A very influential book, 25 Jul 2008
This book was very famous during the Cold War, for its depiction of Stalin's Terror in the USSR in the 1930's. An old Bolshevik, in one of Stalin's jails, accused of an impossible crime, reflects on his career in the revolution, going over how he gradually sacrificed all his comrades and all his principles for the "Revolution", which ultimately amounted only to the unrestricted power of a single man. As it stands it is a powerful and subtle indictment of the principle that means justifies the ends, and could apply to any ideology which is making the similar claims on someone's allegiance.

Koestler obviously had some excellent contacts who told him of the conditions in Soviet jails, but still the reality of Stalin's jails was more horrific and more surreal than even Koestler's imagination could describe. If you are looking for an accurate description of what Stalin's Gulag was really like for someone surviving in it, try Evgenia Ginzburg. Koestler's book is more of a literary meditation on the consequences of making loyalty to a faith or an organisation the basis of your moral choices, but the book is none the worse for that.

More illuminating than it sounds, 12 Aug 2007
Written in 1940, this novel reflects the kind of pessimism which followed the post-revolutionary Soviet period and with which we're now familiar. Koestler, himself only recently released from one of Franco's jails where he was imprisoned under sentence of death, builds his story around Rubashov whom we join at the point of his arrest on the sinister-sounding charge of "political divergences".

As one of the few remaining fathers of the revolution Rubashov knows better than most what lies in store for him at the hands of the new generation of brutal leaders. His downfall was as inevitable as the falling away of faith in the system which preceded it. There was a time when his belief in the power of the revolutionaries to alter irrevocably the course of history was unshakeable so much so that he himself has been the perpetrator of serious crimes, the memory of which now haunts him in his cell.

Because of that he makes an unlikely hero, but nonetheless the reader cannot fail to respect and appreciate his stoicism and to share his ironic realisation that his inquisitors are persecuting him using the very same theories and dogma with which he once suppressed opposition.

It's not difficult to see the influence which this short novel had on Orwell, most obviously in "Animal Farm" and "1984", both published later in the same decade.

The horror of Rubashov's confinement is neither sentimentalised nor over-dramatised leaving "Darkness at Noon" as accessible and relevant as it is important in the development of twentieth century fiction.

Ruthless purge, 21 Oct 2005
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)

A book about death, 16 Nov 2004
"Darkness at Noon" describes the last days of Rubashov, a former communist party official in an unnamed regime. While waiting for execution, he kills time tapping out coded messages through the walls to fellow inmates, gets interrogated periodically by a former colleague and reminisces about some past experiences.

Accompanying this character on his final steps towards death, the novel is a powerful and terrifying meditation on how this experience feels and what it means - to Rubashov himself, to Koestler's audience and to the world at large. Is he a traitor to the regime or a convenient scapegoat? Will the regime benefit from his death? If it does, does that make death worthwhile? Does his death mean anything at all?

Koestler's answer to this final question is a resounding and crushing 'no' but there is something awe-inspiring and ultimately uplifting about the nihilistic finale, and the journey there is thoroughly absorbing.

"The end justifies the means" ??? :(, 15 Sep 2004
"The characters in this book are fictitious. The historical circumstances which determined their actions are real. The life of the man N. S. Rubashov is a synthesis of the lives of a number of men who were victims of the so-called Moscu Trials".That is part of the dedicatory that Koestler wrote for his book, "Darkness at noon".

Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) was a person that believed in the progress that Communism was supposed to bring, but that became disillusioned in the way in which that dream was being carried out in the URSS. He wrote many books that give expression to his feelings of disenchantment, but "Darkness at noon" is probably the most popular one.

Not overly long, and very easy to read, this book is the story of Rubashov, an old communist who took part in the revolution and who is very loyal to the "Cause". Strangely enough, he is accused of treason, and taken to jail, where he must face harsh interrogatories. While he is in jail, Rubashov experiences flashbacks that allow us to know more about him, and the things he did due to his devotion to the Party. He betrayed people he loved, and those he appreciated, for no other reason than obedience to the Party and fear of going to jail.

We can have an idea of Rubashov's feelings and ideas all throughout his ordeal thanks to the fact that "Darkness at noon" is written in the first person. After a while, we are Rubashov, and like him we are surprised, outraged, desperate and ultimately resigned to our luck.

In the beginning, Rubashov says that he isn't a traitor and that he hasn't done the things he is accused of. But slowly our main character starts to come to terms with the idea that the truth of the accusation isn't really important, what matters is to serve the country. And if the leader (Number one) says he is to be blamed, he must have done something....

The prisioner writes a diary, where he dwells upon the nature of men, and politics. He thinks that after the revolution he defended so passionately, an individual is defined merely as "a multitude of one million divided by one million". The individual doesn't matter because only the "Cause" matters. Regarding politics, he concludes that at the end only one thing is clear: "the end justifies the means". Is it any surprise, then, that the tone that pervades this book is so gloomy?.

On the whole, I highly recommend "Darkness at noon" to all of you, for two reasons. To start with, it is a literary masterpiece, beautifully written and accessible to the average reader. Secondly, and more important, it also shows us once again that every attempt to forget that the end doesn't justifies the means ends in a nightmare.

Belen Alcat

A very influential book, 25 Jul 2008
This book was very famous during the Cold War, for its depiction of Stalin's Terror in the USSR in the 1930's. An old Bolshevik, in one of Stalin's jails, accused of an impossible crime, reflects on his career in the revolution, going over how he gradually sacrificed all his comrades and all his principles for the "Revolution", which ultimately amounted only to the unrestricted power of a single man. As it stands it is a powerful and subtle indictment of the principle that means justifies the ends, and could apply to any ideology which is making the similar claims on someone's allegiance.

Koestler obviously had some excellent contacts who told him of the conditions in Soviet jails, but still the reality of Stalin's jails was more horrific and more surreal than even Koestler's imagination could describe. If you are looking for an accurate description of what Stalin's Gulag was really like for someone surviving in it, try Evgenia Ginzburg. Koestler's book is more of a literary meditation on the consequences of making loyalty to a faith or an organisation the basis of your moral choices, but the book is none the worse for that.

More illuminating than it sounds, 12 Aug 2007
Written in 1940, this novel reflects the kind of pessimism which followed the post-revolutionary Soviet period and with which we're now familiar. Koestler, himself only recently released from one of Franco's jails where he was imprisoned under sentence of death, builds his story around Rubashov whom we join at the point of his arrest on the sinister-sounding charge of "political divergences".

As one of the few remaining fathers of the revolution Rubashov knows better than most what lies in store for him at the hands of the new generation of brutal leaders. His downfall was as inevitable as the falling away of faith in the system which preceded it. There was a time when his belief in the power of the revolutionaries to alter irrevocably the course of history was unshakeable so much so that he himself has been the perpetrator of serious crimes, the memory of which now haunts him in his cell.

Because of that he makes an unlikely hero, but nonetheless the reader cannot fail to respect and appreciate his stoicism and to share his ironic realisation that his inquisitors are persecuting him using the very same theories and dogma with which he once suppressed opposition.

It's not difficult to see the influence which this short novel had on Orwell, most obviously in "Animal Farm" and "1984", both published later in the same decade.

The horror of Rubashov's confinement is neither sentimentalised nor over-dramatised leaving "Darkness at Noon" as accessible and relevant as it is important in the development of twentieth century fiction.

Ruthless purge, 21 Oct 2005
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)

A book about death, 16 Nov 2004
"Darkness at Noon" describes the last days of Rubashov, a former communist party official in an unnamed regime. While waiting for execution, he kills time tapping out coded messages through the walls to fellow inmates, gets interrogated periodically by a former colleague and reminisces about some past experiences.

Accompanying this character on his final steps towards death, the novel is a powerful and terrifying meditation on how this experience feels and what it means - to Rubashov himself, to Koestler's audience and to the world at large. Is he a traitor to the regime or a convenient scapegoat? Will the regime benefit from his death? If it does, does that make death worthwhile? Does his death mean anything at all?

Koestler's answer to this final question is a resounding and crushing 'no' but there is something awe-inspiring and ultimately uplifting about the nihilistic finale, and the journey there is thoroughly absorbing.

"The end justifies the means" ??? :(, 15 Sep 2004
"The characters in this book are fictitious. The historical circumstances which determined their actions are real. The life of the man N. S. Rubashov is a synthesis of the lives of a number of men who were victims of the so-called Moscu Trials".That is part of the dedicatory that Koestler wrote for his book, "Darkness at noon".

Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) was a person that believed in the progress that Communism was supposed to bring, but that became disillusioned in the way in which that dream was being carried out in the URSS. He wrote many books that give expression to his feelings of disenchantment, but "Darkness at noon" is probably the most popular one.

Not overly long, and very easy to read, this book is the story of Rubashov, an old communist who took part in the revolution and who is very loyal to the "Cause". Strangely enough, he is accused of treason, and taken to jail, where he must face harsh interrogatories. While he is in jail, Rubashov experiences flashbacks that allow us to know more about him, and the things he did due to his devotion to the Party. He betrayed people he loved, and those he appreciated, for no other reason than obedience to the Party and fear of going to jail.

We can have an idea of Rubashov's feelings and ideas all throughout his ordeal thanks to the fact that "Darkness at noon" is written in the first person. After a while, we are Rubashov, and like him we are surprised, outraged, desperate and ultimately resigned to our luck.

In the beginning, Rubashov says that he isn't a traitor and that he hasn't done the things he is accused of. But slowly our main character starts to come to terms with the idea that the truth of the accusation isn't really important, what matters is to serve the country. And if the leader (Number one) says he is to be blamed, he must have done something....

The prisioner writes a diary, where he dwells upon the nature of men, and politics. He thinks that after the revolution he defended so passionately, an individual is defined merely as "a multitude of one million divided by one million". The individual doesn't matter because only the "Cause" matters. Regarding politics, he concludes that at the end only one thing is clear: "the end justifies the means". Is it any surprise, then, that the tone that pervades this book is so gloomy?.

On the whole, I highly recommend "Darkness at noon" to all of you, for two reasons. To start with, it is a literary masterpiece, beautifully written and accessible to the average reader. Secondly, and more important, it also shows us once again that every attempt to forget that the end doesn't justifies the means ends in a nightmare.

Belen Alcat

Forgotten classic of wartime, 21 Mar 2002
..What lends this book its immediacy is that it was written, and published, while the war was still in progress and the good guys weren't winning; also that instead of the usual Nazis v (mainly) Jews, it is French v (mainly) leftists of all descriptions. But this doesn't convey the book's flavour. It's a human story, rich in resonances. Even if you don't read 'war books', ignore the rather off-putting title and get swept away! Then for a more soothing view of the tail-end of the war, read Love and War in the Appenines.

Prison camp psychology and the Fall of France, 04 Feb 2002
This is one of the strongest books I have ever read. It details Koestler's internment in France as an "undesirable alien" in the early part of the war, and then his struggle to keep out of the clutches of the Gestapo as the Germans march in and the country collapses in 1940.

It begins almost as travel writing, with Koestler and his girlfriend lazing around in pleasantly bohemian fashion on the Riviera, the increasing tension in 1939 Europe seemingly a million miles away. But back in Paris, Koestler is arrested by the increasingly paranoid French authorities and interned at Le Vernet along with a ragbag collection of other foreigners. Mostly leftists, intellectuals and Jews, they include Spanish Civil War veterans, Russian émigrés, German refugees and sundry unlucky Eastern European immigrants and petty criminals. His description of the people and the hardships encountered during his three months of internment with the dregs of the European Left stands comparison with any other prison camp autobiography, including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. These are the beaten and bloody remnants of the once heroic International Brigades, betrayed by Stalin, by France and by each other -the titular Scum of the Earth.

The rest of the book follows Koestler through his release, his return to Paris, his attempts to leave for England legitimately, and his final chaotic escape through a disintegrating France. Again, the observations on the mentality of the French people and the French state faced with Hitler are incredibly acute and clear-eyed. However the most vivid feeling you take from the book is the hysterical fear, despair and disgust that grows on Koestler as the Nazis advance.

I'd recommend this book to everybody . It should be read anyone interested in 1930s radicalism and it's destruction on the anvil of the Nazi-Soviet pact, and by anyone interested in how and why France was invaded in 6 weeks in 1940. But it has strong draws on other levels as well. It deals fascinatingly with Koestler's favoured theme of Ends vs. Means, and with the psychology of political prisoners, but then it is also a skewed travelogue of France as Koestler staggers round the South West disguised as a Swiss Foreign Legionnaire trying to dodge the Panzers.

Koestler's reputation as a man has (rightly) taken a battering after David Cesarani's recent biography but nonetheless this is a very fine book. I would say it is the equal of his great novel, Darkness at Noon - it deals with similar themes but in a more direct, conversational way. Like his friend George Orwell, Koestler had the ability to write about politics with enormous common-sense and without catcalling or bandying jargon around. He refuses to be a propagandist and he gives all the people and points of view he encounters a fair and compassionate hearing, however blinkered, prejudiced or stupid they may be.

A very influential book, 25 Jul 2008
This book was very famous during the Cold War, for its depiction of Stalin's Terror in the USSR in the 1930's. An old Bolshevik, in one of Stalin's jails, accused of an impossible crime, reflects on his career in the revolution, going over how he gradually sacrificed all his comrades and all his principles for the "Revolution", which ultimately amounted only to the unrestricted power of a single man. As it stands it is a powerful and subtle indictment of the principle that means justifies the ends, and could apply to any ideology which is making the similar claims on someone's allegiance.

Koestler obviously had some excellent contacts who told him of the conditions in Soviet jails, but still the reality of Stalin's jails was more horrific and more surreal than even Koestler's imagination could describe. If you are looking for an accurate description of what Stalin's Gulag was really like for someone surviving in it, try Evgenia Ginzburg. Koestler's book is more of a literary meditation on the consequences of making loyalty to a faith or an organisation the basis of your moral choices, but the book is none the worse for that.

More illuminating than it sounds, 12 Aug 2007
Written in 1940, this novel reflects the kind of pessimism which followed the post-revolutionary Soviet period and with which we're now familiar. Koestler, himself only recently released from one of Franco's jails where he was imprisoned under sentence of death, builds his story around Rubashov whom we join at the point of his arrest on the sinister-sounding charge of "political divergences".

As one of the few remaining fathers of the revolution Rubashov knows better than most what lies in store for him at the hands of the new generation of brutal leaders. His downfall was as inevitable as the falling away of faith in the system which preceded it. There was a time when his belief in the power of the revolutionaries to alter irrevocably the course of history was unshakeable so much so that he himself has been the perpetrator of serious crimes, the memory of which now haunts him in his cell.

Because of that he makes an unlikely hero, but nonetheless the reader cannot fail to respect and appreciate his stoicism and to share his ironic realisation that his inquisitors are persecuting him using the very same theories and dogma with which he once suppressed opposition.

It's not difficult to see the influence which this short novel had on Orwell, most obviously in "Animal Farm" and "1984", both published later in the same decade.

The horror of Rubashov's confinement is neither sentimentalised nor over-dramatised leaving "Darkness at Noon" as accessible and relevant as it is important in the development of twentieth century fiction.

Ruthless purge, 21 Oct 2005
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)

A book about death, 16 Nov 2004
"Darkness at Noon" describes the last days of Rubashov, a former communist party official in an unnamed regime. While waiting for execution, he kills time tapping out coded messages through the walls to fellow inmates, gets interrogated periodically by a former colleague and reminisces about some past experiences.

Accompanying this character on his final steps towards death, the novel is a powerful and terrifying meditation on how this experience feels and what it means - to Rubashov himself, to Koestler's audience and to the world at large. Is he a traitor to the regime or a convenient scapegoat? Will the regime benefit from his death? If it does, does that make death worthwhile? Does his death mean anything at all?

Koestler's answer to this final question is a resounding and crushing 'no' but there is something awe-inspiring and ultimately uplifting about the nihilistic finale, and the journey there is thoroughly absorbing.

"The end justifies the means" ??? :(, 15 Sep 2004
"The characters in this book are fictitious. The historical circumstances which determined their actions are real. The life of the man N. S. Rubashov is a synthesis of the lives of a number of men who were victims of the so-called Moscu Trials".That is part of the dedicatory that Koestler wrote for his book, "Darkness at noon".

Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) was a person that believed in the progress that Communism was supposed to bring, but that became disillusioned in the way in which that dream was being carried out in the URSS. He wrote many books that give expression to his feelings of disenchantment, but "Darkness at noon" is probably the most popular one.

Not overly long, and very easy to read, this book is the story of Rubashov, an old communist who took part in the revolution and who is very loyal to the "Cause". Strangely enough, he is accused of treason, and taken to jail, where he must face harsh interrogatories. While he is in jail, Rubashov experiences flashbacks that allow us to know more about him, and the things he did due to his devotion to the Party. He betrayed people he loved, and those he appreciated, for no other reason than obedience to the Party and fear of going to jail.

We can have an idea of Rubashov's feelings and ideas all throughout his ordeal thanks to the fact that "Darkness at noon" is written in the first person. After a while, we are Rubashov, and like him we are surprised, outraged, desperate and ultimately resigned to our luck.

In the beginning, Rubashov says that he isn't a traitor and that he hasn't done the things he is accused of. But slowly our main character starts to come to terms with the idea that the truth of the accusation isn't really important, what matters is to serve the country. And if the leader (Number one) says he is to be blamed, he must have done something....

The prisioner writes a diary, where he dwells upon the nature of men, and politics. He thinks that after the revolution he defended so passionately, an individual is defined merely as "a multitude of one million divided by one million". The individual doesn't matter because only the "Cause" matters. Regarding politics, he concludes that at the end only one thing is clear: "the end justifies the means". Is it any surprise, then, that the tone that pervades this book is so gloomy?.

On the whole, I highly recommend "Darkness at noon" to all of you, for two reasons. To start with, it is a literary masterpiece, beautifully written and accessible to the average reader. Secondly, and more important, it also shows us once again that every attempt to forget that the end doesn't justifies the means ends in a nightmare.

Belen Alcat

Forgotten classic of wartime, 21 Mar 2002
..What lends this book its immediacy is that it was written, and published, while the war was still in progress and the good guys weren't winning; also that instead of the usual Nazis v (mainly) Jews, it is French v (mainly) leftists of all descriptions. But this doesn't convey the book's flavour. It's a human story, rich in resonances. Even if you don't read 'war books', ignore the rather off-putting title and get swept away! Then for a more soothing view of the tail-end of the war, read Love and War in the Appenines.

Prison camp psychology and the Fall of France, 04 Feb 2002
This is one of the strongest books I have ever read. It details Koestler's internment in France as an "undesirable alien" in the early part of the war, and then his struggle to keep out of the clutches of the Gestapo as the Germans march in and the country collapses in 1940.

It begins almost as travel writing, with Koestler and his girlfriend lazing around in pleasantly bohemian fashion on the Riviera, the increasing tension in 1939 Europe seemingly a million miles away. But back in Paris, Koestler is arrested by the increasingly paranoid French authorities and interned at Le Vernet along with a ragbag collection of other foreigners. Mostly leftists, intellectuals and Jews, they include Spanish Civil War veterans, Russian émigrés, German refugees and sundry unlucky Eastern European immigrants and petty criminals. His description of the people and the hardships encountered during his three months of internment with the dregs of the European Left stands comparison with any other prison camp autobiography, including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. These are the beaten and bloody remnants of the once heroic International Brigades, betrayed by Stalin, by France and by each other -the titular Scum of the Earth.

The rest of the book follows Koestler through his release, his return to Paris, his attempts to leave for England legitimately, and his final chaotic escape through a disintegrating France. Again, the observations on the mentality of the French people and the French state faced with Hitler are incredibly acute and clear-eyed. However the most vivid feeling you take from the book is the hysterical fear, despair and disgust that grows on Koestler as the Nazis advance.

I'd recommend this book to everybody . It should be read anyone interested in 1930s radicalism and it's destruction on the anvil of the Nazi-Soviet pact, and by anyone interested in how and why France was invaded in 6 weeks in 1940. But it has strong draws on other levels as well. It deals fascinatingly with Koestler's favoured theme of Ends vs. Means, and with the psychology of political prisoners, but then it is also a skewed travelogue of France as Koestler staggers round the South West disguised as a Swiss Foreign Legionnaire trying to dodge the Panzers.

Koestler's reputation as a man has (rightly) taken a battering after David Cesarani's recent biography but nonetheless this is a very fine book. I would say it is the equal of his great novel, Darkness at Noon - it deals with similar themes but in a more direct, conversational way. Like his friend George Orwell, Koestler had the ability to write about politics with enormous common-sense and without catcalling or bandying jargon around. He refuses to be a propagandist and he gives all the people and points of view he encounters a fair and compassionate hearing, however blinkered, prejudiced or stupid they may be.

Impressive piece of writing, 28 Oct 2007
An interesting novel written and set during the second world war, focusing on the character Peter Slavek who is a Communist rebel who has been tortured by the Nazi-supporting authorities in a nameless East European country and is now in a nameless neutral country. There is in fact no naming of countries and political movements in the novel; it is all done through allusion and the focus is not on political events but on the moral dilemmas faced by Peter as he grapples about whether to flee to safety in America or join the British army and how he tries to come to terms with the physical and mental tortures he has suffered. A bit harrowing in the middle section, but a good read by a gifted writer.

a brilliant political novel, 18 Oct 2002
I first read this book about two years ago and have re-read it several times since. I read the trilogy (Gladiators, Darkness at Noon, Arrrival and Departure) in order and so did this one last and it's the best of the three.
the best thing about it is the way that it pulls apart what drives people to hold certain political views, getting beyond whether they think a certain political philosophy has the correct answers into what psychological factors are at play. why do many people on the Left come from relatively good background when the project of the Left is to improve the lot of the poor and disenfranchised?
it ends with the main character aware that non-political indidents have formed his political outlook, and that his views are as much about his character as about whether he believes in the communist ideology, but he decides in any case that some things are worth fighting for.
well worth reading whether you are political or not if you're interested in what makes political types tick.

One of the best books I have ever read, 29 Apr 2001
Arthur Koestler has had some bad press - but he remains one of the political writers of the post war period. This book is revolves around the breakdown and recovery of an 'ex' communist. The plot sounds dull - but the way the book is written captured my imagination. I would recommend this to anyone who loves Orwell or Huxley.