Darkness at Noon

In the middle of our read-a-thon, I decided to pull a book from the bookslut 100 list. I ended up pulling Darkness at Noon, even though I knew hardly anything about it.

As a fan of science fiction, I have read dozens of books where the big bad was a totalitarian government that prosecutes people for thoughtcrimes and says things like "It is better to execute 10 innocent people than to let one guilty person go free." These organizations are horrible, clearly, but lost a little bit of their scariness for me as they seemed too unbelievable. How could anyone really believe such a horrible thing? And how could an entire government run on that principle?

Well, this book has changed all that forever. In Darkness, Rubashov, a former party leader show more and war hero, is imprisoned for treason. During his imprisonment, he thinks back to a past imprisonment, engages in secretive conversations with other prisoners (his wing is all solitary confinement), and is interrogated by two men, one of whom he has a history with. As they try to convince him to plead guilty to several counts of treason, there is a lot of discussion of the philosophy of such a government. Not only did this book thoroughly convince me that such governments have and do exist, but even more horrifyingly, I started to understand how people could talk themselves and others into such behaviors.

This book was so good, I was kind of in awe of it the entire time I was reading it. Definitely worthy of its place on the bookslut 100. show less

It's undoubtedly a powerfully and skillfully written novel, much as I hate to say it, "Darkness at Noon" struck me as somewhat dated. It must have been a powerful anti-Stalinist statement when it was released in 1940, but now that just about nobody attempts to live their lives by the logic of historical determinism, it mostly just seems like a message sent into the future from an era whose ideological coordinates were very different from our own. Not that the writing's bad: Rubashov's is often a strong and fascinating character, and the novel is often enjoyably tense, psychologically acute, and well observed. It has moments of real pathos, and it's easy to see how it influenced Orwell's "1984." But I finished "Darkness at Noon" thinking show more that that novel's continued relevance may come from is universally applicable science fiction setting, while the polemical content of Koestler's novel seems less immediately relevant to this reader. I suppose it's a reminder that, for much of the twentieth century, ideological struggles weren't just something for intellectuals to dither about : they decided the fates of people's lives. Koestler, to his credit, complements many of his characters' arguments with resonant, well-chose symbolism. But there's only so much musing about living a logically ordered, Marxist-informed life that I can be expected to take. Bring it up at the next Party conference, Comrade. show less

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 show more 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. show less

Because of the inherent charm in reading an author who is lucid and knows what he is writing for, what looks at first glance to be a thoroughly bleak and unappealing novel becomes, in Koestler's hands, the bleak yet thoroughly appealing Darkness at Noon. Our protagonist, Rubashov, a former power-player in a communist regime, finds himself imprisoned in the latest round of political purges. The book follows his thought process as he undergoes interrogation at the hands of his former comrades, and Rubashov's position allows Koestler an opportunity at an astonishing extended interrogation of the Marxist pathology, and of the human condition in general.

Koestler is of that finest breed of writer, the perceptive observer. Each of his show more characters convince us, because they each convince themselves, and it is quite disturbing when you, as a reader, find yourself agreeing for the moment with one of Rubashov's interrogators, Ivanov and Gletkin. It is disturbing precisely because their arguments have the ring of logic – cold logic, without being sociopathic. You realise with some fear that the commissars and ideological camp-followers are not villains – or even mindless sheep – but are instead individual minds who have gone down a path that could easily have claimed you, or could yet claim you, or might have claimed you and you don't even know it.

I found particular disquiet in Koestler's vivid Biblical allusions towards the end of the novel: yes, the links between ideological pathology and religion are there, but you ask yourself: is it good? Or rather, to what extent is it good? The terror in books like this one – and in the novels it so clearly inspired, like Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four – is not the physical pain of torture or death, but a sort of mind-terror. "There was only one revolutionary virtue which he had not learned, the virtue of self-deception," Koestler writes on page 59. By delving into the metaphysics, and finding a coherence there, Rubashov (and Koestler) actually succeeds in avoiding complete self-deception. Winston Smith would find a substantially bleaker view in Orwell's Room 101. Both approaches have merits, which is partly what makes them so fascinating to wrestle with on an intellectual level.

The book's didacticism will turn many readers off, particularly those who are used to being spoon-fed safe, likeable crowd-pleasers, but for my part the book only became more engrossing as it progressed and went deeper into its ideas. Even though it becomes increasingly abstract, it never drags – those abstract thoughts are too fascinating. And Koestler is no soapbox operator; this is not a polemic masquerading as fiction. Consider, for example, the genius use of irony to end the Third Hearing on page 192; both Rubashov and Gletkin have reached their respective logical and natural conclusions, have both misunderstood the other, and – deliciously – neither can be said to be wrong, either in their conclusions or in their appraisal of the other. How the same thing can mean two different things depending on your perspective and knowledge is at the heart of pathological fanaticism, whether that fanaticism is Koestler's target of Marxism or otherwise, and this book captures that mercilessly (another delicious moment: the newspaper's narration of Rubashov scanning the crowd and "finding not a single sympathetic face" (pg. 199)). Darkness at Noon is, quite simply, an example of what the best literature can do. Koestler is lucid, profound and readable, and even in the bleakest moments it is a joy to be carried along with him. show less

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 show more 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. show less

What surprised me about Koestler's depiction of Stalin's purges in the 30's was the lack of brutality. I expected the story to be more harrowing - the details of the interrogations, physical and psychological torture, etc. But the moving part of the story is Rubashov and his attempts to justify his actions to himself. He knows that he is powerless against the machinery of the state. What is left is to preserve a belief in himself and the ideals so many died for.

Believe it or not, I found some of the interrogator Gletkin's arguments persuasive. His depiction of the Russian peasants and their inability to function in an industrial state seems accurate from reading Tolstoy, Chekhov and Dostoevsky. This does not justify the cruelty of the show more Great Terror and the forced famines of the 30's. . . rather, the counterargument should be that "progress" cannot be forced or made by decree - that the culture must be given time to adapt. This is a lesson that could surely inform the US's policies in the Middle East. show less

"History knows no scruples and no hesitation. Inert and unerring flows towards her goal. History knows her way. She makes no mistakes."

"Darkness at Noon" was first published in 1941 and thought my many to be the inspiration behind Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. Although the country isn't actually named it is pretty obvious that is set during the purges undertaken in 1930's Russia under Stalin's leadership.

When Rubashov is awoken in the middle of the night from a dream and arrested by the Russian Secret Police he is initially relieved as he will no longer have to worry about being arrested.

Rubashov fully expects to be kept in solitary confinement until he is shot. He spends a great deal of time thinking over his life. He had been a show more respected man, given difficult and dangerous assignments abroad and even been tortured, thus proving his loyalty to the Party and its objectives. Lately, though, he has been rethinking this loyalty because the Party he once believed in has turned into something different and the Utopian society that was promised still seems just as far away as it ever was. Rubashov feels torn between continued loyalty, his own conscience and his desire to survive.

After about a week in prison, Rubashov is brought in for his first hearing which is presided over by someone he knows, Ivanov, a Civil War veteran and an Old Bolshevik who shares the same view of the Revolution as himself. Rubashov is informed that if he confesses to the charges his sentence will be shortened to five or ten years in a labour camp, instead of execution. The actual charges are irrelevant as both men know that Rubashov hasn't actually done anything. Rubashov is given two weeks to think over the proposal.

Two weeks later Ivanov has been replaced by his junior, Gletkin, who takes charge of Rubashov's interrogation. Gletkin is child of the Revolution who knows nothing other than the Party. He is an advocate of using brutality to get confessions and immediately goes to work using some brutal physical punishments including sleep deprivation and shining a lamp in Rubashov's face for hours.

None of these methods work until Rubashov learns that Ivanov has himself been executed. This breaks his resolve and he confesses. He can't help thinking about the many agents he himself betrayed during the course of his career, and understands that; as he has sewn, so shall he reap. He is still loyal to the Party and believing that not doing so will harm it, pleads guilty publicly in court.

Almost all the action within this novel is seen through the mind of Rubashov. The action consists of his contact with fellow prisoners, witnesses and accusers but increasingly with his own memories and guilt.

Koestler is a Jew who was himself once a member of the Communist party and even imprisoned whilst working as a journalist covering the Civil War in Spain. This novel centres around morals and politics. It looks deeply into the collective mind of a totalitarian society asking the question whether the the ends ever justify the means. Can a just society be formed at any means or will those means change the nature of that society?

This is in many respects a moral fable that still has a certain relevance even today. As Koestler asks readers to share Rubashov's final choice he reminds us that political choices past and present have consequences.

Although Rubashov himself is fictional he is however a composite of several genuine figures. I found this is a bit of a slow burner that you cannot just pick up and put down as you please but instead have to concentrate on. All the same I found it an interesting read that gave me some insight into a period of history that I previously knew little about. In particular when I read the afterword and realised that some of Stalin's decisions in the 1930's aided or at least hastened the rise of the Nazi Party. show less