The Conflict Between Individual and State and the Grammatical Fiction in Darkness At Noon
             The Conflict Between the Individual and the State and the Grammatical Fiction in Darkness At Noon
             "The Party denied the free will of an individual-and at the same time exacted his willing self-sacrifice." The obvious contradiction of the above definition of the Communist party is depicts the conflict between the individual and the State in Arthur Koestler's novel Darkness at Noon. Koestler's protagonist Nicolas Salamanovich Rubashov, devout communist and former leader of the Communist party, falls victim to his own system during the time of the Moscow trials. Accused and imprisoned for crimes he did not commit, Rubashov is forced to choose between the ideology he has faithfully followed for the past forty years of his life, or a new found sense of self, which he calls the "grammatical fiction".
             During the beginning of Rubashov's solitary incarceration, he begins to doubt the infallibility of the Communist regime, and for a time, views himself independent from the Party. Rubashov's pulling away from Communism is evident in his conversation with the examining magistrate, Ivanov, during his first hearing. Rubashov addresses Ivanov's collective viewpoint with the developing views of his own:
             "Your argument is somewhat anachronistic," said Rubashov. "As you quite rightly remarked, we were accustomed always to use the plural 'we' and to avoid as far as possible the first person singular. I have rather lost the habit of this form of speech; you stick to it. But who is this 'we' in whose name you speak to-day? It needs re-defining. That is the point."
             Apart from the Party, Rubashov no longer functions as part of the Communist unit, but rather as an individual. Within communist doctrine the individual is only a piece of a larger system, and for the true communist the pronoun 'I' is not ...