Usually I don't read the longer posts on Substack, but yours was well written, informative and a pleasure to read. I never read Exodus. But the paperback was in one of the several book racks or magazine racks in my parents' house, along with Huckleberry Finn, God's Little Acre and some others. I saw the movie at some point and usually, after I see a movie, I have no interest in the book it was based on. I know. I likely short-changed myself on some occasions with that kind of attitude.
As to the question in your title, I guess it's both. And having written some historical fiction, I know that sometimes you have to fudge a little to make a reality a little sexier, the read a little more enticing. But... having said that, I think intent plays a crucial role in whether or not a book is propaganda.
Thanks so much for this thoughtful, detailed analysis. I read 'Exodus' 20+ years ago and wanted to enjoy it (I love historically themed novels). I remember it started out very promising, with the story of the 'Exodus' ship and the various character back stories you also appreciated, but bogged down as it went on.
Part of the problem I think is that Uris' venom toward the Arabs and the British is not only morally dreadful but dramatically counter-productive: a conflict between the almost invariably good and heroic Jewish characters (and some gentile allies) and the one-dimensional, evil yet bumbling Arab and British characters just becomes boring after a certain point. I like my dramatic antagonists to have a bit more complexity; it makes them more formidable opponents!
Thanks, John. I agree with you about Exodus being a disappointment as fiction. I wasn’t expecting a masterpiece but I thought it might at least be entertaining in the same way that Gone With the Wind is, despite that book’s moral failings. But Exodus is unfocused and heavy-handed and clearly a work of propaganda. Margaret Mitchell may have been perpetuating the Lost Cause narrative but at least the Confederacy was dead and gone (as the title suggests) so her work was more elegiac than propagandistic, which made it slightly less annoying than Exodus.
Hey, Kevin,
Usually I don't read the longer posts on Substack, but yours was well written, informative and a pleasure to read. I never read Exodus. But the paperback was in one of the several book racks or magazine racks in my parents' house, along with Huckleberry Finn, God's Little Acre and some others. I saw the movie at some point and usually, after I see a movie, I have no interest in the book it was based on. I know. I likely short-changed myself on some occasions with that kind of attitude.
As to the question in your title, I guess it's both. And having written some historical fiction, I know that sometimes you have to fudge a little to make a reality a little sexier, the read a little more enticing. But... having said that, I think intent plays a crucial role in whether or not a book is propaganda.
Great post!
Thanks, Paul. Hope your New Year is a happy one!
Thanks so much for this thoughtful, detailed analysis. I read 'Exodus' 20+ years ago and wanted to enjoy it (I love historically themed novels). I remember it started out very promising, with the story of the 'Exodus' ship and the various character back stories you also appreciated, but bogged down as it went on.
Part of the problem I think is that Uris' venom toward the Arabs and the British is not only morally dreadful but dramatically counter-productive: a conflict between the almost invariably good and heroic Jewish characters (and some gentile allies) and the one-dimensional, evil yet bumbling Arab and British characters just becomes boring after a certain point. I like my dramatic antagonists to have a bit more complexity; it makes them more formidable opponents!
Thanks, John. I agree with you about Exodus being a disappointment as fiction. I wasn’t expecting a masterpiece but I thought it might at least be entertaining in the same way that Gone With the Wind is, despite that book’s moral failings. But Exodus is unfocused and heavy-handed and clearly a work of propaganda. Margaret Mitchell may have been perpetuating the Lost Cause narrative but at least the Confederacy was dead and gone (as the title suggests) so her work was more elegiac than propagandistic, which made it slightly less annoying than Exodus.