DARKNESS AT NOON
Arthur Koestler’s debut novel, “Darkness at Noon,” is an excellent and frightening novel. A long-lost carbon copy of the original manuscript forms the basis of this edition’s translation. The incarceration of Bukharin, a Russian anarchist, influenced Arthur Koestler. Arthur Koestlet was jailed during the Spanish Civil War, and he escaped to freedom during the Second World War.
There is nothing complex in the plot: the government arrests Rubashov, and old Bolshevik, for treason against the government he helped create. The three main characters are Rubashov, Ivanov (another old Bolshevik friend, and first interrogator), and Gletkin (a young Bolshevik and second interrogator).
Three rounds of interrogation form the basis of the novel, with Ivanov being the first. The government arrests and executes Ivanov before he completed his interrogation of Rubashov. Then, Gletkin (joint interrogator at first) became the chief interrogator, exhibiting a clean break from the past both in philosophical outlook and interrogation style.
Why is the book frightening? The book operates at many levels: totalitarianism (even though you never see ‘Number One’), the ruthlessness of the state (no dissidents please), the brainwashing of the young, committed people, and a display of the state’s power to crush dissidents.
Melodrama never raises its head in the tale's telling: Rubashov is arrested, interrogated, tried, and executed. The book’s title tells you what time the state executes him, and in the last sentence, you realize the world moves on, indifferent. We forget people like Rubashov and move on. Very few people, even in Russia, will remember Bukharin.
Arthur Koestler's writing is sparse, which heightens the tension you feel. "Darkness at Noon" is frightening because you may realize that totalitarianism, and the state’s rejection of dissent extends beyond autocratic countries and is spreading in countries that call themselves democratic.
We must remember that the state’s power is alive and well. Arthur Koestler’s book is a timeless, modern classic whose relevance extends much beyond the context in which he wrote the book. ( )

A great, fictionalized, study on how revolutions tend to "eat" their own as the more extremist elements gain power and end up attacking the initial revolutionaries as no longer being true believers.
Very analogous to today's world as the more extremes of either the left or right who disdain anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do. ( )

A manuscript found in the 1940's depicting a Soviet style party prisoner's first person account of prison, torture, and execution with alot of thoughtful speculation on how one Khubashov got there. Reminds me of Solzhenitsyn and it may have been taken from Bukharin's trial. ( )

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. ( )