Rating: 
Summary: When the revolution consumed its' fathers
Review: This is the best historical novel I have ever read. On the continuous spectrum between fact and fiction, it is more factual than some historical works. Although no person or countries are named, it is clearly set in the Soviet Union in the thirties. The main character is Rubashov, one of the leaders of the revolution who brought the party to power and who has now fallen into the maelstrom, where the newer elements of the party are conspiring with number one to discredit and eliminate them.
Although sleep deprivation is used to assist in obtaining Rubashov's confession, to a large extent it is the last act of a truly dedicated party member. He intellectually understands why he must accept his fate "for the good of the party." Rubashov even agrees with his interrogators that their places could easily be interchanged and he would be doing exactly what they were. Unlike some of the other novels that deal with the human interaction with totalitarianism we are exposed to the inner workings of the party intellectuals. You will never find any greater insight into why the revolution consumed nearly all of its' fathers than when you read the conversations that Rubashov has with his two main interrogators.
The first is his old comrade in arms Ivanov, who attempts to use reason and some semblance of kindness to extract the confession. From these conversations, we see the way things used to be, where party members fought together and settled their differences with theoretical discussions between intellectuals. However, Gletkin, the new party man who is essentially a thug, has Ivanov shot and completes the interrogation of Rubashov. With this action, the party eliminates its' intellectual past and comes under the control of brutes who do not hesitate to carry out the orders of number one. No emotion, no sympathy, no feelings of weakness towards those considered enemies of the people as expressed in the mind of number one.
The sources differ as to how many millions perished as a consequence of the direct orders of Joseph Stalin during the frenetic period where the Soviet Union was brought under his iron fist. However, to understand it, you need to read the fictional account of one man, Rubashov, who is a composite of many old Bolsheviks who were eliminated so that one man could achieve absolute power. The segment where the daughter of the old fighter Wassilij reads the newspaper account of the trial of Rubashov to him also demonstrates how so many were so willing to believe the absurd charges brought against the old party members. The simple former peasants in the Soviet Union were not the only ones who believed them, many people in the west were also convinced that there were facts behind the charges. We now know different and from this novel, we see some of the logical irrationality that helped fuel the events.
Rating: 
Summary: guilty as charged
Review: this is a wonderful fictionalized account of the moscow trials. it follows the fortunes of an aging leader of the original revolution.
the book does an excellent job of exposing the thought process and justifications of a totalitarian form of government towards it subjects. it is full of very interesting concepts.one of the more interesting is that of guilt. is rubashov guilty of crimes or not? using "1984" terms, he is truly guilty of "thought crimes". he does desire the changing of the leadership, he, however, does nothing to try to bring it about. he therefore must be innocent. no, that is not how rubashov sees himself. as he says, "he who opposes a dictatorship must accept civil war as a means. he who recoils from civil war must give up opposition and accept the dictatorship." he ultimately goes on to conclude that he was guilty of doing nothing to oppose the dictatorship. is he therefore guilty of setting off a series of events that led to a government like this and doing nothing to stop or end its reign? YES! that is why he can go so willingly to his end. the novel is a more real life version of "1984" without the rats. a short, but very entertaining book that will plant thoughts in your head that won't go away
Rating:
Summary: An Enriching Experience
Review: Darkness at Noon deals with isolation and imprisonment. It characterizes the political prisoner and what it meant to get caught by the state in communist Russia. There is close attention to the psychological degeneration and reassertions of the main character as he forms and loses hope. This book is truly compelling and deep -- well worth your time, to say the least. Two weeks after finishing it, it remains on my mind. Also recommended: Invisible Man by Ellison, The Losers' Club by Richard Perez
Rating:
Summary: Bolsheviks Hijacked Communism & Exposed Collectivism's Flaws
Review: The goal of Darkness at Noon is not necessarily to denounce Communism, but rather to expose the flaws of collectivism that the Bolsheviks had pursued--what happens when a country is consolidated into a single "corporation", no matter how good the initial intentions may be. Two philosophies are subtly and indirectly compared in this book: individualism and collectivism. "Collectivism holds that the individual is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of the group." [Mark da Cunha of Capitalism.org] This sums up the philosophy that the characters in Darkness at Noon believed. As a result of this philosophy, the collective group becomes the standard of ethics, instead of the individual. Socialism and liberal democracy have at least one thing in common--Both sides believe government is needed to put a limit on individual decision-making power, and ensure the fair enforcement of laws. But one main difference is that the ideal result of socialism was that freedom from oppression, particularly from the bourgeoisie, would be achieved through economic equality. The theory sounds good, but Darkness at Noon presented it as a goal that eluded them and was impossible to attain. Koestler plays the concepts of egoism and altruism against each other: whether an individual should be more concerned with self-preservation or self-sacrifice for the good of the community. In collectivism, the individual is only a means of achieving the end goals, so altruism is valued and promoted. Rubashov charges the Party of acting only to preserve itself, rather than for the best interest of the masses. It is as if the Party organization itself hypocritically practices egoism, while it calls for altruism from its members. But then Rubashov's interregator accuses him of doing exactly the same thing.
The first major problem with communism or collectivism is that people cannot freely disagree. One example is recorded in Rubashov's diary entry:
"A short time ago, our leading agriculturist, B., was shot with thirty of his collaborators because he maintained the opinion that nitrate artificial manure was superior to potash." (p. 79) In this particular case, the truth was decided by the person in charge. The next major problem that Koestler exposes is the question of who decides what is truth. Why should the person in charge decide truth just because he happens to have power? Why should he have the ability to decide what is right? In this system, it is the Party that decides what is true and false. Individuals are denied free-will, or the power to make decisions for themselves. If they do make a decision, it has to be according to policy. If they make a bad decision, they will be punished. Rubashov makes a good point: "How can the present decide what will be judged truth in the future? We are doing the work of prophets without their gift." In collectivism, people cannot decide for themselves what is morally right and wrong. Ethics are controlled by the Party. What is good and bad is relative to what the Party allows. If people are not free to disagree and decide what is truth, how can the Party know how to truly represent the masses? Rubashov believed that the main reason why the communist system was failing was because it no longer represented the people. It seemed like the Party wanted to create a nation of mindless robots, without any free-will to make choices. They would have to use force when necessary to subject the people to the whim of the Party. They wanted to erase the boundaries of the individual and merge people into the collective. They wanted to eliminate the pronoun "I" from their vocabulary as if it was "grammatical fiction." If the goal of the Bolshevik's communism was to achieve freedom from oppression through economic equality, then it failed. Collectivism is inherently oppressive. If a struggle to free people from suffering only results in more suffering, then it defeats its own purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Thank you MLA....
Review: ....for making me aware of this book's existence. Like most people, I have mixed feelings about the MLA's list of greatest 20th century novels. Some deserve their place on the list, some don't. However, I've found that the list has been helpful in alerting me to the presence of books and authors I might never have heard of otherwise, and "Darkness at Noon" is certainly one of these. The fact that it's at number 8 on the list makes me feel somewhat ignorant for not being familiar with it. To top it off, I have an M.A. in English. Yet, not once in any class was this book ever mentioned. I went into it hesitantly. It just seemed from the description that it would be an awfully dry read. Quite the reverse---it's a rip-roaring good read, and one of the few books I've read recently that I wasn't able to put down. I began it on a flight to a business trip, and found myself returning to my hotel room at off times just so I could continue it. Don't be daunted if you lack knowledge about this time period of Russian history (roughly the period surrounding World War II). I certainly did, but it didn't hinder my enjoyment of this novel. It's a captivating, suspenseful book from start to finish, and I'm so glad I discovered it.
Rating:
Summary: At par with Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment"
Review: Only someone who has seen the grim reality himself, can write the cold truth with such intensity. A little knowledge of Russian revolution will make this book 10 times more gripping.
The story of Rubashov, the old Bolshevik, who awaits his death in a prison cell,interrogated by his own comrades."He who will be proved right in the end appears to be wrong and harmful before it" And this is Rubashov's crime. This novel creates so much tension that one can actually feel being inside the cell with him.
This book leaves you exhausted in the end and in a way relieved that the agony of Rubashov is over. Truly a masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: "What a mess we have made of our golden age"
Review: Along with "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and "Nineteen Eighty-Four", this novel is held up by some as one of the most important literary works in galvanizing public opinion against a social or political system. But whereas there is little doubt as to the intent of the first two novels, I think that Koestler's work cannot be so easily pigeon holed. When Koestler wrote this novel he had not yet reached that stage in his life when he was stridently anti-communist (some would argue anti-everything) and still held the architects of the Russian Revolution in high esteem. It is one of those books that can preach differing and conflicting sermons. Thus readers from the political right see the novel as an indictment against what they see as the inherent dehumanizing and brutalizing aspects of the communist system; while readers from the left see the novel as an indictment against the abrogation of freedoms and the abuse of political power by any political system, be it communism, fascism, or Bushocracy. In other words, any political system that appends a system of logic to a diaphanously perceived righeousness. Unfortunately for both sets of readers, the literary value of the book is usually overlooked in favor of a particular political viewpoint. The novel is set during the Moscow Trials of the 1930s in which Stalin systematically eliminated all opposition to his power. That this liquidation ended the lives of most of the remaining Bolsheviks of the 1917 Revolution is one of the great political ironies of history. The main character of the novel, Rubashov, represents one of the old guard, a party member whose intellectualizing of political history has no place in the new Soviet world of collectivism and one man rule. From the time the cell door slams behind Rubashov until the "smashing blow" ends his life, the action of the novel centers around Rubashov's internal fight between his loyalty to the ideals of 1917 and the encroachment of the "grammatical fiction" which forces him to consider things more subjectively. One would hardly think that this conflict could possibly be turned into a novel that could hold the reader's attention. But this is exactly what Koestler has done. The novel maintains a sense of tension throughout, and gives the reader a sample of some of the realities that constitute political imprisonment. There are unforgettable characters and scenes in the book: Rubashov's old friend, Ivanov, who now tries to get Rubashov to make public "his former errors"; the cool and ruthless Gletkin, and Rubashov's faceless and nameless neighbor with whom he carries on conversations by tapping out messages. While suffering through his imprisonment and the psychological torture that is inflicted on him, Rubashov has ample time to rethink his own poltical career, back to a time when he was able to inflict his own brand of logical expediency on both his friends and the innocent. Some readers without the requisite knowledge of Russian history might be confused by some of the extended conversations in the book that deal with the Revolution and other arcane issues of poltical theory that take place between Rubashov and his interrogators. But confusion can be remedied by some outside reading, and a little perseverance on the reader's part will be rewarded with an unforgettable journey into one man's mind as he does battle with history, with totalitarian henchmen and,more importantly, with himself.
Rating:
Summary: A showdown of conflicting dualities
Review: Arthur Koestler's novel Darkness At Noon explores the inner struggle raging inside Nicolas Salmonovitch Rubashov, a bureaucrat and Old Bolshevik who is arrested in 1939 on charges of conspiring to assassinate Stalin. While awaiting his sentence, he is forced to reexamine his past. The conflict within Rubashov can be construed as a struggle between several sets of dualities: Communism versus Christianity, "we" versus "I," the Party versus the individual, emotionless logic versus emotional conscience, a.k.a. "the grammatical fiction", lies versus the truth, old Bolsheviks versus new Bolsheviks, and regarding History, the Party, and Stalin, the most important duality of all: right versus wrong. Whatever the outcome, as Rubashov says throughout the book, "I shall pay." Rubashov is expected to do the right thing, to logically arrive at the conclusion that he was wrong and that Stalin and the Party were right, but while in his cell, contemplates his past in daydreams, silent soliloquys, monologues, in the process analyzing monologues as "dialogues of a special kind; dialogues in which one partner remains silent while the other, against all grammatical rules, addresses him as 'I' instead of 'you.' He revisits his past and remembers the people he betrayed, such a Richard, the German communist, Little Loewy, the Belgian communist who takes issue with Stalin supporting Hitler with mineral shipments prior to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, and Arlova, the librarian and Rubashov's former secretary whom he denounces just to save his own skin. Also, consider this: "History has taught us that often lies serve her better than the truth; for man is sluggish and has to be led through the desert for forty years before each step in his development." Key to the argument of truth and lies is Stalin's absolute control of Party policy. As Rubashov wonders during one of his bouts of doubt: "And what if, after all, No. 1 were in the right? If here, in dirt and blood and lies, after all and in spite of everything, the grandiose foundation of the future were being laid? Had not history always been an ..., unscrupulous builder, mixing its mortar of lies, blood and mud?" Truth is a commodity held ... by Stalin, i.e. what mattered was what Stalin believed was the truth and woe be to he who challenges him. This is akin to Orwell's 1984, where Winston Smith is forced to repeat the Party slogan: "Whoever controls the past controls the future. Whoever controls the present controls the past" O'Brien replies that "whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth." And the Party has power with control of the truth. Power is thus an end, not a mean. Koestler displays religious overtones in connection with Rubashov's attack with conscience, ironic considering Marx's view on religion as the opiate of the masses. Rubashov compares the Russian people under Lenin with the Israelites under Moses, who "for forty years... had been driven through the desert, with threats and promises, with imaginary terrors and imaginary rewards. But where was the Promised Land?" A painstaking introspective look at a man struggling with conscience, but also looks at the dark aspects of the Stalin purges and the ruthless machinery of the Party.
Rating:
Summary: Idealism Gone Awry
Review: Darkness at Noon A. Koestler Spare and uncompromising as its solitarily confined hero, this tale of a once gung-ho, now thoroughly disillusioned revolutionary, Rubashov is strangely haunting. Koestler, known also for his belief in the human right to suicide, his own suicide with his wife, and his forays into the history and theory of biology, delves into the mental depths of his man on death row who has in the end chosen compassion and humanity over the humorlessness and cleverness of the more-than-human revolutionary machine. Rubashov is offered a reprieve if he will only disavow his "oppositional tendencies" and the actions, some of them framed, he has supposedly committed. As his stoicism and irony confront the ideological racionation of the Soviet state, he must confront the hubris of reason hypertrophying in the belly of the state beast; he must deal with the higher, or lower, irony of revolutionary fervor-based on the same sort of reason he applies in his own analyses-gone fatally wrong. Although the action is confined largely to the prison cell of Koestler's composite character (based on a number of men Koestler knew), flashbacks and hope allow us fleeting escape from the oncoming freight train of Death. The last line is brilliant and the whole book contains a frightening ring of truth.
Rating:
Summary: Ruthless purge.
Review: This is, quite rightly, the classic novel about a power struggle within a monolithic political party.
To consolidate his power and to exert his own policies, a dictator uses the young guard to liquidate mercilessly his old fellow revolutionaries, who once were or still are critical of him.
Koestler relates hauntingly how his idealistic dreams are shattered and how the main aim of his whole life is destroyed:"But when he asked himself, for what actually are you dying? He found no answer." (p.206) This is still a very modern work. It reminds us that a multi-party system and free elections are a must to eliminate all risks that a ruthless clique seizes power in a country. This book is a masterpiece. It contains a terrible quotation: "When the existence of the Church is threatened, she is released from the commandments of morality. With unity as the end, the use of every means is sanctified, even cunning, treachery, violence, simony, prison, death." (Dietrich von Nieheim, Bishop of Verden)
|
