Hey, I've read this one. A while ago, but I think I can brush up quickly and matbe be part o an intelligent discussion.

I have, oddly enough, read another book that took a single line in the bible about a woman being raped and made it into "her' story ( Tamar if anyone cares), in which the rape is a love story that has been reprted wrong.

Anyway, to address what Cindy has brought up, quite aside from teh "it's just fiction she can do what she want" defense, I do think Diamant is justified in her interpretation. Part of the point of the passage is that Simeon and Levi acted badly in taking their revenge, and making that revenge less about defending tehir sister and more about their own rights over their sister clarifies that somewhat.

I'm very interested in what people think of Diamant's version of Rachel taking the idols, but I should probably shut up until I can at least skim through my copy again.

Part of the point of the passage is that Simeon and Levi acted badly in taking their revenge, and making that revenge less about defending tehir sister and more about their own rights over their sister clarifies that somewhat.

Which is what, historically, women's chastity is largely about. Arguably, if my body belongs to my father anything that happens without his permission is rape whether I consented or not.

Rape as property crime. Yep, that's a guaranteed hot button. Grrr.

Which is what, historically, women's chastity is largely about. Arguably, if my body belongs to my father anything that happens without his permission is rape whether I consented or not.

Yup, and making the "rape" clearly not a rape to Dinah, that's made explicit. I think if it had actually been against her will (in the novel, I mean), the bit where Shechem loves her and wants to marry her and especially Jacob working out a deal with him where all is forgiven becomes a lot muddier and problematic. From today's standpoint, anyway.

Darn...I really liked this book and want to join in the discussion on it, but I'm going to be dark for about a week. One quick question - it's Jacob who is "the prodigal son," right?

One not-so-quick question that I wanted to bring up for discussion has to do with...hmm...don't know how to phrase this...it seems to me that female writers often vilify all male characters in a story when they are trying to write a strong woman's story (either a strong woman or a strong story for/about women). I thought that was the case in The Red Tent, although not as anvilly as other things I've read. Only two male characters seemed like decent people, and neither get a lot of screen time. I've argued this point in my head for this particular book, and I think I don't have a problem with the vilification of men here, because it's so tied in to the purpose of the midrash. But...does anyone else ever see this phenomenon? Are women equally vilified in stories about men, and I'm just culturally trained to not notice?

Also, I love Cindy's definition of a "midrash" as fanfic.

I don't know about the prodigal son. I don't make that connection in my head, but that doesn't mean anything.

I'm glad you brought up the portrayal of the menfolk, Raquel. That was an issue for another group (that I didn't actually participate in, so, liberal helpings of salt all around) discussing this book. I honestly didn't see villification, but I can be obtuse.

Not the prodigal son, but the favored son over his brother Esau, so not a dissimilar dynamic.

So when do we talk about my being MASSIVELY SKEEVED about that first menstruation ritual?

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Not the prodigal son, but the favored son over his brother Esau, so not a dissimilar dynamic.

IIRC, Jacob was favored by Rebbecah, and Esau (the older son) was favored by Isaac.

Wolfram, yup. Thanks for the correction.

ETA: Esau was Leah's son, correct, and Jacob was Rebeccah's? I don't remember that Esau was necessarily specifically favored so much as being the elder and therefore entitled to inherit - am I misremembering that?