Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler

The funny thing about this book is that it seems to be a mash-up of three books I've previously read: Catch-22, Crime and Punishment, and Native Son. And what's more, all of these books (with the exception of Crime and Punishment) are on the Top 25 list!

Considering Catch-22 was the book I just finished reading (my review can be read here), its similarities were the most striking to me. Almost immediately, the main character Rubashov encounters a case of circular-reasoning much like... well, much like every character in Catch-22. That excerpt (which can be read here), although short, is just the beginning of these resemblances. For one, Gletkin, the commanding officer in charge of Rubashov's case, is as conniving and evil as Colonel Cathcart. They both twist the words of their inferiors in order to charge them with crimes they didn't commit. And the inferiors, though once idealistic youngsters, are devoid of hope when faced with their immutable fates.

Crime and Punishment is not only emulated in this novel; it's actually referenced! Ivanov, another interrogating officer, constantly teases Rubashov for being "a Raskolnikov". They spend time discussing not only Raskolnikov's faults (as anyone who has read C & P knows are many), but also why what he did was wrong. During an intriguing monologue, Ivanov claims that Raskolnikov was wrong in killing the old woman, not because it was the morally wrong thing to do, but because he killed for his own personal benefit. If, for instance, he "had bumped off the old woman at the command of the Party," then the murder would be justified. Ivanov's statement comes to play later in the story, when they suggest Rubashov wrongly confess to treason for "he good of the party".

The similarities to Native Son are more subtle. Both Bigger Thomas, the main character in Native Son, and Rubashov are ruthless men. They killed innocent people because they thought they had to, and for that they were punished. In both books, the reader can't help but think that perhaps Bigger and Rubashov will be spared the severity of the law. However, she knows that any other ending would be unfaithful to the scenario, and therefore both characters must suffer the deathly consequences.

Perhaps it is because the book felt so familiar that I didn't like it very much. Every twist, every turn in the story seemed uninteresting. I knew how the story would end as soon as I realized which 3 books Darkness at Noon reminded me of. Of course, none of this is the fault of the author. If I had read this book before all the others, I may have found it supremely engaging. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. However, the book is still a good rendition of the Communist Party during the purges, despite Koestler's ommision of specific countries *ahem, Russia* or party leaders *cough cough, Stalin*.

And what's funny is the fact that George Orwell claims he was inspired by this book to write some of the scenes in 1984. So I guess all these great books feed into one another! More on that when I finally read 1984 ;)

Until next time!