I feel that the book was very well-written, but I hated reading about Hagaar and Abraham. I felt so bad for Sarah (I am a very jealous person). I also feel that maybe too many liberties were taken plot-wise. Many parts of the story Card weaves weren't found anywhere in the Bible's account. Call it artisitc liberty, I guess, but it still made me uncomfortable.

I am so amazed by the story telling skill of Mr. Orson Scott Card. How that guy can take an entire life span and put it into a story, maintaining consistency in character, momentum and plot is pretty incredible. I love his take on the lives of these women of the Bible.

An interesting read, to be sure. I enjoyed it as a novel. I don’t quite know how to feel about it as a work reflecting the heart of Sarah’s story in Genesis. I’m not concerned with the historical veracity or the necessary artistic license taken—those added or reduced elements were quite well handled, on the whole, including the additions drawn from the Pearl of Great Price.

What I couldn’t quite get behind was the apparent impulse to sanitize the darker, less palatable elements of Sarah and Abraham’s history. They both escape the whole thing without any blemish on their character or virtue, and all blame is shifted elsewhere (sorry, Hagar) after a few lines of internal wrestling or a quickly-resolved marital spat between the principal characters. Based just on this first installment, Card doesn’t seem comfortable with patriarchs (or matriarchs) who bring flaws and besetting sins into God’s ultimate designs. I’d have been interested to see him handle a post-Sodom Lot. I’ll be very interested to see how he deals with Jacob.

I don’t necessarily fault the author for his dogged preservation of the characters’ images of righteousness. The stakes are high when you’re discussing heroes of the faith. But it feels like a cop out to claim that every instant of less-than-holy-looking decision making comes down to a Thus Saith the Lord, despite there being no evidence of God having orchestrated Abraham and Sarah’s dodgier choices in the Biblical texts. I expected a little more comfort with human complexity, given the depth of many other characters in Card’s repertoire.

~3.5 stars

“Sarah” by Orson Scott Card is a decent attempt at fleshing the Biblical story of Sarah and Abraham into a novel-length narrative. The difficulty of biblical fiction lies in balancing the Scriptural narrative with the usual fictional requirements (that is to say, Biblical interpretation vs. story structure and plot). Students of fiction will note that—over large stretches of the book—there’s not much conflict. Though the story is indeed slow in some places, overall it held my interest. The story’s strength, in my opinion, is the often-snappy dialogue between characters and the strong relationship between Abram and Sarai.

On the flip side, students of the Bible may note instances in which Card’s interpretation of Scripture differs from their own. For example, in Card’s rendering, Sarai is in no way related to Abram by blood. While the passage Card references at novel’s end to explain this decision is, indeed, ambiguous (Genesis 11:29: “And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah,” which some scholars interpret to mean that Iscah is another of Sarai’s names—one of them being a title, for example, like “my princess,” or a designation as a prophetess), Genesis 20:12 seems to make the issue clear: “Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.” If Abram merely called her “sister” between themselves, I might be able to believe that it was more a title than an indication of blood ties, but the Scripture is specific: “daughter of my father”—which could, apparently, mean granddaughter (compare Genesis 11:31 and 14:12,16)—“though not the daughter of my mother”—which could either mean that Terah fathered children by more than one woman or that Sarai's mother was Abram’s sister, and Sarai his niece (see here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.co...). In the end, I was able to shrug it off and move on with the story, though I did almost stop reading when Abram claimed God told him to lie to Pharaoh about Sarai being his wife. I can certainly believe that Abram lied, but I have some trouble believing such dishonesty was prompted by God.

In all, my biggest problem with the novel was the way in which Abram was almost painted as infallible up through his agreement to bed Hagar. I was surprised at how many times Abram claimed to be following God’s will in actions usually interpreted as errors or sin. According to Card’s rendering, God told Abram to go to Egypt (possible, but hadn’t God told him to go to “the land I will show you”?); He told Abram to lie to Pharaoh (but God condemns dishonesty elsewhere in Scripture); and—after Abram sought God’s will in the matter of whether or not to bed Hagar—Abram claimed God’s approval (whereas I prefer to believe God meant only one man and one woman when He said “the two shall become one flesh”). Furthermore, I don’t believe it was God’s will for Abram to try and achieve the promise in his own logic and strength (by bedding Hagar). Not that Abram could fully know the consequences of that decision, but the descendants of Ishmael antagonize Abraham’s descendants, to this day. Time and again, Scripture shows what happens to the descendants of those who defy God: Noah's son Ham—who apparently sodomized his father—spawned the Canaanites. The incest of Lot’s two daughters produced the Moabites and the Ammonites. I understand that taking a maid, like Hagar, as a substitute was common at the time—but to portray God condoning this action didn't seem right (to this Christian, though Card’s background is Mormon, so that might explain his choice).

In Biblical fiction, different interpretations are to be expected. What most concerns readers, perhaps, is whether the author believes the Bible to be inerrant and, also, whether the author leans toward literal or figurative interpretations. For this series, the answers to those questions are: (1) Card believes there are minor errors stemming from repetition and exaggeration in the oral tradition (like his assumption that the three wife-sister narratives in Genesis actually refer to a single historical event, as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife%E2...) and (2) he leans toward the figurative spectrum (assuming, for example, that Lot's wife didn't literally turn into a pillar of salt). Within the context of a fictional story not meant to replace the Bible, these compromises didn't bother me as much as the way God was portrayed in what He condoned. In spite of these personal concerns, I felt that the story was well written (if a bit slow). It was an interesting and thought-provoking read, and I'm intrigued to find out how Card portrays Isaac in the next installment: “Rebekah.”

I wanted to like this book, since it was recommended to me as a vivid retelling of a Bible story that brought the characters, their world, and their motivations to life.

That is all true. Orson Scott Card clearly did his research into Ancient Near East culture, social structures, politics, and mythology, and wove these elements masterfully into this fictionalized account from Genesis. Much of the book was fascinating.

However.

I'm a Christian, but not Mormon, and this book was....very Mormon in its sensibilities. Card incorporated a number of elements from the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, which I only noticed because I did a bit of a Wikipedia research tangent halfway through the book. Other aspects of LDS cosmology and theology are woven in as well.

This was so problematic for me as to make it nearly unreadable. I would not recommend it to other Protestant or Catholic believers looking for Biblical fiction.

Glad it's over. That's how I feel about this book. Not because of the writing in it, the writing was rich and interesting and dealt with lots of Old Testament details in a way that kept my interest. I'm glad to be done with this book because of my feelings toward the author. Based on the writing and story alone, I would give the book 2.5 stars. It held my interest, but still felt a bit slow and repetitive.

When I first read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, it was a life-changing experience for me. I was 18 years old (or so) and my (then) boyfriend (now husband) recommended it to me. I had, quite literally, never read a science fiction book before. I thought science fiction books were about robots and boring details about futuristic technology. Ender's Game showed me that science fiction, great science fiction, is about humanity. What makes us love, hate, learn, sacrifice, and be as people. Ender's Game shocked me and opened my eyes to a whole new type of fiction and I am very grateful to my boyfriend-now-husband for showing me that. I thought that Card really understood the human heart.

Here's the problem. Card's more recent writings and rantings have shown me that actually Card's own heart is not truly open. And, I realize I was wrong. Card, in fact, does not understand the human heart. And that saddens me, even more so because I feel like he has the capacity to understand love, and yet he puts up a block against it where no block need be. I am disappointed in him.

I have read quite a few of Card's books over the years, including the other books in the original Ender's series, the Alvin Maker series, Lovelock and a few others. But this is the first time I have tried to read Card's work knowing his odious thoughts on love and equality. And I couldn't get past that. I thought I could read the book and put away my feelings toward the things Card has said publicly in real life. But, in the end, his opinions colored my reading. Card's writing was good, as always. But the story was boring. And, every hint of Card expressing his disgusting views made me angry or sad.

"Modesty is right for a woman, not brazenly showing her breasts to everyone...They are for your husband to see, and no one else." page 108 This bothered me because I often think about religious calls for women to cover up their body...hair, legs, breasts, whatever because women's bodies supposedly distract men and drive them to lust. I think people are responsible for their own thoughts, actions and distractions regardless of what people around them are wearing.

Then we get into Card's accounts of the problems going on in Sodom. I feel like Card draws a picture of Sodom as a place were homosexuality is given a foothold and then it spread like wildfire to every single man in the entire city (except Lot). Seriously, Card? It's almost laughable if it weren't a perception that seems to really exist in the world. I wonder if that is Card's true fear... But this kind of ridiculous scenario had me in knots as I read little indications like this quote on page 191, "...if Qira [Lot's wife] couldn't see how unlikely it was that her daughters would ever bear children to men of Sodom, it was because she chose to be blind." And this, "But from the king down, the men of Sodom are entirely given to debauchery and cruelty, and they don't have much tolerance for men who won't join in." (page 197)

**Spoiler Alert** Stop reading now....I also found the whole Sarah/Hagar events to be confusing and aggravating. Why does God tell Abram to have a child with Hagar if Hagar and Ishmael are just going to be sent away later anyway? That's not a question for Card, perhaps, but one which he might have tried to answer in the book, but he didn't. And, it is Sarai's suggestion that Abram get a child from Hagar! I was a little disappointed after reading one of my favorite books of all time, A Handmaid's Tale, that Sarai wasn't there at the making of Hagar's son! (I write sarcastically.)

Then later when Hagar and later Ishmael behave badly toward Sarai and Isaac, Sarai has to beg and plead to be believed by Abram, her husband. They've been together for years and she has supposedly been by his side making decisions with him for all that time...but still he trusts the word of his servant, Hagar, over Sarai's? Over and over again he does that. And even after Sarai is proven right Abraham still doesn't believe her immediately that Ishmael has hurt Isaac. That I found upsetting and out of place. I thought Abraham would put more stock in his wife's words, since she's proven her love for him countless times in previous chapters of the book.

Another thing frustrating me about this book is that sometimes Abraham and Sarah hear the will of God and then do the earthly things they need to to make things happen. But other times, they are content to say "Well, if it's the will of God it will happen, and I'll just do nothing either way." Like on page 321, when Ishmael and Hagar run into the desert and Eliezer suggests that they should go after them so that they don't die, Abraham says, no we'll do nothing because, "I will trust God to take care of my son in the desert." This kind of earthly attitude really annoys me in general. Why not just sit in one place and not move and let God bring you every little detail thing to survive. Why bother getting food and water ourselves? God will do that for us if we just do nothing?!?! I do not like that attitude at all.

Oh, and then Card indicates that Abraham says absolutely nothing to Sarah about what errand he is on when God calls him to sacrifice Isaac (after the author states clearly several times previously that the one true God would NEVER ask for a human sacrifice???!!! Why did Card write that, knowing the story is as it is?) And the book ends on that note...we never hear what happens to Isaac and Abraham on that hill - nor do we hear how and when Sarah and Abraham's lives end. I wish those details had been included.

The epilogue was Card discussing how he wrote the story, what references he used, and his Mormom beliefs about the biblical story of Abraham and Sarah. But I did find this one quote on page 336 which made me "hmph" out loud, "There is such a thing as a pious lie--the opposite of bearing false witness against your neighbor, it is told to save the righteous from destruction of the wicked." Yes, Card, I'm sure that's what all people in power in theocracies tell themselves to justify their reprehensible words and deeds. Still, it was shocking to read.

This will, almost definitely, be the last book I read by Card. (It is conceivable that I would reread books I've already read by him...but I wonder if they, too, would lose their luster, knowing what I know now.) I usually like stories that bring either historical events or biblical stories to life...and I think that's why I'd give this one 2.5 stars, but no more. I don't like feeling tainted by reading something by an author with such close-minded views as Orson Scott Card.


PS Didn't Father Abraham have seven sons? Like in the song...page 322 made me think of that....

Such a different type of story than he usually writes but still in the same fascinating style of explaining people's thought processes and allowing the reader to watch as their opinions and beliefs are molded as the book continues.

In some ways I guess these books are similar to some of his sci Fi work because it's all about the beginning of an empire and the small things that went into creating a great nation, just like books like Ender's game are about the individual people and personal conflicts that brought about national/global/universal upheaval.

One of my favorite quotes: "Virtue is supposed to be alive in the heart, not put on and off like a burden."

So cool to think about the life of these biblical figures that I've heard of all my life. I definitely will read the next two books in the series.

Our book club is reading Sarah (Women of Genesis) by Orson Scott Card this month. I was not super thrilled with this book choice in the beginning for two reasons: I'm not the biggest fan of Orson Scott Card's writing, and this type of book is totally not something I normally read. Well, I am happy to report that I fell in love with this book!

Sarah follows the biblical story of Sarai (later named Sarah) as she meets, falls in love with, and marries Abram (later named Abraham). She struggles with infertility, has a strained relationship with her only sister, is learning to be faithful in all things, and has to deal with her handmaid's temper when she has Abram's first son. Essentially, she's imperfect, and I love her for it. This book, despite the difference in era, is very relatable. I teared up (ahem cried ahem) more than once.

This book is extremely quotable! I was writing down quotes left and right to remember for our book club discussion. Here are some of my favorites:

"Virtue is supposed to be alive in the heart, not put on and off like a burden."
"Learning is the only bread that you can share without lessening your own meal."
"For all you know, [... God] is planning great things for you if you only have the patience to wait for them."
"Love is finding that the things you like best about yourself are not in you at all, but in the person who completes you."

I really appreciated in the afterword that Card addresses how difficult it is to write a book like this and explains that some of his omissions from the Bible were deliberate in trying to interpret the Bible for the people of today.

I'm really looking forward to this month's discussion and can't wait to see what everyone else thought about this book! As for me, I'm adding the other books in this series my my ever-growing To Be Read list.

A friend and I were geeking out over Ender's Game and the Shadow series. I haven't read much of Card's stuff since I was in high school. But I read a LOT of his stuff and liked about 70% of it. I guess now he has all these other series about ender that I didnt' know about! Might have to dig back in.

In any case, this friend recommended this series and it as available on Libby so I jumped in to test it out. It was surprisingly good! I appreciated his research and interpretation of the story and that period of history. I've read those chapters from the bible and never considered some of the imaginative things that he did. I appreciated the story coming through the lens of Sarai. It really made me reconsider some of my assumptions about the stories of Abraham and Sarah. They were really incredible people - with or without this interpretation of their lives. Just their story as recorded in the bible is pretty amazing when you stop to think about it. I'm looking forward to reading the other two books.

This book was recommended by a friend because she knows I love biblical fiction. Francine Rivers and Angela Hunt are fantastic at using what scripture does say and filling in the imaginative bubble with what it doesn't say. Maybe that is a gift, and Orson just does not have it.

First of all, reading this book similar to a turtle plodding through peanut butter. It was unbearably slow. The main reason is because Orson gives too much narration with too little dialogue. The ratio felt like one sentence: five paragraphs of explanations of the context behind this phrase and what this character thought because of this one action. It was not enjoyable to read at all. Just get with the telling of the story already! This was the style for about 75% of the book. Very unenjoyable.

Secondly, Orson does NOT understand the inner workings or motivations of a woman. There were several moments throughout the book where I just stopped and put it down because his depiction of women was unrealistic. Horrifically unrealistic. It was impossible to become emotionally attached to any of the characters for this reason.

Lastly, Orson decided to use his "creative liberty" and completely took out the account of Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt. If you have respect for the Bible and the timeline of the Bible, this is not the book for you. Lot wasn't with Abram when he went before Pharaoh. Just so many inconsistencies when comparing this text to the Bible.

All in all, I wish I had never read this book. It's for this very reason that I don't accept book recommendations, because I feel like I wasted every second spent reading it. I sadly cannot get that time back, and I cannot erase the garbage from my mind. It's ridiculous to think that Orson changed biblical details just because he thought they were valid options of what might have happened. Very disrespectful to the authority of scripture.

0/10 do not recommend.

When someone tried to expand upon a classic, do you praise them for their shortcomings.

This was certainly a valiant effort to retell the story of Sarai, Abram and Hagar. It is obvious Card spent a lot of time researching and studying the original source.

An issue I've had with past retellings of Biblical stories is by "humanizing" them or in an effort to make them "more real" they make them unlikable and down right bad people (I'm thinking of Russell Crowe as Noah).

Card did not do that. If anything he made them more sympathic and more heroic by adding real life emotions and reactions. Somehow he was able to make Sarah, Abraham and Hagar all sympathic.

A fun, fast read. Great for those wanting a better grasp on Genesis or those interested in historical fiction.

This 2000 novelization of a section from Genesis is the first of a series called Women of Genesis and sticks fairly closely to the Biblical text while at the same time filling out the story with new characters and much more psychological, social, religious and cultural background. As in his Homecoming Series, Card here writes with confident power when describing the ups and downs of familial relations, as well as maintaining an ever-present moral perspective over the spectrum of human behaviour extending from the purely altruistic action of some to the quite venal selfishness shown by others. Coupled with a strong narrative story line, I found this work, as well as its two sequels, highly engaging.

As indicated by his novel Saints, which detailed the early history of the Mormons in the United States, Card takes his religion very seriously. While an atheist, I still found all these works quite interesting because he avoids all didactic proselytizing in telling a story replete with vibrant humanity.

Strongly recommended.