As I was reading Sarah, by Orson Scott Card, I began wondering what I really liked about Rebekah. Honestly, I couldn’t remember. I then decided I needed to be a lot more specific about what I do and don’t like about the books I read. Otherwise, it does me no good. Right?
So. I liked Sarah, but I wasn’t estatic about it. I liked the story Card wove; as seen through Card’s imagination, Abram and Sarai had an interesting life.
But, I also have problems. Because while Abram and Sarai were in an ancient surrounding, they were very modern. And, well, Mormon. It seemed to me that you could just pluck Abram and Sarai out of the book and put them into any ward as Brother and Sister so-and-so and their actions and language (from their prayers to the way they interacted with each other) wouldn’t seem out of place. It’s not that it bothered me while I was reading the book. But whenever I put it down, that’s what I dwelt on. It’s a good story. It’s also a very Mormon re-telling of the story. Though, I have to admit, that I’m quibbling with Card writing from his experience and for his audience here. Honestly, even though I found these at my library here (which I was suprised by), who else is going to read these books?
It is a good portrayal of a strong, faithful woman. Sarai was a strong woman with doubts and questions and yet is always willing to come back to her faith in God. She’s an honest and good woman, who loved her husband and was willing to stand up to and by him. And for that, I think it’s worth reading.
The Book Nut 
It seems like there is almost no LDS historical fiction with realistic characters. They seem transplanted. But, I’m trying to get over that and just enjoy those books anyway. I do want to read <>Sarah<> whenever it wanders back to the library.
LikeLike
I’ve not been one to read LDS historical fiction, so it’s interesting to know that it’s not just OSC. I wonder what it is about Mormonism that makes us want to Mormonize all our characters.
LikeLike
I’ve heard the same thing about general Christian historical fiction too. I think that the author usually is more of a writer than a historian and really doesn’t have a sense of what people’s lives were really like then. Or maybe they think a more realistic book wouldn’t be interesting, especially if it’s about women.
LikeLike
I’m not sure it’s the latter: many non-fiction books about women are interesting. It’s probably more that the author is a writer first and a historian (if at all) second. What bothers me is when people take decent fiction to be good history. One of the reasons I’ve never read Work and the Glory is because I’ve heard people use it as a reference in Sunday School. Good stories, probaly. Good history, probably not.
LikeLike
I cannot decide if the Work and the Glory has been a good thing or not. I do think that there are many people who have a greater interest in Church history as a result of reading the books.But, like you, I’ve heard people who forget it’s fiction. Susan Easton Black said that while she was in Nauvoo people would ask her which street the Steeds lived on along with other things they “learned” in the books.And we all know, if Gerald Lund didn’t write it in the books, it didn’t happen. š
LikeLike