They say not to judge a book by its cover. In this case, you should also be wary of judging it by its title, jacket summary, and overall presentation. This book is fine for what it is: a history of the Office of Strategic Services and a chronicle of both the Red Scare and the Jane Foster spy drama. Unfortunately, through it's own promotion and marketing, the book claims to be something much different - a story about Julia and Paul Child - which it really is not.
Although Paul and Julia Child both worked for the OSS (which was the WWII precursor of the CIA), this book tries extremely hard to tie their story into the one the author really wants to write (the sage of Jane Foster) in ways that are as tenuous now as they were when McCarthy's investigators attempted the same feat.
The first chapter of the book, which opens with an account of Paul Child's State Department Loyalty investigation, recounts his testimony that as regards Jane Foster, he and Julia "had kept up only an intermittent friendship. After the war, he had not laid eyes on Jane again until the spring of 1946, when he happened to run into her on the street in Georgetown and they stopped to have a brief conversation. That was the only contact he had had with her in the United States. He had next seen her in 1952, sometime after he had joined the staff of the embassy in Paris. At that time, he had met her husband, a Russian American named George Zlatovski. Over the next few years the two couples had occasionally met for dinner, though Paul estimated it was not more than ten times. He had last seen her and her husband in the fall of 1954, when they had spend a few hours visiting together." Does this sound like enough of a relationship to hang your whole book on? For Jennet Conant, the answer seems to be yes, but probably only because Julia Child went on to become so famous.
The parts of the book that are interesting are the details that it provides about life in the OSS. The recruitment and training and strategic plans are all quite fascinating, and a provide rare insight into the inner workings of the organization. The political background that it provides on the postwar liberation movements in Southeast Asia was also extremely worthwhile, and especially sickening in light of the mistakes the United States would make there over the course of the quarter century to come. But as a reader, I never got over my feeling of being misled. The narrative thread of this book does not follow the Childs (as there are at least three chapters in which they don't even appear, and probably three more in which they are a marginal presence at best), it follows Jane Foster.
If this were merely a lure to make people read this book, a simple bait-and-switch to draw readers into a great book that might otherwise be overlooked, that would be one thing. But if we look at this as a book about Jane Foster and the OSS, it's still not very good on those terms either.
Jane Foster is interesting because she is an enigma. Was she working as a Russian agent? Was she duped by an American double agent into thinking she was working for the Russians? Was she set up by government forces, and actually innocent of all charges? If you are going to write a book about an enigma, it is a good idea to try to unwrap the layers and solve the riddle. Or to at least shed some light on the pieces of the puzzle. But we don't learn anything about her association with her alleged spymaster Boris Morros until he has come out as a double agent and accused her of being in a communist cell. Even the author of this book seems to have no clear position about Jane's relative level of guilt or innocence, putting in an epilogue of sorts which asks, "When Jane told the DST she had been deceived by Martha Dodd Stern and Boris Morros and deliberately misled into working for the Soviets under the guise of doing odd jobs for the Party, was she telling the truth? Or was it, at least in part, a case of wishful thinking? Surely she was too intelligent and too sharp, not to have seen through them eventually. And when she finally realized she was working for the NKVD, did she allow herself to be further drawn into its scheme rather than incriminating herself and her entire circle of friends?" Excellent questions, but ones that the author perhaps could have endeavored to answer over the course of 300 plus pages.
In addition to all this, Conant has a habit of attributing emotions to characters with no sourcing, and throwing in random exclamations or embellishments that don't belong to any of her subjects. I am sure that she is making these stylistic choices to liven up the writing of historical non-fiction, but that doesn't make it any less dreadful. Chapter Five begins with the words "Thank Buddha, it was the third day of sunshine in a row." Who, exactly, is the speaker here? The paragraph goes on to say that Jane had come to recognize the signs that monsoons were coming, which being stationed Kandy during the rainy season, I am sure that she had. But what is up with the opening statement about sunshine? It's distracting, and it has no point. Similarly, on page 257, we have "Both Julia and Paul felt sick. At one level, they were furious with Jane. If not for her big mouth, messy bohemian lifestyle, and utopian beliefs, none of this would have happened. At the same time, they were enormously fond of her and genuinely feared for her future." How does the author purport to know the levels of their feelings at this time? If she had a quote from a letter or an interview or any kind of primary source documentation, why not give that to the reader? And where does this big mouth bohemian nonsense come into it? If Conant is so so clairvoyant as to be able to read into the emotions of Julia and Paul (which, make no mistake, she presents as their actual emotions - as opposed to saying 'they may well have felt...'), it is a shame that she did not use her powers to get us any closer to the truth of Jane Foster's case.