Why you should read "Darkness at noon"

We live in a cruel, dangerous, unpredictable world. You might say: "What can happen to me in the 21st century, when political situation is stabilized, medicines developed and half of their lives, people spend on the internet?". Well, you are partly right. However, as we all know, history repeats itself. Thus, we are responsible for making sure we have learned our historical lessons -  and by saying that, I as well mean the literature, in which the events of past are very vividly depicted through real life examples. 

Precisely, the novel I am about to recommend, shows what happens when society meets totalitarianism, when leadership becomes paranoid and when trust in public institutions slowly disappears. It raises crucial questions for all of us. Can we trust our political leaders? Are we protected from government? Do we believe everything what is being told on the media? Perhaps, we do not notice a bigger picture and follow mainstream opinion? Are we easily manipulated? The answers can be found in "Darkness at noon", as well as the reason why such literature must never be forgotten. 

`Darkness at noon` is a book, which was included in 100 best novels of XX century list by Modern Library. The powerful influence it had in the world, was remarkable indeed.  The novel is, in some sense, a critique of the way the communist machinery used to be, in times just  before the Second World War, underlying an extremely meaningful historical context.

The author, Arthur Koestler, Hungarian writer of Jewish origin, was a laureate of Sonning Prize, and ex communist.  He, like no one else, knew the system from the inside and decided to quit the party, publishing  the world famous `Darkness at moon` just a couple of years later, in 1940.

The set of the novel is USSR in years 1937-1938 and it describes the lead of Stalin and his Great Purge from inside the Soviet system. “Darkness at noon” starts with a sudden arrest of Rubashov, an Old Bolshevik, who used to be dedicated to the idea of building socialism, but was cruelly abandoned by “The Party”.

"Darkness at noon" is often classified as a political novel and is written from the third person point of view. The plot develops around Rubashov, the main character and powerful literary tool. The reader can feel the tension of the described events through Rubashov's internal monologues, as well as with the help of detailed description of the behaviour of side characters. While the former gives us more insights of what sort of events have been leading prior to Rubashov's unfortunate situation; the latter tells us the sides of the story unknown to the main character. Together they create intricate plot twist, not just an artistic one, but also philosophical - we are not in power to control everything surrounding us.

It is important to note, that Koestler does not criticize the Soviet leaders directly and does not mention any names. Thus, Rubashov symbolises the end of the epoch of “Old Bolsheviks”, who are only mentioned as being the philosophers, the picture in a frame, which used to hang in every house, indirectly describing Lenin and other delegates, who made the first congress of the Party. Rubashov appeared to be the last one alive after the series of sudden deaths, Moscow show trials and the new switch of country politics by the new congress.

"Darkness at Noon still lives as a study of fear and victimhood, of state brutality, of unjust imprisonment, of interrogation and forced confession." - The Guardian, (Paul Laity, 2012).

Apparently, most of the first congress members did not fully approve the new politics in Soviet Union. Rubashov himself is described as being deeply disappointed in the Party, but still working in the name of the communism. After being imprisoned, he is given two absolutely fatal choices: to publicly confess the crimes he has not committed (e.g. working against the Party), blacken his own name in the history and then being sentenced to the death penalty, or being executed without the public confession and allowing the Party to create a motive, making him a public enemy. Cleary, he is kind of a person to whom both choices are pretty unfortunate.

Koestler very elegantly describes how Rubashov used to make the same thing with the other people, who were less important to the Party and now appears to be in other’s shoes, without any chance of improving, or somehow solving the situation. The country, which was the most powerful back in the days, was using people one by one and never felt any guilt. Rubashov reevaluates his life. Was this the situation he expected somewhere deep inside, but never wanted to admit, how dependant his position was? The only thing which is known with a hundred percent guarantee- there is no escape. He, and others Old Bolsheviks, created something which seemed to be so right and bright, turned out to be the deadly monster, covered with blood of its numerous victims.   

Rubashov finds himself imprisoned next to the soldier of the old king’s army. Before, he used to fight against such type of people, but now they are together trapped without any chance for freedom, and, paradoxically, his neighbour is actually being treated much better than he is himself. The sad irony of the system where the political climate, “heroes” and “enemies” could be changed within a second, which used to be a reality in the most part of the 20th century.

One has to note the importance of historical context. 20th century itself is quite a complicated period. In the first part of it, two massively powerful countries appeared. In USSR propaganda, Germany appeared as ideologically disapproved  place of dictatorship, fear and evil. In his work, Koestler refers to it similarly, while showing that the USSR itself had the same foundations, which was quite often hidden from its citizens.

Back to top

"It is the sort of novel that transcends ordinary limitations, and that may be read as a primary discourse in political philosophy... written with such dramatic power, with such warmth of feeling, and with such persuasive simplicity..." - The New York Times, (Harold Strauss, 1941).

According to above mentioned information, I would like to add that such a novel was an extremely important work at that time. First of all, back then it was quite hard to know how the USSR worked from the inside because of the lack of open sources. The author made it easily reachable and maximum appealing to  the true events. Second of all, Koestler managed to describe and present the system as anyone else did, in the way it actually was- cruel, ruthless, bloodthirsty, the one that does not leave anyone any compromise. The author also mentions that the core idea differed from the result. Utopian dreams about the perfect society faded shortly after Stalin became the country’s new leader. Third of all, it is hard to say that the novel is easy to read, but it accurately describes the feelings and emotions of prisoner Rubashov, before an important historical and political figure, and by the moment of the narration, a prisoner with no future, who has only one choice left to make in his life: which of the deaths is more suitable for him and which one has more dignity in it.

Extremely important is the fact, that in the times, when a part of the literature was banned by numerous instances as not suitable for the folk ideology, some works are protesting against, describing the regime, and differ from those, following the propaganda. Big historical and literature appreciation should be dedicated to such authors and their works. Koestler, who saw the world inside and outside the Soviet machinery, has chosen a certain path. All of these numerous aspects make his novel absolutely relatable and moving.

Nowadays, in the 21st century, we can still make a great use of "Darkness at noon". Such kind of literature must be highly appreciated. The novel can be taken as an extremely relevant lesson (or warning), as it shows us the problems of the past, that should not be performed in present, or repeated in the future. It is a perfect choice for someone who values high quality literature and wants to learn more about Soviet Union, revolutions and history in general.

The readers of "Darkness at noon" might feel a sudden desire to reevaluate their hopes for government and society in general. As well as to adopt the realisation of how important it is not to let certain events repeat themselves. Cruel leaderships, untrustworthy public institutions and unstoppable dictatorship machinery - are we really protected from them? We are the generations so used to all kinds of social benefits, aren't we? Thus, for us, "Darkness at noon" should really be a "must read". 

References

 Laity, P. (2012, December 26). Darkness in literature: Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler.  The Guardian.

Strauss, H. (1941, May 25). The Riddle of Moscow's Trials. The New York Times.