posted
"when the Bible is touched on, it tends to be destructively or anachronistically, as with The Red Tent."
Could you expand on this? I'm really curious. I loved this book, and the story seems to correspond accurately with the bibles I have read. I know you have a novel, based on the same story, and IMO, the two books do not contadict or conflict with one another. I would just like to know more about what you thought about this novel.
posted
I don't think OSC reads this forum but he sometimes reads "Discussions About Orson Scott Card."
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Loki: "when the Bible is touched on, it tends to be destructively or anachronistically, as with The Red Tent."
Could you expand on this? I'm really curious. I loved this book, and the story seems to correspond accurately with the bibles I have read. I know you have a novel, based on the same story, and IMO, the two books do not contadict or conflict with one another. I would just like to know more about what you thought about this novel.
Loki
Gawd, what a horrible book. She couldn't even be troubled to match the sons correctly with their mothers. For me, that was just one indication of how much she actually cared about the subject material.
The whole book is a destructive deconstruction of the biblical account, and a bizarre fantasy about Dina actually being in love with Hamor and interested in idolatry. It's garbage like The Red Tent that makes me uncomfortable to identify as a feminist. Because if that's feminism (it's not), then I want no part of it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting about the matching up of the sons to the mothers. I'll have to double check that when I get home.
Keep in mind that what the bible refers to as "Idolatry" was the widespread, well established religion of pre-patriarchal Goddess Worshipers extant at the time. So it is not all that far-fetched to think that Rachel, Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah had been raised in and indoctrinated in that culture before following the God of Abraham. and the rituals described - Rachel sitting on her fathers "idols" - what were those? - statues and symbols of the Goddess.
I think in the book, (again, will check when I get home) that Dinah fell in love with Shalem and that in the bible - the King James version, there is nothing that would contradict that. (again, will check) Not that this story gets alot of press. There are lots of missing pieces that, in novel form, leave alot up to the imagination. OSC has the version he made up, and AD has the version she made up, but neither is "true".
Anita Diamont has written a number of other books (I have not read any of them) about Jewish rituals and worship and family life, and even Baby Names, so I would think that she would have cared enough to do alot of research, even if her conclusions and imagination of the story differ greatly from your point of view.
1. The ancient biblical world had far, far more than just "A pre-patriarchal Goddess". There were many, many, MANY different deities, and to call them all one "Goddess" insults both those ancient beliefs and the modern reader.
2. The ancient conceptions and versions of "Goddess" worship were quite different from the more romanticized, sanitized versions formed in the 20th century, yet invariably most fiction seems to adopt the 20th century version, because it just seems NICER. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that in KJV Bible, Dinah was raped by Shalem. I was always annoyed at the story because of the father's response to that and thought the brothers were a bit extreme, but more understandable. It is possible I am misremembering. Do the Hebrew words have a different interpretation?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The KJV language is ambiguous. He "took" "lay with" and "defiled" her and "his soul clave unto her" and he wanted her for his wife.
Some commentators speculate that her soul might have felt the same way and she was willing. Others disagree. The text doesn't explicitly contradict the idea that this was seduction, not rape, but it doesn't even hint that it was, either.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. right. I didn't mean to imply that. Although, I admit, it looks like I did. However, the bible pretty much lumps all pagan worship together in one pile called "Idolators" which is also diminishing the fact of actual religious worship and community.
2. Hard to know what it was really like and what was sanitized. There is lots of art from that age, but interpreting it without romantisizing it or demonizing it or even translating it into our own cultural context is pretty difficult. Which is one reason I do enjoy the "novelization" of the stories.
Whether Dinah was willing or was raped is pretty unclear. From the point of view of her brothers, it probably didn't matter, as she wasn't really allowed to make decisions like that without their permission, and so by default it was "rape". It is pretty clear that Shalem, (Shechem?) did love her, and wanted to marry her and was pretty much willing to do ANYTHING to have her.
Again, there is only so much data, and this is where imagination and speculation and fictionalization becomes fun. IMO.
Posts: 39 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Loki: Keep in mind that what the bible refers to as "Idolatry" was the widespread, well established religion of pre-patriarchal Goddess Worshipers extant at the time.
According to some.
quote:Originally posted by Loki: So it is not all that far-fetched to think that Rachel, Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah had been raised in and indoctrinated in that culture before following the God of Abraham. and the rituals described - Rachel sitting on her fathers "idols" - what were those? - statues and symbols of the Goddess.
Or of a male deity. What makes you think that it was necessarily a female one?
quote:Originally posted by Loki: I think in the book, (again, will check when I get home) that Dinah fell in love with Shalem and that in the bible - the King James version, there is nothing that would contradict that.
Genesis 33:2. He raped her.
quote:Originally posted by Loki: Anita Diamont has written a number of other books (I have not read any of them) about Jewish rituals and worship and family life, and even Baby Names, so I would think that she would have cared enough to do alot of research, even if her conclusions and imagination of the story differ greatly from your point of view.
You would think that, right? So the fact that she demonstratably did not ought to tell you something.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Loki: Whether Dinah was willing or was raped is pretty unclear.
Not really. The word used is "and he afflicted her", or "and he oppressed her". Inui is, by any gauge, mistreatment. How he may have behaved towards her after he raped her is something else. Maybe he did change his behavior. But there is absolutely no question about the fact that he raped her to start with.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am assuming the Idols were to a goddess, because in the last 30,000 years of archeological history, there has been very little art/sculpture etc. of male gods, at least in mesopotamia and the Mediterranean. The Abrahamic religions pretty much started that. In the Acheological museams in both Athens and Iraklion (Crete) the first 4 floors are nothing but goddess "idols". However, I suppose Rachel's "idols" could have been "male"
I'm thinking that the word "rape" in the King James version of the old testament might not mean the same thing as what we define as "rape" in our law books. Perhaps it was more like how we define "Statutory Rape" in that a minor cannot legally give consent to have sex no matter how willing she is. In those times, in that religious culture, women were property and were not given any legal rights, and could not legally give consent. So if a man has intercourse with your sister or daughter, without your permission, it is automatically rape, whether she gave her permission or not. She was not legally allowed to make those decisions for herself, in that culture. Of the words available for "consensual sex between unmarried partners", "rape" was the one that cast the least amount of shame upon the woman. As Dinah was considered "innocent" in that particular story, it comes as no surprise to me that "rape" was the word that was used. I'm not saying that is what happened. I'm saying that is how it could have happened.
What I hear you saying, Lisa, is that you didn't like the book because it conflicts with your own theological version of the story.
posted
Loki: there is simply no evidence that Dinah consented to having sexual intercourse with Shechem.
We do know the scriptures state that Dinah's intent was to "Visit the daughters of the land." It was not to have a liason with a man. And we know the scriptures make no mention of how Jacob's family became aware of the incident.
We know the Shechem was a prince of the land and had alot of power. We also know his motives were not altogether admirable. He even states that ultimately he expects to obtain all of Jacob's flocks and herds.
As far as the record is concerned no animosity is directed towards Dinah, in fact just the opposite, her brothers are filled with indignation at her being "defiled."
Finally we have the brothers comments concerning Shechem's actions.
"Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?"
Why not say, "Should we allow our sister to play the harlot?" If Dinah was somehow in cahoots with Shechem?
edit: I just feel like you have to do alot more twisting and bending to come up with the "You cannot rape the willing," version of this account.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Loki: I'm thinking that the word "rape" in the King James version of the old testament might not mean the same thing as what we define as "rape" in our law books.
1) The word "rape" is not used in the KJV.
2) Lisa was talking about the Hebrew text, not the KJV.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Loki: What I hear you saying, Lisa, is that you didn't like the book because it conflicts with your own theological version of the story.
Then I suggest you get your hearing checked. I didn't like it (abhor it, actually), because it's a carelessly put together screed. Fact: it gets details that are stated explicitly incorrect. Sons are linked to the wrong mothers, and the Hebrew text absolutely does say she was victimized by Hamor. The verb is the exact same one used by God when He says that Abraham's descendents will be "oppressed" by the Egyptians. In the context of Dina's story, that's rape. In no way, shape or form could it possibly have been consensual. Unless you dispute the account itself, in which case you have no basis for any of it having happened.
Defend it all you like. Squeeze your eyes and ears shut and refuse to hear anything you don't want to. It won't change the facts.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We know the Shechem was a prince of the land and had alot of power. We also know his motives were not altogether admirable. He even states that ultimately he expects to obtain all of Jacob's flocks and herds.
Then again, I'm not sure that having a financial motive is enough to accuse him of rape if not for the fact that it actually says he raped her.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We know the Shechem was a prince of the land and had alot of power. We also know his motives were not altogether admirable. He even states that ultimately he expects to obtain all of Jacob's flocks and herds.
Then again, I'm not sure that having a financial motive is enough to accuse him of rape if not for the fact that it actually says he raped her.
What I was saying was that after the rape he states his desire to obtain Jacob's possessions, which places a stigma on his character if we do not take the rape into account.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am not arguing with you. I get it. The story is different than the story that you think is true. You think she should have gotten certain "facts" straight. Those could be valid points. You certainly sound like you have done the research. I totally understand why you didn't like the book.
But, Dude, the story is FICTION. That means that she took the basic framework from the story, and then made. the. rest. up.
My PERSONAL opinion is that all the versions of the story are interesting, whether from the Hebrew or from the King James version or OSC or Anita Diamont. It is a ripping good yarn.
There are a jillion versions of the King Arthur Story, from "The Once and Future King," to "The Mists of Avalon", to Disney's "Sword in the Stone" and so on. They differ in many details. They differ considerably depending upon the point of view of the story teller. And they are all interesting.
None of us were THERE. And if we were, my guess is that even then the versions of what happened would be different.
You reasons for disliking the Anita Diamont version are totally valid. I have disliked books that I felt were sloppily researched, too. I have disliked books because they contradicted philosophically with how I see the world. I have disliked books because I hated the cover art. I was actually looking for people's opinions, because I think trying to understand other people's point of view, especially in something fairly safe (or so I thought!) as a novel, is interesting.
No need to be snotty and on the attack. What I think about a book is really no threat to you.
quote:Originally posted by Loki: Lisa, chill. ... No need to be snotty and on the attack. What I think about a book is really no threat to you.
I got annoyed with you not because you're wrong, Loki. You're entitled to be wrong. What irked me was your attributing a strawman position to me. Don't do that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
