Anne’s answer to “What are your conclusions on the ending? Don't want to add spoilers yet.” > Likes and Comments
40 likes · Like
Thanks for your opinion. I assumed she was killed because she at one time was a communist spy showing that during the war it was OK since we were on the same side but not after. I agree it was very disappointing
I felt that the book was written to purposely confuse the reader so you felt just as Juliet did... not knowing who was on her side or not. She herself started confusing Iris with herself. This complexity made the double spy life more real than not.
Also, I didn't conclude that she was a double spy all along. She was forced to be one by the "Fisher" agent towards the end of the book. Interestingly, it seems that Toby also was working with this same agent. Forced or not, we weren't given that information.
OK.... I had to reread a few chapters yesterday after participating in this discussion. She was picked by Merton at the very beginning. At the end we are told that Merton was arrested and then showed up "very publicly" a year later in Moscow. I did not remember this not so little fact from the beginning of the book. I did have my wonderings why she was covering up for Toby who was obviously up to something. I think everything that Juliet did was of benefit to England as well as for the Soviets. Weren't they unlikely allies against Germany in WW2?
Janet, I think the exact problem is that you had to reread a few chapters when it was over. I felt exactly the same. As far as I'm concerned, if you're left so confused at the end that you need to re-read, that's the fault of the author. We are working too hard to try to understand what happened.
I don’t believe she was a double agent the whole time. From my understanding she was asked to be a double agent in the 1950s towards the end.
Lots of interesting comments. Anne, maybe some of the answer lies in your understanding of the sorts of people who became communists, particularly in the early part of the century. In the wake of WW1, it was a hugely attractive ideology to have a more equal world. My 95 year old mother-in-law is an example of this. People in Western Europe were usually ignorant of the Stalinist purges and wholesale starvation of the 1930s. I think it was very in character that Juliet was inherently communist but I didn't spot that Merton had recruited her. My guess, as I was reading it, was that Toby was passing secrets to the Soviets and the man in the Astrakhan collared coat was KGB. Does this mean Juliet shared this suspicion and that's why she didn't say anything about him? (Sorry if I'm being dense.)
And remember there is mention of a teacher who spotted Juliet's potential and made sure Merton knew about her.
Merton isn't arrested until long after the book is over, some time in the early 80s. Much like Anthony Blunt, he has both an interest in art and an inviolable status in British society; unlike Blunt he apparently isn't offered immunity in exchange for a confession, and prefers Uccello to Poussin.
Alleyne was the one who'd fled to Moscow in 1954 (as members of the Cambridge Five did in real life: Maclean was "in a critical position in the Foreign Office", and Burgess was working at the British Embassy in Washington; Philby isn't a direct analogue to Alleyne, since he didn't defect until the 60s).
Fisher says they've known she's a mole for a long time. it's implied she's been working for Merton since she was working as his secretary later in WW2, though by 1950 she's disillusioned about the whole thing. or claims to be, at least; maybe she's just tired of working for Merton and always having to watch her back?
Juliet's personal loyalty towards Toby (and her suspicion/dislike for Alleyne) is presumably why she didn't report his behaviour. in turn his loyalty towards her is presumably what allowed her to escape. as Fisher says, people's fondness for her is what had protected her for so long.
to be honest, i think Juliet's motivations either way are fairly ambiguous for most of the book, and she has as little idea as the reader does about where everyone's allegiences lie. which is where the appeal lay, for me at least.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lorraine
(new)
Nov 25, 2018 08:34PM
Thanks for your opinion. I assumed she was killed because she at one time was a communist spy showing that during the war it was OK since we were on the same side but not after. I agree it was very disappointing
reply
|
flag
I felt that the book was written to purposely confuse the reader so you felt just as Juliet did... not knowing who was on her side or not. She herself started confusing Iris with herself. This complexity made the double spy life more real than not.
Also, I didn't conclude that she was a double spy all along. She was forced to be one by the "Fisher" agent towards the end of the book. Interestingly, it seems that Toby also was working with this same agent. Forced or not, we weren't given that information.
OK.... I had to reread a few chapters yesterday after participating in this discussion. She was picked by Merton at the very beginning. At the end we are told that Merton was arrested and then showed up "very publicly" a year later in Moscow. I did not remember this not so little fact from the beginning of the book. I did have my wonderings why she was covering up for Toby who was obviously up to something. I think everything that Juliet did was of benefit to England as well as for the Soviets. Weren't they unlikely allies against Germany in WW2?
Janet, I think the exact problem is that you had to reread a few chapters when it was over. I felt exactly the same. As far as I'm concerned, if you're left so confused at the end that you need to re-read, that's the fault of the author. We are working too hard to try to understand what happened.
I don’t believe she was a double agent the whole time. From my understanding she was asked to be a double agent in the 1950s towards the end.
Lots of interesting comments. Anne, maybe some of the answer lies in your understanding of the sorts of people who became communists, particularly in the early part of the century. In the wake of WW1, it was a hugely attractive ideology to have a more equal world. My 95 year old mother-in-law is an example of this. People in Western Europe were usually ignorant of the Stalinist purges and wholesale starvation of the 1930s. I think it was very in character that Juliet was inherently communist but I didn't spot that Merton had recruited her. My guess, as I was reading it, was that Toby was passing secrets to the Soviets and the man in the Astrakhan collared coat was KGB. Does this mean Juliet shared this suspicion and that's why she didn't say anything about him? (Sorry if I'm being dense.)
And remember there is mention of a teacher who spotted Juliet's potential and made sure Merton knew about her.
Merton isn't arrested until long after the book is over, some time in the early 80s. Much like Anthony Blunt, he has both an interest in art and an inviolable status in British society; unlike Blunt he apparently isn't offered immunity in exchange for a confession, and prefers Uccello to Poussin.Alleyne was the one who'd fled to Moscow in 1954 (as members of the Cambridge Five did in real life: Maclean was "in a critical position in the Foreign Office", and Burgess was working at the British Embassy in Washington; Philby isn't a direct analogue to Alleyne, since he didn't defect until the 60s).
Fisher says they've known she's a mole for a long time. it's implied she's been working for Merton since she was working as his secretary later in WW2, though by 1950 she's disillusioned about the whole thing. or claims to be, at least; maybe she's just tired of working for Merton and always having to watch her back?
Juliet's personal loyalty towards Toby (and her suspicion/dislike for Alleyne) is presumably why she didn't report his behaviour. in turn his loyalty towards her is presumably what allowed her to escape. as Fisher says, people's fondness for her is what had protected her for so long.
to be honest, i think Juliet's motivations either way are fairly ambiguous for most of the book, and she has as little idea as the reader does about where everyone's allegiences lie. which is where the appeal lay, for me at least.
