Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by paul_cornelius
The Odessa File by Frederick Forsyth
2.0
Two main reasons exist to read The Odessa File. First, despite its story of former Nazis working to launch Egyptian missiles at Israel, it's a Cold War thriller. And its publication in 1972 came at a time not only of a climax in Arab-Israeli affairs (the Yom Kippur War would occur just a year later, in 1973) but also at a time when the United States and Soviet Union were positioning themselves for their final showdown in the Middle East. This confrontation would be resolved in favor of the US, with the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord following the expulsion of the Soviets from Egypt in 1972, just as it would be in Europe with the final collapse of the Soviets and Eastern Bloc in 1989. This is the context in which to understand Forsyth's novel. The Odessa File may have been set in the winter of 1963-64, but it reflected the newly building political realities of the early 1970s.
The second reason to look at the book is as a work of Holocaust literature. And this is where Forsyth gets himself in trouble with some critics. As Richard Brickner wrote in his 1972 New York Times review: '“The Odessa File” leaves one feeling that Forsyth has borrowed painful, live history in order to spring a few quick thrills.' And so it is argued: Forsyth, while writing a sympathetic (some would say "blindly sympathetic") work towards Israel, nevertheless used the Holocaust as a mere theme for a pulp fiction thriller--and the making of a lot of money. This charge has carried down through the decades, despite the involvement of Simon Wiesenthal in Forsyth's effort. That is the literary context and the most serious argument in criticizing the book.
So, the novel has an important political and literary pedigree. What of the merits of the novel itself? That is where The Odessa File is such a let down. The dialog is leaden; it's often painful to read through. So are the endless and unnecessary sidebars on history. As for the characters? As Brickner, above, wrote, they're duds. All seem faceless and not worth our attention. But one, that is. The fictional diary of Salomon Tauber is the best part of the book. He is the only fully fleshed out character among the bunch. About him, you care; you just wish there was more to be told.
The second reason to look at the book is as a work of Holocaust literature. And this is where Forsyth gets himself in trouble with some critics. As Richard Brickner wrote in his 1972 New York Times review: '“The Odessa File” leaves one feeling that Forsyth has borrowed painful, live history in order to spring a few quick thrills.' And so it is argued: Forsyth, while writing a sympathetic (some would say "blindly sympathetic") work towards Israel, nevertheless used the Holocaust as a mere theme for a pulp fiction thriller--and the making of a lot of money. This charge has carried down through the decades, despite the involvement of Simon Wiesenthal in Forsyth's effort. That is the literary context and the most serious argument in criticizing the book.
So, the novel has an important political and literary pedigree. What of the merits of the novel itself? That is where The Odessa File is such a let down. The dialog is leaden; it's often painful to read through. So are the endless and unnecessary sidebars on history. As for the characters? As Brickner, above, wrote, they're duds. All seem faceless and not worth our attention. But one, that is. The fictional diary of Salomon Tauber is the best part of the book. He is the only fully fleshed out character among the bunch. About him, you care; you just wish there was more to be told.