The book, Darkness at Noon, is an analysis of the way that the Communist Party seemingly attacked itself during the 1930s. It examines the motivations, goals and fears of the Russian Communists.

You are to write a paper addressing ONE of following questions (be sure to identify

which question you are answering in the first paragraph of your paper) :

1. What does Koestler mean by the concept ‘anti-vivisection morality’? Describe the concept. Why was ‘anti-vivisection morality’ incompatible with Stalinist Russia? On the other hand, is vivisection morality a justifiable option for political systems? Why? or Why not?

2. What does Koestler mean by the concept ‘grammatical fiction’? Describe the concept. How does the concept ‘grammatical fiction apply to Stalinist Soviet Society? Why was this image projected? Is the grammatical fiction a justifiable option for political systems? Why? or Why not?

3. According to Koestler, what were the differences between the aims of the original revolutionary party and the aims of the institutionalized revolutionary party? What was Rubashov’s dilemma?

INSTRUCTIONS:

This is the course paper. As you answer the main question, be sure to put your discussion in context, relate it to the themes of the entire course. Explain how the issues discussed by Koestler connect to the previous experiences in Russian history.

In order to answer these questions you MUST utilize at least 2 (two) outside sources. These may be books, articles, or documents from among the primary readings available on the class website.

You are writing a formal paper, so be sure to start the paper with a brief introduction that includes a thesis statement.  End the paper with a formal conclusion. You are free to utilize any footnoting system you desire, as long as it remains consistent throughout the paper. If you are utilizing outside sources, please cite their information on a separate Works Cited page.

When writing the paper, you need to observe the following guidelines:

• Avoid long quotations.  Numerous long quotes will lead to a lowering of the grade.
• Papers that make full use of the book and utilize well supported arguments, buttressed by suitable evidence to answer the questions and present a well-organized, logical argument will receive a high grade.
• Papers that only lightly rely on the book, are not well-organized, have numerous grammatical error, and are not logical in argument will receive a lower grade.

Your paper should have a clear introduction (conforming to the specific guidelines below), a body (in which you flesh out your argument with evidence, and consider alternative arguments), and a conclusion (in which you summarize your argument and findings and “open” the paper to consideration of broader themes). Write the paper in coherent paragraphs. Each paragraph should flow naturally and logically from the previous paragraph, and on to the next paragraph, following a clear train of argument.

Cheat Sheet

When writing your review it may be helpful for you to think about the following questions:

1. What does the Tsarist officer in the cell next to Rubashov’s mean when he taps on the wall: ‘SERVES YOU RIGHT . . . THE WOLVES DEVOUR EACH OTHER’?

2. Is the government justified, in a country industrializing at a revolutionary pace, in imprisoning peasants who object to vaccination? Rubashov has one answer, the jailers another. Why? Who do you think is right?

3. Why would attitudes toward revolution and dictatorship of a middle-class revolutionary like Rubashov who was ‘given a watch as a child’ be different from those of Gletkin, who comes from a peasant background and did not know until he was sixteen that the day was divided into minutes? How do their backgrounds affect their attitudes toward revolution?

4. Is it possible to build a revolutionary society without revolutionary means? What is Gletkin’s position on this question? What is Rubashov’s position? Which side of the argument would you take?

5. Gletkin says that ‘truth is what is useful to humanity’. In any society, Communist or not, is ‘truth’ what the government has determined to be ‘useful’? If the aim of a society is to create a particular future, is it obliged to insist on particular truths in the present? Can any society afford to leave a doubter and skeptic like Rubashov at liberty?

6. Why does Rubashov sign a statement confessing ‘counter-revolutionary motives . . . in the service of a foreign Power’ when he has in fact committed no crime but doubting the Party’s truth? Why does he sometimes wonder if doubt itself may not be a crime against the Revolution in which he still believes? Why is it so important for the Party to have Rubashov, a former colleague of Lenin’s, make a public confession of treason when the only treason he has committed is in his own mind?

7. Compare and contrast Ivanov and Gletkin.

8. Is Gletkin the inevitable result of Rubashov?

9. It has been suggested that Rubashov is actually Bukharin. In what ways is this so?

10. Why is the significance of the title? Why, for somebody with Koestler’s personal history, would the title Darkness at Noon summarize the message of the book? According to Koestler, why was there darkness at noon?