2023/5, 6, and 7 Discussion site for James Michener's The Source

[Stacey B]

Kszr wrote: "I read this book more years ago than I want to admit. While I would love to re-read it, I am so far behind on my more current reading I couldn't do it.

I did read this before I went to Israel my ..."

Kszr,
I did the same after the first time I read it and wanted to see everything. I was dumbfounded in Caesarea seeing the aqueduct. It was also a Tel.
How cool that your blog, which I just looked up, is named after the book. Now I know how old you are :)
'the source- great polysemous.

[Jan]

Kszr wrote: "... I will note, my book blog is actually named after the book - it was the number 1 best seller on the NYT list the day I was born. "

Wow, that's a great story, Kszr.
I have just finished recently and in the process of crunching it for an upcoming book discussion AND so I can review it. A big book to crunch! A lot to discuss.

[Jan]

For those of you who read The Source years ago, I expect your take then & now would differ. I can't imagine how I would have reacted years ago! But I'm coming up with some questions to throw out -- to anybody -- and see what we come up with.

First -- what did you feel was really helpful about this book?
How did Michener help the world better understand Jews/Judaism?
What did you yourself learn?
Etcetera -- what were the positive takeaways?

[Richard]

I read the Source while in college (1974). It holds up well enough in its description of Israel being a melting pot where many lay claim to its special place in our world's history. I'm not certain how useful it is to understanding Judaism in 21st century America.

[Jan]

Richard wrote: "I read the Source while in college (1974). It holds up well enough in its description of Israel being a melting pot where many lay claim to its special place in our world's history. I'm not certain..."

Thanks, Richard. Yes, I agree it's less useful today. And I'm thrilled I have learned enough to have some thoughts on that. In the past I wouldn't have. I do think his book came at an opportune time for giving information about Israel and Judaism to America, at least. It was a more receptive era. (The early '60s)

Will wait a while on posing further questions to give others a chance to comment.

[Anne]

I'm not sure that I completely agree that The Source isn't useful today. I suppose that depends on the question "useful to whom?" I don't want to get into a political discussion but I think most people would agree that many people born during this century (or earlier) whether in America or the rest of the world have questions about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and, more generally, about Israel and Israelis. Some people think Israel is a bully. I think this very relatable historical narrative puts present day Israel into perspective, particularly given the immense, thousands of years-long struggle rife with exile and genocide that the Hebrew people went through in order to form their own nation.

[Stacey B]

Anne wrote: "I'm not sure that I completely agree that The Source isn't useful today. I suppose that depends on the question "useful to whom?" I don't want to get into a political discussion but I think most pe..."

Well said Anne.

[Jan]

Anne wrote: "I'm not sure that I completely agree that The Source isn't useful today. I suppose that depends on the question "useful to whom?" I don't want to get into a political discussion but I think most pe..."

Hey, Anne, note the language: less useful today. 😊 It's just that the early 1960s were a period during which people were more receptive to that message. Believe it or not, Israel used to be a liberal (progressive) cause. As you have noted, not so much lately.

Also, I'm tired of advocating for ourselves on the basis of our suffering. How about our strength? Or, knowledge? (for a change)

"Guilt is a rope that wears thin."

I am in the middle of a deep dive into The Source in prep for a book discussion I'm going to be in on Wednesday. So, more later.

[Stacey B]

Richard wrote: "I read the Source while in college (1974). It holds up well enough in its description of Israel being a melting pot where many lay claim to its special place in our world's history. I'm not certain..."

Does the term less useful today imply this book as being past its prime. Is it a go -to book? Good question. I'm thinking how useful this book is for me today as I can't speak for someone else.
Useful in observance of Judaism, no.
Useful to recommend as a resource - possibly.
Useful in seeing similarities today- yes.
Useful for understanding our past and in the order documented-- yes.
It gives us knowledge applicable to the future. Though the book is fiction it conveys the strong ties of the jewish people to the land of Israel and their perseverance- again in order, pointing to the struggles in the land and after the Diaspora. This book was where I first learned the history of why and how we became oppressed as a people countless times, over and over again. I find myself leaning on it often in discussions pertaining to jewish historical issues. The latest was about the timeline of the creation of Talmud and Kabbalah, both of which are relevant today.
.
--

[Kszr]

Jan wrote: "Anne wrote: "I'm not sure that I completely agree that The Source isn't useful today. I suppose that depends on the question "useful to whom?" I don't want to get into a political discussion but I ..."

So well said - we don't deserve this because we suffered. We are not just a sum of all the persecution we have survived. We have and continue to contribute to this world with positive achievements and have earned the right to self-determination. If only we could all agree on what that means, however.....

[Jan]

Kszr wrote: "... So well said - we don't deserve this because we suffered. We are not just a sum of all the persecution we have survived. We have and continue to contribute to this world with positive achievements and have earned the right to self-determination. If only we could all agree on what that means, however..... "

Looking beyond the immediate topic for just a minute:
one of the biggest challenges on Goodreads is disagreeing about a book, Hard to do. So, you will usually not see a review with the pros and cons right on the same thread. Yet, that's exactly what we're trying to do with our books on the Jewish Book Club. That's why we don't invite authors to participate when their books are up -- because then we'd all be polite and no disagreement, as at an author presentation. Also, can be boring when everybody thinks just alike.

Reading the book makes a difference. I have been defensive when somebody seemed to put down one of our choices, yet upon reading it I could understand where they were coming from.

On this particular book, The Source, I don't think anybody is panning it. No "1-star" reviews. Yet I noticed from the 1st some are almost pious about this book. I think I used the word up above somewhere. That probably sounded derogatory. But would mean some might feel defensive when issues are brought up. And sort of a warning NOT to bring up any issues. So my saying "piety" is my warning in return? Could be!

So, how has this book been important to you? -- understanding that others are still going to bring up issues with it! It can still be important to you.

How was/is this book important in your life?

[Anne]

Jan and Kszr,

I guess I didn't explain myself very well, or, maybe we have very different points of view. In no way am I advocating being understood solely as victims. Nor do we want to advocate for ourselves from that point of view. But I do believe that in order to understand Jews and Israel today we must understand our history.

[Jan]

Anne wrote: "Jan and Kszr,

I guess I didn't explain myself very well, or, maybe we have very different points of view. In no way am I advocating being understood solely as victims. Nor do we want to advocate for ourselves from that point of view. But I do believe that in order to understand Jews and Israel today we must understand our history."

Not disagreeing with that, Anne, but just saying that, no matter the rationale, it's fine for The Source to have been important for somebody. Because I think that when we look at the issues or problems it can come across as saying it shouldn't have been important, and yet it was. Am I making a little sense?

[Anne]

Jan, what you say makes sense. I've read many books that stand out as important to me but I wouldn't use that term to describe my experience of reading The Source. There was a time when I was completely immersed in Jewish/Israeli identity and culture and sought out books that would further immerse me. The Source was one of those. Perhaps in that sense it may have been part of an important collection.

[Jan]

Anne wrote: "Jan, what you say makes sense. I've read many books that stand out as important to me but I wouldn't use that term to describe my experience of reading The Source. There was a time when I was compl..."

I am guessing any seeming disagreement we have has to do with my reading it for the 1st time now and in fact I have been reading/studying as you have, which means Michener's words aren't coming into a relative vacuum.

In 2009 I read a book by a Christian author on the sacred scriptures of Jews, Christians and Muslims. I had read a review in the paper that piqued my curiosity and interest. I got hold of it and it was so great. It awakened my interest in critical study of scripture. BUT when I looked back later I found incidences of anti-Jewish thinking that had gone over my head at the time. Now they stood out. Nevertheless the book had catapulted me into an area of interest I never knew I had, so I will always value the book. But it was not the be all and end all I thought at the time.

I'm intentionally not mentioning what book that was because if I looked back again now, I might understand some of it at a higher level! 😅

The Source is a different kettle of fish. The author tells a great story. He's writing fiction (unlike that other book from my past.) So it isn't that I think it is "all wrong" -- not at all. He reached and is still reaching lots more people. There's so much to discuss.

For example, what distortions might be present because he wrote The Source in the early 1960s?