When I was reading Volker Weidermann’s ‘Summer Before the Dark‘, I saw Arthur Koestler making a brief appearance in the book. I remembered that I had a book by Arthur Koestler somewhere in my bookshelves. I thought I should read it next. This is that book.
‘Stranger on the Square‘ is the last book by Arthur Koestler. It is jointly authored by his wife Cynthia Koestler. It is supposedly the third volume of his autobiography. It wasn’t published during Arthur’s lifetime. In March 1983, one day, Arthur and Cynthia Koestler were found dead in their home. They both had a glass of drink in their hand. It looked like they had committed suicide together by having sleeping pills. It shocked their friends and readers at that time. There were papers found on Arthur’s desk which looked like part of an unfinished book. His editor took those papers and organized them into publishable form. They became this book.
This book covers the period 1940-56. It has two parts. The first part has alternating chapters written by Arthur and Cynthia. The second part is wholly written by Cynthia. Arthur’s chapters give a summary of his life till 1940 and then take the story forward, describing his new experiences, the new friends he made, the books he wrote and the controversies they led to, the new projects he got involved in, his love life. Cynthia’s chapters talk about how she came to work as Arthur’s secretary, the exciting happenings and meetings in Arthur’s place, her thoughts on Arthur’s wives and girlfriends, how she moved in and out of Arthur’s life and how she finally came back. Arthur’s and Cynthia’s voices are very different and it is very interesting to read alternating chapters in two different voices. The story suddenly ends in 1956 and we feel disappointed and yearn for more.
So, what do I think about the book? When I started reading the book and reached around 30 pages, I wanted to drop it many times. I knew that it was an unfinished book. But I don’t think that was the reason I felt that way. I think the fact that Arthur Koestler pursues multiple women at the same time and many times cheats on his current girlfriend and he himself mentions this and Cynthia also writes about it – that put me off, I think. Once upon a time this kind of behaviour by writers and artists was accepted and readers and fans let it slide, but it is hard to continue to do that. At one point, Arthur Koestler has a problem with Bertrand Russell’s wife because she disagrees with him on something and refuses to stand down and concede the point. When later Bertrand Russell defends his wife in a letter he writes to him, Arthur has a problem with Russell too. (I loved the fact that Russell stood up for his wife and defended her, especially on an intellectual issue. It was so cool.) This made me more annoyed with Arthur and I wondered why I am continuing to read the book. But I decided to continue reading, because I was still in the first chapter, and I wanted to hear Cynthia’s voice in the second chapter. I am glad that I persisted. At one point, Arthur says this about himself – “…I must confess that in early middle age I was still to some extent what is now called a male chauvinist, unable to take women who set themselves up as political philosophers altogether seriously. It was not a conscious attitude, and if accused of harbouring such reactionary sentiments I would have hotly denied it. Yet it may have played a part in the row with Peter, Bertrand Russell’s wife, and on some other occasions.” I smiled when I read that, because I can’t remember any writer calling himself a male chauvinist. Later in the book, Arthur discusses a play he wrote and is pretty ruthless in the way he criticizes it. I felt that he was being hard on himself, because after reading the plot of the play, I felt that it was pretty good. He didn’t criticize just the people he had differences with, but he frequently turned the critical gaze on himself and he was not afraid to do that. It was refreshing to see that. The book started flowing more smoothly after that and I was excited to continue reading it.
Arthur Koestler’s chapters zing when he is offering social and political commentary of his times. It is interesting to read about how his books came into being and the stories behind them. His sense of humour is intelligent and wonderful. I remember reading excepts from his most famous novel ‘Darkness at Noon’ and loving his prose and insights. We experience the same pleasure when his prose zings here. Cynthia Koestler’s style, on the other hand, is very different. It is more simple, down-to-earth and she is at home when she discusses everyday happenings.
I loved the first part of the book more than the second. In the second part of the book, Cynthia alternates between relating her own experiences and describing Arthur’s life when she is not around. The parts where she describes Arthur’s life – they are based on Arthur’s diaries, their correspondence etc. – and though they flesh out the story, they don’t feel satisfying – at some point we feel that we are reading one diary entry after another in a third person’s voice. I wish those portions of the book were fleshed out properly, but given the extraordinary circumstances under which this manuscript was discovered, we can’t really complain.
I am glad I persisted with this book inspite of the initial hiccups. It gave insights into an interesting era and we meet many interesting literary personalities within its pages and we get to see how their real selves are behind their public faces. I loved the first part of the book more, because it was more fully fleshed out. I want to explore some of Arthur Koestler’s books now, especially his masterpiece ‘Darkness at Noon‘. There are stories that George Orwell borrowed significant parts of ‘1984‘ from this book, and I want to find out whether it is true.
I will leave you with some of my favourite passages from the book.
“Oh, if she could only go back to the infinite comfort of father confessors and mother superiors, of a well-ordered hierarchy which promised punishment and reward, and furnished the world with justice and meaning. If only one could go back! But she was under the curse of reason, which rejected whatever might quench her thirst, without abolishing the urge; which rejected the answer without abolishing the question. For the place of God had become vacant, and there was a draught blowing through the world as in an empty flat before the new tenants have arrived.”
“Neutralism was indeed the most refined form of intellectual betrayal and perhaps the most contemptible. It showed a forgiving attitude towards totalitarian terror but denounced with unforgiving venom any failing or injustice in the West. It equated the Hollywood purges of suspected Reds in the film industry with the purges which had decimated the Soviet population.”
“We all have inferiority complexes of various sizes, but yours isn’t a complex – it’s a cathedral.”
“In this man,” writes Kepler, “there are two opposite tendencies : always to regret any wasted time, and always to waste it willingly.”
“Dostoevsky had once written that, even in solitary confinement and ignorant of the calendar, he would still sense when it was Sunday.”
“But changing languages is an immensely complex process of metamorphosis, especially for a writer. It involves several successive phases which are difficult to describe, because most of the changes occur gradually below the level of consciousness. In the earliest phase you translate the message to be conveyed from the original into the adopted language; at a later stage you catch yourself thinking in it – occasionally at first, and at last permanently. The final stage of the transformation has been completed when you not only think, but dream, in the language you are now wedded to.”
Have you read ‘Stranger on the Square‘? What do you think about it? Have you read other books by Arthur Koestler?
Vishy's Blog 