What do you think?
Rate this book
Nothing Sacred: Based on Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev
Nothing Sacred, which is included in the collection Somewhere Else, is a compassionate examination of the roots of nihilism, first defined in Turgenev's novel, Fathers and Sons. And who but George Walker could cast this compassion as grounded in the audaciously absurd drama of impossibly contradictory sensibilities?
Paperback
First published May 26, 2000
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
May 4, 2008Just finished reading this play...it has been sitting on my bookshelf for far too long in an unread state.
Based on Fathers and Sons, this play made me think about turbulence in familial relationships as the old order gives was to the new order.
In Walker's dialogue, he rarely uses question marks when his characters are clearly asking a question making these sound more like statements. I wonder how an actor would approach this text.
Based on Fathers and Sons, this play made me think about turbulence in familial relationships as the old order gives was to the new order.
In Walker's dialogue, he rarely uses question marks when his characters are clearly asking a question making these sound more like statements. I wonder how an actor would approach this text.
August 25, 2025
Nothing Sacred: Based on Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev
Fabulous, magnificent adaptation of a classic included on the list of best novels ever written and indeed a glorious, sublime chef d’oeuvre: Fathers and Sons
Ivan Turgenev is less known and appreciated than Lev Tolstoy.
And yet, if we compare them as human beings, the former is superior to the latter.
This is the conclusion you draw after you read the spellbinding The Intellectuals by the master writer Paul Johnson.
While Turgenev recognized his “love child”, Tolstoy never did that and allowed some of his children to grow as “bastards”.
And not only that, but the latter was mean to the former, when Turgenev was near death and a better attitude was required
- The conclusion is:
- Read the chef d’oeuvre and forget about the human who is behind it
- Revelations about the likes of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Hemingway, Marx and Ibsen among others would not endear them to regular people
Let me just mention Rousseau, who has abandoned his offspring at a time when this lead to their near certain death.
In Nothing Sacred, at the center stage we have Bazarov.
If you ask me, this is the main character, which actually comes out from the title for he has Nothing Sacred.
He is a nihilist and a representative of the New Order, for what is worth…albeit they advocate chaos and demolition.
When asked by Pavel- my favorite character for the most part of the play- what does he stand for, what are his “principles” and what will they do after they win the battle, Bazarov makes a simple statement:
- Why? We will just destroy everything and let the next generation build…destruction is enough
With a goal like that, he could not become very dear to this reader, although he is the mentor of Arkady, who looked like the main personage, if we consider the title Fathers and Sons literally, he would be the Son.
His father is Nikolai and he represents the higher class, although he is only a small boyar, not Prince Vassily or Count Bezukhov.
Together with his brother Pavel, they also play the part of the old, conservative age group that are appalled by Bazarov and what he stands for…perhaps needless to say, I stand with the former group, with all that entails; dated principles and old fashioned, passé norms and rules.
Obviously, for such a magnificent masterpiece, we don’t have it all in black and white, with a few villains and a hero, eventually a damsel in distress…
The good men with their old fashioned principles do make quite a few mistakes, indeed one is final and fatal.
Nikolai has fathered a son with Fedosya who is a servant and therefore not quite suited to become his wife without qualms.
Pavel has had an obsession for a woman that suffered on account of his uninterrupted interest and for all its nice appearance, his insistence on fine clothes and etiquette does appear flimsy and ridiculous at times.
Doing things the old way leads to tragedy.
Bazarov on the other hand has annoyed me throughout the start and most of the story, only to reveal another side when it mattered.
For all his boasting and talk of destroying everything- order, classes…all- he does have human touches and is willing to help a beaten man, first saving him from the cruelty of a bailiff and then forgiving and taking him under his protection, when the “helpless” scoundrel tried to rob him.
Voting for the new, for progress seems natural and so natural that I could end up with an oxymoron debating about this.
- And yet, I thought of the new fashion- which actually is a comeback from about twenty years ago- that of wearing “torn jeans and pants”- I wore these twenty years ago…
- If we do not come back to wigs like in the days of the Sun King, I would say that pretty much all the fads are just “retro” for all we see had been there decades ago…
In much the same way, Bazarov advocates the New system, but to accept the New just for the sake of it sounds absurd, at least for this conservative reader.
And then there is the irony involved of voting for Destruction per se and running the risk of being ruined oneself, as a culmination that does prove something, if only the opposite of the theory involved.
This review and others are available here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And here:
http://realini.blogspot.ro/
PS- Bazarov is called by Pavel:
- The Son of Darkness
When the question arises if the nihilist had molested Fedosya, Pavel rejects the idea upfront with a jocular:
- No! You cannot love a disease!
Fabulous, magnificent adaptation of a classic included on the list of best novels ever written and indeed a glorious, sublime chef d’oeuvre: Fathers and Sons
Ivan Turgenev is less known and appreciated than Lev Tolstoy.
And yet, if we compare them as human beings, the former is superior to the latter.
This is the conclusion you draw after you read the spellbinding The Intellectuals by the master writer Paul Johnson.
While Turgenev recognized his “love child”, Tolstoy never did that and allowed some of his children to grow as “bastards”.
And not only that, but the latter was mean to the former, when Turgenev was near death and a better attitude was required
- The conclusion is:
- Read the chef d’oeuvre and forget about the human who is behind it
- Revelations about the likes of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Hemingway, Marx and Ibsen among others would not endear them to regular people
Let me just mention Rousseau, who has abandoned his offspring at a time when this lead to their near certain death.
In Nothing Sacred, at the center stage we have Bazarov.
If you ask me, this is the main character, which actually comes out from the title for he has Nothing Sacred.
He is a nihilist and a representative of the New Order, for what is worth…albeit they advocate chaos and demolition.
When asked by Pavel- my favorite character for the most part of the play- what does he stand for, what are his “principles” and what will they do after they win the battle, Bazarov makes a simple statement:
- Why? We will just destroy everything and let the next generation build…destruction is enough
With a goal like that, he could not become very dear to this reader, although he is the mentor of Arkady, who looked like the main personage, if we consider the title Fathers and Sons literally, he would be the Son.
His father is Nikolai and he represents the higher class, although he is only a small boyar, not Prince Vassily or Count Bezukhov.
Together with his brother Pavel, they also play the part of the old, conservative age group that are appalled by Bazarov and what he stands for…perhaps needless to say, I stand with the former group, with all that entails; dated principles and old fashioned, passé norms and rules.
Obviously, for such a magnificent masterpiece, we don’t have it all in black and white, with a few villains and a hero, eventually a damsel in distress…
The good men with their old fashioned principles do make quite a few mistakes, indeed one is final and fatal.
Nikolai has fathered a son with Fedosya who is a servant and therefore not quite suited to become his wife without qualms.
Pavel has had an obsession for a woman that suffered on account of his uninterrupted interest and for all its nice appearance, his insistence on fine clothes and etiquette does appear flimsy and ridiculous at times.
Doing things the old way leads to tragedy.
Bazarov on the other hand has annoyed me throughout the start and most of the story, only to reveal another side when it mattered.
For all his boasting and talk of destroying everything- order, classes…all- he does have human touches and is willing to help a beaten man, first saving him from the cruelty of a bailiff and then forgiving and taking him under his protection, when the “helpless” scoundrel tried to rob him.
Voting for the new, for progress seems natural and so natural that I could end up with an oxymoron debating about this.
- And yet, I thought of the new fashion- which actually is a comeback from about twenty years ago- that of wearing “torn jeans and pants”- I wore these twenty years ago…
- If we do not come back to wigs like in the days of the Sun King, I would say that pretty much all the fads are just “retro” for all we see had been there decades ago…
In much the same way, Bazarov advocates the New system, but to accept the New just for the sake of it sounds absurd, at least for this conservative reader.
And then there is the irony involved of voting for Destruction per se and running the risk of being ruined oneself, as a culmination that does prove something, if only the opposite of the theory involved.
This review and others are available here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And here:
http://realini.blogspot.ro/
PS- Bazarov is called by Pavel:
- The Son of Darkness
When the question arises if the nihilist had molested Fedosya, Pavel rejects the idea upfront with a jocular:
- No! You cannot love a disease!
April 28, 2012
Certain elements of this play are just to be admired, this includes perceptions of individuals regarding many entities (institutions, relations, etc). Other elements are intriguing to question, and ponder about. It reads into the unspoken, yet very familiar phenomena of societal expectations. This is one of my personal favourite reads. It's very brief, so anyone and everyone who stumbles upon this play should read it. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews