Status
Call number
Series
Collection
Publication
Description
Originally published in 1941, Arthur Koestler's modern masterpiece, "Darkness At Noon," is a powerful and haunting portrait of a Communist revolutionary caught in the vicious fray of the Moscow show trials of the late 1930s. During Stalin's purges, Nicholas Rubashov, an aging revolutionary, is imprisoned and psychologically tortured by the party he has devoted his life to. Under mounting pressure to confess to crimes he did not commit, Rubashov relives a career that embodies the ironies and betrayals of a revolutionary dictatorship that believes it is an instrument of liberation. A seminal work of twentieth-century literature, "Darkness At Noon" is a penetrating exploration of the moral danger inherent in a system that is willing to enforce its beliefs by any means necessary.… (more)
Media reviews
User reviews
I thought I had read this book as a teenager, but as I read it this time, I had absolutely no recollection of it, so maybe I didn't. It is a book of ideas, and frequently moves rather slowly. Perhaps I've read this after reading too many other excellent books on the Stalin years, including Kolyma Tales by Varlam Shalamov, various works by Solzhenitsen, The Whisperers by Orlando Figes, and Simon Montefiore's biographies of Stalin. In particular, I found The Case of Comrade Tulayev by Victor Serge, a novel involving a party official arrested on false premises and forced to confess a much more compelling novel. I can see what an excellent book Darkness at Noon is, but it didn't touch or startle me as much as some of these other books, or as much as I expected.
3 stars
Having absolutely very little knowledge of this time period or the Soviet Union, or even Joseph Stalin himself, I had only a vague idea that perhaps all the above was true. As the setting is never expressly stated, and "No. 1" is only referenced in photographs and memories - he is not an active character himself - early while reading the book I had to do a bit of Wikipedia research to determine what exactly was going on. The time period eluded me. When my brother was reaching an age of discovery, he researched communism and other belief systems. I, on the other hand, read books about dragons. Suffice to say, I did not have knowledge base of the Soviet Union, the history, or the people involved. The point I'm trying to make in this paragraph is that I didn't have to. This book was extremely well-versed in the thoughts and ideas it presented. Yes, there were some references I didn't get, and yes, I probably would have had a much fuller understanding of the text if I had that background knowledge; however, I still enjoyed it. Even without the historical knowledge, you might also.
I don't usually get into political fiction. Indeed, I don't usually get into politics. Generally, I might find interest in the ideas, but that's all they are to me: ideas. Abstract thoughts in space that stay in space, and are spoken in discussions but not actually believed. They're theoretical, "rhetorically speaking." I don't believe in anything, and some say that's a fault, but I disagree (for many reasons which aren't appropriate to this post). Darkness at Noon has contained within it a lot of thoughts. Some Rubashov believes, some he thinks he believes, and in the end, some he chooses to agree to, whether or not they're real. Memories are included, as I've stated, but the majority of this book is a man pacing his cell thinking about what he believes in. In the end? I don't think he believes anything. It is a depressing end, I'll admit. He went from being passionate about everything he stood for to being completely demoralized, wanting nothing but to sleep. For a while he wanted nothing but cigarrettes; he wasn't even hungry. They deprived him even of that desire.
Like 1984 by George Orwell, I am finding there's no just way to "review" or put down my thoughts on this book without addressing every single thing I had thoughts about. I feel like I should re-skim the novel and point out quotes to discuss, and I suppose in a way that is the purpose of a political novel. It has me thinking. It has me interested. I want to research the surroundings and point out the similarities and differences from this novel to what really happened; I want to dive into thoughts as deep as Rubashov's journal entries. Most of all, I want a friend to read it so we can discuss it. That is the sort of effect this book leaves. It's very well written, though at first you might feel like you're reading a very shaky translation. You probably are. The book, apparently, was translated from the German and then the original German manuscript was lost. All we have to rely on is the original English translation. However, after 25 pages, you're sucked in, and there's no leaving until it's over... Even then, it holds you.
Koestler explores the journey of Rubashov from the knock at the door through the final denouement. The reader observes Rubashov, who plays the role of narrator, as he undergoes the psychological change from a determination to resist to nearly total capitulation. Rubashov manages to hold to some crumbs of self-respect, but yields to the logic of the revolution as more important than any individual even when the accusations are complete fabrications.
`Darkness at Noon' is precisely imagined with its details of Rubashov pacing the floor of his small isolation cell, the coded tapping between adjacent cells, and the deprivation of physical comforts that make the subsequent small graces, such as limited outdoor exercise, become precious by comparison. This much of the tale was informed by Rubashov's experiences as a prisoner during the Spanish Civil War. Koestler's examination of the psychological destruction of the prisoner is fascinating, although at times it briefly lapses into stultifying disquisitions on the distorted Stalinist political philosophy.
Koestler himself was a German communist through much of the 1930's before immigrating to Britain, leaving the party and becoming an influential ex-communist. George Orwell's excellent essay about Koestler is readily available on the Internet (google `arthur koestler orwell').
Darkness at Noon was the middle book of an unusual trilogy of loosely related subjects: Gladiators and Arrival and Departure (20th Century Classics). Readers may also wish examine Victor's Serge's The Case of Comrade Tulayev (New York Review Books Classics).
Highly recommended for anyone interested in the era of communism in its Stalinist form or more broadly in the perverse ability of humans to place greater meaning in abstract and abstruse ideology than in the actual lives of other humans.
The theme of the book is the experience of Stalinism, in particular the Stalinist Great Purges and the show trials during the late 1930s. Arthur Koestler himself was a Party socialist for much of his life, and only left the Soviet Union in 1938. Having known many of the Old Bolsheviks personally, he saw the state of the revolution taken over by Stalin and his henchmen, and witnessed the slow (and sometimes fast) destruction of the revolutionary old guard.
It's the experiences of this infamous Great Terror of communism, seen from the eyes of a communist, that form the basic of this book. The plot is rather limited in scope: the protagonist, N.S. Rubashov (probably loosely modelled after Bukharin), is arrested for 'counterrevolutionary crimes', and spends the rest of the book in prison, being interrogated and prepared for the inevitable show trial. This of itself is not particularly clever, but that is not the core of the book.
The real core of the book is Rubashov's fundamental theoretical paradoxical position: all his life he has believed in submitting the "subjectivity" of the individual to the demands of the Party, in the knowledge that they were building a future for mankind. All his life he has believed in History working its will, in the inevitable eventual victory of the right over the wrong. Yet now this same history has taken a turn, and he and the works of his generation are destroyed by the progeny of his own revolution. His interrogators, first the cynical intellectual Ivanov and later the farmer's son-turned-cadre Gletkin, want him to sign a series of damning confessions that are palpably false, which all parties involved know. Yet if the Party demands this of him, if this indeed is the will of History, can he resist? And moreover, how is it possible to begin with that the revolution led to the terror of "No. 1", the totalitarian Party leader?
Through a series of short but thrilling scenes in interrogation and longer periods of reflection, monologue interieure, and flashbacks, the downfall of a committed revolutionary and intellectual and his generation are painted as vividly and profoundly as one could demand of literature. This book is more powerful than Orwell's "1984" and yet more understanding than any of the common anti-communist works of the last century; it is a testament, dedicated to the generation of Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky, Rakovsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and all the other fighters for socialism at the birth of that bloodiest of centuries.
The book is the story of the interrogation and trial of Nicolas Salmanovitch Rubashov an ex-Commissar of the People. It begins with his arrest and ends as did most of Stalin's purge trials of the
The story is not modern and with the fall of Russian communism the ideas discussed are somewhat stale. The book is well written and sets forth the perverse logic of a revolutionary being called on to confess his sins for the good of the revolution.
It was a feature of the Russian purges that those on trial were urged to make false confessions as an act of service to the revolution. The real motive of the interrogators was to remove a possible threat to Stalin's power. Still there were those such as Rubashov who made their confessions in the name of the revolution.
There is little real conflict in the book. Emotionally it is very drab. The only relationship Rubashov had was with his secretary Arlova. That ended with Rubashov giving her a shove over the edge as she became the subject of denunciation and trial. This book compares well with "1984" and "Brave New World". They all deal with similar subject matter but in my opinion the other two are a little better.
Darkness at Noon is an allegory set in the putative USSR
One of my favorite subtle scenes involves a mysterious black tanker that Rubashov recalls arriving in port before his internment. The ship is being loaded with oil bound for an enemy country. To Rubishov, this transaction, treasonous and capitalistic in the extreme, embodies the inherent hypocrisy of his regime. Ideology be damned: when there are rubles to be earned, it is full steam ahead.
Koestler avoids histrionic descriptions. Rubashov almost casually describes the monstrosity of his erstwhile party. I found that this approach drew me in further. I liked the protagonist. He seemed to be an overall decent, intelligent person caught up in a growing tide of authoritarianism. Too bad for him that he was ultimately deemed purge-worthy.
For those who enjoy political history served as literature, Darkness At Noon fills this niche well.
Basically, the whole story is set between the prison cell and interrogation room (with some reminiscences from Rubashov's past as an important member of Central Committee being assigned to travel abroad to stir up and establish Communist movements), and under other circumstances, it might not seem sufficient for a plot. But here, one is glued to the book, as Rubashov, even though it's not his first arrest, tries, in his mind, frantically, to find answers or justifications to whatever is going on in the country; WHY/HOW the purest of ideas turned into something so horrible under Stalin's watch: "All our principles were right but our results were wrong. This is a diseased century. We diagnosed the disease and its causes with microscopic exactness.... Our will was hard and pure, we should have been loved by the people. But they hate us..."
Russia/U.S.S.R is never mentioned (in his foreign comrades' minds it's called "over there" with reverence), Stalin is dubbed "No. 1", Lenin - "the old man", Communist Party is just "Party". And interestingly enough, at the beginning of the book Rubashov identifies Party as "we" ("We brought you truth, but in our mouth it sounded a lie. We brought you freedom, and it looks in our hand like a whip" - throughout the book Koestler is very powerful with his metaphors...), while later on in his thought process he separates himself from the Party, or at least from what became of it - after most of old-timers, his fellow comrades with bright ideas had been liquidated.
His two interrogators (though using totally different approaches) represent brainwashing at its ugliest. It makes one's skin crawl. Logic (or at least normal human logic) has no place here. Manipulation of prisoners' minds - now that's another story... Arguing is futile. Through his cell walls, and later on his short walks in the yard Rubashov gets to know his co-prisoners - some, by this time, deranged with the idea of revolution, some resigned, some not even understanding why they are there, some resisting, but not for long...
I have read a number of accounts (both non-fiction, and fiction - based on facts) about this dark era of Russian history, and yet this is the first time that I encounter such philosophical dissection of ideas in the mind of a political prisoner, such psychologically influenced ruminations. This book will stay with me for a while... I think the validity of this topic can never be lost.
One thing that struck me was how immediate and timeless the prose was. The book could have been written today. There were interesting parallels to Christ and ironic comments on revolutions (French and Russian).
Through the reminiscence of a skein of characters, Rubashov re-lived his Party career that embodied the terrible ironies and human betrayals of a totalitarian movement masking itself as an instrument of deliverance. The book is meant to be a piece of fiction-a monologue of Rubashov's excruciating reflection of his party career, but reads like a social commentary and historical account as Rubashov is a synthesis of the lives of a number of men who were victims of the Moscow Trials.
Darkness at Noon lays out some of the most inveterate principles of a Communist regime: the Party embodies the will of history even though history itself maybe proven to be defective. The authority of the Party could never be questioned or challenged or else the Party will settle such disparity with death. In other words, the Party prohibits any swerve from its ideals-some theoretical future of happiness that is unattainable save for Party members can envision.
As interrogation proceeds, Rubashov is coerced to confess preposterous crimes that he never committed. False accusations are brought forth against him to the point such accusations wreck his nerves. Though Rubashov curtly denies committing any subversive acts in the industry entrusted to him, the accusation simply defines his motive as counter-revolutionary and that he had been in service of a hostile foreign power.
Darkness at Noon exposes the bone-chilling tactics the Party operates-it operates without scruples nor accommodation, never caters to any individual needs. The movement is like a river with bends that those who are not ready accommodate the river flow will be inevitably washed ashore. The book also outlines the psychological strategy that such regime uses to manipulate prisoners. A dark tale indeed.
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.
The story of Rubashov, a revolutionary and once key figure in the unnamed country's government, who is now imprisoned and on trial for treason is a powerful anti-totalitarian novel. The narrator's reflections on his past
Rubashov is a former very high Party official, government leader, and one of the old guard of revolutionaries in an unnamed country that is clearly modelled on the Soviet Union. He is arrested as part of the interminable power struggles that characterized the Soviet-style regimes, fed by the paranoia of its leaders who, never enjoying real legitimacy, struggled constantly to eliminate all, including perceived, opposition. Rubashov has not helped his own case as he is has become increasingly disillusioned with the direction of the revolution and the abasement of the ideals that drove it initially. All of these conflicts come to the fore during his imprisonment and interrogation, focused on the conundrum between what he believes to be the betrayal of the ideals of the revolution, and his still strong need to continue to support what has been his life's work. It is a strong man, indeed who, at the end of his life, can admit that everything he worked and sacrificed for is an illusion, and worse a dangerous and murderous one. It is exactly this conflict and Rubashov's strong sense of fatalism that his interrogator plays upon. In the end, Rubashov, like so many others in the history of the Soviet Union, stands up in open court and admits to all kinds of charges about being a spy and a wrecker from the first day of his involvement in the Party. And in the final parody of all sense and justice, this sacrifice, which means his life, is presented to, and accepted by Rubashov, as the final task that the Party has set for him. Only in this way, can the condemned make some sense out of the events and out of their own lives.
The period of the great show trials in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is a fascinating and terrible one. I wonder how people in the future will look back on those times and if they will even try to understand the motivations of the hundreds of Rubashovs who perished.
(Nov/99)
His main character, an operative and fervent believer in the Party, is arrested for being a traitor to the Party. His interrogator is an old comrade of his. Through their conversations/interrogations we learn of the protagonist's history with the Party, his work, his defense of the methods used, his slow dissatisfaction with the results of their work, and his understanding of the role he must play. Koestler, himself, was a Communist and Believer, and his unveiling of this psychology rings true and convincing--and terrifying.
This brief political novel, which is obviously about the Soviet Union even though that country is never named, is a quick read, but packs a punch. Recommended.
As a fan of science fiction, I have read dozens of books where the big bad was a totalitarian government that prosecutes people for
Well, this book has changed all that forever. In Darkness, Rubashov, a former party leader 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.
Once a leading Bolshevik, Rubashov now sits in a prison cell, pressured to confess to imaginary crimes which would
Of most interest to me though was the references to the revolution not being run to the laws of cricket; I presume this reference wasn't in the original German version (especially as darkness at noon precludes cricket being played anyway) so I can only wonder about the translator who managed to slip a reference to the grand old game into a book about the Stalinist purges.
The novel centres on N.S. Rubashov, a founding member of the Party and once a senior member in the central circle. After a series of personal encounters while conducting revolutionary activities in other countries (loosely aligned with Germany and Belgium, but never specified), his view of the party’s motive and – in his mind – degeneration comes to the fore. A theme that runs throughout Darkness at Noon is that of absence – an absence of direction (the Party has stagnated, while Rubashov’s own political fate is in the balance), but also an absence of people. Rubashov frequently consults a photograph that was taken sometime before the Revolution, depicting the founding members of the party, with each person numbered and their name listed underneath. Now, where once this picture used to hang is a shadow stain on the walls of government offices. The photograph has been removed, as have the men who posed for it.
Koestler pitches this seething but unfocused dissatisfaction into Rubashov’s mind – he never actively works against the Regime, as the authorities claim, rather his thoughts coalesce against it. The action of the novel takes place over three ‘hearings’, and concludes with the final examination and court case. At the same time, Rubashov looks backwards, remembering the local party members, whose stories of woe – they have all been discarded violently, carelessly by the party which they serve – led to Rubashov’s own change of heart.
Much of the book is about conversation and its different forms; conversation for revelation and compassion (Rubashov’s interactions with fellow prisoners); conversation for ideas (Rubashov’s political debates with his old comrade); and conversation for extracting information (the ‘hearings’). Between each conversation, however, is a wall of (sometimes literal) silence and a lack of true empathy. Rubashov, despite his misgivings, becomes a tool for the Party to dole out justice (during the Civil War he was a hard-line Commissar, while in the present of the novel he has dismissed numerous dedicated Party members from the fold). The machinery of repression is shown to be all encompassing and skewed by its faithful and hard-line commitment to Scientific logic of reason that distorts more than it reveals. Across three hearings and his trial, Rubashov’s will and resistance are broken down as he reaslises the impossibility of holding his own – his ‘I’, his self – against a logic that is indifferent to subtleties of emotion and subjectivity. Over the course of the novel, that illogical logic of repression smothers everything.
Koestler’s book is written with a powerful yet simple language that is discharged of emotion – its coldness, which occasionally breaks through into beauty, sets perfectly the scene of the prison and the interrogation room. It is a bleak and claustrophobic novel which despairs of the unfeeling and emotionless tragedy of political violence.