Turgenev

[Nile577]

FATHERS AND SONS - IVAN SERGEYEVICH TURGENEV

"There was a time when I used to say: 'I will do many things in life, and refuse to die before I have completed those tasks, for I am a giant': but now I have indeed a giant's task in hand - the task of dying as though death were nothing to me... No matter. I am not going to hang my head."

 

[Nile577]

Online text of 'Fathers and Sons' here

Has anyone else read this? Have any thoughts/opinions? Any comments on themes? What is political 'Nihilism?' Is nihlism inherently opposed to Romanticism? Do you like Russian literature in general? Does this deserve to be ranked alongside Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky?

 

[Omnis_Sathanas]

Online text of 'Fathers and Sons' here

Has anyone else read this? Have any thoughts/opinions? Any comments on themes? What is political 'Nihilism?' Is nihlism inherently opposed to Romanticism? Do you like Russian literature in general? Does this deserve to be ranked alongside Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky?

With the exception of Notes from the Underground, I liked this better than anything from Dostoyevsky I've ever read. Turgenev wrote a very concise and interesting book with Fathers and Sons, mainly because it deals with the difficulties of putting ideals in action within a given "real" or "material" context. I've often found in my own life that I need to indirectly resort to avoiding certain people and alienating myself in the process because their lifestyle greatly conflicts with what I believe in. That is, if I socialize with said persons; I will either feel like I'm wasting my own time or compromising my integrity.

On a side note, I think his definition of "Nihilism" was more reactionary than philosophical.

 

[speed]

Online text of 'Fathers and Sons' here

Has anyone else read this? Have any thoughts/opinions? Any comments on themes? What is political 'Nihilism?' Is nihlism inherently opposed to Romanticism? Do you like Russian literature in general? Does this deserve to be ranked alongside Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky?

Yes, I have read it (although 9 years ago), and I remember arguing alone before my class of dowdy, bourgeois, conservative co-eds, who like good little politically correct democrats (not the political party)-- who knew little about Russia pre-Revolution--condemned Bazarov, without actually considering what he represented, and why he represented it; and I of course, argued what Bazarov represented, and why he represented it. Of course this was a Russian history class (amazing we actually read this in otherwise pointless college!).

Interesting question you raise though, as Bazarov was anything but a romantic. In fact, the conservative element tried to preserve Romanticism. Bazarov if I remember correctly, was a cold emtionless man, who believed in science. Of course, the Russians differ in a great many ways than the rest of the west.

Turgenev was an excellent writer. His writing has a french flair, with a touch of moralizing. And indeed, this book was extremely important to all of literature. In fact, this book is one of the few examples of the power of literature on the world. Turgenev was the first Russian author widely translated outside of his motherland. He introduced the world to Russia's political, philosophical, and even psychological climate. And I believe the very word nihilism, was largely derived from the neologism found in this book. So of course, he is just as important as those other two Russian writers you listed. i think its ridiculous to rank or rate authors, but I can say Turgenev is a better writer (his prose, plotting) than Dostoevsky, and much more concise and to the point without losing characterization than Tolstoy. But of course they were better writers in many areas than Turgenev. So anyway, indeed, he's a incredibly important writer, and this is a book everyone should read.

 

[Nile577]

Heh, it's interesting that you defended Bazarov. I would be curious to hear what your argument was, if you can remember. Perhaps I can sympathise with his behaviour within the context of the specific historical period but I must confess, I find him quite an abhorrent character aside from that. His ruthlessly positivist, anti-aesthetic view of life just about devalues everything I find sacred. I think it's an immeasurably strong testimony of Turgenev's power that when I read the novel I felt genuine pathos at his death.

Turgenev is certainly admirably concise. It's often noted that he's also less didactic/prone to getting side-tracked than Tolstoy (*groan* at the 'voting ballot' section in Anna Karenin), or Hugo come to think of it, if we are to compare him to the French Romantics. As others have said Bazarov certainly keeps company alongside Stavrogin and Raskolnikov, though Dostoyevsky affords a much greater insight into the inner feelings of the latter, in particular.

It's interesting that The Devils was largely written in response to Fathers and Sons. The intro to my edition makes the point that Verkhovensky is very similar to Nikolai Kirsanov, only presented by Dostoyevsky with the scorn of a Slavophile. I was also reading there that Dosty viciously satires Turgenev himself, too, in the figure of the absurdly vain Karamozinov (which is quite amusing, seeing as apparently T. himself brutally maligns the affectatious nature of Paul Kirsanov in F&S). Anyhow, it's excellent to find two superb novels written against the same political backdrop and covering the same subject matter from different perspectives.

 

[speed]

Heh, it's interesting that you defended Bazarov. I would be curious to hear what your argument was, if you can remember. Perhaps I can sympathise with his behaviour within the context of the specific historical period but I must confess, I find him quite an abhorrent character aside from that. His ruthlessly positivist, anti-aesthetic view of life just about devalues everything I find sacred. I think it's an immeasurably strong testimony of Turgenev's power that when I read the novel I felt genuine pathos at his death.

Turgenev is certainly admirably concise. He's also less didactic/prone to getting side-tracked than Tolstoy (*groan* at the 'voting ballot' section in Anna Karenin), or Hugo come to think of it, if we are to compare him to the French Romantics. Bazarov certainly keeps company alongside Stavrogin and Raskolnikov, though I think Dostoyevsky affords a much greater insight into the inner feelings of the latter, in particular.

It's interesting that The Devils was largely written in response to Fathers and Sons. Verkhovensky is very similar to Nikolai Kirsanov, only presented by Dostoyevsky with the scorn of a Slavophile. He viciously satires Turgenev himself too, in the figure of the absurdly vain Karamozinov (which is quite amusing, seeing as T. himself brutally maligns the affectatious nature of Paul Kirsanov in F&S). Anyhow, it's excellent to find two superb novels written against the same political backdrop and covering the same subject matter from different perspectives.

Its wonderful to have another bibliophile here.

I think at the time--nine years ago--I was much more revolutionary in spirit, taken with reading Bakunin, and thus able to appreciate the scientific Maoism Barazov preached and represented in his pre-Chernyshevski state. Still, Russian history up to this time, was terribly corrupt, repressive, etc, and thus i suppose at the time, I sympathized with why an intelligent person (and many other real intelligent historical figures in Russian history) would essentially accept the exact opposite of Tsarism (although replacing it with the tyranny of scientific socialism) and the entirety of Russian culture. And of course, I think knowing Russians and their love for duality, this acceptance of Barazov's ideas by Lenin and much of the educated Russian intelligentsia was to be expected, and was foreseen as you've pointed out, by Dostoevsky.

Tolstoy does love detail, hehe. And yes, I think The Devils is Dostoevsky's most interesting novel philosophically, and character-wise. And even though his characters are types, I dont believe Ive read anything by anyone--pscyhologist, writer, etc--perhaps Shakespeare, who comes close to his level of psycholigical understanding. But, you know, besides The Double, some of his short stories, and Notes From the Underground, when I've attempted to reread a few of his novels, Im amazed at how clumsy and ridiculous they are in terms of plotting and the prose itself. I have to say, he has that almost Stendhal-esque rush to his prose, with that feeling everyone is skating on the razors edge.