Book Review: Darkness at Noon

Darkness at Noon, by Arthur Koestler

Source: Amazon.com

From the book’s cover:

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.

The Review:

I have wondered from time to time, as I have read of the sham trials and cannibalistic back-biting that tore the Russian intelligentsia, military and other potential "threat" groups during the purges of the 1930s, how could people not see this coming and flee from it before it swallowed them up too? How could they possibly even think there was any chance of fighting back, or in pleading innocence and being saved? Why did so many get swept up into the meat grinder that came about by Joseph Stalin's command? Having read Darkness at Noon, I now have a much clearer picture of how all this may have been possible.

It is especially interesting to see how Koestler keeps referring to people and places surreptitiously in his novel. "Number One." "Over There." Like that. As if he was somehow trying not to say what he really meant, which is so transparent to a modern audience as to be almost humorous.

The book's author, Arthur Koestler / Source: Zenker.se

But then on the other hand, it should be noted that Darkness at Noon is not exactly a page turner. The heavy intellectual content can be a bit distracting at times. In the book's defense, perhaps that is due to all the mathematics I've been working through for school at the time I am making these notes. But Darkness at Noon certainly isn't popcorn for the brain. Deep stuff, and a bit dry.

The background of the author, as provided by Amazon.com, is interesting.

Born in Budapest in 1905, educated in Vienna, Arthur Koestler immersed himself in the major ideological and social conflicts of his time. A communist during the 1930s, and visitor for a time in the Soviet Union, he became disillusioned with the Party and left it in 1938. Later that year in Spain, he was captured by the Fascist forces under Franco, and sentenced to death. Released through the last-minute intervention of the British government, he went to France where, the following year, he again was arrested for his political views. Released in 1940, he went to England, where he made his home. His novels, reportage, autobiographical works, and political and cultural writings established him as an important commentator on the dilemmas of the 20th century. He died in 1983.

The material noted above about the author makes the story more plausible for me, somehow. Now it isn't just some Brit who decided to write about the Great Terror as he perceived it, but instead this is someone who had been swept up in the Communist Party's influence, and had then seen Russia as it was, under Stalin. Maybe that is why Koestler didn't name Stalin directly. The great dictator still had almost a dozen years left of life when this novel was published. I'm sure he didn't take kindly to Darkness at Noon, if it was brought to his attention at all.

[Some time later] I have nearly finished Darkness at Noon, and I must say, it is a brilliant intellectual struggle on the complexities of revolution, and the role of the revolutionary. The key figures all represent some part of the "Revolution From Above" that Stalin instituted in the 1930s. I took time to browse other people's reviews of this book, and noticed it was compared to Orwell's 1984. This makes sense, and I imagine Orwell may have been influenced by Koestler's work. But this novel is deeper than 1984 (at least as far as I can remember; it's been almost twenty years since I read Orwell's masterpiece). I would say Koestler's analysis on the way the Soviet State ate its founding generation, in a punishing and yet bureaucratic manner, along with millions of others who got caught up in the meat grinder process, is very good. If nothing else, as I alluded to earlier, this is a great book for understanding the Russian Revolution and the fervor that Communism's ideology could inspire. I look forward to the conclusion, which can only really end in one way.

Upon Googling "Darkness at Noon Arthur Koestler" and looking at images that resulted, I found this.  I am not sure if the man on the left is supposed to be Joseph Stalin (there is a vague resemblance) or someone else.  However, the montage of images behind the two figures is interesting, as it seems to tie in a great deal of the content of the novel itself. / Source: TheMonthly.com.au

You know, on second thought, I think I will just let the end of Darkness at Noon remain hanging, as far as this review goes anyway, and simply say that I recommend the book to those who would like to perceive what the great purges might have been like, and how a Revolution of the People (Russian-style socialism and its totalitarian roots and branches) works. I am already a student of the Soviet state's history, and this book only whets my appetite for more. I think I understand the rationale and the reasoning of the people a little better from reading this, and look forward to learning more.

Here are a few observations this book inspired in me as I read it:

 * Russians - the fact that they have master chess players and mathematicians makes more sense now that I've read Darkness at Noon.

 * The argument made in the book about mistreating peasants so as to make sure they will keep working in industry, because they are too simple to leave alone or show leniency to. This sounds very Russian, from what I know of these people.

 * The book seems like it might be talking about Zinoviev and/or Kamanev in places (note that both were major leaders in the early Communist Party hierarchy). This is significant because Zinoviev and Kamanev were purged by Stalin in the '30s. In fact, he seems to have taken a great deal of pleasure in removing them from their places of power.

 * The book is, in my opinion, better than 1984, because it is based more strongly on real events, rather than Orwell's suppositions. This is especially pertinent when you look at how the novel represents the manner of creating a society steeped in suspicion. Both books do it, but Soviet Russia really went through this, whereas Orwell's England from 1984 was only a grim possible prediction of events.

 * It is interesting to note that the salutation of "Comrade" was barely used in the book. It is more often "citizen," which to me harks the French Revolution.

 * The lead character of Darkness at Noon is guilty of thinking against the Party, but his crimes are then spun out to include sabotage and plotting against "Number One's" life. It is funny how he is promised "reform" after the Party has triumphed and Revolution has spread worldwide. This is so typical of the "golden Age" of Soviet Communism (Lenin/Stalin period, and I am referring to it as "Golden," though I know of no specific place in academia where it is specifically called thus).

 * It is ironic how both other people and the lead character's own inner weakness say: "Die in Silence" (which is an "Administrative sentencing" - i.e.: quick execution without formal trial). They say: "Do this last thing for the Party that you have served so well. Die for it." How ironic that this man is asked to die for his cause, as a service.

 * It is also darkly amusing that no one could stand in a public trial and hurl back truth at their accusations, because they had been twisted so thoroughly by the process of imprisonment and the State's attacks. This rings very true, from what I know of the actual facts. Most who tried to stand their ground were made to look as fools, and the more guilty for their foolishness.

 * It seems as though this is an instance of raising up a generation of "Monster Hunters," who blindly destroy what was once the flower of the Party's Intelligentsia.

'Gavrill Sergeyevich Bogdanov: Russian; born 1888 in Aminevo village, Moscow Oblast; primary education; no party affiliation; laborer; lived in Aminevo.,...' This image is one of those that comes up when Googling "Great Soviet Terror" and looking at the images that result.  Bogdanov is just one of the millions of innocents who were eliminated during Stalin's bloody revolution from above. / Source: RFErl.org (Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty)

So in summation, Darkness at Noon is a great representation of the Great Terror of the Soviet Union in the 1930s. It was worth the read. It was also somewhat dull at times, but this is partly due to my own position of being burned out when I read it. So take my words in this particular review with a grain of salt when making up your mind.

Another review of Darkness at Noon, much briefer than my own, which includes some relevant information about the text and its author.

Learn more about Darkness at Noon on Amazon.com


The parting comment:

Source: LOLSnaps.com

Until the fish rise up, start climbing trees, grow tentacles, develop trigonometry, create a unified field theory, and transdimensional warp off this planet, that is.