There are some interesting articles on The Red Tent in NoveList. You may have access to this online database through your library, maybe even from home. If you would like to see and don't have access, let me know at my profile addy. I should be able to forward to a limited number of people.

I'm working on The Red Tent, and I'm afraid it's slow going. It's beautifully written, the characters seem real and differentiated and interesting, but ...

It's not that I need explosions and chases and death-defying adventure to keep my interest--though it's always welcome--but the inner life of women isn't that fascinating to me.

I'll try to resist further comments till the actual discussion date.

Okay, I'm just going to dive in, and pose a question to y'all, from the discussion questions at this site: [link]

This chapter [ch. 7] includes the central moment of this novel and requires a great deal of reflection. Diamant reinterprets Dinah's rape as a misunderstood love affair. How do we respond to this? In the Bible, the Hebrew word for "rape" is used. Is it possible that Dinah's brothers misinterpreted her relationship to this man? Or does Diamant take her midrash too far?

I'd like to know what people think, particularly those who have read the corresponding Bible chapter (if you haven't, here's a link just to Genesis 34: [link] You'll note, the translation (NIV) I've just linked doesn't say Shechem raped Dinah. Instead, it says he took her and her. The King James translation says he lay with her, and defiled her. [link] More modern translations use rape, but from what I can find of the Hebrew (in an exhaustive concordance), those translations choosing to use that word because of the larger context.

The Red Tent is midrash, so there's no wrong answer to this question. I'm just interested in your opinions. The purpose of midrash, as I understand it, is to fill in the blanks, but Diamant is not* pretending her take is authoritative. She had a story she wanted to tell.

* edited because leaving out one little word can completely change a sentence. Huh.

Don't kill me, but I haven't read it yet. Soon as I do, I'll be a mad poster what posts like mad.

I haven't got that far. I'm not that familiar with the relevant scripture, and now I'm perplexed on how all the introductory chapters on her mothers is going to be relevant to the "rape".

I found the women's view of religion interesting, especially juxtaposed with Jacob's religion.

(I keep having to say "Joseph and the Amazing etc." to remember if Dad is Jacob or Joseph.)

Hee.

I found my copy of the book but have not started re-reading it yet.

Man, double-posting I understand -- but how the heck did I manage to triple post?

I started the book, and am so far loving the writing, but I'm only about a chapter in. If anyone's still discussing it next week when I will have (hopefully, because someone kill me if not) finished writing for my own deadline (and also finished reading), I will post then, a la Wolfram.