Skylar’s review of The Red Tent > Likes and Comments
796 likes · Like
I agree, Brava, Skylar, and a nod to Rita's insightful comments. Both put my superficial ranting to shame!
What a excellent review! I am currently reading this book and have wondered some of the exact things you pointed out. Thanks for sharing your insight!
Hummmm. Interesting commentary, and I agree on some points. But, regarding the "flat" male characters, while I agree, I think it was for a purpose. Considering the era and culture, from a woman's perspective who had gone through what Dinah endured, how much would she have really known about the men? The Bible was generally written by self-absorbed aggrandizing males (I know, that's an arguable point), so, for me, it was refreshing to get the female perspective.
As Sandra Hack Polaski pointed out in the study of "The Red Tent" titled "Inside the Red Tent"--the style of the book was in the Jewish Rabinical practice of "Midrash" where stories are written and re-written from every potential viewpoint possible for the purpose of uncovering the meaning of scripture that instruct and edify the community. This is both an ancient and contemporary practice and done to gain insight into all possible interpretations.
Anyway, I liked it. But, I'm still wonderying why she changed Simeon's name to Simon? Anybody out there who knows?
"The Bible was generally written by self-absorbed aggrandizing males"
A statement like this makes me wonder if you've ever actually read the Hebrew Bible. Most of the writing is anything BUT aggrandizing.
Simon was a Greek name commonly adapted by people named Simeon; why she would use the Greek instead of the Hebrew, I don't know.
"A statement like this makes me wonder if you've ever actually read the Hebrew Bible. Most of the writing is anything BUT aggrandizing."
Hummmm. Interesting. I can understand why you might feel that way. My interpretation differs however.
While Moses had a meekness about him sometimes, especially after all those years of isolation before returning to Egypt, God himself (or herself) kept trying to teach Moses to quit being so full of himself--so much so that Moses didn't get to go to the "promised land" because of it.
Ezekial had a mouth on him that would make a modern day Marine blush.
King David, as a youth, was certainly anything but self-aggrandizing, but once king, that changed quickly. After murdering so many people that even David couldn't live with the guilt, David became humble for a while, but even so, was back and forth on being full of himself.
Isaiah & Ezekial and other prophets certainly had a "holier-than-thou" attitude. Of course, all those people they were preaching to may have "had it coming." But, I'm always just a tad wary of only hearing one side of the story. Wouldn't you love to hear the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Amorites, and Hittites sides of these stories?
When it came to women, I have no doubt that these Hebrew writers honored the cultural norms and saw women as far beneath themselves. (It's pretty evident in their writing from as much as what they DON'T say as what they DO say.)
From their xenophobic perspectives, not only women, but slaves, people from other cultures, and even people not of their own tribe were also seen and treated as beneath themselves--if not out and out murdered.
So, call me wrong--and I very well may be, but from these view points, at least for me, I feel that it's a kindness to call these Hebrew writers self-aggrandizing.
I too was bothered by the negative portrayal of the males in the book. There didn't seem to be any relationship between the men and women in the book except that which was sexually motivated. I also was bothered by the relationship between Sarah and Abraham and the divergence of their worship practices portrayed in the book.
I find it interesting to compare writings by different authors such as Halter, Card, Kohn and Chamberlin with their diverse intrepretations of events in the Bible and history.
Just a thought -- does Diamant write off all the male characters as flat to give the voice to the female characters as a response to the flat characterization given to female characters in the Bible (at least most of the women connected with this story)? If so, I don't feel like such a move strengthened her story; I would have liked to see more depth in the characters of Joseph and Dinah's son; Jacob and Reuben, too.
Otherwise, Sklyar, I concur with the others -- great review!
Perhaps, but I don't really think the Bible DOES give a flat characterization to the female characters _as compared_ to the male characters. From the Bible, I know as much about the psyche of Leah, for instance, as I do about the psyche of Jacob. It is true though that we know almost nothing of Dinah from the Bible, but then we know almost nothing of Schechem for that matter either.
the style of the book was in the Jewish Rabinical practice of "Midrash" where stories are written and re-written from every potential viewpoint possible for the purpose of uncovering the meaning of scripture that instruct and edify the community. This is both an ancient and contemporary practice and done to gain insight into all possible interpretations.
That is NOT what Midrash is. Among other things, Midrashim have sources and allusions within the text; they are not made of whole cloth according to an author's whim and by twisting the biblical narrative into something almost unrecognizable.
Great review, Skylar.
*amused* I have been studying midrashim -- in the original Hebrew -- since I was in junior high. I am familiar with what they are, thank you.
In any case, I'm not sure what exactly in the wikilink you believe contradicts what I said? Please note that it says: Presence of apparently superfluous words or letters, chronology of events, parallel narratives or other textual anomalies are often a springboard for interpretation of segments of Biblical text.
As I mentioned: sources and allusions. Not inventions of whole cloth with no textual basis.
Miriam, returning to your earlier comment, when I said the writing was anything but self-aggrandizing, what I mean is that the Hebrew Bible never shies away from cataloguing the sins of Israel and routinely points out the immoralities, flaws, and weaknesses of its greatest cultural heroes.
We can rail against the evils of the ancient Jews all we like, but before we launch into a series of accusations about their failings in the world of modern -isms, we might consider judging them against the surrounding cultures of their times, rather than against our own 21st century culture, which is in good part the product of thousands of years of influence from Jewish values (as opposed to Phoenician, Ebonite, or Edomite values). In other words, if we are enlightened enough to oppose slavery, it is in part only because the ancient Jews laid the groundwork for us to oppose it by first limiting its cruelties in a world where slavery was the norm. If we are enlightened enough to want to see women treated equally, it is in part because the ancient Jews laid the groundwork for us to do so by traditions that gave more value to women than the traditions of the surrounding ancient cultures. If we are enlightened enough not to be tribalistic, it is in part because the ancient Jews laid the groundwork for us by teaching in their scriptures to welcome the stranger.
Yes, it would be interesting to read the Canaanite side of the story. But I suspect it would not be nearly as "interesting" to live in a culture influenced by thousands of years of Canaanite values rather than in a culture influenced by thousands of years of Jewish values.
Skylar you make a very good point.
To live "in a culture influenced by thousands of years of Jewish values." That is why I was disappointed in Diamant"s treatment of the male characters of the book. Biblical men had their faults but they need to be looked at in terms of the cultures of their times.
Too often we judge past cultures and even cultures not our own by our modern day standards rather than try to understand them.
Our present cultural values and relationships may be judged as appalling by future generations.
I agree about her characterization of the men in this novel, I don't think they were like that at all.
Skyler, many thanks for your review. I won't even consider reading this book now. I don't like writers that don't stick to the full truth in the Bible.
Great review. While I enjoyed the book I found that as a Christian I was very bothered by such a negative portayal of men so important to my faith.
You have summed up the reasons for this very nicely.
I feel differently about the book. The heart of the story is about women, so I'm glad that the author did not delve into the men much. You have to imagine it from Dinahs point of view. Women and men often led mostly separate lives, even husbands and wives, so not "knowing" about the men in more detail seems appropriate. And from her point of view, her emotions and actions also seem appropriate. I just really enjoyed the book :-)
I disagree with your view on the male characters. But I think the reason the female characters were put into more detail was because the female characters were Dinah's biggest influences.
The Bible story does not use third person limited (or first person). It's from the narrator's point of view, not from Jacob's.
Colleen wrote: "The Bible is the telling of the story from the male point of view, TRT is the telling of the story from the female point of view."
Except it's not the same story. Diamant changed whatever she felt didn't fit, and made it a different story altogether.
I couldn't agree more with your review. Thank you.
I didn't think the men were portrayed as flat at all. I did see the strength and weakness in Jacob (and this being from a person who didn't know who Jacob was until reading the book). I did see his love and emotions towards his children and wives. Joseph was similarly shown as both strong and weak. So I'm not sure I would call it flat. Does it focus more on the female characters? Absolutely. That's the point of the book, to show a biblical story from a completely different point of view that we haven't gotten to hear. I didn't see the men as flat characters, just MINOR characters.
I think you've given a wonderful and well thought out review Skylar. The problems you cited with the book I can certainly agree with. However, the inconsistencies and creative licence Diamant is guilty of did not keep me from enjoying this book. It is a work of fiction and I read it as such. I found it very interesting to experience the culture of the time through Dinah's narrative. The story does deviate from the history found in the Bible. The Bible is put forth as a historical account, while this author never claims that authenticity. I was truly drawn into this fictionalized story of Dinah and her influencial mothers.
Exactly! Your review has given words to what I felt after reading this book.
You stated that the characters of Jacob and Joseph were more well rounded in the Bible. Well, yes, because they are men. The Bible has few women's stories. This was a book of fiction, but about the women, whose point of view is rarely heard in the Bible.
Really? You missed the whole point of the book! It's titled The Red Tent!! It's about women! And and its Fiction!
What is the historical treatment of women in cultures that embrace polytheism/goddess worship? I haven't been able to find any texts on the matter.
Thank you Jennifer that's exactly what I was going to say,
thank you for such a well worded review. I've been reading Marek Halter's 'Sarah' and have seen many people state that The Red Tent was better, and I had planned to possibly read it. but after finding your review, I'm not so sure now. It seems to have the same issues that are causing me to dislike Halter's 'Sarah'. :/
I think the whole point of the book was to portray the men from a different point of view— in this case that of a woman. For example, the book isn't necessarily claiming that Dinah's stated reason for Jacob changing his name was the actual reason; only that that was Dinah's perception of the reason. After all, if all you want is a regurgitation of the views in the Bible, why not just read the Bible? I for one am sick to death of bland retellings of biblical stories which for some reason pass as "inspirational fiction." For me, the vast majority of them are anything but.
I recently found this book at Goodwill. My fellow parishioners and I have been having a Wednesday Bible study since the massacre in Charleston. Two friends and I did several weeks of women in the Bible and the discussions were profound to say the least. So I decided to read the book. It enjoyed every minute of it. Since the Bible is totally from the male perspective, it was great to finally get a woman's point of view. I highly recommend it.
Even though I disagree that Jacob and Joseph weren't shown as human, if you wanted more fleshed out male characters, you should have looked in LITERALLY EVERY MAINSTREAM TEXT OF BIBLICAL AND CURRENT TIMES. There's a reason Diamant chose to give the spotlight to women and put the men on the back burner, she was switching the roles. She was also highlighting that being on the side of the oppressed garners a greater sense of anger and injustice than being the oppressor. Thus, who care what Jacob was feeling? He wronged the city of Shechem and its people over basically nothing, he doesn't deserve pity in the midst of not only Dinah's anger and grief, but the sorrow and deaths of his wives.
I agree with your review completely. Too many things different way different from the bible made me not enjoy this as much as I wanted to.
Thank you for your review. Totally agree
Love your review, and I agree. Which is why I dropped the book at the halfway point.
Thanks for the heads up. You saved me time. I don’t want to waste my time getting into a book that has a worldview that clashes with my own beliefs. Your review is well written.
This is a book by a woman, about women, and for women. The males in this book were "flat" for a reason. If you don't understand that then you may not understand the book and its purpose. Overall, I loved this book and it achieved its purpose for me. I felt warmed and connected to my feminine self and sisters. We do have just as important roots and stories and culture as the "well rounded" men in the Bible, history, and genealogy.
I love the lack of irony in this reviewers observation that women have somehow historically suffered more under polytheism in a book where the monotheistic polygamous lead male has four wives (two of which are bought consorts with no purpose other than to breed and serve) and god knows how many children.
Well there is the meaning of Dinah Name and other detail that missed in this interpretation... but I agree there is such a mystery about the womanhood in fact it was ASHERA Goddess Israelites were worshiping with YHWH ... the red tent with the four mother was emotional
intense that make sens as well despite the idea that it s a fiction
This completely changed my opinion about starting this book. As a believer of the Bible, I think I would be distracted by some of thise inconsistencies. 10 years later, your review is still having an impact! Thanks for your thoughts.
back to top
I agree, Brava, Skylar, and a nod to Rita's insightful comments. Both put my superficial ranting to shame!
What a excellent review! I am currently reading this book and have wondered some of the exact things you pointed out. Thanks for sharing your insight!
Hummmm. Interesting commentary, and I agree on some points. But, regarding the "flat" male characters, while I agree, I think it was for a purpose. Considering the era and culture, from a woman's perspective who had gone through what Dinah endured, how much would she have really known about the men? The Bible was generally written by self-absorbed aggrandizing males (I know, that's an arguable point), so, for me, it was refreshing to get the female perspective. As Sandra Hack Polaski pointed out in the study of "The Red Tent" titled "Inside the Red Tent"--the style of the book was in the Jewish Rabinical practice of "Midrash" where stories are written and re-written from every potential viewpoint possible for the purpose of uncovering the meaning of scripture that instruct and edify the community. This is both an ancient and contemporary practice and done to gain insight into all possible interpretations.
Anyway, I liked it. But, I'm still wonderying why she changed Simeon's name to Simon? Anybody out there who knows?
"The Bible was generally written by self-absorbed aggrandizing males"A statement like this makes me wonder if you've ever actually read the Hebrew Bible. Most of the writing is anything BUT aggrandizing.
Simon was a Greek name commonly adapted by people named Simeon; why she would use the Greek instead of the Hebrew, I don't know.
"A statement like this makes me wonder if you've ever actually read the Hebrew Bible. Most of the writing is anything BUT aggrandizing."Hummmm. Interesting. I can understand why you might feel that way. My interpretation differs however.
While Moses had a meekness about him sometimes, especially after all those years of isolation before returning to Egypt, God himself (or herself) kept trying to teach Moses to quit being so full of himself--so much so that Moses didn't get to go to the "promised land" because of it.
Ezekial had a mouth on him that would make a modern day Marine blush.
King David, as a youth, was certainly anything but self-aggrandizing, but once king, that changed quickly. After murdering so many people that even David couldn't live with the guilt, David became humble for a while, but even so, was back and forth on being full of himself.
Isaiah & Ezekial and other prophets certainly had a "holier-than-thou" attitude. Of course, all those people they were preaching to may have "had it coming." But, I'm always just a tad wary of only hearing one side of the story. Wouldn't you love to hear the Philistines, Moabites, Edomites, Amorites, and Hittites sides of these stories?
When it came to women, I have no doubt that these Hebrew writers honored the cultural norms and saw women as far beneath themselves. (It's pretty evident in their writing from as much as what they DON'T say as what they DO say.)
From their xenophobic perspectives, not only women, but slaves, people from other cultures, and even people not of their own tribe were also seen and treated as beneath themselves--if not out and out murdered.
So, call me wrong--and I very well may be, but from these view points, at least for me, I feel that it's a kindness to call these Hebrew writers self-aggrandizing.
I too was bothered by the negative portrayal of the males in the book. There didn't seem to be any relationship between the men and women in the book except that which was sexually motivated. I also was bothered by the relationship between Sarah and Abraham and the divergence of their worship practices portrayed in the book.I find it interesting to compare writings by different authors such as Halter, Card, Kohn and Chamberlin with their diverse intrepretations of events in the Bible and history.
Just a thought -- does Diamant write off all the male characters as flat to give the voice to the female characters as a response to the flat characterization given to female characters in the Bible (at least most of the women connected with this story)? If so, I don't feel like such a move strengthened her story; I would have liked to see more depth in the characters of Joseph and Dinah's son; Jacob and Reuben, too.Otherwise, Sklyar, I concur with the others -- great review!
Perhaps, but I don't really think the Bible DOES give a flat characterization to the female characters _as compared_ to the male characters. From the Bible, I know as much about the psyche of Leah, for instance, as I do about the psyche of Jacob. It is true though that we know almost nothing of Dinah from the Bible, but then we know almost nothing of Schechem for that matter either.
the style of the book was in the Jewish Rabinical practice of "Midrash" where stories are written and re-written from every potential viewpoint possible for the purpose of uncovering the meaning of scripture that instruct and edify the community. This is both an ancient and contemporary practice and done to gain insight into all possible interpretations.That is NOT what Midrash is. Among other things, Midrashim have sources and allusions within the text; they are not made of whole cloth according to an author's whim and by twisting the biblical narrative into something almost unrecognizable.
Great review, Skylar.
*amused* I have been studying midrashim -- in the original Hebrew -- since I was in junior high. I am familiar with what they are, thank you.In any case, I'm not sure what exactly in the wikilink you believe contradicts what I said? Please note that it says: Presence of apparently superfluous words or letters, chronology of events, parallel narratives or other textual anomalies are often a springboard for interpretation of segments of Biblical text.
As I mentioned: sources and allusions. Not inventions of whole cloth with no textual basis.
Miriam, returning to your earlier comment, when I said the writing was anything but self-aggrandizing, what I mean is that the Hebrew Bible never shies away from cataloguing the sins of Israel and routinely points out the immoralities, flaws, and weaknesses of its greatest cultural heroes. We can rail against the evils of the ancient Jews all we like, but before we launch into a series of accusations about their failings in the world of modern -isms, we might consider judging them against the surrounding cultures of their times, rather than against our own 21st century culture, which is in good part the product of thousands of years of influence from Jewish values (as opposed to Phoenician, Ebonite, or Edomite values). In other words, if we are enlightened enough to oppose slavery, it is in part only because the ancient Jews laid the groundwork for us to oppose it by first limiting its cruelties in a world where slavery was the norm. If we are enlightened enough to want to see women treated equally, it is in part because the ancient Jews laid the groundwork for us to do so by traditions that gave more value to women than the traditions of the surrounding ancient cultures. If we are enlightened enough not to be tribalistic, it is in part because the ancient Jews laid the groundwork for us by teaching in their scriptures to welcome the stranger.
Yes, it would be interesting to read the Canaanite side of the story. But I suspect it would not be nearly as "interesting" to live in a culture influenced by thousands of years of Canaanite values rather than in a culture influenced by thousands of years of Jewish values.
Skylar you make a very good point.To live "in a culture influenced by thousands of years of Jewish values." That is why I was disappointed in Diamant"s treatment of the male characters of the book. Biblical men had their faults but they need to be looked at in terms of the cultures of their times.
Too often we judge past cultures and even cultures not our own by our modern day standards rather than try to understand them.
Our present cultural values and relationships may be judged as appalling by future generations.
I agree about her characterization of the men in this novel, I don't think they were like that at all.
Skyler, many thanks for your review. I won't even consider reading this book now. I don't like writers that don't stick to the full truth in the Bible.
Great review. While I enjoyed the book I found that as a Christian I was very bothered by such a negative portayal of men so important to my faith.You have summed up the reasons for this very nicely.
I feel differently about the book. The heart of the story is about women, so I'm glad that the author did not delve into the men much. You have to imagine it from Dinahs point of view. Women and men often led mostly separate lives, even husbands and wives, so not "knowing" about the men in more detail seems appropriate. And from her point of view, her emotions and actions also seem appropriate. I just really enjoyed the book :-)
I disagree with your view on the male characters. But I think the reason the female characters were put into more detail was because the female characters were Dinah's biggest influences.
The Bible story does not use third person limited (or first person). It's from the narrator's point of view, not from Jacob's.
Colleen wrote: "The Bible is the telling of the story from the male point of view, TRT is the telling of the story from the female point of view."Except it's not the same story. Diamant changed whatever she felt didn't fit, and made it a different story altogether.
I couldn't agree more with your review. Thank you.
I didn't think the men were portrayed as flat at all. I did see the strength and weakness in Jacob (and this being from a person who didn't know who Jacob was until reading the book). I did see his love and emotions towards his children and wives. Joseph was similarly shown as both strong and weak. So I'm not sure I would call it flat. Does it focus more on the female characters? Absolutely. That's the point of the book, to show a biblical story from a completely different point of view that we haven't gotten to hear. I didn't see the men as flat characters, just MINOR characters.
I think you've given a wonderful and well thought out review Skylar. The problems you cited with the book I can certainly agree with. However, the inconsistencies and creative licence Diamant is guilty of did not keep me from enjoying this book. It is a work of fiction and I read it as such. I found it very interesting to experience the culture of the time through Dinah's narrative. The story does deviate from the history found in the Bible. The Bible is put forth as a historical account, while this author never claims that authenticity. I was truly drawn into this fictionalized story of Dinah and her influencial mothers.
Exactly! Your review has given words to what I felt after reading this book.
You stated that the characters of Jacob and Joseph were more well rounded in the Bible. Well, yes, because they are men. The Bible has few women's stories. This was a book of fiction, but about the women, whose point of view is rarely heard in the Bible.
Really? You missed the whole point of the book! It's titled The Red Tent!! It's about women! And and its Fiction!
What is the historical treatment of women in cultures that embrace polytheism/goddess worship? I haven't been able to find any texts on the matter.
Thank you Jennifer that's exactly what I was going to say,
thank you for such a well worded review. I've been reading Marek Halter's 'Sarah' and have seen many people state that The Red Tent was better, and I had planned to possibly read it. but after finding your review, I'm not so sure now. It seems to have the same issues that are causing me to dislike Halter's 'Sarah'. :/
I think the whole point of the book was to portray the men from a different point of view— in this case that of a woman. For example, the book isn't necessarily claiming that Dinah's stated reason for Jacob changing his name was the actual reason; only that that was Dinah's perception of the reason. After all, if all you want is a regurgitation of the views in the Bible, why not just read the Bible? I for one am sick to death of bland retellings of biblical stories which for some reason pass as "inspirational fiction." For me, the vast majority of them are anything but.
I recently found this book at Goodwill. My fellow parishioners and I have been having a Wednesday Bible study since the massacre in Charleston. Two friends and I did several weeks of women in the Bible and the discussions were profound to say the least. So I decided to read the book. It enjoyed every minute of it. Since the Bible is totally from the male perspective, it was great to finally get a woman's point of view. I highly recommend it.
Even though I disagree that Jacob and Joseph weren't shown as human, if you wanted more fleshed out male characters, you should have looked in LITERALLY EVERY MAINSTREAM TEXT OF BIBLICAL AND CURRENT TIMES. There's a reason Diamant chose to give the spotlight to women and put the men on the back burner, she was switching the roles. She was also highlighting that being on the side of the oppressed garners a greater sense of anger and injustice than being the oppressor. Thus, who care what Jacob was feeling? He wronged the city of Shechem and its people over basically nothing, he doesn't deserve pity in the midst of not only Dinah's anger and grief, but the sorrow and deaths of his wives.
I agree with your review completely. Too many things different way different from the bible made me not enjoy this as much as I wanted to.
Thank you for your review. Totally agree
Love your review, and I agree. Which is why I dropped the book at the halfway point.
Thanks for the heads up. You saved me time. I don’t want to waste my time getting into a book that has a worldview that clashes with my own beliefs. Your review is well written.
This is a book by a woman, about women, and for women. The males in this book were "flat" for a reason. If you don't understand that then you may not understand the book and its purpose. Overall, I loved this book and it achieved its purpose for me. I felt warmed and connected to my feminine self and sisters. We do have just as important roots and stories and culture as the "well rounded" men in the Bible, history, and genealogy.
I love the lack of irony in this reviewers observation that women have somehow historically suffered more under polytheism in a book where the monotheistic polygamous lead male has four wives (two of which are bought consorts with no purpose other than to breed and serve) and god knows how many children.
Well there is the meaning of Dinah Name and other detail that missed in this interpretation... but I agree there is such a mystery about the womanhood in fact it was ASHERA Goddess Israelites were worshiping with YHWH ... the red tent with the four mother was emotionalintense that make sens as well despite the idea that it s a fiction
This completely changed my opinion about starting this book. As a believer of the Bible, I think I would be distracted by some of thise inconsistencies. 10 years later, your review is still having an impact! Thanks for your thoughts.
Nicely done, Skylar!