Darkness at Noon (Vintage Classics)

This is a grim book on a grim topic, told with intelligence and conviction. Quite naturally it sparks associations with Orwell, both 1984 and Animal Farm. I found it every bit as harrowing to read as 1984. The book was written at the time of the Soviet pact with Hitler’s Germany, but its value and meaning extend well beyond its historical context. It is about communist dictatorship and though never explicit as to setting, other than largely in a state prison, it clearly alludes to Stalin’s Soviet Union.The central character, Rubashov, has fallen foul of the Party, in which he once held a prominent position. Relatively small changes in political ideology have powerful repercussions. Rubashov’s chief interrogator, himself falls foul of the system and loses his life. Ivanov is replaced by Gletkin, more clearly a product of the party machine, a man who like many others in power puts his faith in physical torture as a means of eliciting confessions from revisionists. Much of the action takes place within Rubashov’s mind, as he paces his cell. He knows that in his time in authority he is guilty of betrayal, and one particular woman’s fate is lodged inextricably in his consciousness and perhaps his conscience. His mulling over his previous role and his present predicament is mixed with much subtle theoretical speculation about communism, at times for me, without any real depth of understanding of either theory or shifts in emphasis, can be difficult to follow.The book is as relentless as the system it portrays. For those who want to move the argument on there is an extended discussion arising from William Podmore’s negative review of the novel and subsequent comments, that are all but separate reviews in themselves.

I first bought and read Darkness at Noon in the 1970's, when the Soviet Union seemed likely to go on for ever, even though by then it was apparent to everyone that it was a dictatorship without purpose. I re-read it every few years until my paperback copy finally fell apart, and I bought this hardback edition and read it again this year. It still retains its fascination. The front cover describes it as "a timeless classic". I agree.

For some reason this book, which was so popular when it came out, is now hard to find. Such a terrifying description of the cold wrath of totalitarian communism. Perhaps blocked for the same reason as Orwell's Animal Farm.

The book itself is quite gripping, the printing quality is not that great. Lowercase Hs sometimes look like Bs, letter half printed or smudged. Don’t know if there’s a different Edition out there

It's a novel following the character Ruboshov and his imprisonment in an unknown communist country. He was a well known and respected official party member but is held on the belief that he is a traitor.But the book is so much more than that. It could almost be a biography from the way that it is written. It's expertly detailed, obviously drawing from Koestler's own personal experiences.Ruboshov's journey from that of an angry caged old man, to that of one who has come to terms what has to happen, is very enjoyable to read. But it is also quite informative of what life was like in the USSR during Stalin's reign (albeit that's all interpreted!).The only slight problem I had with the book is that all the characters are so logical and unemotional, which leaves you kind of detached from any of their suffering. You can't really connect with them in the way that you could with, say, D-503 in We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. But maybe that is the point? That you're supposed to get the idea that there is a greater good that they're all sacrificing themselves towards, whatever the consequence. They don't see themselves as individuals. It's all about the state as a whole. To (badly) quote one of the statements from the book: there is no 'I', if there are a million people, then the individual is the result of one million divided by one million.Overall, the book is gripping to the end. It's insightful, obviously influential and despite the heavy political ramblings that occur every so often, it is surprisingly easy to read. And it is surprisingly neutral in that it never condemns nor condones the regime. I thought it would be heavily leaden with detest for the communists, but nope. It was pleasantly middle ground!

I think Tony Just said of this book that 'This is the book that everyone either had read or once wanted to read. Today it's only read by the cognoscenti'. Or something along those lines. Personally I wouldn't listen to a thing you thought about east European history if you haven't read it.

Nothing better written about European dictatorships, whether old or new Russians, new Polish - Hungarian or similar

This is a classic, if one imagines the dialogue between Winston Smith and O'Brien in "1984" being turned into an entire novel and darkened this is it.