Darkness at Noon Exam
Why does Nikolai Rubashov confess to crimes against the revolution that he has not committed? What are the political options open to Rubashov following his arrest? Which option does he choose? Are the implications of the political argument in Arthur Koester’s Darkness at Noon anti-revolutionary or merely anti-Stalinist? Is Darkness at Noon an attempt to explain why the Russian Revolution in particular failed or is it an attempt to explain why all revolutions that rely on violent means to achieve their ends must fail? What is the central political argument of Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon? What are the political implications of his argument? Outline the most important differences in the political mentality of Rubashov’s interrogators- Ivanov and Gletkin?
What political options are open to Rubashov after he is arrested? Following Rubashov’s arrest Ivanov gave the option of going through a public trial by confessing to certain acts, or having a private administrative trial. Public trial:
* This could lead to the discrediting and weakening of the ideology * Rubashov held a high position within the party, and for him to be seen as a dissident would have stirred other revolutionaries * Would have made it more difficult for the party to discredit his views if Rubashov did not publically denounce himself * Doesn’t serve the revolution
* Preserves his own honour in some ways but is of no use to the greater good Confess:
* Rubashov capitulates in order to serve the revolution and the party * Although he was not guilty of anything, he cannot find any reason in his own mind not to capitulate. Rubashov has been a creature of the party for his whole life, and now the party demands that he should confess * Justice and objective truth have ceased to have any meaning for him * He feels superior to his Czarist officer who inhabits the next cell, showing the differences in thought processes from a person ingrained...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document