This is a magnificent novel with a truly universal message. The translation by Philip Boehm of the newly rediscovered German manuscript is excellent as well. The novel was completed in 1940 and echoes the Soviet show trials of 1938 without explicitly mentioning which party and which country is involved. The Vintage edition also includes excerpts from another book by Koestler where he describes his own experience being locked up in one of Franco's jails as well as the final statement of the accused from one of the show trials.

The story begins when Rubashov, a leader in the Communist Party, is arrested and but into his jail cell. The reader is immediately given the feeling of being confined together with Rubashov. He is interrogated and told that he is expected to confess to all of his crimes. Rubashov looks back at his life and remembers when he sat in judgement of his comrades resulting in their deaths. The novel includes a number of philosophical discussions as well.

This novel is often cited by conservatives critical of the Soviet Union but the message of the novel applies to anyone who is being told to switch his own beliefs to accord with the party line. This makes the message even more universal. For example, the story would apply equally well to the members of the Republican Party who have had to totally change their beliefs to accommodate the latest MAGA statements. ( )

Revolutions eat their children. When revolution takes place suddenly and aims at eradicating the previous regime in totality (history, news, people, events - anything and everything that might indicate there was life before the revolution) we end up with radical dictatorships right or left - they are all the same. When the final battles are won then it is required to take care of any survivors because they are unfortunate witnesses - people that know of the world before (what a blasphemy).

And this is how we get to the Rubashov, our main protagonist. High functionary of the party, responsible for some pretty heinous deeds in the name of Party, he is soon declared a persona non grata, arrested and placed into the solitary confinement for his anti-revolutionary actions (aka everything they can pack on). And so travel to the inevitable destination starts.

Story is a critique of the Soviet regime under Stalin (No.1) but same as Orwell's 1984 it is not sole critique of the left but any dictatorship. In my opinion only reason left dictatorships are given as an example in books like this, is because left revolutions are more social-oriented in nature and are supposed to bring better conditions for everyone, not cause more mayhem and despair.

For these societies it does not matter who the person is, once tagged as criminal element there is no further discussion, everyone knows how this needs to end. At that moment everyone who ever knew the person needs to disavow that same person, bury it under ton of accusations and findings that were always "subliminally there". Snitches arise and tell on others just to prove the scope of ever present conspiracy. There is never any doubt, greater the purge, the better because fear is greater and danger oh ever more palpable (so last year right?). Now imagine hundreds of revolutionaries from the 1920's and 1930's giving their best for the Party, fighting for the ideals and then ending in prisons and in front of firing squads or in dark dirty yard shot in the back.They are loyal to the very end, sure that this is an error and wholeheartedly believing will be saved in the end ..... so sad.

While all of the above is nothing new and was subject of many a novel what is eternal is message of the book - if you are fighting for the cause that treats all the others like scum of the earth is that cause worth fighting for? How deep can one go before becoming the relic, something to eliminate because it has no further purpose? Is human life only valid while it is useful, can we dehumanize a human being by terror, fears fed every second of a day being so much that human being becomes just a simple-minded drone, pure statistic? Is it worth living in society where you see bad things happening but cannot talk about it for fear of death or life ruination (again so 20's right)?

Novel style is excellent, author manages to capture the emotions of all parties involved and paints a very vivid picture of a dystopian society. All of this in very concise sentences and without becoming too melodramatic about the not so likeable character like Rubashov.

Recommended. ( )

7/10
After reading the author's bio, I thought I would really enjoy the book. However, once it started, I was immediately put off by the subject matter. Luckily, it ended up taking a very conceptual approach to the subject, which was extremely well suited to my interests.
Probably not for everyone, but definitely recommended for philosophers. ( )

"Darkness at Noon" belongs to a kind of subgenre - the protagonist trapped in the clutches of an unyielding totalitarian regime. The writing surpasses that of Orwell's in "1984" - which book I loved; and there is a gritty realism here that helps to explain just why Koestler's work has been - and deserves to be - remembered for so long. ( )

The ending is kind of explicit about the moralising, but it still avoids easy answers and asks questions related to the actual Soviet experience that's far more realistic and interesting than 1984's "they just want power for the sake of it. bad people" thing. The conversations between Ivanov and Rubashov are pretty fascinating as elucidations of common guiding principles - both in the Soviet movement and outside of it - the problems with them re ideas of humanity and the problems with those ideas. The book also talks about the problems of collaboration and resistance. Not a perfect book but a step up from a lot of "dystopian" novels by focusing on real circumstances and reasons why people do things. ( )