Criticism of Turgenev

[SFG75]

Criticism of Turgenev goes along several lines.

*He could never make up his mind which side of the fence he was on.

*He was a lightweight

*He glorified the radicals of his day and thus, deserves ill things said about Fathers and Sons.

*He lampooned the radicals and really was a conservative in traditional Russia.

*Dostoyevsky and others thought ill of him, he's a lesser author.

So what do you think? Any of thse criticisms ring true or are undeservingly attached to him?

[Jean-Baptiste]

*He could never make up his mind which side of the fence he was on.
The first in the series of suggested criticisms, while warranted, has always seemed somewhat over-stated to me. I do feel that he was simultaneously playing both sides, but I don't think he was unaware of his position. From reading _Fathers and Sons_, I get the distinct impression that Turgenev was pitting two factions of society--fathers and sons, the old and the young--against each other in a very conscious way. He seems to go about it as a duty to blood-letting. I appreciate his method of presenting both sides with a mirror held in the opposing hand.
I'll think about the others you've posited here. Very good question(s).

[SFG75]

Interesting response Jean-Baptiste. I just finished Fathers and Sons last night in a 200 page reading session. I agree that he is primarily addressing the generational differences as opposed to politics. While uncle Pavel debates with Bazarov, the issue of politics is but one gulf that exists between the old and the young.

I believe that criticism is fairly dished out to both sides. You have Pavel's ridiculous duel which an embarrassed Bazarov hated to participate in. A fine example of how custom and tradition(things associated with old people) can be a bad thing amongst them. I believe that we do see Bazarove mature and settle "down" somewhat in helping his father treat the peasants. Before that, he is anywhere and everywhere like a lot of young people. This section by Bazarov's father reminds me of that clearly.

A son is an independent person. He's like a falcon that comes when he will and flies off when he lists; but you and I are like the funguses growing in a hollow tree: here we sit aside by side, not budging an inch. It is only I who will stay with you always, faithful for ever, just as you will stay with me.

Having passed through my own youth and having witnessed that of others, I can attest to the fact that many are "on the move" and seem to be uprooted. A condition which can stress one's older relations, similar to what it did to Bazarov's mother. In facing his own death, we see Bazarov realize that his renouncing of the world through nihilism doesn't make a bit of difference. Older people contributed through their own professions and interests, while he......still dies along with them. I can see the radical criticism of Turgenev supporting conservative ideals and beliefs here very clearly. While not entirely accurate, I think that the radical critique is more accurate than the conservative one which held that Turgenev upheld Bazarov as a model individual.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Very good review of the book, SFG75.
I can't claim to be very well studied in Russian literature, though what I've read places it generally as one of my favorite classes for novels. I've been thinking about your other questions, but my limited background knowledge prohibits a distinct opinion. However, I'll try to address some of them.

*He was a lightweight--
Perhaps Turgenev was not so prolific a writer as Dostoevsky or Tolstoy, but that does not diminish the value of his contribution. Fathers and Sons is at least as readable a novel as Crime and Punishment, and far surpasses Anna Karenina in that respect, in my opinion (I have been reading that book for five years, and I'm only one third of the way through.) Also, the social implication found in all of the Russian novels that I've read (generally speaking) finds a rival in Turgenev, and this theme of generations is very well treated on a fictionally philosophic basis.

*Dostoyevsky and others thought ill of him, he's a lesser author.--
This sounds to me like an inevitable squabble of jealousy. I'm not familiar with any specific references from either writer to allow me take a stand on this point. But from reading Fathers and Sons, I cannot find a reason for Dostoyevsky's resentment.

*He lampooned the radicals and really was a conservative in traditional Russia.--
Again, my opinion on this is prohibited by lack of background.

*He glorified the radicals of his day and thus, deserves ill things said about Fathers and Sons.--
"Deserving" can only be based on political ideology, and therefore has no place in literary criticism. For instance, I deny myself the freedom to criticize Mein Compf on the basis of Adolf Hitler's political motivations, but as literature, that book is the most poorly written piece of trash ever published. Therefore, Fathers and Sons "deserves" only to be criticized on its literary merit, which I estimate very highly.

What are your personal opinions on these points?

[Idril]

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

*Dostoyevsky and others thought ill of him, he's a lesser author.--
This sounds to me like an inevitable squabble of jealousy. I'm not familiar with any specific references from either writer to allow me take a stand on this point. But from reading Fathers and Sons, I cannot find a reason for Dostoyevsky's resentment.

I know Dostoevsky didn't care for Turgenev...I wish I could remember where I read that comment but it was something about the fact that Dostoevsky thought Turgenev was very simple minded and provincial. I think Turgenev and Tolstoy were friendly though, at least I know there was a time when Tolstoy thought a great deal of him, maybe those feeling cooled after a bit. I just think Dostoevsky and Turgenev had very different agendas and interests and both were brilliant in their ways but I get the feeling that Dostoevsky could be a little pretentious at times.

[bazarov]

If Turgenev and Tolstoy were friends, then it's very clear why Dostoevsky didn't like Turgenev. If your good with my enemy, then you're also my enemy

[Boris239]

Turgenev had a reputation of a coward. There are a lot of anekdotes about that. Part of it was because he was an editor of the journal "Sovremennik" and was always afraid of censure. There were a lot of conflicts when Turgenev wasn't publishing something because of his fears.

[bazarov]

Originally Posted by Boris239

Turgenev had a reputation of a coward. There are a lot of anekdotes about that. Part of it was because he was an editor of the journal "Sovremennik" and was always afraid of censure. There were a lot of conflicts when Turgenev wasn't publishing something because of his fears.

I am joking, of course Fyodor's opinion is the most relevant

[Idril]

Originally Posted by bazarov

If Turgenev and Tolstoy were friends, then it's very clear why Dostoevsky didn't like Turgenev. If your good with my enemy, then you're also my enemy

They had a sort of love/hate relationship. They were close, wrote to each other often, visited each other often yet they were always complaining about each other. Tolstoy was just so bothered by the fact that Turgenev was such a 'dandy', so concerned with outward appearences and while Turgenev had a great deal of respect for Tolstoy as a writer, I think he also thought he was a bit nuts. They had a 16 or 17 year estrangement but did eventually make it up, although they still did nothing but complain of each other in their diaries and letters to other people. It was a very odd friendship.

[bazarov]

In novel called Smoke, Turgenev said that disappearing of Russia and Russian nation would make no harm to rest of the world and it was badly accepted in Russia. Dostoevsky also didn't like his novel but him also(Karamazinov from Devils actaully represent him, he was always pro-west oriented, dandy etc.) and he attacked once his ideas( we all know how much was Dostoevsky ''obsessed'' with idea of perfect Russians) and that created conflict between them, which wasn't solved just before Dostoevsky's death.

[Inderjit Sanghe]

Dostoevskii's disdain for Turgenev's works sprung mainly from his personal vendetta against Turgenev. Although he liked him for a quite a while after he first met him (he also enjoyed his works) he began to take a dislike to Turgenev's political views, which he viewed as being unRussian and unpatriotic, and therefore wrong. He actually lampoons Turgenev with the character Karamzinov, in his novel "The Devils" which is pretty similar to Turgenev's "Father and Sons" in terms of theme and plot. Dostoevskii also owed Turgenev some debts, I think that their last argument was over this debt, which Dostoevskii had gambled away.

I like Turgenev, esp. his short story "First Love" though I guess he is widely considered as the least talented Russian author of his generation in comparison to the other "big two"-Dostoevskii and Tolstoi, which is fair enough I guess. It is silly to judge him on his personal merits-Dostoevskii, for example, had many personal issues of his own.

He lampooned the radicals and really was a conservative in traditional Russia

This is, yet again, a personal attack on Turgenev-it is not an attack on his works. Plenty of great authors had crazier political views-Hamsun and Celine were Nazi's, Satre a Communist and D.H Lawrence at one time wanted to lock certain people up in the Crystal Palace and gas them! Most of the original critcisms of Turgenev are personal and are therfore irrelevant, critcism of his work is fine, but there seems to be only one solid criticsm of his work, which is that "*He was a lightweight" which is silly because there are plenty of authors who didn't write many books.

[bazarov]

Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe

Dostoevskii also owed Turgenev some debts, I think that their last argument was over this debt, which Dostoevskii had gambled away.

Dostoesky returned that money 9 years after their argue(?!?!), while they were still in conflict.
I think that nobody attacks his work, especially not me...

[chaplin]

Originally Posted by SFG75

*Dostoyevsky and others thought ill of him, he's a lesser author.

Dostoevsky may have "thought ill of him", but Chekhov, a better and less partisan writer than Dostoevsky, thought highly of him, and often recommend his works to friends and family. Chekhov didn't like Dostoevsky not because he didn't agree with his portrayals of characters in his books (which was the main reason why Dostoevsky didn't like Turgenev), but because Chekhov felt that Dostoevsky was a wasted talent, using the, to Chekhov, sacred art of literature to lampoon newspaper editors and push his ideology. Turgenev did none of this, and neither did Chekhov. They recognized that art's only true value can come from using it solely as art.

[naumenko.1]

Yes, I agree that Turgenev was no less prolific writer than Dostoevsky and Dostoevsky took a lot from him and used his topics I believe even a lot. As I know they had very good relations for a while, Turgenev helped him with recommendation and then with money, they were on one side against rationalists but Turgenev somehow (by something insignificant) made him upset personally (I think it was not intentionally, but Dostoevsky did not want a reconciliation, Turgenev tryed more then one time. Dostoevsky did not need objectivity; in my opinion, he actually offended Turgenev as it was a good way to get rid of him - Turgenev behaved as a gentlemen but his sensitivity was partly ruined. Dostoevsky wanted to be a prophet, a spiritual leader, he did not care about his colleagues but about "insulted and humiliated" and about own artistic self-expression.

[wat??]

Dostoevsky's disdain for Turgenev stemmed from Turgenev's pro western, anti slavic ideas which clashed brutally with Dostoevsky's world view. Also Dostoevsky was a little jealous of other famous Russian authors who were making more money (and not gambling it all away) than he was.

And for Turgenev's friendship with Tolstoy? Well Tolstoy challenged him to a duel at one point, and they were estranged for a number of years. Some friendship.