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

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 the information provided to us by the media? Perhaps, we do not notice the bigger picture and simply follow mainstream opinions? Are we easily manipulated? The answers can be found in "Darkness at noon", as well as the reason why literature like this must never be forgotten. 

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

The author, Arthur Koestler, a Hungarian writer of Jewish origins, was a laureate of the Sonning Prize, and a former communist.  Having this background, he knew like no other what the system was like from the inside and decided to leave the party, publishing the world famous Darkness at noon just a couple of years later, in 1940.

The novel is set in the USSR during years 1937 and1938 and it describes the period during the leadership of Stalin called the Great Purge. Darkness at noon starts with the sudden arrest of Rubashov, an Old Bolshevik, who used to be dedicated to the socialist cause, but was cruelly abandoned by “The Party”.

Darkness at noon is often classified as a political novel and is written from a third-person point of view. The plot develops around Rubashov, the main character and the reader can feel the tension of the described events through Rubashov's internal monologues, as well as with the help of detailed descriptions of the behaviour of side characters. While the former gives us more insights into of what sort of events have been leading up to Rubashov's unfortunate situation; the latter tells us the sides of the story unknown to the main character. Together, they create intricate plot twists, that don't just serve an artistic purpose, but also a philosophical one: we do not have the 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. 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 were members of the first congress of the Party. Rubashov appeared to be the last one alive after a series of sudden deaths, Moscow show trials and a 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." - Paul Laity in The Guardian.

Apparently, most of the first congress members did not fully approve the new Soviet politics. Rubashov himself is described as being deeply disappointed in the Party, but continues to work in the name of communism. After being imprisoned, he is given two equally 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 death, or being executed without the public confession and allowing the Party to create a motive, making him a public enemy. Clearly, he is the kind of person for whom both choices are unfortunate.

Koestler very elegantly describes how Rubashov used to do the same thing with people who were not as important to the Party, but now he finds himself in the other person's shoes, without any chance of improving, or somehow solving the situation. The country, which was at that time at the height of its power, was using people one by one and never felt any guilt. Rubashov then reevaluates his life. Was this what he already knew somewhere deep inside; that he was dependent?? The only thing which can be said with a hundred percent certainty: there is no escape. He, and other Old Bolsheviks, created something which they thought was so right and bright, but it turned out to be a deadly monster, covered in the blood of its numerous victims.   

Rubashov finds himself imprisoned next to a soldier of the old king’s army. Before his imprisonment, he used to fight against such people, but now they are trapped together and have no chance of regaining their freedom. Paradoxically, his neighbour is actually being treated much better than he is himself. This is the sad irony of a political system where who is considered a hero and who an enemy can be changed within a second. Sadly, this used to be a reality for many people during the bigger part of the 20th century.

Therefore, one has to note the importance of the novel's historical context. The 20th century itself is quite a complicated period. During the first part of it, two massively powerful countries appeared: Germany and the USSR. In the latter's propaganda, Germany appeared as an 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.

"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..." - Harold Strauss for The New York Times

The publication of a novel like this was extremely important at the time. First of all, back then it was quite hard to know what the Soviet system was like from the inside, because there was a lack of open sources. The author made this information easily accessible and appealed to true events in his novel. Second of all, Koestler managed to describe and present the system as anyone else did, in the way it actually was: cruel, ruthless, bloodthirsty and without any compromise. The author also mentions that the core ideas of the Soviet Union differed from the results they got. Utopian dreams about the perfect society faded shortly after Stalin became the country’s new leader. Third of all, the novel isn't easy to read but it accurately describes the feelings and emotions of the prisoner Rubashov, who is facing an impossible choice between two types of deaths, one more dignified than the other.

Whenever literature is banned by political institutions as something that is deemed unsuitable for the folk ideology they seek, it's important to note that some works continue to protest and describe the regime as it is, resisting all forms of propaganda. Big historical and literary appreciation should be dedicated to such authors and their works. Koestler, who saw the world inside and outside the Soviet machinery, has chosen to walk this path. It is these aspects that make the novel all the more relatable and moving.

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

Readers of "Darkness at noon" might feel a sudden desire to reevaluate the hopes they have for their government, and society in general. Moreover, it makes one see 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 and material benefits, aren't we? This means that 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.