources into consideration, thats fine. I wasnt saying OSC was wrong, he has all right to write whatever he book he likes, If he saw these sources and chose not to include them, good!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You also have to understand that OSC is not writing through a "Gentile" or "Jewish" publication, or for that audience. This series is published by an LDS(Mormon) company who asked him to do it if I remember correctly, and intended mostly for an LDS(Mormon) audience. Therefore, the primary sources used, no matter other things he knows about or considered, will be those accepted by Latter-day Saints.
The "Gentile/Jewish" fanbase or readership is of secondary consideration.
Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
I find it interesting that so many know what OSC is thinking, writing, and why. You lucky duckies! Thank you kacard for your comments. They would be the most valid on this subject, don't you think?
Posted by Crux (Member # 6364) on :
rivka and kacard, If anything I was trying to put an end to any unecessary arguments or discussions at hand. I realize that the written words tone is established by the reader not the writer. Thank you for the reminder. Though I will stand by my statement that everything that needed to be said, had been. The key to communication is effeciency. Many talk all day but haven't a damn thing to say. It's fun to be euphonic with our words, but we musn't forget that a well paved road may often lead to undesirable locations.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
To revive an old topic ..
So are OSC's books of Rebekah, Leah and Sarah based at all on biblical scripture, or are they simply loose fiction based on a biblical character/name?
I haven't read them yet, other than the free first chapter online here under his library page, which links to each book.
And I noticed that on the story of Rebekah, he has her growing up motherless (raised by her father) while the book of Genesis mentions her mother even at the time she was given in marriage to Isaac. So she did have a mother.
So it if pretty much all dramatized fiction based on that character? I just want to know before I read them so I don't go into it with false assumptions
Farmgirl
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Farmgirl, I think that would depend on which audience you asked. I would say that they are more "dramatized fiction based on that character" than anything else. To me, the stories OSC is telling simply are not about Sarah and Rivka Imeinu (lit. "our mothers" -- that is, matriarchs).
Nonetheless, I was uncomfortable enough with them that I have not read the third book and probably will not.
I strongly suspect that a Mormon reader would have a different view of whether they are primarily "dramatized fiction" than I. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Ah - I see. That's what I wondered -- whether there were perhaps alternate texts (like Mormon texts) used, instead of just the Bible, to supplement his view of these women.
I might still try to read them, but keep in my own mind that is it just fiction.
Farmgirl
[ February 22, 2005, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
FarmGirl -- I have only read the first two Women of Genesis books, but both of them draw upon other LDS scripture besides the Bible, as well as the Bible. So it's fiction based upon an LDS view of the Patriarchs and their families.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would say "dramatized, fictionalized versions of accounts in the Scriptures" is exactly the right way to put it. We believe these are real people, but the events and motivations Card imagines are just that-- imagined. Therefore, you're free to agree or not agree, because what he writes doesn't change what really happened. (Wait, didn't he put that in his notes or something in one of those books? )
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
To throw these books in the fiction bin might be a little too dramatic. I have not read them but from what I have read here and in other posts they appear to be more than fiction, less than reality. They land somewhere in the middle and isn't this where all history could be said to exist? All history is befuddled by time and the writers views and opinions. Many think now that many ancient historical characters are completely different than we think of them. Some now say King Arthur existed but actually in the time of the Romans not the Britians this was the premise behind the movie. I read an article the other day that said Kind David was (according to the article) actually no more than a barbaric warlord. The truth is no body knows, we werent their so OSC's books could be seen as being as close to the truth as any other.
Posted by just-a-min (Member # 7308) on :
The most delicious aspects of the Women of Genesis are the thoughts and motivations that OSC invents to explain and inform the historic framework. The characters feel real as they act out events that are familiar. They even carry the same names, but unless OSC is receiving visits from angels, Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel (and Leah) are fictional characters fenced in by (mostly) biblical plot points.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote: To throw these books in the fiction bin might be a little too dramatic. I have not read them but from what I have read here and in other posts they appear to be more than fiction, less than reality. They land somewhere in the middle and isn't this where all history could be said to exist? All history is befuddled by time and the writers views and opinions.
I disagree. Historical fiction is still fiction. Regardless of the actual truth of his sources, the books are works of fiction.
It's true that we piece together history based on necessarily incomplete knowledge and therefore cannot reasonably claim that our view of history is accurate to the last detail. But a historical work is (or at the very least should be) based directly on actual evidence. A historical novel, no matter how well researched, contains details that may be reasonable within the context but have no actual basis in the evidence.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Exactly. Good job, Miro.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:To throw these books in the fiction bin might be a little too dramatic.
OSC himself I think would disagree with you. My books are boxed up right now, but I distinctly recall in the notes of one of them him saying, in effect, "This is a book of fiction. I made up most of it."
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
What I meant was not to say it shouldn't be put in as a history book, I realize that it is fiction. But someone said that they wouldn't even read the last one due to the way the characters were portrayed and who's to say in some whays OSC might have hit the mark. This discussion has made me want to get the first one. Right now I'm reading the divinci code and I'm broke but as soon as I get eight bucks together I'm going to go get the first one and read it inorder to better understand this discussion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m another that won’t be reading any more of them, for the same reason as rivka. They’re too close, while at the same time being too different from my understanding of the Biblical characters.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
*blink* is it somehow offensive to you? Is there too much unbelievability for you? Is the writing of poor quality compared to his other works? I just don't understand the whole not reading any more; expecially when its fictionalized. By the way, I DON'T read any fictionalized history, as I find the "real history sources" much more interesting.
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
I love the series but I can see why some people might have an issue with the fictionalized elements. Perhaps, if you really wanted to get into touch with the true word of God, these books might be perceived as muddying the water. Your mind takes in all the details and maybe, on some level, blends the fiction and the Biblical information. Just speculating. Michelle
Posted by ostyinmi (Member # 7218) on :
But still I am at a loss as to why that would force someone to stop reading a book. I mean that means that I can not read Lord of The Rings because that fictional begining of the world does not fit with the true or my belief of the true begining of the world.
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
Again, I love the books ... but I think if it is crucial to you to get as close to The Truth as possible, reading an account of a story that has some truth and some fiction might move you away from that goal.
The better the writer, the more convincing the fiction. The more convincing the fiction, the more you remember it as fact. The more you remember it as the fact, the less room there is for discovering what really happened.
I loved Sarah. I closed that book in love with the people and events. I wanted to believe the truth of these people. I can never read the Biblical account without recalling this book. It filled in blanks with very touching and convincing myths/conjectures/fictions. It has now woven itself into the fabric of the story. I cannot excise that story.
OSC wrote about seeing a film which was, by his moral standards, inappropriate. He repented of seeing the film, but can never take his mind back to the point before he viewed it. He cannot undue that experience. The aame holds true of any book or movie.
Once you read a fully fleshed fictionalized account of an event where we know few true details(Obviously presuming you are of a mind that any of it is true,)that account can become more real than a story that now seems more like a sketchy outline for the fiction.
I can see where someone might choose not to read the books for that reason. Michelle
[ February 24, 2005, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: MichelleEly ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think it might have to do with not wanting to disrespect the memories of people you revere; like, if someone wrote a very fictionalized account of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., that used only the bare bones of his life story and had made-up motivations and events in between, most people would be horrified. We're separated by a lot more time from the events in the "Women of Genesis" books, so some of us don't see it that way. But to those to whom they are very real, revered people, I can understand how it would be too much.
Some Mormons have this problem with the Alvin Maker books, though I think that's a little easier to deal with because the name and the rules are changed.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Nope, neither of those explanations are what I mean.
LDS theology and biblical interpretation are different enough from what I believe that OSC biblical fiction is like reading fanfic – even when the writing is good it’s too annoying when the characters do things that are completely out of character for the way I understand the originals. Obviously they’re “in character” in someone’s mind, but it’s too jarringly “wrong” in mine.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I meant to put that in my theory as well, but forgot. Thanks for clarifying.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
so am I the only one who just reads a book because I enjoy reading? I've read Sarah and Rebekah. My name is Irish for Sarah, and my sister's name is Rebekah (spelled as such). I got the books, read them, passed them on to her. We both enjoyed them immensely. I think y'all are thinking too hard on this...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I enjoyed them too. But if you have strongly held religious beliefs, then reading something that conflicts with what you believe about them and their lives may be unsettling or upsetting, and I can understand that.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
Not me - I'm a cradle Catholic!!
lololol Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
\\so am I the only one who just reads a book because I enjoy reading? I've read Sarah and Rebekah. My name is Irish for Sarah, and my sister's name is Rebekah (spelled as such). I got the books, read them, passed them on to her. We both enjoyed them immensely. I think y'all are thinking too hard on this... //
That's exactly why I enjoy reading them. That doesn't mean I cannot also have thoughts and theories. Michelle
[ February 25, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: MichelleEly ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think it’s an occupational hazard – I can’t read Biblical interpretation, even in narrative form, without analyzing and evaluating it. It’s especially bad with the Hebrew Bible, since that was one of my concentrations in grad school. So there’s just no way I can “turn off” that part of my brain. Since there are so many thousands of great books to read (including a lot of others by OSC) why should I spend my reading time on books I don’t enjoy?
Edit to add: I’m certainly not saying that I see anything wrong with other people enjoying them, whatever their religious beliefs. In fact, I’m a little envious. I wish I could just read them as fiction and enjoy the stories.
[ February 26, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote: LDS theology and biblical interpretation are different enough from what I believe that OSC biblical fiction is like reading fanfic – even when the writing is good it’s too annoying when the characters do things that are completely out of character for the way I understand the originals. Obviously they’re “in character” in someone’s mind, but it’s too jarringly “wrong” in mine.
I was trying to figure out a way to say this, but couldn't quite make it coalesce. Thanks, dkw. The one difference for me is that I don't actually believe the Biblical stories, I've just studied some of them, and that is enough to create the disconnect for me.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I just read this interesting discussion, which I apparently missed cause I don't come to this "side" of the forum often enough.
I totally understand rivka and dkw's discomfort with the stories of the matriarchs as OSC tells them. I share a bit of that discomfort, for reasons similar to the ones that they expressed. It's just not the story the way I have learned it. Sometimes the details or language feel a bit jarring to me. Some of the characterizations and acts of the characters feel contrary to what I've come to believe about them.
I have found, though, that if I "forget" that the books are supposed to be about Biblical figures and just read them as fiction, they are good stories. I still notice the stuff that's not "right" (like Jacob breaking the wine cup at his wedding with Leah, many many many generations before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem), but I still find the stories interesting enough to continue reading. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: I have found, though, that if I "forget" that the books are supposed to be about Biblical figures and just read them as fiction, they are good stories. I still notice the stuff that's not "right" (like Jacob breaking the wine cup at his wedding with Leah, many many many generations before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem), but I still find the stories interesting enough to continue reading.
I used to be able to do this; I can't anymore. Not sure exactly why . . .
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:LDS theology and biblical interpretation are different enough from what I believe that OSC biblical fiction is like reading fanfic – even when the writing is good it’s too annoying when the characters do things that are completely out of character for the way I understand the originals. Obviously they’re “in character” in someone’s mind, but it’s too jarringly “wrong” in mine.
Would be able to point out some of these 'jarringly wrong' elements? While I am LDS now, I was decidedly NOT LDS when I originally read them, but was still familiar with the Biblical texts, and apart from a couple minor things I had then written off as oddities, didn't find all that much that felt off from my understanding of the stories at all. I enjoyed them quite a bit, actually.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: And I noticed that on the story of Rebekah, he has her growing up motherless (raised by her father) while the book of Genesis mentions her mother even at the time she was given in marriage to Isaac. So she did have a mother.
Not wanting to spoil the book, I will say that she has a mother in the book too. One who re-enters her life a few years before she marries Isaac.
Since Genesis compresses lots of life history into a few short verses for most of the people described, and author doing a fictional account has a lot of leeway so far as that sort of thing.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I think dkw's and rivka's comments are rather interesting, as I have had the opposite experience. I am not LDS and I have studied the OT stories for many years. And I definitely don't share the LDS worldview (though the morals are very similar). As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have found that most fictional accounts of Bible characters or events, either books or movies, do not coincide, either to the actual account or to what I personally believe about that account/person. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were.
Yet for a long time I have enjoyed these fictionalized retellings. Obviously, the closer they are to the account, the more I enjoy it. But I emotionally pick and choose elements in these books and movies which most speak to me. Thus, there are elements of King of Kings that I enjoyed immensely, that really touched me. Same with Jesus: the Miniseries, for all it's idiotic political correctness. My absolute favorites (and the most faithful, usually) are the TNT/RAI-Uno productions like Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, David and Jeremiah (though Jesus: the miniseries was through them, too). I thought their Moses (with Ben Kingsley) was rather lame as a story- though I did like the thought of his having a history with the Pharoah back when he had lived in the Palace- as was Solomon. Prince of Egypt was quite good, despite the major inaccuracies. I liked the possibility that he and Pharoah had been friends rather than enemies. Made an interesting twist. But I liked parts of Ten Commandments, too.
So given that history, it's no surprise that I enjoyed OSC's Women of Genesis series quite a bit, as I did Stone Tables. While the worldview was different, the characters were substantially the SAME PERSON even when their actions or reasonings were slightly different. And some of the umpteen-volume Children of the Lion series was OK, though the characters many times suffered from what can only be termed schizophrenia and/or emotional/memory amnesia. In that series I enjoyed the sense of history that he gave the world. That even back then, there was a lot of myth and history to those people.
In the end, I think that I combine these elements in my mind so that when I read the accounts, those fictionalizations I like are the ones that come to mind (together with my own many speculizations and detailed studies over the last 15 years) and the rest are forgotten or ignored.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Thanks for clarifying.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)