Author Naomi Ragen

Motek

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 2:37 pm

sarahd wrote:

I would take anything Naomi Ragen writes with a heaping teaspoon of salt. The woman hates frum people.

Chen wrote:

I don't believe she hates frum people; I believe she hates abuses that she sees within frum society.

What do you think of this plot summary of Sotah:

Quote:

Dinah is growing up as part of an ultra-religious Jewish community. She is married to Judah in an arranged marriage and feels some disdain for him because he is only a carpenter. When her mother passes away, her longings get the better of her and she embarks on a hidden and deeply guilty semi-affair with another man. She is found out by the religious 'morality patrol' and ordered to leave the only world she knows in Jerusalem for New York. She lives as a maid with a Jewish family there and learns more about the real world then she ever wanted to know. This helps her to make a decision to get her old life back through a strength she never knew she had.

I haven't read her books. This plot summary makes me wonder whether I should. Doesn't seem to indicate in any way that adultery for a married woman is a capital sin, one of the 3 biggies for which you must die rather than transgress Confused

chen

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 3:13 pm

Quote:

IIRC, the quoter is mixing up parts of sotah with parts of jephthe's daughter. if you cannot abide criticism of the charedi community, do not read naomi ragen. if you can, go ahead.

ragen makes it very clear that adultery is one of the big 3. she also makes it clear that the title character does not, in fact, commit adultery--that's why it's called sotah: a woman suspected of having sinned.

jephthe's daughter is based upon a true story of a charedi girl in an abusive marriage who committed suicide. ragen was inspired to write the story with a happy ending.

Motek

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 3:27 pm

this is a summary for Jephte's Daughter, sounds similiar though different than the Sotah summary I posted:

Quote:

Abraham Ha-Levi, a wealthy Los Angeles businessman, is the sole heir to a 300-year-old Hasidic dynasty. Believing himself unworthy to take on the mantle of leadership, he makes a solemn vow to God to continue the distinguished lineage through his only child, Batsheva. When he marries her off at 18 to a young Talmudic scholar, Isaac Harshen, they live in the ultra-fanatic religious quarters of Meah Shearim in Jerusalem. Beautiful and intelligent, Batsheva struggles valiantly to be a true daughter of Israel, obedient to her husband and the laws of Hasidic life. But her inquisitive nature and desire for secular knowledge (her favorite books are Anna Karenina and Women in Love ) challenge Isaac's narrow view of her role as wife and mother. When his abusiveness threatens their young son's well-being, she makes a dramatic escape, winding up in London, where she falls in love with a man studying for the priesthood. Batsheva's Jewish faith survives her spiritual and intellectual quests, and she returns to Jerusalem to confront Isaac, demanding freedom for herself and her child.

Motek

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 3:30 pm

So N.R. writes about religious women and men doing things and thinking things we don't associate with the religious public. What benefit do you think there is in this? Anybody know whether any of the abuses she exposes and decries have been rectified?

chavamom

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 3:33 pm

No, I don't think she just has problems with abuse in the frum world. I think she has issues with women in Jewish law and issues with the concept of 'da'as torah' and other issues as well. I have heard her speak and she is pretty clear on this. She also publically attacked someone that my family considered our morah d'asra for many years b/c he spoke about some of the hashkafic problems in her books.

Yes, Motek, I think the books would infuriate you.

Motek

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 3:37 pm

chavamom wrote:

She also publically attacked someone that my family considered our morah d'asra for many years b/c he spoke about some of the hashkafic problems in her books.

what did you think of 1) her making a public attack (maybe she was responding to his public attack?)

2) what she said in her public attack - agreed? disagreed?

3) did he remain your family's morah d'asra?

4) if there are, in fact, hashkafic problems with her books, then why should I read them regardless as to whether they would upset me or not? Scratching Head

chavamom

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 3:51 pm

She implied that it was personal and not hashkafic. She has this idea that 'the rabbis' want to shut her up b/c she is a woman and disagrees with traditional p'skai halachah. Her books make it appear that "ultra Orthodox" Judaism is anti-woman and contain a lot of negative stereotypes and misinformation, the types of which you usually don't hear from those who claim to be observant. For example, I read Jephet's Daughter (many years ago when it first came out): the protagonist is a Hasidic girl 'forced' to marry someone of her father's choosing and then has to have relations through a sheet, etc. etc. You get the picture. And no, I DON'T think you should read them.

Oh and as for #3, of course he remained our morah d'asra? What did that have to do with it?

Motek

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 4:00 pm

chavamom wrote:

of course he remained our morah d'asra? What did that have to do with it?

since she attacked him, just wondered whether your family thought her attack any validity

here's a reader's review I came across for Jephte's Daughter

Quote:

"Danielle Steele with Orthodox Jews"
Reviewer: A reader
This is a made-for-TV movie in book form. It is so sloppy in its writing and editing that I almost wished for commercial breaks. The basic premise that this family would allow a free-thinking non-Jewish tutor into their home to work with their impressionable young daughter is so absurd as to be laughable.
About 50 times you get to read about the main character's long legs and slim waist. She has no education but is accepted (embraced!) by intellectual cirles in London. She has no training but becomes an instant success as a photographer.
One character fondly remembers his mother, except we were previously told she died when she gave birth to him. Events described don't add up in terms of a time line -- one character born in 1894 has a daughter who is a professor in Germany before the war -- so she was born when her father was 10?
Jews are described in the most humiliating terms -- the Orthodox are continuously sweating and wiping their brows. This simplistic novel was a major disappointment.

chavamom

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 4:08 pm

Quote:

Jews are described in the most humiliating terms -- the Orthodox are continuously sweating and wiping their brows.

It's all that black they wear, doncha know. Make 'em hot Rolling Eyes

. Danielle Steele with Orthodox Jews indeed!

Motek

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 4:19 pm

imaamy wrote:

I know this is really basic, but I enjoyed her books. Hard to put down!

Let's say an irreligious Jew or (l'havdil) a gentile read her books - what sort of impression do you think they would get of ultra-Orthodox Jews?

and what is Naomi Ragen herself - does she consider herself Orthodox? I saw a picture of her in which it doesn't look like she covers her hair - is she married?

chavamom

Thu, Nov 17 2005, 4:32 pm

Motek wrote:

imaamy wrote:

I know this is really basic, but I enjoyed her books. Hard to put down!

She considers herself modern Orthodox, I believe. I think she would consider herself 'modern' along the lines of Irving and Blu Greenberg. Yes, she is married. And hair covering is one of her 'issues'.

No, I do not think that the non-observant or a gentile would get a great opinion of frum people reading it. That is how I came to read the book I read. A girl that I knew that was becoming frum had her parents send her the book. They had been given this book and another one (name of which escapes me) about ba'alei teshuva that was actually laughable by the rabbi of their Reform synagogue. THIS was where they were getting their info about frum Jews and the entire family was freaking out that about the girl becoming frum whereas before this they had been merely 'concerned'.