A couple of years ago, my uncle presented me with his copy of The Source (hardcover edition from the 60s, I believe) as a gift for my birthday. Due to going to school and having other books on my “to read soon” list, I only began to read it around January of this year. And again because of going to school, it took me about 6 months to finish it. I must admit, I enjoyed it very much.
So now, the only logical thing to do is call on my fellow Dopers for a lively discussion.
I admit, I’d like to get a few opinions of the book and its contents before I go spouting off. The contemporary setting is 1964 Israel, and the book was written in 1965. It’s interesting reading the attitude of the modern-day characters with regards to the formation of Israel (then less than 2 decades old) and how they feel about its possible future. What do others think about these discussions in the book? How about how the past 40 years in Israel have been, comparing it to these discussions?
How “accurate” (for lack of a better word) is his depiction of those in the Jewish faith? How accurate is he when describing the beliefs and laws governing the religion? I read a few online reviews that suggest Michener has a bias towards or against various groups or attitudes, does anyone agree?
Again, I loved the book, although I have to admit that I was mad that
Vered decided to marry Zogman. What the hell, man? Argh! .
So, anyone who’s read this book (and either loved or hated it!), jump in with your ideas and opinions!
The first time I read The Source I didn’t like it, because, I think, I didn’t have the proper education to appreciate the history seen in it. The second time I read the book I loved it. I’d had college level courses in Biblical history and literature.
That doesn’t mean that one has to have a high level education to “get” the book. Only that I had changed, from a person under exposed to differing points of view(and a conservative religious upbringing), to one who had learned(hopefully) that other’s takes on history and religion might be equally valid.
And as for Vered, I say More power to her! She deserved to have some fun.
I think two of my favorite segments were “A Day in the Life of a Desert Rider” and “King of the Jews”. The former for an interesting depiction of the early period of Islam, and the latter for the depiction of the unwavering faith of Shelomith.
Wow. The Source. I haven’t read that in years, but I remember loving Michener’s “sequent occupance” approach to the excavation at Tell Makor. I’ll have to re-read it now.
Been a while since I touched this one. The first vignettes work well, but the later ones get overlong and turgid, especially “The Law” and “The Saintly Men of Safed.” All of them are better than the bulk of the modern day sequences, which revolve pretty heavily on stereotypes. Tabari made me wince; the differentiation between Ashkenazim and Sephardim was not much better. Like most Michener, a little more trimming would make a world of difference.
Heh, the only reason I was upset about Vered’s choice was that I didn’t like the other character at all (I found him annoying).
I thought he spent a little bit too much time during the Crusades, myself. I really liked “The Saintly Men of Safed”, and though it was quite long, I didn’t think that it hindered the story much (if any).
don Jaime, thanks for your insights. What would you say Michener got wrong when describing the differences between Ashkenazim and Sephardim? It seemed like it was a bit too black and white (as in no grey area) when reading it, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why.
I have always felt that it was probably Michner’s third best book. I loved how he used the dig as a method of traversing history - a wonderful bit of business and how he used the same family lines. He did much the same (the family line thing) in most of his others of course, but it was easier for him since the time line was more limited in those.
No, my one big gripe with the Source is the same gripe I have with most of his work – he doesn’t end his books all that well. That and he doesn’t draw his women as well as he does his men.
zweisamkeit, I have to agree on the black-and-white approach to Sephardim and Ashkenazim, and the flash moment was the retarded man. Cullinan watches Sephardim treat him gently, and chuck his chin, and feed him sweets, and concludes no Ashkenazi would ever treat this man nicely because they would find it degrading. This one broad stroke does not sit well in a billion page book trying to fight stereotypes.
That said, the treatment of Islam is far worse. “Desert Rider” is the only chapter without a brief interlude at the dig to tie the Muslim conversion with the present. Tabari is the only representative of modern Islam, and he rarely displays any conviction for it. Even for the mid 1960s, its a bit naive for Michener to assume Israeli Muslims are going to roll over just because Jews flooded in, and that seems to be his assumption.
Well, I liked “The Source”, although I still believe “Centinial” was his best book (but could be that being an American interested in the history of the west makes me biased).
I thought the dig “plot gimmick” worked very well, with the flashbacks triggered by each archeological find. Having been to Jerusalem, I can see where he got most of his ideas. And you have to take his historical accuracy with a grain of salt. It’s basically good, but you could nit pick it to death.
This may be a bit of a surprise, but considering this is supposed to be an historical novel, the pre-hostoric sequenced appealed to me the most. I found his speculation about the origin of the Jewish monotheistic religion to be intreaquing.
I’ve been trying to read this…after months of picking it up and putting it down over that whole dig scene in the beginning, I’ve decided to skip it altogether and get to the interesting bits. The dig scene is stultifying to me.
Now I’m reading the bit about the old man finding honey, and am into it again. My bf’s mother has told me that this book was pivotal in her decision to convert to Judaism, and my Jewish friends have told me that this is a great book to read to get a better understanding of their faith and history. We shall see.
I started out loving it, then liking it, and finally wondering “Is this ever going to end? Israel has fought wars that didn’t last as long as this book”.
It’s been a while since I read it so I don’t remember the character’s names, but he was the main character in “An Old Man and his God”. He was a nomad Hebrew after Abraham but before Moses- where did they come from? Were there Hebrews who did not go to Goshen?
I was far more upset by the choice of the wife of the “Hoopoe Bird”, (though I lthought the inspection tour of King David in that sequence was some of the book’s best writing).
Trivia: I remember reading an article in a scholarly journal (TV Guide) many years ago about the absence of quality historical miniseries on TV. One mention was made of “The Source”, which was to be made into a Centennial style series that kept getting cut back; at one meeting, Michener was told by a young executive that “we’re going to cut a bunch of the history crap to focus on the love stories” and he went nuts. There was legal action and screaming, but ultimately the network relinquished rights to the book. (Michener didn’t need the money or the publicity; through heavy royalties and fantastic investments he was one of the richest authors of the 20th century, giving away more than $100 million to various philanthropic organizations and schools during his lifetime.)
Slight hijack: I’m currently reading a book I had never heard of until buying it at a library book sale this weekend: JUDAS, MY BROTHER by Frank Yerby. (Yerby’s most famous for being the bestselling author whose sales plummeted when fans learned he was black.) It’s a demythologized tale of Christ with the main character is Nathan bar Yehuda (his name for the biblical Judas Iscariot) and it’s incredibly well researched. Has anybody else read this one?
