I wanted to like this short narrative about Varian Fry, who helped save Marc Chagall, Hannah Arendt, and other cultural luminaries from the Nazis, more than I did. The introduction is engrossing and sucked me in. I knew a little bit about Fry going in, but not much. Horn writes the story in her own voice, asking the questions, why haven't people heard of Fry? Why do people rescue other people? Why didn't the people he rescued feel more gratitude to him? Unfortunately, I didn't feel she substantiated her responses to the questions.
My bigger problem, as a historian, was how she approached her topic. Her sources seemed very one-sided: the archival collection about Fry and interviews with people who worked on his committee. But she makes assumptions about the people Fry saved without looking into their archives or story. I don't have a problem--since the narrative is in her voice--if she wants to judge the people Fry saved for ingratitude. But some of her righteous anger seems a little overdone. For example, she's upset on Fry's behalf that Max Ernst never thanked Fry for defending Ernst when "a German newspaper" accused him of abandoning his ex-wife to the Nazis. Horn doesn't say which German newspaper it was. Perhaps it was a minor one, and perhaps Ernst, after all he'd been through, didn't really care about a German newspaper attacking him. We can't know for sure, because Horn only takes Fry's point of view in this. My point is, her focus is too narrow. She seems to have spent a lot of time in Fry's archives, so I'm not sure why she chose to write such a pointed work with such a narrow documentary basis.
The story is well-written and has me intrigued to read more of Horn's work. The narrative is a medium for Horn to discuss her views on rescuers and righteousness, and that's fine. I just wish she hadn't wrapped her narrative so tightly around Fry's biography.