Customer Review
March 28, 2006
As a woman who has a background in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, and specifically the Bronze Age in which this story is supposed to be set, I find it really disappointing that something this poorly-researched can be mistaken for an accurate reconstruction of life in that time period. The author shows no evidence of having read the relevant source material, which is easy for any layperson willing to use Interlibrary Loan to obtain (Pritchard's "Ancient Near Eastern Texts" is always a good starting point). Particularly funny, in a sad way, was her "romance" between Reuben and Bilhah. Unfortunately for this reconstruction, Genesis 35:22 is all about familial power struggles, and not in the least bit about sex as such.
Speaking simply as a scholar, I also find it a bit odd that anyone would want to begin their reconstruction of a historical event by assuming that the only existing account of that event was a mass of lies - except for the one bit suiting the author's personal bias, the idea that Dinah was not raped but seduced, and the only idea in the book I happen to think is actually provable by reliable historical/cultural sources. Isn't it suspicious that this is the only part of this novel that matches its alleged source text, the biblical narrative? It's a bit like starting your biography of George Washington by assuming that all previous accounts of his life were written by liars.
We have some very cool literature remaining to us from this approximate time period, things like "The Complaint of the Eloquent Peasant" and "The Story of Sinuhe," which are much more likely to give us a real idea of life in the Ancient Near East. Aside from that, it's probably better to read "historical fiction" that takes its source material seriously, whether the book agrees or disagrees with that source material. The Red Tent does not take its source material seriously... in fact, it shows little evidence that the author even read the source material.
Speaking simply as a scholar, I also find it a bit odd that anyone would want to begin their reconstruction of a historical event by assuming that the only existing account of that event was a mass of lies - except for the one bit suiting the author's personal bias, the idea that Dinah was not raped but seduced, and the only idea in the book I happen to think is actually provable by reliable historical/cultural sources. Isn't it suspicious that this is the only part of this novel that matches its alleged source text, the biblical narrative? It's a bit like starting your biography of George Washington by assuming that all previous accounts of his life were written by liars.
We have some very cool literature remaining to us from this approximate time period, things like "The Complaint of the Eloquent Peasant" and "The Story of Sinuhe," which are much more likely to give us a real idea of life in the Ancient Near East. Aside from that, it's probably better to read "historical fiction" that takes its source material seriously, whether the book agrees or disagrees with that source material. The Red Tent does not take its source material seriously... in fact, it shows little evidence that the author even read the source material.
Product Details
$9.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
