![]() ![]() When it was first published in 1940, Arthur Koestler’s dystopian indictment of Stalinism, Darkness at Noon, was hailed as a seminal work. Meanwhile, the brilliance of her title, with its layers of meaning, will remain, as it should, undimmed. But it will never have the historical influence of Hardy’s. It also enjoys a superior claim to authenticity. Boehm’s translation is better and more readable. Boehm has a long track record in literary translation-and it shows. While Hardy’s original translation and Philip Boehm’s new one retell very similar stories, the differences between them add up, and are worth noting both for their style and for the way they convey Koestler’s message. ![]() As such, he was ideally equipped to explain that creed’s millenarian appeal, and the ferocity that its imposition would inevitably bring in its wake. ![]() Koestler had only recently abandoned communism ( Darkness at Noon is also a reckoning with his own past), but he never shook off the transcendental longing it once satisfied. Darkness at Noon may or may not answer the question why so many Old Bolsheviks really went crawling to their deaths, but it does clarify why they had been (and their intellectual heirs still were) prepared to send those who were in the way to theirs. ![]() Koestler’s depiction of one communist’s crisis of faith remains essential reading. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2023
Categories |