Christmas Reading: "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev

[Dori]

Just completed first five chapters (thanks goes to the online lit-net version of this book) So far, the story has been quite good, especially, things have started being interesting from the fifth chapter.

[...]

I wish I had started the novel a few days earlier, hope I can catch up with you guys.

I'm glad you could join us, Pensive. It seems that you are enjoying it so far.

[Pensive]

I'm glad you could join us, Pensive. It seems that you are enjoying it so far.

Yes, indeed. Dialogues are mostly intelligent and entertaining. At the moment, am on the thirteenth chapter. And yes, still can't bring myself to like Bazarov as a person despite his witty character.

[Pensive]

Finally finished it. It has been one of those few books lately that I have completed in one sitting.

It will help to have a definition of nihilism at hand. My book states that "[...] twentieth century nihilism came to signify deep existential doubt or the belief that life lacks meaning. However, that is not the nihilism of Fathers and Sons. In the novel, nihilism in the philosophical sense is a rejection of idealism and a willingness to believe only in what is provable by observation; in a political sense it is anti-absolutist, a rejection of the traditional social order and a reliance instread on scientific principles and practicality."

With regard to the above definition, I believe Evgeny Bazarov is a nihilist. I think Turgenev intended for him to be a nihilist (my book also states that "In a letter to the poet and editor K.K. Slutchevsky, Turgenev advises that when Bazarov calls himself a nihilist, the word should be read as meaning 'revolutionary'"). However, his nihilism is overcome at times by human emotions, namely love.

I agree. When I look at the definition of 'nihilism' in my Oxford Dictionary, it says: rejection of all religious and moral principles. Now if we consider this definition, Bazarov doesn't seem like a nihilist to me. Having finished the book just a few minutes ago, I clearly remember him mentioning to Pavel after duel when he got wounded something like, "First of all I am a doctor so I would clear up your wounds." (I don't remember the exact wording but whatever it was, it conveyed this exact message) Now according to that, he seems to be following the usual code of morals quite well, the duty of a doctor and all that. One can say that it was his inner goodness which made him do so, no doubt that must have that played a part in that too but I feel he believed it to be his duty as a doctor too. I hope I am making sense here.

But if we actually consider how the book represents nihilism, I like the way how Dori has put it above, then probably he was a nihilist but I wouldn't be too sure about it.

Someone wrote previously in this thread that she/he considers Bazarov to be a nihilist because Bazarov himself admitted that. I don't think that everything we claim to be we actually are. Just a thought.

[hellsapoppin]

``... Bazarov to be a nihilist because Bazarov himself admitted that. I don't think that everything we claim to be we actually are. Just a thought.``


A very good and meaningful thought, it might be added. But one thing we must remain mindful of: definitions of terms evolve over the years.

Yesteryear's Republican stood for less government, non intervention overseas, civil rights, and equal opportunity for everyone.

Today (without being unduly political about it) the term means something quite different - in fact, quite the opposite of all that.

Therefore, let us be mindful of 'nihilist' as it was defined back then. I believe that Turgenev succeeds in illustrating the sterility of this ideology via Bazarov's outlook, conduct, character shortcomings, and the inevitable tragedy that befell him.

[Quark]

That's a nice tree Janine. Mine is kind of leaning to one side; I couldn't get it in the stand right. I can decorate one side, but the ornaments just slip off the other. At least one side is festive. The other I just turn to the back.

I hope everyone else is having a good Christmas.

As for Baz's title, I agree that he isn't a nihilist in the usual sense. He certainly has beliefs, and he earnestly believes that he can improve society with his ideas. The better word we might label Bazarov with is "Materialist". Bazarov does believe that better living conditions, health, and prosperity would make life better. He just reject the idea that morals, philosophies, or arts are important in any way. All of that he considers just braindead whimsies dreamed up by a malfunctioning consciousness. These are the views normally associated with Materialism. They may appear as nihilistic to an Idealist like Pavel, but really they're something seperate.

[Janine]

That's a nice tree Janine. Mine is kind of leaning to one side; I couldn't get it in the stand right. I can decorate one side, but the ornaments just slip off the other. At least one side is festive. The other I just turn to the back.

I hope everyone else is having a good Christmas.

Thanks Quark, Merry Christmas! Actually this tree is artificial in our dining room, and thus does not have the 'leaning' problem you have encountered with yours. A few years back we waited till my son could get us our main big real tree for our living room, and he found one the day before Christmas. What a disaster; it totally leaned to one side as the one you describe, not an inch of the trunk was straight...a wonder it would go into the stand. I cried (literally) and then made the best of it, putting it on top a table and doing my best to make it look presentable and hopefully beautiful. How funny - your ornaments actually slip right off one side... Now when I look at photos of ours I just have to laugh and laugh....made for some very good stories, also.

My Christmas was wonderful! My son and his wife invited everyone over to a big dinner; it was so much fun, considering his wife is expecting their first child, my first grandchild. I am very happy this Christmas, indeed!

I hope yours was great, too and everyone else on Lit Net!

[hellsapoppin]

Turgenev utilizes great literary technique in F&S and succeeds in presenting what is truly a classical novel through irony, setting, and symbolism.

First, as noted above, one can readily read this 200+ page book in very few sittings. There is great irony throughout the book as it begins with a family gathering (one much where great joy is anticipated) and it ends with a family in sorrow as a son is lost. There is further irony in that a nihilist who asserts that he does not stand for principle, ultimately stands for honor by dueling. He also disdains romance but falls in love despite his professed indifference to romance.

A great deal of meaning can certainly be ascertained through these characterizations.

But to me, the greatest literary technique used by Turgenev is the atavistic symbology that appears throughout the entire book. Here are a few examples:

''hungry as wolves''

''long haired creature''

''social lion'' {pp 16, 17}

''you and I are the same as frogs'' {p 19}

''you have an eagle eye'' { p 35}

''Bazarov's sideburns made him look like a pig in a sty'' {p 46}

''it's your privilege as an animal to ignore the feeling of compassion''

''human beings are such strange solitary animals

''nettle plants are growing out of me'' {pp 133-135}

''he's like a falcon that flies ... you and I are like mushrooms in the hollow of a tree'' {p 144}


Thus, Turgenev portrays a society that is retrogressing towards an animal state because it lacks the wisdom to adopt pragmatic principles. Perhaps no other classical Russian novel of that era quite succeeds like this gem.

[bazarov]

``Do you, after all consider Bazarov as a nihilist?``

Definitely. Especially since he specifically calls himself one.

Someone wrote previously in this thread that she/he considers Bazarov to be a nihilist because Bazarov himself admitted that. I don't think that everything we claim to be we actually are. Just a thought.

We are what people around us see us, not what what we think we are.

``Bazarov had to die, his death was inevitable``

Perhaps a spoiler alert is warranted.

Sorry, I forgot that some members are still reading it.


What would happen if Bazarov and Arkady went to see Bazarov's, and then Kirsanov's?

[hellsapoppin]

``We are what people around us see us, not what what we think we are.``


I agree in principle with that statement. But remember that definitions change with the times.

On another forum we had a discussion about 2d Amendment rights and how they should be interpreted. Someone remarked that this provision calls for a ''well regulated militia' and thought that this means a well controlled armed force. I replied that in the years 1700-1900 the word ''regulated'' meant well armed, not well controlled.

I have a law degree and know this for a fact. Immediately thereafter, a constitutional lawyer replied that I was correct.

Therefore, let us refrain from using the modern understanding of the term nihilist and let us use, instead, the past definition. On that basis, Bazarov would fit the proper definition --- at least, that has been my past understanding for the 35+ years that I have been reading classical 19th century Russian writings.

References: Tomas Masaryk, Konstantin Mochulskii, and Eugene Rose.

[Janine]

Sorry everyone I have not been in here lately. I am still reading the book, unfortunately. The holidays really interrupted my reading schedule; have had more company/entertaining than normal. I am having a friend over tonight. I will try hard to complete the book soon. Just wanted to say this actually - I have been reading the posts everyday and found them all very interesting, so far.

[hellsapoppin]

``What would happen if Bazarov and Arkady went to see Bazarov's, and then Kirsanov's?``


A good question - while I've been trying to think it over, I cannot honestly come up with a different outcome.

Both sets of elders are reform minded. They claim to be liberals who liberated their serfs but continue to treat them with condescension. They obviously love their children and hope that their adoption of the new social ideals will be recognized and appreciated by their youths.

But it did not appear to me that meeting either set of parents impacted upon the two returning nihilists as did their encounter with Madame Odintsov and her sister Katia:

Arkady tells Katia: ''I've definitely changed a great deal ... you're in essence the one to whom I owe this change ... I want to be useful ... My eyes have been opened''. He proceeds to propose marriage and is redeemed by the power of love --- Katia's love.

By contrast, Anna (Odintsov) asks Bazarov to stay at her lodging in the hope of redeeming him as well because ''he did love me once''. But, he says, ''when you say I'm kind ... It's like laying a wreath at the head of a corpse''.

Bazarov rejects the power of loving redemption and this led to his inevitable doom.

Years ago I read where one of the great Russian classicists said, ''in order to be a true Russian, you must love humanity with all your heart''. It appears Turgenev is suggesting that when Bazarov rejects the redeeming power of love, it bespeaks of an inevitable fate for Russia if it adopts alien ideals such as nihilism and socialism. That instead, it must get back to its roots (that is, one of Orthodoxy, patriotism, love for fellow Russians) or face apocalyptic peril.

As we all know from reading history, Russia chose a path that diverged from Turgenev's recommended direction. Thereafter, the extent of the horrible consequences became utterly incalculable.

[hellsapoppin]

``Turgenev portrays a society that is retrogressing towards an animal state because it lacks the wisdom to adopt pragmatic principles.``


A thought occurred to me that follows up on this point: while some regard is shown in the book for German rationalism, there does not appear to be much regard for Orthodox religion in this troubled society: several characters resort to using mild oaths such as ''for Heaven's sake'', ''for God's sake'', and ''I swear to God'', and repeated cries of ''thank God'' which bespeak of resignation. But nothing in the way of religious comfort is said to be afforded by church or religious doctrine.

There is one religious cleric named Father Aleksei but his role is minimal at best. While Bazarov affords a peasant great comfort by extracting a painful tooth, Aleksei does nothing and does not have even the slightest clue as to how to give him comfort. {p 198}

There one Orthodox religious practitioner in the story and that is Bazarov's mother Arina (his father Vasalii is also religious but not quite as Orthodox). She is said to be of the old order --- religious while superstitious, prejudiced against Jews and the poor, but charitable. Then Turgenev humors us by writing, ''Such women are not common nowadays - God knows whether we ought to rejoice!'' {p 127}

Near the end of the story Bazarov converses with a peasant on life and metaphysics. The latter addresses him as ''your worship'' and exclaims, ''there's God's will, which is why you're our superiors. The stricter the master is, the better for the peasant.'' {p 196} Obviously, he succumbs to religious resignation but derives no comfort from religion.

In the end, Bazarov dies and his grieving parents are left in a feeble state --- ''their prayers, their tears are fruitless''. {p 215} Thus, even the Orthodox religious practitioners are also left without comfort as religion affords nothing in the way of true solace or fulfillment.

[hellsapoppin]

``religion affords nothing in the way of true solace or fulfillment``


Bazarov appears to be a walking superficiality --- yet, he is highly complex. A mass of contradictions - a scientist, a medic, an antihero, a realist who seeks to end all illusions rather than one who wallows in total negation; a polemicist but one who is (despite his denials) principled to an extent: when challenged to a duel, he fought though this is not consistent with nihilism. Yet, he spared the life of his rival which does reflect the nihilist view that such a struggle is utterly useless (sparing his rival's life makes him somewhat heroic). While many abandoned nihilism, he stood with it until his death. Bazarov was a true democrat in that he treated everyone alike.

The music of the previous generation was called the ''Romantic'' school. This idealistic view of life was countered by the realism of the next generation. As a nihilist, the quest to end the delusion of romanticism constituted ''realism'' to nihilists. And while Bazarov denounced art and aesthetic creativity, he was struck by Mdm Odintsov's beauty and resourceful living. Furthermore, he was emotionally wounded when she rejected him. Yet, she welcomed him to a longer stay in her lodging (it appeared) the hope of redeeming him. In the end she requested the assistance of a medical specialist to treat the condition that infected Bazarov but it was to no avail. Anna was a true romanticist --- and she prospered more than anyone else in the story.


One last thought on religion and its notable absence in F+S -- Bazarov asserted that ''I only look to Heaven when I sneeze''. Obviously he had no use for religion as it offered nothing in the way of solace or practicality. He did not take the proper precautionary steps to avoid contagion when he worked on the body of the deceased person. In doing so, he violated a law of nature. Nothing science could do was able to save him. Prayers on his behalf were equally useless. So what could Turgenev have meant by this sad state of circumstances?

It appears that the author was saying that society needed to adopt a viewpoint or a philosophy that was geared towards utilitarian and pragmatic principles. Principles that work were needed in a changing society. Utopian ideals, flawed religion, economic injustices, and old archaic ways were not the way to improve society or to correct its problems. Each character in some way represents some fault or flaw in that society with Bazarov representing society's biggest vulnerabilities. By contrast, resourceful Anna Odintsov ( a romanticist) who was open minded and receptive to new ideals, flourished. Perhaps Turgenev was suggesting that this is the better way for Russia's transformation into a modern society.

[grace86]

I finished Fathers and Sons a little late it seems, but I will post my thoughts anyway.

I don't think that just because someone claims himself a nihilist makes him one, someone mentioned this earlier (sorry I am not going back to reread the posts). Bazarov didn't seem really convinced of it himself either...especially when he fell subject to human emotions and ideas that didn't fit his ideals...it made him angry and ultimately unhappy. When he confessed to Odintsova that he loved her and shook so terribly he was torturing himself for ideas it seemed he knew he didn't believe in himself. To me it was like Bazarov thought that so much change could happen by having this nihilistic outlook, when really he kept himself where he was at in life and never advanced because he wouldn't allow himself to express how he felt...maybe in some sense I think he was trying to take everything human out of being human. I felt sorry for him because I'm not sure how well he was succeeding.

How often do we hear a good idea (like Arkady) and try to adhere to it only to find that it never makes us happy?

It was really interesting for me to read this novel at this point in my life, because as I was reading of Bazarov and Arkady leaving university for the winter to see their families, I too was going home from university to visit my family.

In the novel when Arkady was at the table and there was that narration and Turgenev's thoughts on youth and the wine...it was uncanny how I understood how Arkady felt when addressing his dad as "father" and how to outside society he was recognized as someone different (or an adult) where at home he would always be recognized as a child in some respect (don't we all stay children in our parents' eyes?)

Okay, this might seem a little odd, but how many people (or am I the only one) laughed when they read the part where Bazarov and Pavel are duelling? It seemed comical because both parties claimed to be there because they hated each other - because of the ideas the other party possessed. (Or was it because of Fenechka?? ) It was a nice place for Turgenev to show us the contrast of the different generations though.

Sorry all my thoughts are mashed up, but it is late and I just finished the novel so I thought I would throw my opinion out there. Again, sorry if I am repeating already past conversation.

[Janine]

Hi Grace, Here I am as promised . Don't be a bit sorry. I find your post very observant and I like the way your zeroed in on the crux of the story - the 'human' aspects. Afterall, this is a story about human-beings and not puppets.

I finished Fathers and Sons a little late it seems, but I will post my thoughts anyway.

I finished up a little before you, and I felt that last page really struck a cord with me, as I closed the book...I kind of sighed.... The last paragraph or so was so poignant, meaningful to me. I will discuss this later on, and we can both post our separate translations, of that section, as we compared them last night directly. Dori, I believe, has the same translation as I do, so he might add a comment or two. I will ask him to personally. I know he liked the book exceedingly.

Grace, using the words 'a little late' is truly meaningless, I believe. I think that one can never finish up too late on these discussions. All of the threads stay open forever, so you can comment any time. I feel good that the system here alows for that, because sometimes, even months after reading of a particular story or book, a really good thought will come to you that relates back to a certain part of that text. So, I say, why not pop-in, revive the thread and comment? It is surprising how more people might surface to comment on your comment. I often check old threads, and sometimes they do surface again and even revive. I like to think they are like a book one can once again open and read parts from.

How did you like the book, Grace? This was my second reading and I enjoyed it very much and I think I understood parts much better this second time around.

I don't think that just because someone claims himself a nihilist makes him one, someone mentioned this earlier (sorry I am not going back to reread the posts). Bazarov didn't seem really convinced of it himself either...especially when he fell subject to human emotions and ideas that didn't fit his ideals...it made him angry and ultimately unhappy. When he confessed to Odintsova that he loved her and shook so terribly he was torturing himself for ideas it seemed he knew he didn't believe in himself. To me it was like Bazarov thought that so much change could happen by having this nihilistic outlook, when really he kept himself where he was at in life and never advanced because he wouldn't allow himself to express how he felt...maybe in some sense I think he was trying to take everything human out of being human. I felt sorry for him because I'm not sure how well he was succeeding.

I agree whole-heartedly with your thought here about the political confictions in the book. I don't think that Bazarov was completely convinced, he surely thought he was until real human emotion and love came suddenly into his existence. I think he also showed much wavering in his beliefs as he was dying. He tried hard to stick to his new beliefs but did not family win out in the end? He could not divorce himself entirely from his parent's love. He really did not advance, because as you said ' he wouldn't allow himself to express how he felt and maybe in some sense I think he was trying to take everything human out of being human' - that is an interesting way of putting that. I think he did try too hard to be above human or detached from being merely 'human'. Even though he made friends with the lower classes, peasants easily - was he really in close contact with them? The true intimacies of his life he could not achieve. Even his close, or so-called close friendship with Arkady, he could not maintain, when he, Bazarov, himself, cut him off as a friend. Bazarov was quite forlorn and alone and very sad to me. His isolation was self-imposed and yet when he met his match in emotional matters - Odintsova - he, by contrast in his change of heart, could see himself, as in a mirror, into this woman, I believe. She was the epitomy of the isolated human being, with full control over her emotions, heart....but was she(?)...apparently so by the ending of the novel and her marriage to a rich man. In fact, did she not try to control her sister also and keep her from happiness and true human intimacy? I don't believe that the author intended to have Bazarov succeed because this mirrors what finally did happen in Russia in history. I think the author definitely was imparting a very basic lession here that we, as humans, cannot divorce ourselves from our emotional self.

How often do we hear a good idea (like Arkady) and try to adhere to it only to find that it never makes us happy?

Exactly. Many young people are attracted by anything that appears to us as new and inovative. We naturally reject what our parents had and how they lived in an old-fashioned backward vane. That is fine, but when we lose site of the whole core of the human race, then we also lose our perspective. I think that Bazarov only knew how to reject the old ways and he had it right in thinking of advances in science and physics, but he lost sight of the simplicity of life and the ties that bind all of us. He thought to reject everything - family, love, etc...but to replace these things he had no solution or suggestion which ultimately would leave nothing but a void. If you read some of the passage - often ending paragraphs or chapter mention a void or a 'precipice'. I found this to be quite interesting and perhaps prophetic of the ending of the story.

It was really interesting for me to read this novel at this point in my life, because as I was reading of Bazarov and Arkady leaving university for the winter to see their families, I too was going home from university to visit my family.

That is incredible...when one can directly relate a story and how a character feels to ones life. I think this book is a very universal story and I agree with you about the family aspects of the novel, in your follow observations.

In the novel when Arkady was at the table and there was that narration and Turgenev's thoughts on youth and the wine...it was uncanny how I understood how Arkady felt when addressing his dad as "father" and how to outside society he was recognized as someone different (or an adult) where at home he would always be recognized as a child in some respect (don't we all stay children in our parents' eyes?)

Yes, parents never don't think of the child/adult as the child - the one they knew from a tiny helpless baby. Memory is a very strong thing. Being both a mother, myself, and a daughter, I know just how true this can be and I understand it completely. Here again, in this story, is a very 'universal' idea and though.

Okay, this might seem a little odd, but how many people (or am I the only one) laughed when they read the part where Bazarov and Pavel are duelling? It seemed comical because both parties claimed to be there because they hated each other - because of the ideas the other party possessed. (Or was it because of Fenechka?? ) It was a nice place for Turgenev to show us the contrast of the different generations though.

First time I read the dual scene I laughed right out loud. I thought it totally amusing. I sometimes think the funniest things in life are things that happen ordinarily and this whole passage was written with such wit and understanding. I like the idea of Baz contemplating his own demise the night before and yet his going along with such a old-fashioned idea such as dueling. I thought he might be killed the first time I read this book and got to this part, so when it did not happen I was quite relieved and laughed out loud. I thought a terrible humorous line was something like 'I am a doctor, not a duelist.' I will try to look up the exact quote. Anyone know what chapter the duel took place? I also liked when Baz said he knew he lived when he heart the bullet wiz by his ear....I found that somehow funny, maybe since I was relieve to know he still lived. It is funny, but this one showdown scene between Bazarov and Pavel seems to bring them together on a different plane. I don't say they become close but it strikes some sort of tolerance between them when they both face ulitmate death and live. It is a highly intreresting scene to me from different aspects.

Sorry all my thoughts are mashed up, but it is late and I just finished the novel so I thought I would throw my opinion out there. Again, sorry if I am repeating already past conversation.

No, Grace, I don't think your thoughts were 'mashed up' at all, and you are quite observant, sensitive to the story and characters and you brought out some very good basic points to the novel. Thanks for posting! I don't see where you are repeating yourself either. Post some more, if you have time; I would be interested in your further thoughts on the novel.

I loved the novel!