The Red Tent - Page 2

[Viola]

Originally posted by glad2bemama
Anyway, sorry to derail. Just had to mention my hypocrisy. Much as I would love to have the comfort and compassion when I need it or can give it, gotta say... it would be difficult. I know I could not share my man, that is for sure!

Oh, I definitely think it would be neat to have a tent to escape to 3 days a month. I did like that aspect. I thought it was interesting how they learned to share a husband, which was something said at one point in the story. But maybe it reminded me too much of living with my mom and sisters. :LOL Actually, in college I had 4 female roommates for awhile. I always felt like we were arguing about how to cook, because each of our mothers/fathers did it differently. Then I lived with 4 gay men for awhile, and one of them could cook me under the table and taught me a lot of things, so I didn't argue with him.

I guess part of what upset me was that Dinah was able to leave them all behind in one fell swoop. Then the story was not about her with her aunties and the midwife, but her with her MIL who treated her poorly and caused distance between her and her child. I guess she didn't have a choice about leaving them behind, but I don't think she mourned the loss of the relationship as much as I thought she should have. But she was a mother and had other considerations at that point, it wouldn't have done to dwell on the past, and she was used to life being difficult. It just seemed like the four women dropped off the face of the earth after the "rape" and I wanted to hear more about them than we did.

And I guess, to be honest, I was upset about that part of the story in general. I used to read the Bible a lot when I was a child, but I'd always get angry when I'd read about the horrible treatment of women. I don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, but I guess I was actually holding onto the idea that Dinah's brothers avenged her rape as something good that was done for a woman. But no, women were chattel, after all, so this is probably a more realistic interpretation.

[Missgrl]

Amywillow~ I'm so glad you brought up the second half of the book after she left her mothers. I noticed too that the book started lacking something that
I loved so much in the first half of the book. Though I still LOVED it, it was missing something. I felt Dinah would have missed her mothers and the red tent way more too. I mean, that was her life until she left and to not go into
more detail about mourning that left me hanging. I also wish the author would have told a bit about Jacobs life/family after the murders. I know she
went into it but I would have liked to know more about how it got to be that
the women died and how they felt after Dinah left.
One more thing......at the end of the book when Dinah went back with Joseph to see Jacob on his death bed.....there was no mention of the red tent. Was
it still being used by the women or did it go away after the murders?

You kept mentioning rape. Is it portrayed as a rape in the Bible or is this just
what Jacob and his sons thought it was?:

[lilyka]

The Bible says rape but I feel seduction is probably more accurate. It is very likely that the two can be interchangable from he brothers point of view. Nieve country girl goes to the big city and is swept off her feet by an older rich guy. Statutory rape or mutual seduction. Depends on who parents you were. i am sure Dinahs parents were sure she would never disshonor them this way and there for even if he did consent he took advantage of a young girl who wasn't thinking clearly and couldn't have said no if she wanted to. We will avenge her even though she doesn't klnow she need avenging. . . Husbands point of view. We were both willing, I love her whats the big deal. We will get married officially no harm done. . . I fail to think it was a forcefull rape. He offered a queens bride price for a girl with a now weak reputation. When that wasn't good enopugh for her proud father he circumsized himself and everyone in his house. You would have to really love a girl to do that. I mean come on . He did far more than what is required of a rapest (generally they were required to marry and weren't required to pay a bride price and got no dowery because she was no longer a virgin and therefore not worth anything. Sucky huh! This was certainly a far cry from dinah fate after "rape") The Bible does say hger brother acted unjustly and brutally and displeased God. These were the same freaks who sold Joseph into slavery.

Part of the point of the story was that while the events related in the story may seem quite logcal from one perspective from the womens perspective things could seem quite different even with the same set of facts (more or less). For example: I always assumed that Rachel stole labens gods because she was against idolitry. It never occured to me she mught want to worship them. But if she took them because she was against idolitry why didn't she destroy them or sell them or something. Oh no, she kept them. She wanted them.

I was really disappointed in the portrayal of Jopseph. The Bible clearly states that he did not try to get into the pants of potifers wife and in the story it makes him out to be a coniving scondral. It is really unfortunate. I was also dissapointed that they didn't make her more heroic in trying to keep her baby to herself. Her MIL really semed to hate her and then she took her son and what a drag. She was also off on the way she portrayed lacob and leah's relationship. it wasn't happy and Leah was misreable that she was ugly and unloved. That is why God gave her children and not Leah. To equal the scale a bit.

Of course, don't get me wrong. It was still an excellent story. I love a good tale even if it is historically innacurate.

[mamaduck]

Potifer's wife

I actually noted when I read the book that it was a maid in Joseph's house who told Dinah that Joseph slept with Potifer's wife. It wasn't actually recorded as a confirmed event by the author. It could have been the maid reporting the town gossip. If Joseph went to jail for the crime, I assume most of the locals would have believed his crime to have happened. It wasn't as though the author of the book was saying he actually did it.

[Missgrl]

Thank you lilyka!!!!! That was an awesome perspective!
I loved it!

[LdyBluNH@aol]

i started this in the bookstore the other night and was drawn into the story

i have to say i found it hard to track all the names though

i dont know if its because there are so many women or if its because the names are so different or what but i kept getting a bit confused

otherwise i was very drawn into the story and hope to find the book soon (without buying it) so i can find out what happens!!!

[OceanMomma]

I ordered this from the library a while back & it finally arrived. I spent 10 mins on the exercise bike at the gym reading the intro bit ( have to grab every spare minute ). I was a bit put off my how mills & boonish it sounded. All these beautiful women with long thighs, but I'm going to persevere thanx to what I've read here. Well for the time being anyways.

[lilyka]

Jacob did marry every girl in the family. They must of come from good stock However in the real story he was only intrested in Rachel. The other three were booby prizes so to speak.

[Missgrl]

Lilyka~:LOL with the booby prize thing! :LOL
The bood made it sound like he loved Leah too!

Ldyblu.....you don't know how many times i had to refer back
to the family trees in the front to keep track of all the names
and who they were related to! I"m so glad the author put that
there!

[oceanmommy]

I read TRT last year and am currently re-reading it. I really like it, especially the womanly bonds in the first half of it. I never had that kind of bond with my mom, and I want it with my DD. I have always thought I would celebrate her menarche with her, hopefully she will feel that being a woman is special, an honor, and that she is blessed, instead of cursed.
I feel OK with liberties the author has taken. It's not a text book, just a novel, and look how much interest it generates into the OT. Personally I find historical novels concerning women's life very interesting, it is a part of life many haven't deemed worthy of passing on over the centuries. In that I feel we have lost a connection to the women in the past...or maybe that's just my screwed up family.
And The Poisonwood Bible...LOVED that...made me cry more than once...

[manitou]

Replying to an old posting b/c I just finished discussing this book in book club, and wondering if it is too late to continue the discussion here?

I was disappointed with The Red Tent. I thought a lot of the sexual stuff was pretty gratuitous, and I'm not a prude (at least I don't think I'm one!). I have trouble with "romance" novels; well, okay, so I hate them; and the book had enough elements of that - struck dumb with love at first sight kind of stuff, and they spent an entire week in passion kind of stuff, that I was unimpressed.

In addition, although I'm not much of a Bible-banger, I have always been mystified by Dinah's tale. I pulled out my Bible to read that chapter (Genesis 34) before reading TRT, and I saw that I had marked and scribbled and written all over that particular chapter. I was hoping for some enlightenment about it - I too assumed that Dinah was actually in love, and that her bros were being selfish jerks - but TRT didn't really contribute much to my understanding of the Bible and the brothers' reaction.

Then, too, I think some authors get carried away with the anything-is-wonderful-as-long-as-it-is-feminine stuff. I'm not sure that sitting in a tent with a bunch of women during their periods would be such a picnic! Especially prior to the discovery of Advil! And especially when the women are all married to the same guy, and at times we read that they don't get along, and at other times it all is supposed to be so hunky-dory-woman-lovey. If I had to sit in a tent with my sister for 3 days (or however long) we'd be at each other's throats. And we ADORE each other. And we're not even married to the same guy and jealous of each other!

There were many obstetrical errors, which seem to me like something pretty easy to correct. When Dinah is delivering she looks in a mirror and sees that she needs an episiotomy because the baby is "stuck". Um. I verified with my OB sister that episiotomies are not used because the baby is "stuck" - at that point you'd just tear in Dinah's situation. They are used to speed up the process a little (of questionable value for that purpose) and to manage tears (of questionable value for that purpose as well). Other midwifery stuff was inaccurate too, and needlessly gross/scary, IMO.

Also I didn't like a lot of the narrative tools the author used. It seemed like every paragraph ended with something like, "I never saw anything more beautiful in all my life" or "I never heard anything more horrible in all my life" - which starts to lose its effect after 20, 30 uses. Also everyone always "roared". I wish I'd started counting the number of times that verb was used. Even babies "roared"! I also don't like the simplistic, childlike voice - when Dinah was a child I was okay with it, but as an adult it starts to seem like willful igornance. (Which is also why I didn't like 'Tis.) And I'm not all that into coincidence. It seemed like she was always meeting people from her past (e.g. the servant of Rachel who was raped, etc. - can't remember her name) (e.g. Joseph), like running into someone at the mall.

Talk me out of my crabby feelings about this book! I really wanted to like it!

[mahdokht]

reviving this old thread ;0)

*