“Koestler, Havel, McAdams, and You: Debating the Truth Virtually chez McAdams”
I read the news today about two lucky men who have come back to life: Arthur Koestler and Vaclav Havel. As their ultimate fan, I hasten to invite both thinkers, as well as you, to share a Zoom dinner with me. My European guests begin dinner by complaining about the admittedly lousy technology as well as my wine selection (the Chardonnay, it seems, does not go well with my filet mignon!). However, after a few minutes of this prattle, 
I run out of patience and demand high intellectual compensation for my virtual repas. At first, the two authors are shocked by my rude intervention. Yet, not being strangers to rude behavior, they quickly leap at the opportunity to debate.
HAVEL: Well, McAdams, if you insist. I have been rereading Darkness at Noon and thinking about the long history of global communism. I am now convinced that my theory of “living in the truth” is so powerful that even Gletkin could have been persuaded that it is better to live in the truth than to live in a lie.
KOESTLER: That’s utter nonsense, Vaclav! Can’t you see that Gletkin would never have chosen your ideal world? Whatever the circumstances, he always had powerful reasons for remaining exactly as he was.
MCADAMS (relieved to get beyond the wine pairing): Well, finally the two of you have come up with a compelling topic. Let’s ask our quiet dinner partner from Notre Dame to decide which of you is right about Gletkin.
At this point, the three of us turn to you (Koestler and Havel have faintly menacing looks in their eyes).
MCADAMS: Okay, so which of these two gentlemen is right? And don’t think you can please both of these great thinkers simultaneously. I, too, want a clear answer! In fact, while you’re at it, here’s a related question: Will I be happy or sad when I consider the implications of your answer for our understanding of human nature?
Please write an essay of no more than five (5), double-spaced, typed pages in which you take a firm stand on these two questions. Note: you will need to explore both speakers’ underlying assumptions about life under a communist dictatorship. You will also need to address what it means to live in the truth. Finally, you will need to think about how your argument relates to the theme of human nature.
This question is designed to encourage you to “get into the heads” of these writers. Analyze their arguments, but also feel free to use your imagination. Cite your readings. Provide evidence for your claims. Choose a strong title for your essay.
Remember: My expectations are not unreasonable. I merely expect you to write the best paper you have ever written.
To this end, be sure to reread my Google document Tips for Great Writing. I expect you to adhere to my rules. In particular, “On the other hand,” does not mean “In contrast”! You might also reread my comments on your previous essays. To quote one of the founders of modern sociology: you have nothing to lose—and a world to gain!
Your assignment is due by Noon, Friday, May 8. Of course, please feel free to turn in your essay earlier. If you would like detailed comments on your paper, please let me know and I will send them to you the following week.
Please title your Word document (no PDF or other frustrating format!) in the following fashion: [yourname].finalessay.communism2020 No exceptions!
Good luck, be safe, and keep in touch!
AJM