I'll be honest: I would LOVE to be able to discuss this stuff at length with someone Jewish. It hasn't happened for me yet (to the extent that I'd like), but I will continue seeing what I can do. The book isn't in its final edit yet. If anyone who sees this has any interest at all in a conversation, at whatever level, from brief exchange to sensitivity reader (if qualified), please PM me.
What you're saying about the difference between faith and observance actually does sound familiar to me (I recall my mom referring to my character as "really convinced about Judaism" and I had to tell her I didn't really think that was how it worked), but I did not realize it was to the point that "faith" was an off-key or jarring word in regard to Judaism. (If it's any comfort, it isn't used in the book. In the one place that kind of word might have been used, we get a character saying "She's very religious," instead. I'll re-read with an eye to this, though.) I expect I used it because I keep hearing the term "people of faith"--seems to be the new trendy term. Ironic, really, because it probably reflects a very modern Christian tendency--disclaiming the words "religion" and "religious" as being somehow negative. I actually personally feel like it might be time to reclaim them. (Mostly because come on, how stupid would I look if I wasn't willing to cop to being a religious person.)
Sorry for the digression from the main topic.
I guess on the main topic I will just say that it's a good point that we are often unaware of our biases. Or--to offer a little further insight into my own journey--some of our biases. One of the most basic Christian biases toward Judaism is the notion of "legalism"--the idea that obeying all the laws (I am using Christian-biased terminology in this whole sentence btw) is intended to make you acceptable to God and get you into heaven. I went in very aware of that one and it was clear to me just from the whole atmosphere of what I was reading (among other things!) how wrong it was. But there are layers, and it's good not to assume you've made it to the bottom.
Not everyone finds the word "faith" off-putting as applied to Judaism. Many people have simply gotten used to it. It stands out more strongly to me from a combination of cultural and writing perspective.
I'm always uncomfortable discussing Judaism because I am not an observant Jew. I'm also an atheist, but that's less important.
There is a great deal of mythologizing of Judaism and Jewish people that is deep within Western culture. Legalism is the least of it.
Christian teachings on Judaism have contained such charming ideas as the monstrous assertion that Jews are deicides and the condescending idea that they are ignorant forbears of the followers of the true religion who don't know that their Law has been superseded.
But there are deeper issues of ignorance than that. Take this well-intended sentence:
One of the most basic Christian biases toward Judaism is the notion of "legalism"--the idea that obeying all the laws (I am using Christian-biased terminology in this whole sentence btw) is intended to make you acceptable to God and get you into heaven.
Implicit in this is the idea that Jews are like Christians in seeking a reward in the afterlife.
The afterlife is part of Jewish
folklore, but is not inherent to the
religion. There is no question of reward or punishment in this life or any other. It's a matter of living a proper life according to the way of the people. Judaic teaching is of having a covenant with God. The people's responsibility in that covenant is to live up to the taught precepts and live in observance of the laws.
It's not a matter of being rewarded. It's a responsibility for each person and the people collectively. As the situations Jews have lived in have evolved, the interpretations of those responsibilities have evolved with them.
Note that the plural is used in "interpretations". Judaism does not presume that humanity can ever have a single final right answer. Argument is a virtue in Judaism.
I'm elaborating this not as a derail, but to show how much the basic assumptions of the cultural observer affect the ability to understand and write from the culture being observed. It's why if one is going to write from another culture one should talk to the people of it, and more importantly listen to them, and not try to slot what they say into one's preconceptions of what a culture must be about.
I'm going to bring up a fighting word: privilege. I'm doing so because cultural appropriation arguments show one of the basic ways to tell if one is in a privileged position on a particular matter.
The non-privileged have to understand the privileged, but the privileged don't have to understand the non-privileged, because the culture pushes the privileged view on everyone.
In Western culture, Christianity is a privileged religion. Everyone in the culture needs to know something about Christianity because it's pervasive. But Christians in Western societies don't have to know anything about any other religion. Christians living in majority Muslim countries are in a non-privileged position and need to know something about Islam. Christians living in Israel need to know something about Judaism. Christians in America don't.
This produces the peculiar situation that the privileged in a society have fewer cultural examples to draw upon than the non-privileged. It's easier to learn a third cultural view than a second, just as it's easier to learn a third language than a second. Privilege damages perceptions.
The solution is to ask questions and to listen to answers, especially the answer "that question makes no sense."
so maybe it would be better in another thread, or someone can pm me with answers.
