47 pages • 1 hour read
Arthur KoestlerA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Character Analysis
Themes
Symbols & Motifs
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
Trace the references to light—both natural and artificial—and dark in the novel, and the relationship of this motif to Rubashov’s ability to make sense of his situation and his guilt.
Compare the functions of various pictures mentioned in the text—such as the portrait of No. 1 and the photography of the “numbered heads” of the Party founders. What does the novel suggest about the political or symbolic value of images and of art more broadly?
Analyze references to physicality in the book, including but not necessarily limited to Rubashov’s memories of torture, of Arlova’s body, of Little Loewy’s stature, of Richard’s stutter, and of Kieffer’s son’s hare-lip, explaining how they matter to Rubashov’s intellectual preoccupations.
Trace the references to No. 1 and make a case for how we are meant to interpret his representation in the novel.
Explore Rubashov’s textual connections to Christianity. Make an argument as to how the text encourages us to interpret Rubashov’s death in Christ-like or Faustian terms.
Analyze Vassilij and No. 402, the two most significant minor characters and both Rubashov’s neighbors, exploring how they reflect Rubashov’s moral development over the course of the book.
Compare and contrast Rubashov walking partners in the exercise-yard—Rip Van Winkle and the peasant with the bast-shoes—who both have a kind of political innocence. Make a case for understanding the difference in Rubashov’s attitudes toward each man.
Explain what Rubashov means by the “grammatical fiction” and why Part Four uses this phrase as its title.
Analyze the end of the book and make an argument about what Rubashov is able to achieve with his last moments. Does the book absolve him of his guilt, which he believes he has fully accounted for? And if so, does his “I” remain a “fiction”—a trick of the grammatical necessity of language? And if so, is that the “ultimate truth” he was looking for?