Arthur Koestler (1905--1983)

A bit of websurfing shows Koestler to be a pretty dubious character. He believed in parapsychology; he supported a host of cranky causes; he was personally odious at times; his own suicide is nothing, but that he let his wife join him is also odious. Even I can see that The Sleepwalkers is very derivative where it is good and something of a hatchet-job where it is bad. I was never able to finish A Darkness at Noon though many have considered it a great novel. It must be said that he opposed totalitarianism.

One wonders if anything can be salvaged from Koestler. If every quote and conjecture from Koestler has to be defended from one's own distaste for him and one's doubts about his accuracy, honesty, and judgment, then I guess I'd better dismiss him to the ash-heap despite his talents and his artistry as a writer.

Works

1. Koestler, A. 1977 (1959), The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe (Harmondswoth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd.) (Ko)
   Koestler's book has been justly derided over the years. He was grinding some pretty idiosyncratic axes. Many of his main points are really objectionable after one has seen the solid work of others. Personally, I find some of Koestler's attitudes objectionable too. But it seems to me that later writers have had to at least concede that Koestler scored a few sound points. His insistence that Kepler had mystical side was right. Of course, it was not a new insight since Kepler's foremost biographer Max Caspar had already presented it ( e.g., Ca-377. ) And although Koestler's treatments of Copernicus and Galileo are unjust and belittling, it's hard to deny that Copernicus was very, very cautious and that Galileo could be arrogant.

   Actually, Koestler's portrayal of Galileo may be a self-portrait.