Spycraft in the Stacks: Graham’s ‘Book and Dagger’ Unveils WWII’s Academic Heroes

Elyse Graham discussed her latest book, Book and Dagger: How Scholars and Librarians Became the Unlikely Spies of World War II, at The Poetry Center on October 30.

It was a packed room at The Poetry Center on October 30, where the Department of Englishand the Humanities Institutehosted Elyse Graham to discuss her latest book, Book and Dagger: How Scholars and Librarians Became the Unlikely Spies of World War II.

In her lecture, Graham unraveled the incredible, little-known story of how academics helped shape modern intelligence and played a vital role in turning the tide of WWII.

"I'm here to talk to you today about how professors and librarians saved the world and invented modern spycraft," Graham, professor in the Department of English, began. "The amazing thing about this story is it really did happen."

Grahamemphasized that these unlikely recruits, from literature professors to librarians, weren't just supporting intelligence efforts from afar, but were undercover, on the ground, and directly influencing the war's outcome.

Book and Dagger, published by HarperCollins, dives into the formation of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to today's CIA, and the agency's surprising recruitment efforts. Without an established intelligence agency when the U.S. entered the war, the OSS turned to scholars for their unique skills. "The war may have been fought on battlefields, but it was won in libraries," Graham writes in her book, detailing the academic and intellectual backbone that helped steer the war's direction.

Michael Rubenstein and Elyse Graham.

Graham's lecture focused on several key figures featured in her book, such as Joseph Curtiss, a literature professor turned double-agent handler, Sherman Kent, a historian who rose to head analysis for Europe and Africa, and Adele Kibre, an archivist sent to Stockholm to obtain classified documents for the OSS. Each of them, along with many others, played a unique role in shaping intelligence as we know it today.

"These people weren't professional spies," Graham explained. "They were professors, archivists, historians, the quintessential 'bookworms' - not soldiers. But the OSS recruited them because America desperately needed a pool of expertise and analytic skills that only academics could provide."

In early 1942, the New York Public Library became a "top-security area," where OSS agents sifted through maps and directories, pulling resources never intended for war. "One week, government agents marched into the library and demanded to see all their maps," she shared, recounting one librarian's surprise when armed guards began securing the library's collections. "They confiscated travel books, industry directories, even whaling maps from the 19th century. You need maps to fight a war - where the roads are, where retreating troops might go, where you might find supplies or allies," she added.

Graham revealed the OSS's use of these academics' expertise. At Yale, Curtiss, a literature professor, received unexpected orders: wear a purple tie to the Yale Club, meet an unknown contact, and follow his lead. This seemingly fictional recruitment method wasn't unusual; the OSS, unfamiliar with traditional spycraft, often borrowed directly from spy novels. "Curtiss was so successful in Istanbul, where he turned German spies into double agents, that he had a measurable impact on the success of the Normandy landings," Graham noted.

She also touched on Sherman Kent's pivotal role in intelligence analysis. "World War II wasn't just the physicists' war. It was also the historian's war, the book collector's war, the professor's war," Graham said. Kent, a historian, was tasked with convincing military leaders to listen to the 'tweedy professors' who were uncovering crucial insights. His work helped cement intelligence analysis as a foundational element of spycraft.

Graham's book also highlighted the enduring legacy of these wartime scholars. "Libraries in America were transformed after the war," she explained. "Before the war, they were underfunded, overshadowed by European institutions. But the OSS proved that libraries - and scholars - are essential to national security."

Following the lecture, Michael Rubenstein, associate professor in the Department of English and director of the Humanities Institute, engaged in a discussion with Graham, expressingadmiration about her process. "I witnessed your energy, daily dedication, and even joy," said Rubenstein, who shared an office with Graham during much of the book's development, recalling moments of discoveries and unexpected connections from her research trip to Istanbul.

Rubenstein touched on three main points he found intriguing. First was Graham's unique style: a "scrupulously mean" tone, reminiscent of Rachel Cusk or Joan Didion, authors who, as Rubenstein said, "can pinpoint flaws with astonishing accuracy." But, he clarified, "When I say 'mean,' I mean it as a compliment. It's this style, modeled on spycraft, that gives the narrative its particular intrigue."

He then highlighted the book's commentary on the value of humanities, both as a field of study and as a vital part of democratic society. "In this book," he said, "you make a compelling case for the moral imperative of preserving our past through the humanities." The debate about the humanities' relevance is evident throughout the book, and with Graham's call for an engaged, informed public.

Graham described the deliberate choices behind her storytelling. "I wanted readers to feel as though they were in the mind of a spy," she explained. "One character in particular, a Yale professor, is asked to assassinate someone - but we don't know if he actually did it. So, I talked to two colleagues who I knew would have opposite answers to the question, 'Would you kill someone if you were asked to as a spy?'" The blend of fact and speculation, she said, helps draw readers into the dilemmas faced by those whose decisions carry life-or-death consequences.

Rubenstein noted how the book's relevance seems contemporary. "Your chapter on Sweden's press neutrality could have been written last week," he said, referring to recent events where media impartiality has become a topic of heated debate. "Hitler demanded balance from neutral countries, insisting that they had to speak favorably about the Nazis if they praised the Allies."

Graham responded, "Yes, Hitler believed that normalization - forcing even neutral media to adopt a 'balanced' tone - was beneficial for his cause. It's a historian's responsibility to decide what to include, and I felt that this policy's echoes in modern media are worth discussing."

Graham left the audience with a message about the overlooked value of academic inquiry in unexpected places. "This story shows, as Robert Darnton says, that history doesn't just shape literature," she said. "Sometimes, literature shapes history."

- Beth Squire

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.