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 …show more content…
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 with the party ideology versus the ‘bourgeois’ angle who would uphold his honour * The officer believes that honour is about doing what you think is right, an individualist perspective, where as Rubashov contends that to uphold the honour of the regime/revolution is more honourable.
Ideology dictates the actions of all players in the regime – citizen and