With all due respect to the "prestigious" book review in Haaretz, it is a review, and as such, it represents Prof. Eli Yosef's opinion of the book. You and I are thinking individuals; we can agree or disagree with the review.
I must confess that quoting things as calling the sources "prestigious" doesn't really cut it for me as a manner of convincing. I agree that people who write for the Haaretz book section generally are knowledgeable about the books they review. However, I also have some trust in my own intellect, knowledge and good taste, and although the review author probably knows more than me about Talmud, I still have faith in my ability to judge books by their content rather than blindly following reviews on the grounds of where they were published.
To the matter, I find Dr. Calderon's book to be not only informative and well-based, but also extremely insightful as to other voices than the conventional ones presented in the traditional, male-centered interpretations of the stories. In fact, when earlier in this discussion I referred to "female Torah methodology" and required that women be well-versed in Talmudic sources before adding their own reading to the base of knowledge, Dr. Calderon would be the example I would set; of someone who knows her world of Judaism well before offering a creative, interesting, gender-aware reading of the stories.
I wanted to add a remark about your opening remark, "it's time you cease being excited about 'this' Ruth Calderon", but I modified it in light of other discussions here that became personal and did not add much grace to the forum or its participants. If we're going to debate OUR personal impressions of the book, let's at least respect each other as thinking individuals who can shape their own opinions about quality. If that's impossible, I suggest we call it quits before this argument follows the style and development of previous ones.
|