I was recommended this book by two different friends whose opinion I value a great deal. Unfortunately, I hated it. Still, I plowed through it, knowing OSC is a great author and often turns things totally around in the last few pages.
However, at page 113, I started making a list of all the things that were starting to irk me about this book.
The book raises these premises that trouble me:
[ul]
[li] That the tale of Noah’s Ark is true, and relates to the rising of the Red Sea. IMO Noah’s Ark is one of the most far-fetched tales of the Bible. However, I have read stories about it before, that have been well-written and much better constructed. This was poorly done.[/li][li] That Columbus was a great man. True, he did some great things, but he was also an animal and a savage who didn’t understand the people he’d met were humans. The variation between his two selfs was not well-defined. The book started on the premise that he was a great man, and nothing would change our opinion of that, when I had already started with a fairly low opinion of him.[/li][li] That slavery somehow took the place of blood sacrifices. This may be true, but I found it hard to believe and the background describing it flimsy. [/li][li] The prevalence of the The Holy Trinity & Christianity! I do not believe any religion that claims its believers are the only saved ones is the only one able to save the world. It may of course be that I am wrong. [/li][li] Atlantis existed in the Red Sea, before the flooding. Again, possibly true but not backed up enough. [/li][li] The past was changed seemingly on **one ** woman’s whim, and compassion, for long-dead people. Wrong, IMO. [/li][/ul]
Above all, I learned during the reading of the book that I feel changing the past is wrong. Changing the past to convenience the present is wrong. Changing the past to fix the future is wrong. This is all IMO of course but I discovered a visceral reaction in myself to even the thought of changing the past. Even if we destroy our own civilization I don’t agree humanity is automatically worth saving! We lie in the bed that we make.
The brutal, savage treatment of the Indians was awful. I do my best not to read depictions of such things. What would be the point? I can’t change it. But the horrid rape of the “brown” Indian girl (not woman, girl) filled me with such a red rage even I was surprised. I’m not white, so I read the whole book from a vastly different perspective than either of the two friends who recommended it. I had a very hard time reading that part, the cruelty of the men in not even thinking she was human.
All that being said: The book was decently written. I think it could have been better at 3 x the length, with a lot of more of the things I’ve mentioned covered in greater depth, leaving a great deal of the “human interest” out. That is probably the best thing I could say about it. One of the very few times in fiction I was not able to suspend my disbelief. What the book covered is done. It’s gone. We can’t fix all the mistakes that were made, why hope that we can?
Anyway, the book did not make me feel good about reading it. I nearly started a Pit thread, it bothered me so much. But I thought it would be weird to Pit a fictional novel.
Orson Scott Card, you have disappointed me.