So, Levi was good for something, right?

---

I liked how fluid the ideas were about religion and the god(s). That the concept of the God of Jacob as being the only one -- was mostly just his family's thing and nobody took much notice of it.

It's nice to have that insight. Jacob is only two generations after G-d's covenant with Abraham. As there's one point in the Genesis narrative (possibly right after the brothers slaughtered the men of Shechem's town), when Jacob has his family move on, he makes them leave their idols and earrings, etc., behind, and buries them under a tree (the idols, at least).

IIRC, Moses was descended from Jacob's son Levi.

Yes, both of Moses' parents were from the house of Levi. I think, in both Jewish and Christian canon, more attention is paid to Judah's line in the geneologies, because Judah is a direct ancestor of King David, and David's line is put forth as the messianic line.

---

Well I'm 2/3 through, hopefully will finish soon and have much to say.

So, Levi was good for something, right?

Heh. Remember, the Levi of The Red Tent is only loosely based on the real Levi. Not the same person.

Yes, both of Moses' parents were from the house of Levi. I think, in both Jewish and Christian canon, more attention is paid to Judah's line in the geneologies, because Judah is a direct ancestor of King David, and David's line is put forth as the messianic line.

Nowadays, in Judaism, more attention is paid to descendents of the tribe of Levi than any other tribe.

---

One of the things I appreciated about The Red Tent was how those who worshiped idols or goddesses were not presented as inherently better or worse than worshipers of the one god, El. Rebecca's treatment of Tabea, for example, although it did not hold a candle to the atrocity carried out by Simon and Levi, resulted in the loss of Dinah's first true friend. Rebecca was portrayed as haughty and arrogant, which was a nice balance to the traditional rendering (at least in modern fiction) of Isaac as psychically (?) under Abraham's knife, as if he's perpetually in fear that his father's god return to claim him.

I liked the water imagery. Too often water is used as anvilly shorthand for birth, death and rebirth. Here it is much more elemental. Seen from the perspective of a desert-dwelling nomad, the notion of water as magical and sacred carries a lot more weight. The wonder she experienced at seeing so much water in one place, the power of it and its ability to lift one up, the extravagence of an entire river of water, gave me a new appreciation for something so pervasive I rarely give it a thought.

When Dinah lost her footing in the Euphrates and Judah (who, as Topic!Cindy pointed out, carried the messianic line) pulled her safely to the farther side, there was certainly an element of baptism, but her real baptism was much more terrifying and horrible, carrying the Christian imagery of being washed in the blood of the beloved.

"Of course it's the blood. Blood is life. It's always the blood." </spike>

---

I'm still trying to finish the book. I'm still impressed wtih the writing, and Dinah does seem real. I liked that her fantasy of Rebecca immediately making her the favorite didn't pan out, which is what a young girl would do (the fantasy).

What's getting in the way of my really enjoying the book is the sense I'm havng that this is supposed to be an "important" book, telling the tale of how the women's gods are being subjugated by patriarchal monotheism. Yes, Laban worshiped them sincerely, but the emphasis I'm seeing is that this is primarily women's spirituality, and that is under attack.

The rituals are interesting. I'm curious as to waht Diamant is using as the source material for the worship of Inanna. I'm familiar wtih the various rituals around a girl's first period, but the bit with the frog idol was unfamiliar.

I wasn't familiar with Dinah's story in scripture, but I'm glad I know the story. Otherwise, I admit, I'd have given up on the story before now, because I'm still waiting for something to really happen. Yes, there have been lots of events, but they're fairly standard events given the milieu. I still have no sense that Dinah is somehow remarkable, that she has a tale that, out of all the others around her, is worth telling or that her insights are more penetrating than others. I'm finding the intereaction between Leah and Rachel much more interesting, two women who both have the sincere love of their husband but in such different ways.

---

Nowadays, in Judaism, more attention is paid to descendents of the tribe of Levi than any other tribe.

Because of the priesthood? Am I mixing this up, or is the surname Cohen/Kohan (today) an indication of someone's Levite heritage? Also, Wolfram--I have generally skipped over a lot of the geneologies when reading, are the descendants of the 12 tribes kept track of throughout the Hebrew canon?

What's getting in the way of my really enjoying the book is the sense I'm havng that this is supposed to be an "important" book, telling the tale of how the women's gods are being subjugated by patriarchal monotheism. Yes, Laban worshiped them sincerely, but the emphasis I'm seeing is that this is primarily women's spirituality, and that is under attack.

I never thought of it as an important book, just a beautiful one, but I live under a rock, where a lot of issues are concerned.

---

I think it's starting to get the baggage of being an "important" book, because it's very accessible, unlike the Bible, which isn't really that much fun to read. I'm betting that in a year or so, we'll see The Red Tent on a lot of high school and college reading lists, with The Color Purple and House of the Spirits and books like that.

I myself would classify it as a "worthwhile" book, rather than an "important" book, which is almost more rare these days.

And that the women were busy doing their own thing completely separately from the men

This point is what made Rachel's smuggling of the household gods that much more believable to me. The red tent is a woman's place (and it's easy to see how the red tent could become Rachel's skirts) so Laban won't even consider going in there.

Welcome Mark! I'm glad you brought up Mists of Avalon, because I was going to try to explain myself better about the "vilification of men" issue, and that book certainly applies. When I first read it, I didn't even see the way the male characters were treated...it wasn't until years later, when my husband read something I was reading and commented on how he hated reading books that made all men out to be evil, with no other plot or character reason for so doing, that I started paying attention to the perniciousness of that habit. Then I started connecting the dots in another way, and realized that every book my step-mother has given to me or recommended to me (starting with Mists, continuing through White Oleander) has shared the aspect of "all men are evil." She gave me The Red Tent, so I was suspicious of it from the get-go.

And there's a lot in it to support that claim, I know, but after somber reflection I don't think all the male characters were conceived as evil and lacking in any other character. You're right, Laban is Biblically consistent. Jacob's pretty much Jacob, with this wacky family heritage. Both Dinah's husbands are good people, as far as we know, and if her son is distant, there's a good reason for that (and distant is not evil). In fact, the women are capable of as many hurtful acts as the men, in most scenes.

The massacre rang fairly true for me as well in not being retaliation for a rape (as I agree with Cindy - the modern understanding of that wouldn't have applied) but in being a barbaric violent action against those who live and believe differently, and who are seen as being better off. THAT certainly has modern resonance.

---

Because of the priesthood? Am I mixing this up, or is the surname Cohen/Kohan (today) an indication of someone's Levite heritage?

The Kohenim are the descendents of Aaron. They are a subset of Levites.

Levites (as a tribe) got no portion of land in Israel because of the Schechemite massacre, but they were also the only tribe to not succumb to the golden calf idolatry. That earned them some sort of reward, but now my brain has totally blanked on the specifics. Could be just the general priesthood thing.

But all that is well after The Red Tent.

---

That earned them some sort of reward

"Tribe of the Month" parking space?

---

And a nice plaque.

---