Women of Genesis series
Wednesday, 07 January, 2004
So yesterday I finished Rebekah by Orson Scott Card which is the second in his Women of Genesis series (I am disappointed that the third and last one is going to be Rachel and not Leah; I think Leah is the more interesting character). I've read quite a lot of Card: The Worthing Saga, the Ender saga (4 books), the first two of the Bean saga, The Memory of Earth series (7 books which retells bits of The Book of Mormon in science fiction), Wyrms, The Folk of the Fringe (set in a future where only the Mormons survive), Songmaster, Maps in a Mirror (short stories), Hart's Hope (probably his most brutal work), Enchantment (a retelling of Sleeping Beauty) and Sarah (the first in the Women of Genesis series). I really enjoy his writing because he's good at doing character and he's also good at doing narrative. However, the Women of Genesis series disappoints me somewhat. Even though they're well-written and the Biblical characters are vividly brought to life, Card strays from the Genesis account in ways that make me uncomfortable. I know he's a practising Mormon and therefore he regards the rewritten bits of Genesis that appear in The Pearl of Great Price as being just as sacred as the Genesis we have of the Old Testament, but why does he blatantly ignore the way Genesis tells Genesis? Greg Clarke said once that Genesis is his favourite book because it's about the patriarchs of the nation of Israel and yet it portrays their founders in such a stark and uncompromising light. You have Abraham telling white lies and passing off his wife as his sister (yes, I know she's his half-sister—something which Card denies) and constantly trying to “help” God along when it seems that God isn't fulfilling what he promised. You have Rebekah deceiving Isaac so that Jacob can get the blessing. You have Jacob deceiving Esau so he can get the inheritance. You have Laban deceiving Jacob (at which point the audience thinks, “Ha! Have a taste of your own medicine, Jacob!”) and Rachel deceiving Jacob by hiding the household gods, and Leah and Rachel fighting over matrimonial rights. You have the rape of Dinah, the destruction of Schechem by Simeon and Levi (who wreak havoc while all the men are still recovering from being circumcised!) You have the attempted murder on Joseph, an incestuous affair between Judah and Tamar, Reuben going in to his father's concubine ... Genesis is the stuff of tabloids. This is the story of the nation of Israel—the story of how they came from nothing, were sinful people just like their ancestor, Adam, and yet God was faithful to his promises to them of land, offspring and blessing. When Card writes about these characters, he does show their human side but he does not show their sinful side, if that makes sense. So Abraham is only trusting God when he turns Sarah over to Pharaoh's harem; Rebekah thinks of herself as only trying to help Isaac see which son deserves to inherit the birthright; Jacob is only doing what his mother told him to do—he didn't really covet the birthright for himself. I think Card is giving these stories an interpretation which doesn't come across in Genesis. In Genesis, Abraham is a coward who cares more about his safety than Sarah's chastity. It takes him the whole of his lifetime to trust in the promises of God and the Lord's timing, and along the way he stuffs up again and again. Isaac and Rebekah play favourites with their sons (Isaac has a weakness for wild game). When Rebekah suggests deceiving Isaac for the blessing, Jacob goes along with her plan. There is no sense of regret, no sense of sadness for the deception he is about to enact. All right, I know Card is using artistic license. But this is the Bible and if you regard certain writings as being divinely-inspired, surely you'd treat them with care. Or perhaps this is Card trying to make sense of the stories himself because he doesn't really understand them. Or he is trying to justify their actions. Like he does with Nephi's murder of Laban from 1 Nephi 4 which is retold in The Memory of Earth series. There, it seems like “Nafai” had no choice and that he bitterly regretted the murder. In The Book of Mormon, Nephi was egged on by an angel who told him it was from the Lord and Nephi saw it was true so obeyed. Card's interpretation makes the action more palatable. And, likewise, his interpretation of the characters of Genesis make their actions seem more palatable when, in fact, they are not. The long and short of the matter (and this is one of the main points where evangelical Christians and Mormons differ) is that the Bible does not need interpreting; it is its own interpeter and it tells you exactly what it means. To apply your own intepretation to the Bible is to usurp the Bible's authority and transfer that authority to the hands of men or the hands of tradition.Posted in:
Powered by Expression Engine 1.7.1
Blinks:
A way of funding writing in the future: pitch and idea and get people to support it.
Place where you can hire play equipment for parties, etc.
How to recalibrate the home button on your iPhone.
Unsolicited manuscripts accepted by Pan Macmillan with certain conditions.
Thought Balloon is a group blog in which the writers tackle a new theme every week? month? with one-page scripts. This URL is for their Phonogram ones.
How to sew a zipper on a knitted garment.
Issues organised by tale.
|
|
Disqus comments
Other comments
Karen, perhaps you could write a book on Leah
Or an article. The OT is full of inconsistent and interesting characters.