I've been hearing from so many about how The Red Tent by Anita Diamant was such a beautiful read (in fact upon checking out the book at my local library, the librarian didn't hesitate to say how to book was a recommended read). While it would have been easy to have the book come up short of my expectations, the book did end up being a well-written, engaging story about an interesting woman whose name is familiar to so many and yet never truly well-known.

I really enjoyed Diamant’s beautiful and lyrical narrative. To me, it carried that certain tone that I can imagine a woman uses to tell a tale of family, love, loss and survival that is difficult to speak of but is important to tell so that others may understand her as a whole person. The narrative carried with it a soft tone, highlighting the focus on the women and the secret world they inhabit full of their own rituals and customs, without diminishing the strength and fortitude of these women. Actually, it just serves to emphasize it even more. Diamant managed to combine distinct details within the beautiful storytelling without letting the pace lag and become stuck. It made for a very easy and engrossing read.

I appreciated how Diamant went beyond what was known about Dinah (i.e. being raped by Shechem). She went beyond and went on to expand on her as a person which includes her family and the rituals and customs of her people and specifically the women. While there are uncertainties regarding the accuracy of the historical details in the story (I for one do not know how accurate they are; I’m no expert although there are discussions abound regarding the “historical integrity” of the book), it is hard to deny that Diamant didn’t create a story that carried with it a strong sense of the plausible in her portrayals of life in Dinah’s time. In any event, the accuracy took a back seat to the compelling nature of the story that is being told. At its heart, it is the story of family bonds especially that between a mother and daughter; it is a story of betrayal and how grief can stay and linger with you until you feel as if you yourself had died; it is a story of forgiveness and learning to live again; it is about how love has no end and you inevitably live on through those that have loved and been touched by you. If you are one who takes “historical integrity” very seriously, you may have some qualms upon reading this book.

Regardless, the emotional impact of Dinah’s story trumps the historical accuracy the book may or may not have. While I do appreciate when an author makes the effort to truly be accurate in his/her books, the story itself takes precedent when all is said and done. The Red Tent had a compelling story that grabbed my attention from beginning to end. Diamant created a great story to attach to a woman that isn’t very well known, one whose notoriety comes from a small passage in the book of Genesis and is associated with rape (which in itself has been debated whether it did/did not happen). I have joined countless others, including the librarian from my local library, in declaring this book to be a highly recommended read.

I thought the first half of The Red Tent was very compelling. I liked the focus on the female relationships - a complex web of love, teamwork and jealousies - and enjoyed seeing the story behind the story we know. My favourite parts were near the beginning when we learn about Leah, Rachel, Zilpah and Bilhah growing up and becoming Jacob's wives, and their subsequent forays into motherhood.

Unlike some readers, I had no problem with the female-centric feel to the novel. In fact, it seems like a funny and strange criticism when considering that this book sets out to offer a female perspective on a story that pretty much ignored women for centuries. I think The Red Tent might not work for you so much if you're reading as a fan of the biblical story and don't want to explore perspectives that change the way we view certain characters. As a nonreligious reader, though, I really enjoyed it.

Well, that is, until Dinah moves to Egypt and things became... mostly uninteresting. The truth is that, for me, Dinah's character paled in comparison to all the different and interesting personalities I found in the four sisters. I really like first-person narratives that focus on other characters - everything from Wuthering Heights to Tiger Lily - because it offers an up-close account whilst also viewing a number of characters equally. So I liked this book more when Dinah's narrative was not about her, but about her mothers.

The second half grew boring and tiring, and I honestly struggled to finish. It's a shame because I really loved the earlier chapters.

The Red Tent, Anita Diamant

The Red Tent is a novel by Anita Diamant, published in 1997 by Wyatt Books for St. Martin's Press. It is a first-person narrative that tells the story of Dinah, daughter of Jacob and sister of Joseph.

She is a minor character in the Bible, but the author has broadened her story. The book's title refers to the tent in which women of Jacob's tribe must, according to the ancient law, take refuge while menstruating or giving birth, and in which they find mutual support and encouragement from their mothers, sisters and aunts.

It begins with the story of her mothers--Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, and Bilhah--the four wives of Jacob. They love Dinah and give her gifts that sustain her through a hard-working youth, a calling to midwifery, and a new home in a foreign land. Dinah's story reaches out from a remarkable period of early history and creates an intimate connection with the past.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز ششم ماه سپتامبر سال1999میلادی

عنوان: چادر قرمز؛ نویسنده: آنیتا دیامنت؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده 20م

این رمان داستان گیرای «دینا»- دختر «لی» و «حضرت یعقوب» و خواهر «جوزف (حضرت یوسف)» را به تصویر میکشد؛ کتاب با اشاراتی که به کتاب پیدایش (نخستین بخش انجیل عهد عتیق) دارد، درباره ی زندگی زنان عهد عتیق است؛ «چادر قرمز» داستان مادران، دختران، قابلگی، عشق و زندگی در سرزمین بیگانه را، بازگو میکند؛ داستان «دینه (دینا)»، تنها دختر «حضرت یعقوب»، از همسر نخست ایشان «لئه (لئا)» است؛ نویسنده میگویند: رمان «چادر قرمز» در مورد شخصیتهای مقدسی همچون «راشل و لیا» است

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 17/09/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 14/08/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

Warning!! This is going to be a long, ranting review full of spoilers. Although it's nothing you wouldn't know from reading the book of Genesis. Which I will undoubtably be quoting to prove how wrong this author was.

I really debated about how to rate this book. I did enjoy the writing and Dinah's perspective. I think if I was completely unfamiliar with the Bible, and a feminist, I probably would have really enjoyed this book. So that's the demographic this is aimed at. But I'm very familiar with the Bible, and am really annoyed with how much feminist propaganda went into this book and how inaccurate it was.

I love historical fiction. And I loved the idea of Biblical historical fiction. I also have sometimes thought it's likely that Dinah was not raped, but went along with the romance. Especially considering the fact that she remained in Shechem's house until her brothers came and that Shechem was so willing to do whatever he had to do to make her his wife. They probably did have a romance and not a rape. The author did good on that and pursuing that idea was what drew me to this book. And then when I realized that this author was Jewish, I expected a book that followed the basics of Dinah's story in the Bible, but filled in the blanks. That really shouldn't have been too difficult, since so few details of Dinah's story are given.

Boy was I wrong. The author took so many liberties that I started taking a list. And most of them added absolutely nothing to the story. A few I would have been able to tolerate, but she changed so much that it really started to feel like she set out trying to change literally as much as she could, down to names and who's son was who. She talked about how much time she devoted to "researching" but in all honestly it felt like she read the chapters in Genesis once a few years ago and then wrote this book based on that memory.

So here goes my rant, in basically the order that it happened in the book:
First of all, the main thing that bothered me throughout the entirety of the book was the crazy about of FALSE GODS that are worshiped. I expected the Jewish author to have more respect for the true God. Now, I'm not saying that no one in those days worshipped other gods, that's a recorded fact. I wouldn't even be surprised to find out that Zilpah and Bilhah really did. And then of course there's the incident with Rachel stealing the teraphim statues, which really did happen in the Bible. While it's more likely that her motivation was financial, who knows? But to group "El" (the Hebrew word for God) in with all the other gods and to never, I repeat NEVER give Him credit for anything that He should get credit for, is absolutely mind-blowing. For instance, the goddess "Innana" is given credit for Sarah (who is annoyingly referred to as Sarai and Abraham as Abram even after their name changes) giving birth to Isaac in her old age. It's like an atheist wrote a book about the Bible.

Next, I understand where the author was coming from making Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, and Bilhah "sisters," all daughters of Laban. But there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Zilpah and Bilhah were anything other than the handmaidens of each girl, nor that Leah and Rachel had different mothers.
Laban's reaction to Jacob's arrival was much different than in the Biblical record. Genesis 29:13 says "As soon as Laban heard the report about Jacob the son of his sister, he ran to meet him. He embraced him and kissed him and brought him into his house." Whereas in the book, Laban basically hated Jacob from the moment he heard about him. All of the male characters in the book were like that though, cynical and unlikeable themselves, and hated anyone they came in contact with.
Another MAJOR inaccuracy was that Jacob served Laban 7 MONTHS for each of his wives in the book, compared to the 7 YEARS he served in the Bible. I mean, that's not even a big deal? And HOW DID SHE GET THAT SO WRONG? Like I said earlier, it's like she didn't even read the account!
While I've honestly never understood it, in the Bible Jacob spoke up about the deceit with marrying Leah instead of Rachel the very next morning. Although the author's explanation of this does explain this odd story (he totally knew and went along with it), he waited a whole week to speak up about it in the book.
So then the book starts with Jacob having children. This is a big part that makes me think THE AUTHOR NEVER READ THE ACCOUNT. Here goes several complaints about that:
-Throughout the whole book they call Jacob's son Simeon, Simon. Like why? What purpose was there in taking out that "e"?
-Zebulun was actually the 6th son of Leah, born after the sons of both handmaidens. So actually the 9th son of Jacob. Whereas in the book, he's 5th son born, before the handmaidens or his brother Issachar. Not a big deal, but still, its so clear in the Bible and has no bearing on the story, why would you change it?
-Here's my biggest WHY in the entirety of the chapter about Jacob's sons. While Gad and Asher, Zilpah's sons, are presented as twins but probably weren't, I can see why the author may have taken that from the account. It also benefited her plot in that Zilpah never had another pregnancy because she didn't really want to be Jacob's wife anyway. Whatever. BUT HOW IN THE HECK CAN NAPHTALI AND ISSACHAR HAVE BEEN TWINS WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE SAME MOTHER???? The Bible is SO clear about this, there could not have been ANY kind of misreading. After Bilhah gave birth to Dan, Genesis 30:7,8 says: "Bilhah, Rachel's servant, became pregnant once more and in time bore Jacob a second son. Then Rachel...named him Naphtali." Then AFTER Zilpah had her two sons, Genesis 30:17,18 (A FULL 10 VERSES LATER) says: "God heard and answered Leah, and she became pregnant and in time bore to Jacob a fifth son. Then Leah...named him Issachar." SO HOW THE HECK ARE THEY TWINS OF LEAH???? And WHY would she change it? They weren't main characters, nothing about this added to the plot. It just makes her look stupid and like a sloppy researcher.
Ok moving on from the sons.
Rachel admitted to her father in the book that she stole the teraphim, but that never happened in the Bible. In fact, Jacob was so adamant that no one in his household had taken them that he said Laban could kill the thief. That would have been a great story. But no, the author had to go changing it. Rachel was just like "here they are!" And Laban was like "Eh, guess I don't really care that much, bye!"
Jacob wrestling with the angel all night, a great show of faith and courage, was glossed over as an attack by robbers or a boar. (It's never fully explained.) He was thoroughly freaked out by the incident in the book, instead of being proud of the blessing he got, the promise that he would become a great nation and changing his named to Israel. Oh by the way, that name-change was also not mentioned until much much later in the book, and was portrayed as something Jacob took upon himself so that he would no longer be remembered as being associated with the slaughter in Shechem, which he wasn't even a part of anyway. Jumping ahead a bit so I don't have to come back to this point, Jacob was totally innocent of the slaughter. Genesis 34:30 says: "Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: 'You have brought great trouble on me in making me a stench to the inhabitants of the land...I am few in number and they will certainly gather together and attack me and I will be annihilated." He was absolutely horrified by what his sons had done. But in the book he's portrayed as at least knowing about it, if not being a part of the planning.
Another thing I really didn't understand. Jacob was SO freaked out by meeting up with Esau in the book, and yet he never sent gifts ahead of him to his brother like he did in the Bible. The book spoke of Esau coming early and messing up his "plans" to send a gift ahead. And then when Jacob does give a gift to his brother, its a mere 12 goats and 18 sheep. WHAT? In the Bible he sent Esau 220 goats, 220 sheep, 20 camels nursing their young, 50 cows, and 30 donkeys! Now that sounds like a man trying to please his brother! No, the Jacob in this book was like "I'm afraid and I'm gonna complain but I'm not going to do anything else about it."
Several other small things were changed, like Esau's wife was "Adath" instead of "Adah." The book made Laban's wife Adah, who is never named in the Bible. So why not give the nameless wife a different name and keep what actually recorded accurate? SLOPPY RESEARCHING.
Everything about the way Rebekah is portrayed made me angry. (Including the misspelling of her name as Rebecca). Rebekah was a humble and loyal worshipper of the true God. But here she's portrayed as an arrogant and unlikeable "oracle" who sees the future and worships goddesses and hates her husband. Isaac and Rebekah had one of the best love stories in the Bible. THEY LOVED EACH OTHER. Why would the author change that???? Because she clearly hates men. Seriously that's the impression I got throughout the whole book.
There was also some confusion about "Shechem" and "Hamor." While the region they went to live in was called Shechem, it was also the name of the man Dinah was involved with. So I get why the book change his name to "Shalem" to avoid confusion. But Hamor was literally "the father of Shechem," not a king. The Bible specifically refers to Hamor as a chieftain. So "Shechem/Shalem" was not a prince. But whatever, I guess that added drama. By this point I was going strong with making my list so anything made the cut.
The main reason we read the story of Dinah in the Bible is to beware of bad associations. Genesis 34:1 says: "Dinah, Jacob's daughter by Leah, used to go out to spend time with the young women of the land." But that didn't happen. She just got hired by someone in the palace and then Shalem's mother set them up. So like the entire POINT of Dinah's story was completely missed. It would have actually made a better romance story if the author had stuck to the facts, Dinah goes hang out with her friends, sees this handsome man, falls in love, etc. etc. Instead his mom is like "Your pretty and marriageable. Go sleep with my son" and locks them up in a room for days. Not romantic at all.
Like I mentioned earlier, God is completely taken out of it. The reason for Jacob's disapproval of Dinah's relationship (if that's what it was) was that the man was not a true worshipper and that they had not done things according to God's commands. But in the book he's just like "no" for no reason at all. Levi and Sim(e)on only threaten that the "God of our fathers is displeased" to get their way, not that they actually believe it.
The whole circumcision leading to murder issue is very confused. In the Bible, the men do it immediately after the agreement. Genesis 34:19 says "The young man did not delay in doing what they asked." Then verse 25 goes on to say "On the third day, when they were still in pain, two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword and went into the unsuspecting city and killed every male." But in the book, the men waited 3 days after they made the agreement to get circumcised and then were killed right after it had been done. But THEN at the end of the book, when the story is being retold, it says that the second day after the circumcision they were all murdered. So it was inaccurate BOTH times and contradicted itself.

After this section the book goes nicely into what I would actually refer to as "historical fiction." That's the end of Dinah's account in the Bible, so obviously everything else in her life had to be made up by the author. I thought she did a decent job of sending Dinah to Egypt, giving her a son and a new husband, making her a midwife, and eventually meeting back up with Joseph and tying in his story. I was actually excited to see that's the direction she was going, bringing the siblings back together. But that's when the inaccuracies started up again in full force. Seriously, anytime she touched on actual Bible accounts, it was like she was trying to be as far away from the recorded history as possible.
First, Joseph actually slept with Potiphar's wife in the book. And Potiphar himself for that matter, because what's an inaccurate Biblical book without a little homosexuality? Whereas in the Bible, Joseph was extremely loyal to God. Joseph says at Genesis 39:9: "How could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God?" And then Potiphar's wife frames him and he gets sent to prison. But no, the author had to play into the terrible person she made Joseph to be.
In the book Joseph is literally described as a "self-absorbed man" and is hated by everyone who knows him. That is SO far off from the Joseph that the Bible describes, who was liked by everyone and blessed by God. But what did I expect from the man-hating author?
Then there are terrible spelling inaccuracies with Joseph's family: his wife Asenath is "As-naat," his son Mannaseh is "Menashe," and his son Ephraim is "Efraem." There is no point to this at all.
Later, Reuben, Levi, and Simeon are portrayed as already dead when Jacob is dying, but Jacob speaks to them on his deathbed, so that would be impossible.
So many inaccuracies with the offspring of all of Jacob's sons:
-Benjamin's child Gera is portrayed as a girl instead of a boy. The book only mentioned 4 sons when there were actually 10.
-Reuben had 4 sons, not 3
-Some of Judah's son's names are misspelled, and Tamar was not his wife but his daughter-in-law that he confused for a prostitute. But that's a whole other story, maybe wife was just simpler!
-Issachar's child Tola is portrayed as a girl instead of a boy.
-No mention of Dan's son.
-Serah, Asher's daughter, was said to be Gad's daughter, and Areli, Gad's son, was said to be Asher's daughter. Again SLOPPY RESEARCH like she didn't even read the account.
Finally, the Bible makes a huge deal of Jacob having Joseph swear that he will take his body out of Egypt after he dies to bury him in the grave of his forefathers. Joseph swears this to his father, and then later asks permission of Pharaoh to carry out his father's request. After Jacob died, Genesis 50:1 says: "Joseph then threw himself on his father and wept over him and kissed him." But in the book, the brothers do the moving of the body, and Joseph barely even mourns. Like he's inconvenienced by his father's death and really had no interest in being there at all. Because the Joseph in the book was a terrible person and completely unlike the real Joseph.

So that was my rant. Thanks if you actually made it to the end of this. I wanted to make it so long to show that it actually is possible to do ACCURATE research, and that this author really had no idea what she was talking about. It became my project.

So overall, good writing, interesting concept, but TERRIBLE execution and research. Would not recommend, although it definitely was entertaining.

I loved this book. It was so interesting to read about and imagine the cultures Anita wrote about. I loved the circle of women and the support they provided for each other. There was a lot of drama woven in and it was really interesting. The only reason I'm not giving it 5 stars is because I think it could've been edited better - it meandered in parts. But still a great read.

DO NOT SEE THE MOVIE. I happened upon while staying at a hotel and was mortified with how overly dramatic it was written and acted. Some of the actors of course were very good, but felt the script left out so much of the nuances. As in most movies made from books.

"هناك بعض الكتب تجعلك عاجزًا عن الكلام بطريقة ما، ولا يمكنك ببساطة كتابة مراجعة عن تلك الكتب الرائعة". هذا ما شعرت به بمجرد أن انتهيت من قراءة هذه الرواية.
من أفضل الروايات التي قرأتها!

There are many people who consider themselves knowledgeable about "what the Bible says" and don't know about the story of Dinah. I've even met people that didn't believe me when I told them about it. It's one of those stories not mentioned in children's Sunday school classes. You can read it yourself at Genesis 34.

I read this book long before my Goodreads.com days. So I haven't written my own review. Below is the short review from PageADay's Book Lover's Calendar for March 26, 2013.

A wonderfully fresh and involving historical novel that takes as its protagonist a minor character from Genesis. Through the eyes of Dinah, daughter of Jacob and Leah, we view an ancient world in which women are bound by culture, religion, and their own cycles. Dinah is given a dramatic part to play, and she also grants us a new angle on some familiar old stories.
n  THE RED TENTn, by Anita Diamant (1997; Picador, 1998)

I suffered through this book...just because I felt like I'd started it, I may as well finish it. The "chick flick," of biblical revisionism...the "Ya ya sisterhood," of desert matriarchy.

It seemed to go on forever rewriting the histories of Jacon, Leah and Rachel...then elaborating on the amazing sisterhood and bonding that happens around the red tent...implying all the way that women have all the power, men take all the credit.

The writing finally became compelling upon the description of the deception and murder of Dinah's (Jacob's only daughter) husband (Prince of Shechem) father and all of the cities inhabitants.

It parallels the biblical story - and at the very least it reminded me of the inanity of the bible. Jacob, the deceiver of Abraham and Esau, somehow gets to be the father of the 12 tribes of Israel...what the fuck? God is a freak..obviously not big on integrity.

The ending made me wretch as well...the 100 Years of Solitude/Midnight's Children style ending where the main character sees a parade of his dead family members/loved ones leading him into the after-life.

YAWN.

Now perhaps I am being a bit hypocritical here, as I do in fact realise that I am more often than not rather majorly pedantic with regard to historical fiction depicting the truth (or perhaps more to the point, showing and presenting as much of the truth, as much of historic reality as possible). But come on, considering that Anita Diamant's The Red Tent is primarily based on the Old Testament, one could and likely even should (and with my apologies to those of you who actually do consider ALL of the Bible as somehow being the absolute truth) point out that Ms. Diamant is with The Red Tent actually and also portraying a story that was even in its original Biblical manifestations rather fantastical and at best probably much more fiction than non-fiction, namely the story of Jacob, his sons and his one daughter Dinah (who is sadly hardly mentioned at all in the Old Testament stories concerning the former).

And like my GR friend Chrissie, for me as a reading woman, imagining and thinking about a custom like the concept and culture of a red tent, a special women-only place and space for Jacob's wives, concubines and daughters to celebrate their womanhood, their menstruation as a festival of the earth and yes, even in the patriarchal monotheistic household of Jacob, as a celebration of goddess, of female power, that is at least for me personally, an uplifting and strengthening reading experience. Furthermore and definitely, I absolutely have also both loved and totally appreciated how Anita Diamant's The Red Tent so vehemently and realistically portrays Jacob but especially many of his twelve sons as not in any manner perfect and shining proverbial knights in gloriously shining armour, but as often inherently brutish, abusive and nasty, viciously murderous, manifesting character traits that while these might even have been occasionally hinted at in the Biblical stories of Jacob in the Old Testament, are also obviously rather majorly usually and in my opinion deliberately and willfully pushed back to the point that women and womanhood are frustratingly ignored in much of the Old Testament, a sign of the times perhaps, but still infuriating, and made even more so by the annoying fact that because the stories of Jacob and Jacob's sons just happen to appear in the Bible, many readers unfortunately also consider them as not only above and beyond criticism and rightful condemnation, but also that any and all reimaginings of said tales, such as The Red Tent are somehow at best problematic, if not sinful and an affront to God. But really and frankly, from where I stand, much of especially the Old Testament actually and often deliberately celebrates and even at times naivily seems to justify murder, mayhem and even genocide as being both acceptable and somehow God-ordained if it is perpetrated against those whom the Israelites consider as enemies (and sorry, if that is not at best naive if not disgustingly sinful, I do not know what is).

And also, I furthermore do think that we are pretty darn fortunate to (still) live in a free generally secular country where reimagined Biblical tales such as The Red Tent are both accepted and permitted, because in a so-called theocracy, like for example, Saudi Arabia, Anita Diamant could have and likely would have been more than simply criticised for The Red Tent. And therefore let us hope and yes let us pray that this kind of religious and philosophical, democratic personal freedom remains and that so-called sacred texts will not suddenly be deemed as officially inappropriate for fiction purposes or for criticism. For I do not think I am being all that needlessly alarmist here, as there have sadly been increasingly strident calls in especially the United States and Canada from the religiously ignorant and fanatic lunatic fringe, from the Taliban like and at its most fundamentalist very dangerous Religious Right to ban, censor, to not even permit the untouchable and supposedly "God-given" words of the Bible to be used for literature, for any kind of rewritten, retold pieces of work. Four stars (and no, not yet five stars, as I have not in fact enjoyed the second part of The Red Tent quite as much as the first part, in other words, that Dinah's experiences in Egypt, while interesting and engaging, are not really as close to my heart and soul as the first part of the novel, as Anita Diamant's brilliant and oh so entrancing descriptions of Dinah's childhood experiences, although I am still going to be gladly placing The Red Tent on my favourites shelf).

I liked but didn't love this book, although that might be because I found the last third of it less compelling than I had the first two-thirds. The Red Tent is an imagining of the story of Dinah, sister of Joseph, who is only mentioned briefly in the Old Testament. It has been adopted by the women's spirituality movement, for the community of women that is shown in the book, and their separate religious practices and beliefs.

Note: The rest of this review has been withdrawn due to the changes in Goodreads policy and enforcement. You can read why I came to this decision here.

In the meantime, you can read the entire review at Smorgasbook

I passed over this book many a time in my younger years... but it was well enough because now is the time that I could appreciate it fully. I loved Dinah's strong voice. The stories, culture, religious ceremony, and customs were all such welcome treats. Her brazeness, honesty, intelligence, and kindness were all appreciated. Diamant is able to give such life and humanity to characters we may only know through a few lines, a mention or parable... I loved this story and could not stop reading it. It was full of pain but also love, passion, and beautiful friendship. What I loved the most was how women were at the forefront of this story.

I picked up The Red Tent because it was recommended as a better alternative to Michal: Wives of King David #1 (Jill Eileen Smith), a book I disliked because of the Biblical inaccuracies. I wish I had read actual reviews of The Red Tent instead of listening to the recommendations.
My thoughts - I only read the first 35 pages. That was all it took to realize I didn't want to finish this book.

Sexuality - This book deserves at least a PG-13 rating, if not R. The descriptions of the marital act were not necessary, nor were the references to "self pleasure" or bestiality. Even if it was accurate (which there is no evidence that it is), it was unnecessary to the plot and character development.

Biblical accuracy - There was a lot of inaccuracy in just the first 30 pages. I'm not sure of the religious practices of the time as observed in Laban's home. It's quite possible they worshiped many gods, as the Israelites had longstanding issues with being unable to maintain monotheism. But the basic facts of the story were changed, such as (1) how long Jacob worked for each of his wives. The Biblical story is very clear; Jacob “served seven years to get Rachel” and another seven years after being tricked, rather than the 7 months described in this book. (2) The story says Rachel and Leah tricked Jacob at the first wedding when it was actually Laban who orchestrated the events. (3) According to the story, Jacob didn't accuse Laban of cheating him until after the bridal week was completed. The Bible says that Jacob accused Laban the day after the wedding and Laban instructed Jacob to go ahead and finish the bridal week before he would give Rachel to Jacob.

If so many of the basic facts are changed, why bother writing a story "based" on the Biblical story? Why not write an original one?