David Searls

Thanks for the Meatpunk plug!

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.

“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.