The Red Tent discussion

What do you mean by "historical integrity"? I certainly expected Ms. Diamant to have done the research necessary to create a story whose elements were plausible for the period in which she set her story, i.e., I didn't want barouches for transportation or electricity or .... But I look more for the "truths" revealed by a fictional story rather than for its factual veracity or its (mis)match with another telling of basically the same story.

Judy wrote: "I found this interesting that people felt so strongly about pointing the inaccuracy out. "

That happens with all historical fiction, in my experience - especially the popular ones. My opinion is, as long as the inaccuracies/differences make sense and were changed for good reason, I don't mind.

I wish I were principled enough to have such high standards like caring about "historical integrity", but if you present me with a great story, I find it hard to care whether it actually happened that way or not. Some of my favorite pieces of literature (Richard III, Ivanhoe, I, Claudius)are known to take all sorts of liberties, yet I still love them.

I looked up some of the Bible passages today (Genesis 29 and 30 for Leah and Rachel). I don't see "nearsighted" for Leah in either KJV or NSRV, but "tender" or "lovely" with a footnote on one that the Hebrew is unknown. The use of "love" and "hate" seems more ambiguous; I'd just leave it that Rachel is the favored wife, but Leah does bear many sons for Jacob. Here is a story that captures a sense of the rivalry and jealousy that must have existed, along with a husband who wanted his "favorite" to bear him a son. It has been awhile since I read The Red Tent but I don't remember it violating the essence of the story. (I believe the author is also of Jewish heritage, so she may have used the Tanakh and Midrash sources as well.)

One of the things I have remained curious about and have never encountered anywhere else is whether Biblical women truly did retire to a separate tent during their menses. But I haven't been curious enough to go do the necessary research to have a sense one way or the other.

Another is the probability that fairly independent midwives like Dinah existed in the larger cities of the day. Certainly sounds plausible, but what is the historical evidence in records of any sort?

Mickey wrote: "I wish I were principled enough to have such high standards like caring about "historical integrity", but if you present me with a great story, I find it hard to care whether it actually happened t..."

Mickey -- I love that attitude. I frequently, but not always, view stories the same way, even though I am probably too analytical at the same time. (Sometimes the problem is whether one is dealing with a "great story".)

There is one type of historical inaccuracy that I can't stand: when characters have views and attitudes that are so modern that you can tell they did not organically rise from their surroundings or thought processes. That is not to say that there have not been people through the ages who have believed in, for example, things like gender and racial equality or our American brand of separation of church and state. But if these views were not standard in the time and place where the characters live (like it is now), then there should be some reasoning or influence that makes sense to the time and person. Often, the author doesn't bother to ground these walking anachronisms to their environments, which I usually attribute to laziness or a lack of skill.

Lily wrote: "I looked up some of the Bible passages today (Genesis 29 and 30 for Leah and Rachel). I don't see "nearsighted" for Leah in either KJV or NSRV, but "tender" or "lovely" with a footnote on one that..."

I like your approach to the issues. You asked about the historical accuracy of the red tent retreat for women. I did hear Anita Diamant speak about The Red Tent once. She was asked what the historical background of the actual red tent was and she said she made it up for the novel, but that similar ideas existed elsewhere. She certainly used it to good effect in the novel. It created a place for her to develop a number of the women's themes in her book. Sometimes with historical fiction set in ancient cultures, the most you can go on is what you know about a similar culture. I know for a book I'm working on set in Bronze Age Anatolia/Troy(see www.judithstarkston.com if you're curious about it) I wanted a marriage ceremony, but the needed details aren't recorded, but the Sumerian and other surrounding cultures did have recorded details, so I borrowed the most likely ones. Perhaps that is what Anita Diamant had in mind.

Judith wrote: "...I wanted a marriage ceremony, but the needed details aren't recorded, but the Sumerian and other surrounding cultures did have recorded details, so I borrowed the most likely ones. Perhaps that is what Anita Diamant had in mind."

Judith -- thank you for your comments. I can certainly appreciate the approach you describe for ancient cultures.

A book I am reading now that is really stretching my openness to the intersection of scholarship and imagination is Rabbi Jesus by Bruce Chilton. I certainly could not recommend it to anyone who holds to a literal word-for-word adherence to the stories of the New Testament. Personally, in this case, I find myself wanting more information about how or why Chilton is writing what he has. But such "footnoting" should not need to apply to historical fiction. There I believe authors establish their reputations for integrity via the critical readings and reviews they receive.

Enjoyed your site. Hope I return to it for a possible read or two, especially on the Hittites. (Ben Bova to start, maybe, to get a sense of the milieu, then maybe to the myths one day.)

Judith wrote: "I did hear Anita Diamant speak about The Red Tent once. She was asked what the historical background of the actual red tent was and she said she made it up for the novel, but that similar ideas existed elsewhere. She certainly used it to good effect in the novel..."

I quite agree with your "good effect" comment. I also attended an Omega women's retreat where the idea was carried into a lounge for the conference in a delightfully imaginative creative space with silk embroidered pillows et al.

Lily wrote: "Judith wrote: "...I wanted a marriage ceremony, but the needed details aren't recorded, but the Sumerian and other surrounding cultures did have recorded details, so I borrowed the most likely ones..."
I'm glad you liked my website. I'm planning on an extended article on the roles of women in Hittite culture. My research notes from my book and some additions have been sitting on my desk forever waiting for me to find the time. Ben Bova's book is fun, but not always the most historically accurate. His weaponry etc is correct--social milieu less so. I love his book for its capacity to bring a different group of readers into historical fiction of this period who wouldn't necessarily get there without a master of science fiction leading the way for them, but I'm hoping they will also go on to read other works also if they want a more complete sense of the period. His understanding of Helen and Achilles is certainly creative and idiosyncratic, which with mythology is pretty entertaining.

Being brought up as an atheist, I didn't realize there was any biblical connotation to the book -- opps. I just read the book for the story and LOVED LOVED LOVED it! My question would be "If the author had been more diligent with the historical integrit would it have ruined the book or added to it?"

It would be impossible for this book to not add to the Biblical account. It disagrees in some areas but the Bible relays a long and involved story in few words. Relaying a part of the story in 50 words (as the Bible does) requires some adjustment to not leave the reader hanging on things that can't be explained without a much longer text. So I wasn't really hung up on what exactly happened but just let the story flow.

Also a lot of the book is what Dinah "knows" or feels and not a first hand account. There are errors noted above that can be explained by Dinah learning something or feeling something that was someones version of truth that could be seen by others differently.

Bill wrote: "It would be impossible for this book to not add to the Biblical account. It disagrees in some areas but the Bible relays a long and involved story in few words. Relaying a part of the story in 50 w..."

Bill makes a really good point that there is so little in the biblical account that by definition Diamant had to add to it--and what would the point of a novel be if there were nothing to add?! Taking one of the cryptic stories in the Bible and developing the possibilities in it is actually a long-standing literary/theological Jewish tradition called midrash. Diamant's book is in many ways a very extended midrash, and a really good one at that, in my opinion. But that doesn't mean you have to agree with all her interpretations and extensions. Arguing about such things is also a fine old Jewish tradition, so maybe we shouldn't get too worked up about this!

Judy wrote: "Was anyone getting worked up about it? I thought it was just people making some really good comments."

Sorry, I didn't mean a whole lot with that expression--but I can see how it sounded that way.

Never did I feel like this was a story about the bible.I felt like the biblical references really just help set the time period of the story and tone which reflected how women were thought of during this time in history and the biblical references showed sharp contrast to modern view of female role in society. I hope that readers did not let the biblical references keep you from a great story. she never used these references to express an opinion only to try to add depth to the story setting.

Robin wrote: "Judy wrote: "I found this interesting that people felt so strongly about pointing the inaccuracy out. "

That happens with all historical fiction, in my experience - especially the popular ones. My..."

I completely agree with you.

Sheri wrote: "Never did I feel like this was a story about the bible.I felt like the biblical references really just help set the time period of the story and tone which reflected how women were thought of durin..."

It wasn't just "Biblical references", it was Biblical characters. Most everyone in the book is a Biblical character. So I can see how some readers would be put off by stuff 180 degrees from what they previously read and read into the Bible.

Lily wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I wish I were principled enough to have such high standards like caring about "historical integrity", but if you present me with a great story, I find it hard to care whether it actu..."

Mickey wrote: "I wish I were principled enough to have such high standards like caring about "historical integrity", but if you present me with a great story, I find it hard to care whether it actually happened t..."

Sdianemac wrote: "Being brought up as an atheist, I didn't realize there was any biblical connotation to the book -- opps. I just read the book for the story and LOVED LOVED LOVED it! My question would be "If the ..."

Mickey, I totally agree with you. I actually get kind of annoyed when people take a book and critique the hell out of it, as if they are getting paid to review it professionally. I just don't understand why we can't just read a book and judge it based on it's entertainment value - like whether it's a good read or not. I could careless if parts of the historical content are inaccurate: I picked up the book bc it sounded interesting, intriguing and like something I'd enjoy reading. That's all that matters to me.

Lily wrote: "Mickey wrote: "I wish I were principled enough to have such high standards like caring about "historical integrity", but if you present me with a great story, I find it hard to care whether it actu..."

Mickey wrote: "I wish I were principled enough to have such high standards like caring about "historical integrity", but if you present me with a great story, I find it hard to care whether it actually happened t..."

Sdianemac wrote: "Being brought up as an atheist, I didn't realize there was any biblical connotation to the book -- opps. I just read the book for the story and LOVED LOVED LOVED it! My question would be "If the ..."

Mickey, I totally agree with you. I actually get kind of annoyed when people take a book and critique the hell out of it, as if they are getting paid to review it professionally. I just don't understand why we can't just read a book and judge it based on it's entertainment value - like whether it's a good read or not. I could careless if parts of the historical content are inaccurate: I picked up the book bc it sounded interesting, intriguing and like something I'd enjoy reading. That's all that matters to me.

A wonderfully well written book to be enjoyed.

Being that the character and I share the same name, I was pleased with the way Diamont told the story of Dinah. The biblical account paints her as a victim only. Here is a story that shows her as a real person, who not only survived horrors, but thrived in the end.

Patrice wrote: "Judy wrote: "Personally, I view this as a work of fiction, so straying from the Biblical story doesn't bother me. However, the 2 discussions I had with others before I read this book, both made a p..."

Generally speaking, I'm okay with some historical inaccuracies as long as they suit the story being told and don't take me out of what I'm reading. As long as they're organic and make sense with the culture of the time, I don't really care. To be totally honest, though, I felt the ones that Diamant took for The Red Tent were sort of ridiculous. By the end of the book I genuinely thought she should have just written an entirely different story with completely new "characters". It would have made a lot more sense and made her much more credible, in my mind.

Well...while I am a Christian, and do view The Bible as being historically accurate, not everyone else does. Many people do not think of The Bible as something historical; it is purely a religious text. While I may not necessarily agree with what the book says, I enjoyed it. The reason I picked this book up is because it intrigued me--I knew the story of Dinah, and I always thought that she was really lucky to have 11 older brothers, 2 of whom loved her so much that they went and killed so many people for the sake of their sister's honor. I feel like Diamant did a good job with this story, even though I will say it could've been a bit better.

Patrice wrote: "Exactly what I thought, Beth. She lost me when she said that the mother was grateful to have a daughter. That made sense to a 21st century woman but given the attitude toward women, even today, i..."
I don't see her being grateful to have a daughter as a leap of imagination. Yes, sons were revered by MOST, however that does not preclude an individual feeling differently. Most people in ancient times married for political or economic reasons, but SOME still married for love. I can readily believe she held the minority viewpoint.

I think the point about "historical accuracy" and even the Bible and this book is that it draws attention to how much we do not know anything about women in the past except what men wrote about them. I am not referring even to misogynist accounts, but to the fact that all points of view are relative. Take any two people's story of an event and the stories will differ. Thus to hear a different point of view, even if it is only a possible or fictional point of view is to expand our awareness of how narrowly we view "others." To think that women could not have been grateful for daughters because the husbands might not have been in a particular society is to jump to the common conclusion that the dominant party's view is always correct. My view is, trust the housemaid. This is a fascinating discussion. My dissatisfaction with the book was with a completely different aspect: I wanted to follow the lives of Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah to the end. I was totally disinterested in the Egyptian part.

Great post Juanita!

Patrice wrote: "Exactly what I thought, Beth. She lost me when she said that the mother was grateful to have a daughter. That made sense to a 21st century woman but given the attitude toward women, even today, i..."

I didn't think of it that way--they had all had sons; there were 11 boys. I feel like this was a universal concept--the fact that as much as sons are valued, mothers need a daughter to nurture, to bring up, to carry on their legacy. Diamant emphasized this point a lot. I personally felt like it was a nice touch, something that women could relate to, something that spans all generations--the desire for a child who will love and understand you, who will make sure you are not forgotten.

Beth wrote: "Generally speaking, I'm okay with some historical inaccuracies as long as they suit the story being told and don't take me out of what I'm reading. As long as they're organic and make sense with th..."

Beth, which historical inaccuracies got under your skin? And why?

Mickey wrote: "I wish I were principled enough to have such high standards like caring about "historical integrity", but if you present me with a great story, I find it hard to care whether it actually happened t..."

I, Claudius is one of my favorites, too! I took it in through the ears, read by Derek Jacobi. http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_2?...

Historical inacuracies where they cant be helped dont bother me much but what did bother me about this book was not that she took liberties where there wasnt enough information but where she took the established story and decided to completely discredit it. At least thats what it felt like to me.

I loved how she brought the female characters to life but I hated that she took some of my favorite characters and twisted their actions into something other than what they were. Mainly I mean Joseph. I hate that she sugested the only reason a man would ever resist adultery is because he is gay. I thought it was insulting.

Also the whole female fertility worship really bugged me. I thought the idea of the red tent as a refuge from a hard cruel masculine world sounded beautiful but she just turned it into a creapy cult thing.

If she wanted to make up a story I just wish she would have made up her own characters and not perverted the names of established ones.

I loved the midwifery and the relationships between the mothers though.

It has been a long time since I read this book, but I really do not recall any suggestion that Joseph was gay. Where is that located in the book (I looked up themes and character analysis on sparknotes and saw no indication of this). The female fertility thing was to show the transition from a pagan form of worship to a monotheistic one. Laban was brother to Abraham who became the first Hebrew. Therefore any generations before that would have worshipped many gods including goddesses. Anita Diamant is Jewish and they use a term called "midrash" to fill in the blanks of abbreviated stories in the Torah. So Diamant is essentially using an expanded midrash to expound on a Biblical story.

Mary wrote: "It has been a long time since I read this book, but I really do not recall any suggestion that Joseph was gay. Where is that located in the book (I looked up themes and character analysis on spark..."
Wow, Mary. That's impressive. Are you a scholar?

No, just a prolific reader.

Mary wrote: "No, just a prolific reader."

I do love how you said what you said but she does suggest Joseph is gay. I dont have it with me but she says a few things like He was looking longingly at some younge men and I dont precisely remember what else. I guess she was trying to make it more 'real' because he was in prison for so long but still I hated that.

I see what you mean about the paganism but thats what I dont love about the book. Abraham wasnt the first to worship one God- Adam was. Abraham had his son go back to Laban because of their religious background so he would have a believing wife instead of a pegan one.

Valorie wrote: "Historical inacuracies where they cant be helped dont bother me much but what did bother me about this book was not that she took liberties where there wasnt enough information but where she took t..."

I think I jsut agreed with almost everything you said...especially the part about Joseph. Joseph has always been a favorite Biblical figure of mine, and I really didn't like her portrayal of him.

Valorie wrote: "Mary wrote: "No, just a prolific reader."

I do love how you said what you said but she does suggest Joseph is gay. I dont have it with me but she says a few things like He was looking longingly ..."

Abraham is called Father Abraham for a reason. Adam did not make a covenant with God. He was thrown out of the garden for his sins. It was with Abraham (a grandson of Noah) who God called to be the father of many nations. Abraham lived in Canaan and the Canaanite religion was polytheistic. When the covenant was made, the Israelites were in bondage in Egypt. There was no centralized Hebrew nation. Abraham was the generation that left polytheism for monotheism. So a blending of the religions would have been realistic. I actually looked up the gay references for Joseph. There are some scholarly sites that show through Jewish Rabbinical traditions that he could have been gay, but did not act on it, or at least he did marry and father children. Being gay in the previous polytheistic religions would not have been seen as sinful. Since Abraham did not make his covenant with God until he was in his 90s, his nephews would have been in their 60s or 70s at that point. So I do not see this as unrealistic at all. The strictures on not spilling ones seed and not lying with another man came AFTER the covenant with God (in Leviticus I believe).

Hmm... interesting. I was completely unaware that Jewish Rabbinical traditions suggest he could have been gay so I sappose she had reason to go that way.

I was actually logging back on to reference where the book suggesting he was gay but I guess you found it. I did need to correct myself however because I said that the book says that his being gay is why he didnt commit adultery with Potifer's wife but when I looked it up the book actually suggests that he did sleep with her.

So I will restate what I said about it feeling to me like she was trying to discredit the biblical account. Here she directly contradicts it. Perhaps there are more reasons in Rabinical tradition that I dont know about.

Still though Abraham sent his son Isaac and Isaac sent Jacob back to his family to get a wife because of the fact that they were surrounded by pagans and they didnt want pagan wifes for their sons. Its not like Abraham made up God all by himself and He didnt exist before Abraham made a covenant with Him. God made a new covenant with Abraham because so many had turned to worshiping false idols and Abraham was faithful. Also Abraham was long dead by the time the Isaelites were in Egypt, but God also made a covenant with Isaac and then with Jacob which was more fully fullfilled through Moses who was in Egypt when they were in bondage several generations later. Maybe you meant this but is seems like you were saying that God made a covenant with Abraham when the Isaelites were in bondage in Egypt which isnt the case because he was dead by then.

Its interesting to know that she didnt make it all up. Still I cant say I liked it though. It seems to me the the Bible tells us the stories of extraordinary people inorder to inspire us. It defeats the purpose to try to dumb them down to make them more 'real' and ordinary'. I already know those kind of people. I dont need to read a book about them.

I don't know, but I loved this book

When we come to study the Torah and all its' many love stories, characters and dramas - a book like The Red Tent fuels our imagination! Personally, it helped me to think deeper about the characters of our foremothers and what it would have been like for them to 'share' a husband, children, responsibilities etc. It's important to acknowledge that this is a wonderful work of fiction, and delves deeply into midrash for help in understanding the characters and feelings of all these women. There are parts that borrow from Tanach - Leah for instance is described in the midrash as having different colour eyes, but some commentators say she had 'crying' eyes in that her eyes were always red - and even today when we read through Bereishit I think about Diamant's own interpretation of Leah, which shows the impact of this novel on biblical readings.

The part of the book that fell down for me was the retelling of Dina's story. A disturbing, tragic biblical story is stretched into a passionate, trashy love affair. Dina's rape was Diamant's opportunity to speak for Dina, to give her a voice - we hear nothing from her ourselves in the bible, we only learn of her father's failure to do anything on her behalf, hence her angry brothers wake up and wreak revenge on those who had shamed, abused and humiliated their sister. As an author of a work of biblical fiction, I felt Diamant could have interpreted Dina's story and suffering differently and was disappointed. If you never read anything else about this character Dina except The Red Tent, you'd think she was a silly teenage girl who ran away from her family to have a lusty affair with the prince of Shechem - I think the author missed an opportunity here. Otherwise, an enjoyable and memorable read.

Interesting conversation here. I wanted to add that the only thing I find disturbing as far as historical inaccuracies in fiction, or in movies for that matter, is that the the more popular and widespread version sometimes overtakes the "truth". (I felt that about Mississippi Burning - the movie.)

On the other hand, I tell myself that honestly - everything we watch and read is actually somebody's version of events. To discern what "really" happened, we need to get off our butts and actively investigate (as some of you have here!)

Lily wrote: "I looked up some of the Bible passages today (Genesis 29 and 30 for Leah and Rachel). I don't see "nearsighted" for Leah in either KJV or NSRV, but "tender" or "lovely" with a footnote on one that..."

Yes, menstruating women, by Old testament standards, were classified as unclean, along with many things they contacted. References are made to them going "outside the camp" during the exodus.

This really is an interesting discussion.

Even wrote: "References are made to them going "outside the camp" during the exodus."
- Good point.

Mary wrote: "Abraham was long dead by the time the Isaelites were in Egypt"
- Correct, he was.

Mary wrote: "...try to dumb them down to make them more 'real' and ordinary'. I already know those kind of people. I dont need to read a book about them...."
Hilarious! I've never thought about which of the people I've met I wouldn't want to read a book about.

Now I want to go and reread my copy of The Red Tent and see what my new perspective is years later.

This really is an interesting discussion.

Even wrote: "References are made to them going "outside the camp" during the exodus."
- Good point.

Mary wrote: "Abraham was long dead by the time the Isaelites were in Egypt"
- Correct, he was.

Mary wrote: "...try to dumb them down to make them more 'real' and ordinary'. I already know those kind of people. I dont need to read a book about them...."
Hilarious! I've never thought about which of the people I've met I wouldn't want to read a book about.

Now I want to go and reread my copy of The Red Tent and see what my new perspective is years later.

I had no problem with the historical integrity. This was a wonderful story of women hood in biblical times when little is written about women or their thoughts and opinions. I think it is a good account about women living together in a communal way and the adults teaching the children. This is biblical times before all of the communication devises that are here today. The stories were passed down by word of mouth. Most men didn't feel the need to teach women to write let alone tell their stories.

I found the book highly engaging. Although there are some significant differences from the Bible, it's all about perspective. For example, as Leah's daughter, it is quite possible from Dinah's point of view; Leah was loved by her father, although the Bible informs us that Jacob's marriage to Leah was solely based on deception by Laban. Further, even though we know Rachel, the alleged love of his life, had trouble bearing children, a problem that even caused her death, the fact that Leah bore Jacob ten children would seem to suggest he had no problem spending time with her. This would tend to corroborate Dinah's assertion that her parents had an strong sexual attraction to one another. Who can deny that? In fact, while the Bible gives us the big picture, The Red Tent seems to offer some plausible details.
One thing that I did find perplexing is that Diament refers to all biblical characters by their proper names with the exception of two. Throughout the account reference is made to Abram and Sarai although, by the time Isaac was born, God had changed their names to Abraham and Sarah.

Beth wrote: "she should have just written an entirely different story with completely new "characters."

I totally agree! I found the descriptions of the sisters utterly ridiculous, and the account of the lives of Jacob and his wives a bit insulting to be honest.
When writing Biblical fiction, the author is obviously going to elaborate on the personalities and lives of the subjects, because the Bible is often sparse, but if the author is going to write the subjects as completely the opposite of how they are presented in the Bible, then for the love of your readers, just make up some new people already!
Even though not all readers are Bible readers/believers, it still does not make sense to write disparate characters, because the Bible has already been written and its stories stand established - it would be like if I wrote a book about a child-eating ogre and then claimed that it was based on The BFG.

Gabriel wrote: "Beth wrote: "she should have just written an entirely different story with completely new "characters."

I totally agree! I found the descriptions of the sisters utterly ridiculous, and the account..."

Gabriel wrote: "Beth wrote: "she should have just written an entirely different story with completely new "characters."

I totally agree! I found the descriptions of the sisters utterly ridiculous, and the account..."


Well, I agree in part. I am one that takes the Bible at its word. Still there can be different perspectives of the same truth. We know because the Bible tells us, Jacob's first love was Rachel. However, those close to the family, witnessing interaction between Jacob and Leah might have seen something giving them a different view of their relationship. The tragic story (Bible) of Dinah takes up one chapter in Genesis, and then she is never heard of again. She wasn't killed. What happened to her? I thought Diament tells a plausible story. I am moved by the portrayal of the strength of sisterhood, and how the importance of such bonds might have been passed down by women through the ages in a way that men cannot fathom. I loved, and was loved by my husband, but I would never, under any circumstances have given up my female friends for reasons presented in this story.

Personally I always sympathised with the biblical characters who were supposed to be villainous. Eve I thought was ill treated, I was always rooting for the Egyptians, and I felt bad for the people who got turned into pillars of salt. Maybe it was just one, Lot's wife? Memory is not crystal clear. For me the book was refreshing, but I don't think it was ever really meant to be politically correct from a Christian or Judeo perspective.

I'm not sure what Diamant's leanings are, either religiously or politically, but I suspect that her reworking of the characters was fairly deliberate. If it either rankled you, or inspired you, either way I think the book has done it's job.

In biblical times, there was bound to be a certain amount of paganism, and Diamant chose to show some of that in a sympathetic light, which is bound to be uncomfortable for people with conflicting beliefs. That said, I think she handled it with a reasonable amount of sensitivity.

It's called "historical FICTION" not "HISTORY" for a reason.