Why Character Matters
I just finished reading Edward Lee's The Golem. This is my first encounter with any of Edward Lee's work. I believe every author should have two chances, so Ed Lee has one left. To me, the book read like a first draft, but I'll get to that.
We don't see the golem used much in popular fiction. I can only recall one instance where I've seen it used--an old episode of the X-Files called Kaddish. Lee brings the reader a modern version of an old Jewish folk tale based on Judah Loew, a 16th century rabbi who created a golem to defend a Prague ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks. Lee brings the folktale to life with vibrant rituals and an exploration of a dark sect of Kabbalah based on Kischuph. The story revolves around the small town of Lowensport, Maryland. In 1880, a group of Jewish refugees from Prague, led by the evil rabbi Gavriel Loew, construct two golems to defend themselves from the attack of the Conner clan, a local group of settlers lead by an ex-military deserter. The story is told in parallel with the present-day tale of Seth Kohn and his girlfriend Judy, who move into the old Lowen mansion and find themselves in the middle of a plan by Gavriel's great-great-great grandson to resurrect Gavriel as a golem and--you guessed it--take over the world, or at least small part of it.
I think the book presents an interesting bit of folklore, but aside from that, I didn't find much appealing here. I don't know if this work is representative of Mr. Lee's style (I'll have to read another to decide), but I had difficulty in getting into the book because of the language. The book is riddled with adverbs, which isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself but Lee uses them to such an extent that I found myself struggling to visualize much of anything in the book. For instance, twice in the work Lee uses the word 'paranoically' to describe two different characters.
"Of course!" But then [Judy] looked paranoically behind her. (pg. 24)
And
Czanek looked paranoically over his shoulder again. (pg. 52)
In both instances, Lee provides the action (the showing)--both characters look over their shoulder. The reader sees what the characters are doing and the context provides the tension. What does the word 'paranoically' bring to the reader? The reader is bumped from the story with such an awkward word. These are two instances, but they are representative of the work's style. I found myself jostled from the story with almost every turn of the page. This is what made the book feel like a first draft. I think the language could have been cleaned up and more appropriate description put in to help draw the reader deep into the story.
In addition to the language, I struggled with some key things Lee chose to focus on in the story. The reader gets two pages describing the video game Seth wrote and sold to make his millions, but the game itself has very little to do with the storyline. The reader also gets a lot of time spent on Switchgrass, the local cash crop, but again, other than providing a setting for characters to hide in, the Switchgrass and its use as a biofuel has little to do with the story. Whats more, the way the reader finds out many of these details was bothersome. Judy, being an ex-college professor, seems to know a bit about everything. Whenever the reader needs an explanation, or even when the reader doesn't, Judy pipes up to give details. Yet, when she's walking through the Switchgrass, the reader gets a strange gap in her knowledge:
Watch for snakes, she recalled the remarks of the man from the state. This new path was barely shoulder width. Did ticks live in switchgrass? No, she didn't think so. (pg. 194)
We get pages of infodump from this character, but when it comes to something as trivial as ticks, she seems at a loss.
So, style aside, is there a good story here? It's interesting in terms of the ritual and folklore of the golem, but I found myself struggling to care about what happened to any of these characters.
First, the 1880 story centers around a group of black-magic Jewish refugees (evil guys) locked in a struggle the Conner clan, with a group of local settlers led by an ex-military deserter and his cohorts (evil). I found neither side appealing, so I had no one to root for. Both sides wind up wiping each other out, leaving a single golem. I found nothing redeeming in the people on either side of this conflict. I initially had some sympathy for the Jewish refugees until it became clear that they were ousted by their own people in Prague because of their adherence to Kischuph. So while there's some satisfaction in having a bunch of bad guys kill each other, there's no one left at the end that I cared about.
The present-day story centers on Seth Kohn and his girlfriend Judy. Seth is a game designer lost his wife two years earlier and struggled through a bout of alcoholism. His girlfriend is an ex-college professor who struggled with crack addiction. They met in rehab. But when the story opens, both have recovered, Seth has made millions on his video game, and they buy Seth's dream home near Lowensport, Maryland. These people have everything, so I also had trouble sympathizing with either of them. During the course of the story, Judy falls off the wagon and gets raped several times by local drug dealers as part of the plot to recover Gavriel Lowen's head from the mansion, but by the time this all happens I, as a reader, have already disconnected from her as a character.
Compare these two with the main characters in Nate Kenyon's novel Bloodstone. Billy Smith is an ex-convict, guilty of drunk driving and manslaughter. Billy is paired with Gloria Johnson, a heroin addict and hooker. These are sympathetic characters at low points in their lives, victims of circumstance to a degree. The reader cares about Billy, who has done his time but still lives burdened by the guilt of his crime. The reader cares about Gloria, a victim of drug addiction who, at the start of the story, is near the end of her rope. We cheer them on, we want them to get better.
Overall, I think The Golem provides little in the way of a good writing or good story telling. But I have to admit, if this book is ever made into a move, I will watch it. I think there are some visually stunning scenes: the Kischuph ritual of golemancy, the dynamiting of the mill, and of course the murderous mayhem inflicted by the golems. I have a deep love for horror movies, and I'm much more forgiving of story in exchange for the visual appeal.
I look forward to giving Lee's work another chance. If you have suggestions of what is representative of Lee's writing, post a comment. I'd love to hear from you!

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.


September 6th, 2010 - 14:26
Lee has allegedly written a fantasy novel about a Golem. It is clear he knows very little about either writing or golems.
“The Golem” is a mishmash of garbled history and over-the-top gore. The characters are cardboard and get no sympathy from the reader.
You mention Lee’s overuse of adverbs. What bothered me was his repeated use of “shined” as the past tense of shine. (What’s wrong with “shone”?) It clanged, just as the story would get rolling.
Not that the story has any accuracy. It appears there IS a branch of Jewish mysticism called “Kischuph” but it has very little to do with making Golems. (COMMENT REMOVED BY MODERATOR) The real thing is just generic sorcery with a Jewish instead of Christian background. Besides which, the methodology of using supposedly “magical clay” to make golems out of dead bodies smacks more of voodoo than anything Jewish.
Properly a Golem is made of soil — uncultivated but not otherwise magical — mixed with running water (e.g. from a river). It is animated with special incantations, not just a word on its head. Its purpose is to obey its creator — not to tear people limb from limb. It has no feelings, therefore no sexuality — unlike Lee’s rapacious monsters. It cannot be harmed by water or fire — unlike the Grand Guignol fires that supposedly puts an end to a couple of Lee’s Golems.
Lee can’t even get ordinary Jewish tradition right. “Tzedek” means righteousness — not revenge. And what proper Jews would be eating oysters and clams in 1880? Not kosher. The rabbi from Baltimore, at the end, would not be called the Maharal. There was only ONE Maharal, Rabbi Loew. With these goofs, I was dubious that Kischuph even existed.
I haven’t seen Lee’s other books, but I would guess they have the same cardboard characters, schlocky history and gorecrow drippy details. Not my taste. I read The Golem only because I’m reading everything I can about Golems for a research project. I’m kinda sorry I did read it.
September 6th, 2010 - 18:35
travellinpat –
You make some interesting points, most of which I agree with. But I have an issue with saying Edward Lee knows very little about writing.
Lee must know something significant about writing and the publishing industry. He has nine novels listed on Amazon, which is nine more than me (so far). He also lists significant publishing credits on his website’s bibliography (http://www.edwardleeonline.com/hiswork.shtml). To say he knows very little about writing just isn’t fair.
I can appreciate that shined vs. shone bothers you, although I didn’t pick up on it. I think I was so overwhelmed with other stylistic concerns (yeah, the adverbs).
I’m torn on the whole issue the work’s accuracy. This book is fiction–popular fiction–and as such I expect the author to take liberties. I’m not well-versed in Golem lore, so the things you picked up on slid right past me. But how critical is the accuracy? Take the current popular vampire books. You know, the ones where vampires sparkle in the daylight? The books aren’t about a faithful retelling of vampire lore, but about a teenage girl. Similarly, Lee’s work doesn’t seem to be about faithfully reproducing the legends around the Golem, although I didn’t care enough about any of the characters to make a guess as to whose story it was. And maybe it was meant to be nothing more than a gorefest, which is okay. I don’t read those kinds of books, but I sure watch those kinds of movies. I just look for my books to provide deeper and more meaningful connections with the characters.
But, I also know how too many disconnects from reality can make a work difficult or impossible to swallow. That definitely sounds like the case where you’re concerned, and I can appreciate that. In my case, I lacked the knowledge you have that caused the disruption. Although I have to admit that after reading the book I did a lot of googling, starting with Kischuph. I too was surprised that Kischuph is a real thing.
Thanks so much for the comments. I do plan to give Lee another shot and will post my thoughts, but so far I’m with you. His work just isn’t for me.