no resonance or especial fondness of any characters here. I think I liked this book because it was beautifully written. I respond when the author has made me "see" the characters.

ITA.

Y'know, I just realized I've been pronouncing her name "dee-nah" in my head, whereas the name in English is "die-nah" and I believe it was pronounced "die-nah" in my bible study class. Which way is correct?

Dee-nah is how it's pronounced in Hebrew, and I'm pretty sure she mentioned in the prologue that that's how it's supposed to be pronounced.

The pronunciation "Dee-nah" surprised me. I'd thought Dinah = Dye-nah.

??? Wutz ITA? Dern tiny brain, she can't remember.

I suppose it's no great surprise, since I picked this book, but I loved it. I bonded with the characters and loved the story. I loved how it expanded and how it changed that portion of the Bible for me. Several have mentioned that they have to remind themselves that it is fiction. I totally understand that, and love the power of really good fiction that requires this.

In a sense, The Red Tent is more real to me than much of the Bible. It's like I have lost some of the closeness of the Bible in multitudes of translations and the changes of time. When I first read The Red Tent a few years ago, it was around the time that I read another piece of fiction, based on the Bible: Testament, by Nino Ricci, which looks at the gospels from several points of view. It made the gospels close in a way that they never had been before, and completely changed how I think of Judas Iscariot. I don't know the reality of either Dinah's situation or the gospels, not really. No matter how much I read and study the Bible, much is left out, open to interpretation, or simply unclear.

All this meandering is a long and not very good way of saying that while initially I was conflicted by books like this, thinking of them as midrash has been very helpful for me. If they clarify matters, if they resonate, then why can't they also be inspired? I understand that a lot went into determining what was canon and what wasn't, and I don't mean to put this on the same level. On the other hand, the thought that many conservative Christian churches hold, that the Bible is completely and literally true, and is the only book that is, saddens me. I don't know if some or all Jewish denominations (Is that the correct term? I don't know what different Jewish groups like Orthodox, Reformed, etc., are called) believe about the inerrancy or completeness of the Bible. In any case, for me, I can't imagine that the divine would no longer feel a need to communicate with his or her people, or that people would stop writing divinely inspired words down.

I feel like I've said all of this really poorly. I feel so passionately about it, that I think it sometimes gets in the way of my words. If I offended, it was completely unintentional. We have so many eloquent writers here, so perhaps someone else can say it better.

I haven't been keeping track of the correlation between anyone's faith and their reactions to the book, but that's an interesting point, seeing it as an expansion on one story out of many in the Bible. It's been many years since I've personally done serious study of the Bible as anything more than a document with great influence on society and history. I forget that it has real relevance to people on a personal level.

Would the various stories of how Jesus spent the years before beginning his ministry be considered midrash? There are so many writings out there that have been, at one time or another, considered accepted parts of scripture but which are now left out.

Would the various stories of how Jesus spent the years before beginning his ministry be considered midrash? There are so many writings out there that have been, at one time or another, considered accepted parts of scripture but which are now left out.

Technically, Midrash refers to Rabbinic writings regarding the text of the "Old Testament." (Wikipedia [link] I think the main difference between Midrash and books about biblical figures, is that Midrash purports to be non-fiction, while the books are represented as fiction. This gives the books license to tailor the characters to resonate with our modern sensibilities.

In any case, for me, I can't imagine that the divine would no longer feel a need to communicate with his or her people, or that people would stop writing divinely inspired words down.

Wrod.

I understand that the closed canon and the doctrine of inerrancy are helpful when confronted with someone who says, "The Goddess of Victory has commanded that we be shod with her swoosh and divested of our manhoods and free of these mortal coils when the mother ship arrives," but I think it's doing calligraphy with a paint roller to suggest that God only speaks with an antique tongue and is constrained within the letterforms of a single book. John the gospel writer said, "If all the stories of Jesus were written down, I suppose that the whole world would not be big enough to contain them." OWTTE.

I suppose my personal beliefs run along the lines of "Israel is the chosen people (are the chosen people?); God chose to reveal himself to the world through them; therefore their history is most pertinent when seeking a true knowledge of him." On the other hand (or maybe on the same hand—I have difficulty following my logic), if all you're seeking is the means to justify your ends, pretty much any book will do, the venerabler the better. Just because you can find a verse or two that seems to support your case does not mean that the inerrant Bible supports your cause. The true truth, in some mysterious way, comes when you allow God's spirit to infuse the words with his meaning and his agenda, and he can do that through The Red Tent as easily as he can through the Bible with the caveat that the Bible is focused pretty exclusively on his character, whereas The Red Tent is pretty exclusively focused on Dinah's.

Since I fancy myself a writer, I tend to think of God as a writer. (One of us is made in the other's image.) I have this whole theology built up around this idea (and feel free to skip the rest of this post (if you haven't already) if you're really not interested in my theology). When I'm in the zone, writing is almost indistinguishable from reading, and my characters have free will to do whatever they want. Sometimes I'm surprised and delighted. Sometimes I'm surprised and horrified. The choice is always there to keep writing or to Select All Delete. God has thus far elected to keep writing, and his greatest story began (more or less) with the Exodus and ended (more or less) with the Resurrection. But the life of every single person/nation/donkey is a story written by God, and every single star and speck is a relevant detail he included. Seen in this light the Bible is the crib sheet to the Cliff Notes that someone scrawled onto their wrist, and we're trying to read it, if at all, from our seat two desks away in the middle of the exam.

In other words, God wrote the real story of Dinah more vividly and poignantly than Anita Diamant did. The writer of the Genesis narratives may not have thought it worth wasting much wrist space on, but that does not rule out the possibility that God was supremely pleased that Diamant did her best to recreate Dinah's story. He may have even whispered a favorite detail or two in her ear.

Well, I've read the first two pages of Mr. Sandman. I think I'm going to like it.

Edited to ungaiman the selection. Not that reading The Sandman series or any graphic novel in Book Club wouldn't totally rock.

Wolfram, you're reading, Mr. Sandman, by Barbara Gowdy, right? I'm just double checking, I mean...I know that's the selection, but there's a title, The Sandman, edited by Neil Gaiman, and his graphic novel collection... well, just double checking.