Что делать?

by Nikolai Chernyshevsky

11 июля 1856 г. в номере одной из больших петербургских гостиниц находят записку, оставленную странным постояльцем. В записке сказано, что о её авторе вскоре услышат на Литейном мосту и что подозрений ни на кого иметь не должно. Обстоятельства выясняются очень скоро: ночью на Литейном мосту стреляется какой-то человек. Из воды вылавливают его простреленную фуражку.

Nikolaj Chernyshevskij – Chto delat?.

Genres: Fiction, Russian Literature, Classics, Russia, Philosophy, Politics, Novels

596 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1863

About the author

Nikolaj Gavrilovič Černyševskij (Russian: Николай Гаврилович Чернышевский, Николай Чернышевский) was a Russian revolutionary democrat, materialist philosopher, lexicographer, journalist and socialist (seen by some as a utopian socialist). He was the leader of the revolutionary democratic movement of the 1860s, and an influence on Vladimir Lenin, Emma Goldman, and Serbian political writer and socialist Svetozar Marković.
The son of a priest, Chernyshevsky was born in Saratov in 1828, and stayed there till 1846. After graduating from Saint Petersburg University in 1850, he taught literature at a gymnasium in Saratov. From 1853 to 1862, he lived in Saint Petersburg, and became the chief editor of Sovremennik ("Contemporary"), in which he published his main literary reviews and his essays on philosophy.

He was the spiritual guidance of the progressive intellectuals. Because of his radical ideas he was arrested in July 1862 in St. Petersburg, he was released after seven years of prison in Siberia and eighteen in exile and confined in the Fortress of St. Peter and Paul, where he wrote his only finished novel Что делать? What Is to Be Done?, written during his imprisonment. The novel was written in a only apparent innocuous style and with a romantic plot in the fashion style of the era foreshadowing its real messages and its deeply critical political and social themes to avoid censorship. The novel was published in the Sovremennik review in 1863 and later, when it was banned, the novel began to circulate in clandestine copies becoming a cult novel for generations of Russian revolutionaries, who sought to emulate the novel's hero, who was wholly dedicated to the revolution, ascetic in his habits and ruthlessly disciplined, to the point of sleeping on a bed of nails and eating only meat in order to build strength for the Revolution. Among those who took inspiration from the character was Lenin, who wrote a work of political theory of the same name, and who was ascetic in his personal life.

In 1862, Chernyshevsky was sentenced to civil execution (mock execution), followed by penal servitude (1864-72), and by exile to Vilyuisk, Siberia (1872-83). He died at the age of 61, only four months after his release and his return to his hometown Saratov.

Reviews

[The Narrator · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dear Reader, the criticism of this novel is that it is poorly written. I can assure you this is not the case. Chernyshevsky - indeed once a dear friend of mine (we spent some time together in the Fortress of Peter and Paul) - with a few initial "striking scenes" comes right out and admits he's not trying to win you over with plot. Plot is grossly overrated anyhow; most modern "authors" would be well served to learn that lesson (and why must a plot have this silly, redundant arc to it? You've seen it once, you've seen it a million times! So for the love of God, try another shape!). In any case, he's very funny, and this translation, including carefully researched footnotes, is quite excellent. I might go so far as to describe it as a brilliant work; in it you will be introduced to my world, a world of "swindlers and fools" - where your choice is to be but one or the other (and one questions whether or not this remains the case today). Now of course there is a great deal more to say about the impact of this novel on certain figures, characters you might call them, who loomed rather large in Russian politics - indeed who cast their shadow, as it were, on the course of modern history, in particular one who suffered from painful migraines, who adored chess and mushroom hunting, among other things... Oh, but Dear Reader, I am not an historian! My duty is merely to recommend this work, which, in all candor, is one of my favorites and should be mandatory reading to any poor soul seeking to understand the origins of certain... ideas, shall we say. And oh, but ideas are marvelous things, aren't they? Do read this.

[Kushagri · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

I have rounded down the rating, since I was debating between 3 and 3.5 stars.

I didn’t dislike the book; on the contrary, I quite liked it. But the points I raise in this review, are exactly what I said they are, a review! But it may seem like a roast at some points. A preemptory apology for that.

I don’t much know how to review this book. So I will not get into the plot but writer’s intentions. There is a continuous switch between narrative and meta narrative. I felt the novel to be like a pamphlet on the author’s world vision. It has to be judged separately as a work of fiction and as a treatise of socio-political importance. It represents his ideal for a socialist utopia. It was at times good to be true and the three main characters were like Ideal people. But in calling these people Ideal, I basically lower my estimation in Chernyshevsky’s eyes because in that case the reader is some underworld character.
The author was quite condescending to the reader. But as a work of literature the flow of ideas seemed preachy and forced. It didn’t seem natural and free flowing.

The characters live their life according to the philosophy of rational egoism. The following lines from the introduction give an idea of this principle.

The resulting theory of rational egoism enabled him to reconcile the individual’s need for personal self-fulfillment with the collective interests of the community. Put simply, Chernyshevsky argued that all human behavior was motivated by the desire to maximize personal pleasure and to avoid pain. Since human motivation thus was both constant and universal, differences in the behavior of people could be explained only by the different ways in which their socioeconomic environment led them to act in pursuit of their self-interest. Crime and courage, avarice and charity, all emanated from the same egoistical impulse.

The central theme is the liberation, development and independence of a woman, Vera Pavlovna. I liked the following quote from the book where Vera answers to her friend Julie about her reasons for denying a socially and monetarily advantageous marriage.

“You call me a dreamer and ask what I want out of life. I prefer neither to dominate nor to submit. I wish neither to deceive nor to dissemble. I don’t want to be concerned about other people’s opinions, or strive for what others advise, when I really have no need for it. I have not become accustomed to wealth, and have no need for it myself. Why should I seek it only because others consider that it’s good to have and therefore that it would be good for me? I’ve not been in society and have never experienced what it means to be dazzling; it still doesn’t attract me. Why should I make sacrifices for a brilliant position only because other people think it’s valuable? I’m unwilling to sacrifice not only myself but even my slightest whim for something I really don’t need. I want to be independent and live in my own way. I am eager to acquire only what I really need; what I don’t need, I don’t want and won’t want. I don’t know yet what I’ll need later. You say that I’m young and inexperienced and that in time I’ll change. So what? When I change, then I will; but for now, I don’t want a thing, nothing that I myself don’t desire. And you ask me what I want now: welt I don’t even know myself. Do I want to love a man? I don’t know. When I awoke yesterday morning, I didn’t even know that I would want to love you; for several hours before I did, I didn’t know that I would, nor did I know how I would feel when I did. So now I don’t know how I would feel if I loved a man; I know only that I don’t want to submit to anyone. I want to be free; I don’t want to be obligated to anyone for anything. I don’t want anyone ever to say, ‘You’re obligated to do this for me!’ I want to do only what I desire and want others to do likewise. I don’t want to demand anything from anyone. I don’t want to impinge on anyone’s freedom and I want to be free myself.”

But the book was ahead of its time … at times too far ahead that it escapes the scope of vision! Many narratives seem superfluous until later we realize their importance to the overall building of characters.

It took almost 40% of the book for me to going from slight perturbation to (“ohh! It makes sense”) satisfaction. It was at times tedious and the novel was treading on a thin line between being a work of fiction and a social reform treatise.

The author’s patriarchy, and feminism were having a tug of war. The novel was their middle ground. Some moment I am reflecting that wow that’s ahead of times feminist thinking, then he goes and utters something misogynistic and offensive (perhaps it meant as a dig at the social scenario, and not his own opinions! But who knows?)

Also it’s unjust to expect that written in prison, while being falsely persecuted, the focus will naturally lie in conveying revolutionary ideas and not enhancing aesthetic beauty of the novel.

I will share some quotes from the introduction of the book to give an idea of how to perceive this work and a glimpse into Chernyshevsky’s beliefs and principles.

Chernyshevsky claimed that body, mind, and spirit represented merely different aspects of a single, unitary human organism that was an integral part of nature. Action, thought, and emotion thus were nothing more than sensual responses to external stimuli and therefore were governed by natural laws. Chernyshevsky argued that these laws could be discovered by rigorous application to human society of the methodology and concepts developed in the natural sciences by such pioneers as the French physiologist Claude Bernard. Human beings would then be able to reshape their social as well as natural environment in accordance with their needs.

His priorities relating to the novel while writing it, were described in the following lines.

For him, art represented a medium for revealing, vicariously experiencing, and thereby better understanding reality. Reality itself could not be transcended, only comprehended. Idealist notions of pure art or beauty therefore were not simply false but dangerous, because they obscured reality and subordinated it to an unrealizable ideal. Chernyshevsky concluded that art should therefore be judged on the basis of its fidelity to reality and its ability to expand human knowledge. Hence his theory of aesthetics essentially endeavored to transform art into an instrument of education. Taking this principle a step further in What Is to Be Done?, Chernyshevsky sought not only to explain reality but also to change it by providing radical youth with guidelines for social behavior and political action.

This book was written as a response to Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. Some lines from the introduction give an idea of this.

In his own novel he sought to refute Turgenev’s portrayal of the “new men” (and women) and to present a more “accurate” image that would demonstrate the possibility of reconciling “rational egoism” and romantic love in a single ideology that allowed for effective action.

he transformed Bazarov’s negative, ill-conceived, and easily abandoned nihilism into “rational egoism,” Bazarov’s “abyss of romanticism” into mature, “rational” love, and his self-destructive urge into a revolutionary movement. Even Turgenev’s caricature of a “liberated woman” (Kukshina) was replaced by the genuinely emancipated Vera Pavlovna.

Further a response to Chernyshevsky’s book was Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky.

I would like to thank my friend Cleo for recommending me this book!

[Mir]

(I don't recall at this point which translation I read.)

Written in in the few months the author spent in prison on false charges of instigating civil unrest, this political tract in novel form presents Chernyshevsky's views on materialism, communalism, and feminism.

Chernyshevsky shows that only the respectful marriage of equal individuals can be successful. Both parties should be free to pursue happiness, even if it involves ending the marriage because they are no longer in love. Women ought to be free to work outside the home, and spouses ought support one another's careers as they are able.

In the workplace, employees should share in business decisions and profits. If it isn't clear who is best at which jobs, everyone should try the different tasks and see who is best suited to them. Experts should be brought it to teach new skills or simply provide continuing education for workers.

Workers should live near the place of work, creating a local community and also saving transit time so that they can get more sleep or have more time to spend on other activities. Everyone should, collectively, think of and plan for the future rather than putting individual interests first.

Justice begins in material conditions.

[Michael Steger · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a rather peculiar book, which I enjoyed quite a lot. It was
written in 1863, while its author, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, was in prison for opposing serfdom. Chernyshevsky, who spent a number of years in prison and died in forced exile in Siberia, was considered one of the
most radical men of his time, one of the 'new men' of the 1860s, who opposed themselves to the 'men of the '40s' such as Dostoevsky and
Turgenyev. 'What Is to Be Done?' was for a long time considered the
exemplary radical Russian novel, depicting women and men whose approach to life is essentially one of rational egoism and utilitarianism (Chernyshevsky was greatly impressed by Mill), and who occasionally say things like, 'chemistry is infinitely more needed by society than is
poetry.' The characters engage in intellectual debates; there are
stories within stories (reminiscent of Dostoevsky); the heroine, Vera
Pavlovna, starts a cooperative employee-owned workshop for
seamstresses; and there is a love triangle reminiscent of 'Jules et
Jim' (and here the rationalism breaks down strangely and darkly, but I won't say more). Chernyshevsky was a great admirer of 'Vanity Fair,' and in this, his only novel, he often addresses his characters and his
readers in a manner not unlike Thackeray. Indeed, he often wittily
mocks his reader: "How perceptive you are! As soon as you are told
something, you note it instantly and glory in your penetration. Accept my admiration, reader with the penetrating eye!" Dostoevsky, who was enraged by Chernyshevsky's materialism, rationalism, socialism, feminism and optimism, wrote 'Notes from Underground' and a good bit of 'The Demons' as a response (there are also references in 'Brothers Karamazov'). Chernyshevsky's novel also was a favorite of Lenin and his revolutionary comrades, and it has been said that 'What Is to Be Done?' was more influential in laying the foundations for the Russian revolution than anything written by Marx.

[Amirsaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

کمتر پیش آمده که برای ریت دادن به کتابی، یعنی اصلا مشخص کردن این‌که از کتابی خوشم آمده یا نه اینقدر مردد باشم. چرا؟
کتاب بنا به توضیح مترجم (پرتو آذر) در مقدمه‌اش، خیلی مهم بوده برای آنان که در قرن نوزدهم می‌خواستند انقلاب کنند تا که بعد رسید به لنین و آن ماجراها. البته اهمیت اسطوره‌ای دادن به نویسنده و کتاب جای تعجب ندارد، وقتی که می‌بینی�� در همان مقدمه، شوروی سابق مهد آزادی جهان تلقی می‌شود و استالینْ رفیق. (کتاب چاپ موسسه‌ی انتشاراتی ارانی است.)
خب پس با کتابی سروکار داریم که ادعا می‌شود راه انقلاب را به جوانانی که می‌پرسند «چه باید کرد؟» نشان می‌دهد. اما غالبیت صفحات کتاب به وصال عشاق می‌پردازد. اتفاقا این اصلا بد نیست و نکته‌ی قوت کتاب است؛ نگاه نسبتا پیشرویی که به زنان و ازدواج و روابط اجتماعی به طور کلی دارد. ولیکن از نظر مفسران این داستان‌های عشقی در اولویت دوم هستند و اصل همان انقلاب وعده داده شده در کتاب است، همان آدم‌های نو و دنیای نو، چیزی که بنظر بنده کتاب اصلا از عهده‌ی توصیفش برنمی‌آید.
بنظرم از قضا شخصیت‌های معروف و اساسی کتاب هیچ خوب پرداخته نشده بودند و سراسر متناقض بودند، دقیقا چون می‌خواستند حرف‌های نویسنده را از دهان خود بزنند. و البته این ضعف اساسی کتاب مربوط است به بخش ادبیاتی آن. برعکس، شخصیتی حاشیه‌ای مثل ماریا آلکسیونا از نظر من بهترین کارکترِ از آب درآمده‌ی کتاب است، چرا که واقعا کارکرد رمان را به دویست صفحه‌ی ابتدایی کتاب می‌دهد، با همه‌ی چم‌وخم‌هایی که نویسنده در او شناسایی می‌کند.
همچنین دیدگاه‌های اقتصادی/مدیریتی نویسنده هم با توجه به زمانه‌اش باید بررسی شود. آن به اصلاح دنیای نویی که ساخته می‌شود، با معیارهای امروز ما اصلا شبیه آرمان‌شهر نیست، ولی همین‌که نویسنده متوجه شده که ساعت کار باید کم شود و کارگران باید آموزش ببینند و در سود کارخانه شریک باشند، خوب است. اما باز هم پرداخت ادبی درست‌درمانی ندارد.
حتا از نظر علم اقتصاد هم پر از باگ است تئوری‌های رفیق‌مان آقای چرنیشفسکی. معلوم نیست چطور ممکن است که تمام سود را تقسیم کنیم بین کارگران یا وام بدهیم به کسی که دارد عروس می‌شود برای جهیزیه‌اش، و آن‌وقت همزمان کارخانه را هم گسترش دهیم. سرمایه باید همواره در جریان باشد!
و از این بحث به نقد اساسی‌ترم به کتاب می‌رسم. این‌که قهرمانان چرنیشفسکی، یا مثل رحمت‌ اف، خانوادتا بسیار ثروتمند بودند و حالا با تفکر پیشروی‌شان می‌آیند ثروت‌شان را تقسیم می‌کنند، یا مثل لاپاخوف و همسرش، مخ‌های اقتصادی هستند که به سبب تجارت و تولید، پولی به هم می‌زنند و پیشرفت می‌کنند و چون بااخلاق و باشرف‌اند دست بقیه را هم می‌گیرند. یعنی درست مثل حالا که تبلیغ می‌شود که استیو جابز هم هیچی نداشت و با نبوغ به این‌جا (!) رسید و نوش جانش. خب در این دنیای به اصطلاح سوسیالیستیِ چرنیشفسکی هم که همه‌اش بحث بر سر پول است. بحث اتفاقا این است که نبوغ رفیق‌مان آقای جابز فقط به این درد خورد که پول روی پول تلنبار کند و استثمار کند.
خب حالا اگر بخواهیم کارخانه‌های منصفانه بزنیم باید چکار کنیم؟ مسلما پاسخِ این چه باید کرد در رمان آقای چرنیشفسکی نیست؛ چون با تقسیم سود و بستنی خریدن با آن، دیگر نمی‌توان ادامه دادن به اشتغال‌زایی و شعبه زدن. پس آخر ناموسا چه باید کرد؟

[Vladys Kovsky · Rating 2 out of 5]

Almost the only memory I retain of this book is the author's obsession with aluminium.
It was an important book from the historical perspective but amounts to very little these days. The author was an early proponent of gender and social equality. The book has influenced socialist thought in Russia in XIX century probably more than anything else written at the time. Having said that, the literary value of this oeuvre is close to zero.

[Cleo · Rating 3 out of 5]

What do Chernyshevsky, Nietzsche and Star Trek all have in common? They all believe in socialist Utopias, in that if we all just could see the higher purpose of man and allow our characters to be developed beyond the animalistic tendencies of greed and selfishness and jealousy, we would all be able to lead this idealistic life with money, freedom, happiness and, in Nietzsche’s case, right-thinking for all. Everyone would get exactly what they wanted in all things, and gratification and joy would abound everywhere. And this would all come in an erupting revolution that would change the world as we know it. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Except that there’s one catch. In all of history, men have never been able to shed all strife and avarice and enmity towards each other. We have never been able to only do good, love mercy and walk humbly. So how these people can expect this to happen in the rumblings of revolution, yet also in an easily perceived development of social change, is quite beyond me. “Delusional”is the word that springs first to mind.

In Chernyshevsky’s, What Is To Be Done?, Véra Pálovna is a sheltered young woman with a strident, lower class, controlling mother. Her mother tries to manipulate her with her machinations, but Véra, with stern self command unusual for her age and sex, manages to best her mother and ends up marrying a medical student and tutor, Dmítry Sergéich Lopukhóv, to escape her mother’s nagging domination. While married to Lopukhóv, she starts her own sewing business, employing unusual business acumen to make it a success. Likewise, her marriage is run in an unusual business-like way, to the apparent delight of both. Yet when their close friend, another medical student, Alexánder Matvéich Kirsánov, begins to form an attraction to Véra, an impending tragedy culminates, and finalizes in a most unexpected way.

Although What Is To Be Done? is almost unknown in classic fiction, among Russians it was considered one of the most influential books of nineteenth-century Russia for the ramification it had on human thought, and the effect it had on the history of the country.

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky was a staunch proponent of materialist philosophy, socialist political economy, and women’s liberation. In his novel, he attempted to provide a remedy for all the social ills and the dilemmas that faced Russian society, believing that the controlling patriarchal hierarchy of the family, social inequality, and political and social problems were the main causes of the tyrannical, unbalanced, economic backwardness of the society. He disliked modern reform, advocating more radical steps. Offering a blend of Russian traditional values, and ideas from Western Europe, he called for a social education that would bring sexual freedom, self-awareness, and prosperity. However, his self-righteousness and intolerance of criticism eventually caused him to be barred from academia, and Chernyshevsky was forced to turn to journalism for an outlet. His views eventually occasioned his arrest and he spent eighteen months in prison, which no doubt helped to advance him to the status of a martyr and enhanced the popularity of this book. He became a symbol of the ultimate revolutionary Utopian socialist.

This book served not only as a platform for Chernyshevsky’s ideas, but it was also a response to Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. In Turgenev’s novel, Turgenev explores the relationship between reason and emotion, or perhaps how emotion can undermine one’s ideology. In Fathers and Sons, both the nihilist Bazarov’s ideology and his underdeveloped grasp of emotion appear to cancel each other out, leaving him in a morass of ineffectuality in either. In contrast, the nobleman Kirsanov reaches a level of contentment using a combination of idealism and reason, mirrored in his recognition of family values, the importance of nature and the land on which he lives. Chernyshevsky despised the novel and Turgenev’s portrayal of “new men”; with his novel, he strove to counter the portrayal, borrowing character names from Turgenev and metamorphosing Bazarov’s nihilism into rational egoism for what he thought allowed for more efficient action. The ongoing debate continued with Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s response to What is To Be Done?, in his Notes from the Underground.

Perhaps I was suffering with extreme impatience with naive “genius” philosophers and writers, but the impatience only increased with Chernyshevsky. Not only were his ideas born of some unrealistic fantasy, but the structure of his book was tedious. The book wasn’t really a story, it was merely Chernyshevsky’s ideas. Everyone is subordinate to his ideas, from his plot, to his characters, even his reader cannot escape. While I know that authors control their stories, I like to feel their stories control them to some degree; that the story is born inside of them with not only the passionate ideas that they breed, but perhaps with an insight that is not quite explored or realized. Then, voilà! A “conversation” is begun between reader and writer. Yet, with Chernyshevsky, this certainly wasn’t the case. Instead of speaking with you, he speaks at you. In fact, he goes so far as to address his readers with an intentional condescension, not only confessing what he is doing to you with his prose, but leading you down garden paths of supposition, professing your own ideas and putting words in your mouth, then calling you an idiot because you followed what he was offering you. I don’t understand it. Often these people profess to know all the ills of society and all the solutions, but they have absolutely no social skills or even an appearance of love for humanity at all; or at least it doesn’t come out in their work.

As a novel, it's valuable to read because of its place in Russian history but its political ideology is idealistic to say the least.

[Sergio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lo scrittore russo Nikolaj Gavrilovic Cernysevskij [1828-1889] scrisse il romanzo "Che Fare?" durante la sua detenzione nella fortezza di "Pietro e Paolo" a seguito della sua condanna per attività sovversiva.

"Che fare?" è un romanzo didascalico che vuole raccontare e insegnare come evitare che un matrimonio nel tempo perda freschezza, si infiacchisca e generi monotonia e infine allontanamento tra i coniugi fino a una convivenza di facciata o peggio a un disamore che può portare a "distrazioni" fatali. Protagonisti principali di questo romanzo la giovane Vera Rozalskij, promessa sposa dai genitori, suo malgrado, al Consigliere di Stato Ivan Storeznikov, lo studente medico Dimitrji Lopuchov e il suo grande amico, anch'egli studente medico, Aleksandr Kirsakov.

Il romanzo, dalla trama avvincente, è raccontato benissimo con uno stile sciolto e fluido, dialoghi brillanti, tesi e ipotesi condivisibili e non manca dunque di nessuna qualità che lo renda una lettura piacevolissima oltreché intrigante e lo pone, a mio modesto parere, tra i migliori romanzi russi dell'ottocento.

[Μαρία Γεωργιάδου · Rating 4 out of 5]

Απόσπασμα από τη σελ. 387:
«Ό,τι σου δείξαμε, δεν θα έχει σύντομα την πλήρη ανάπτυξή που διαπίστωσες τώρα. Θα περάσουν πολλές γενιές μέχρι να πραγματοποιηθεί αυτό απ’ το οποίο τώρα παίρνεις μια πρώτη γεύση. Όχι, το «πολλές γενιές» δεν είναι ακριβές: η δουλειά μου τώρα προχωράει γρήγορα, κάθε χρόνο και γρηγορότερα, μα, παρ’ όλα αυτά, δεν θα εισέλθεις ακόμα σ’ αυτό το βασίλειο της τελειότητας που κυβερνάει η αδερφή μου. Τουλάχιστον το είδες, ξέρεις πώς θα είναι το μέλλον. Φωτεινό, εκπληκτικό. Πες το σε όλους: να τι θα είναι το μέλλον, φωτεινό, εκπληκτικό. Αγαπήστε το, ποθείστε το, δουλέψτε γι’ αυτό, φέρτε το πιο κοντά, δανειστείτε απ’ αυτό όσα μπορείτε να εφαρμόσετε σήμερα: η ζωή σας θα γίνει πιο φωτεινή και όμορφη, γόνιμη σε χαρές και απολαύσεις, αν μπορέσετε να την πλουτίσετε με δάνεια από το μέλλον. Ποθείστε το, δουλέψτε γι’ αυτό, φέρτε το πιο κοντά, δανειστείτε ό,τι απ’ αυτό μπορείτε να βάλετε σήμερα σε πράξη.»

[Nelson Zagalo · Rating 3 out of 5]

“O romance que inspirou o ímpeto revolucionário de Lenine. Fascinado, Marx aprendeu russo para o ler.”

Tenho aqui feito muitas resenhas de livros e algumas têm conseguido atingir níveis de profundidade com que não contava à partida. A literatura é um meio rico para compreender o mundo e a realidade, ainda assim nem sempre os temas se aproximam dos nossos interesses o suficiente para justificar um investimento grande no estudo e interpretação da mesma. Neste caso senti alguma ambivalência: por um lado queria compreender melhor a Rússia, nomeadamente a sua evolução política; por outro, não esperava retirar daqui conhecimento particularmente novo, uma vez que o sistema político ali implantado teve tempo para demonstrar a sua ineficácia, não querendo debater algo que empiricamente já foi demonstrado como utópico. Contudo, não deixava de me intrigar o como, ou seja, a História conducente à Revolução Russa, à criação da primeira nação governada segundo um regime comunista. Embora talvez o mais importante para mim tenha sido mesmo o tentar compreender como é que um simples livro, a simples literatura, contribuiu para tal. O problema é que ao tentar compreender apenas isto, vi-me enredado num mar de leituras sem fim, já que para compreender o impacto deste livro, tive de aprender mais sobre a realidade em que ele surgiu. Assim, tentarei nas próximas linhas dar conta do que li, compreendi e interpretei...
...
...

Não colo o resto do texto aqui, é demasiado grande. Para quem estive interessado, pode ler no meu blog, em: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.pt/...

[Maria Ferreira · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pedra basilar que deu origem à revolução russa está contida neste romance peculiar. Vladimir Lenine leu o livro “O que fazer?”, escrito por Nikolai Tchernichévski.

O crescente descontentamento sentido pela população em relação ao Czar, reflexos de uma repressão continuada e prolongada, deu origem ao surgimento de movimentos partidários visando depor o regime vigente, e construir uma sociedade assente nos valores do cooperativismo e socialismo.

Tchernichévski foi preso em 1862 por ajudar na publicação de um panfleto que criticava publicamente as leis do czar, enviado para a sibéria em 1864, por lá ficou até 1883.

Em 1863, a aguardar julgamento, pede autorização para escrever um livro por forma a passar o tempo, foi autorizado a escrever um único livro. Volvidos 4 meses o romance “O que fazer?” era publicado, passando pelo crivo da censura ignorante, que nada entendeu do romance.

O que fazer?, são os pensamentos do autor sobre o caminho que a Rússia deve percorrer para libertar o povo das amarras de uma monarquia doida e autoritária. O autor escreve, sub-repticiamente, contando uma história, em forma de romance.

A Rússia, em meados do século XIX, era bem menos desenvolvida que a europa ocidental, o povo era ostracizado, tinha fome, a industrialização estava no início, e iniciara o êxodo dos camponeses para as grandes cidades.

Neste romance o autor mostra uma sociedade onde é possível que a mulher desempenhe um papel tão importante como o homem. A mulher soberana, responsável pela sua vida e pela sua conduta, a mulher que trabalha, decide e comanda. Atira ao chão os preconceitos machistas e batalha para impor o respeito do seu corpo e defesa judiciária.

Claro que por trás de uma grande mulher existe sempre um grande Homem, um homem que não humilha as mulheres, um homem que pensa e respeita as vontades do outro, um homem de espírito libertador, que opta pela colaboração em vez da competição.

Assim temos vários tipos de personagens:
Personagens que tentam elevar-se à custa do outro e manter-se eternamente assim, cabe-lhes um fim pobre e triste.
Personagens que conspiram, apelam à amizade e ao diálogo, criam mecanismos corporativistas de interajuda, vencendo a batalha dura que é a vida.
O cooperativismo vence o individualismo.

Há uma grande mensagem neste romance, que na primeira leitura não é de todo visível, ainda menos compreensível para o leitor de hoje (2019) que nunca sentiu a sua liberdade ameaçada.

[jon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the middle book in an important Russian literary and philisophical argument. The first was Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, and the third was Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground. All that stuff Dostoevsky is talking about in Notes - advantage motivating action, the crystal palace, etc. - comes from What is to be Done. Chernyshevsky thought Turgenev treated nihilism unfairly in Fathers and Sons, so he portrayed nihilism in another manner. Dostoevsky then destroyed Chernyshevsky's vision of an ideal society. It is an important book that inspired hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries to take action, and it was the favorite book of Lenin.

[Gijs van Engelen · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've noticed quite a few positive reviews on What Is to be Done, which might give people who are interested in Russian literature the idea that this could be an interesting book to read. It is anything but. Now, for a historian this is an important source, because Chernyshevsky's ideas and especially the character of Rakhmetov have influenced Russian ideas on revolution, social change and what we now call Russian Nihilism more than any other piece of writing. However, Chernyshevsky's style is terrible (which he actually admits in his preface: he states that he is merely trying to spread his ideas and defend his viewpoints), the plot is laughable and the characters are flatter than you'll ever see in any other book. Never does this feel like a novel, it's a pamphlet. And it's not a very interesting one at that, precisely because it tries to be a novel. There is a reason for this: in nineteenth century Russia, "dangerous" ideas like Chernyshevsky's proto-communism (with people like Bakunin claiming that "the urge to destroy is a creative one") obviously weren't allowed in newspapers, so they had to be presented in a hidden form, in the background of a novel. This has spawned many of the great books of nineteenth century Russia, precisely because they deal with important social and philosophical problems. Chernyshevsky tries to do this through allegorical dreams and the character of Rakhmetov (and some other minor plot elements), both painfully overdone (it's a miracle this got past the censor). The rest of the book is basically the worst love story ever written, because the characters are constantly talking in a "rational", materialistic fashion to promote the individualistic and anti-paternalistic ideas of the author. This is all understandable in the context of the time in which the book was written, but today it's just too boring. Recently, some scholars have been pleading for a reevaluation of What is to be Done's literary value because of its supposedly ingenious structure, but this really is waste of time: characters appear out of nowhere, side plots without any relevance come and go for no reason, sometimes everybody bursts into song just to make a point about materialism or the revolution... and the author admits it all throughout the book when he addresses the reader directly (which, admittedly, is funny, but these little asides only stress the mind-numbing boringness of everything that surrounds it). Really the only reason to read this is the historical relevance. After all, this book, itself a reaction to Turgenev's great Father's and Sons, provoked one of the weirdest and greatest Russian novels of all time, Notes from the Underground, and furthermore inspired many generations of revolutionaries, all the way up to Lenin. But for a casual reader, this is a complete waste of time.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s What Is to Be Done? is one of the most ideologically influential yet aesthetically polarising novels in Russian literary history.

Written in prison, the book served as a kind of revolutionary manifesto disguised as fiction, inspiring generations of radicals—not least Lenin himself. Its difficulty arises not from stylistic obscurity but from its relentless didacticism, philosophical density, and the sheer intensity of its social vision.

At the center of the novel is Vera Pavlovna, whose journey toward self-liberation forms the structural backbone of the narrative. She escapes an oppressive household, claims economic independence, and establishes a cooperative sewing workshop—a utopian symbol of collective labor and female empowerment.

Chernyshevsky’s women break decisively with the traditional roles of 19th-century Russia. Their ideal marriages, based on mutual respect and freedom, reflect his radical reimagining of human relationships. Yet the novel challenges readers through its sermon-like tone. Chernyshevsky inserts lengthy philosophical treatises, dreams, and dialogues that often interrupt the narrative.

These passages advocate materialist philosophy, rational egoism, and utopian socialism. To modern readers, the earnestness can feel overwhelming, even alien. But within the historical context of censorship and autocracy, this earnestness was a form of intellectual rebellion.

The infamous “Fourth Dream of Vera Pavlovna,” filled with crystalline palaces and radiant futures, exemplifies the novel’s peculiar power. It is visionary yet heavy-handed, prophetic yet naïve. The prose is plain, functional, entirely free of the psychological nuance found in Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.

And yet it pulses with revolutionary conviction. The book became a blueprint for social transformation precisely because of its clarity.

Its difficulty lies also in the weight of its legacy. One cannot read What Is to Be Done? without sensing its future echoes: the moral seriousness, the utopian fervor, the uncompromising belief in human perfectibility.

It is a novel that demands historical imagination—an understanding of a society in which such ideas could ignite a generation.

Whether seen as literature or propaganda, it remains one of the most challenging and consequential works of its time.

Recommended.

[Biblio Curious · Rating 4 out of 5]

Old Review from the abridged version (about 100 pages missing) & when I knew almost nothing about Russian History or this book's historical context:

This one's going to be on my mind for awhile!! It'll take a long time to unpack all of the ideas & topics of discussion. I must re-read an unabridged version!

Chernyshevsky is not a fiction writer, this is his only fictional work. His political background seeps into the story whenever necessary and only to enhance the story he's telling.

I went into this novel blindly knowing nothing of the plot or themes. I think blindness makes the ending more powerful. I recommend it for feminist/equality folks among many others with an interest in social change. Everything else is spoiler free, top secret! (Update: be sure to read about the historical context before reading this work.)

I'll review this and post a link later, it needs to cook for a little while.
http://www.biblioatlas.com/2017/08/wh...

I recently read the unabridged version of this & you can see the most up to date review of that one here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Ira Therebel · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was pretty excited to read this book considering it's significance in Russian revolution but I just hated it.

It is written horribly. The plot is useless, characters have no personalities, dialogues are awful. Yes it is just a platform for Chernyshevsky's ideas and it is a torture to read. I am happy I read it for historical reasons and I am even happier that I will never read it again. Decided not to give it an extra point for history reasons because there was nothing I liked about the book at all. I was already rushing through it towards the end. Would still recommend it to people interested in Russian revolution but don't get too excited.

[Steffi · Rating 5 out of 5]

'What is to be done?' by Russian philosopher, journalist and literary critic Nikolai Chernyshevsky. Man, what a novel. Took me some time to get my hands on this one. Wikipedia borrowed trivia: THE book (written in 1863, in a St Petersburg prison, of course) of the early socialist underground in the late 19th century Russian empire. Lenin read the book five times (at least) and named his pamphlet (What is to be done) after the book, Kollontai and Luxemburg were big fans too, it may have played a role in influencing the generation that led the October revolution, Soviet classic thereafter.
The female main character - mind you this is Tsarist Russia in the 1860s - escapes arranged marriage to start her own women's cooperative and commune and a romantic relationship based on the principle of total independence, not in the faux liberal feminist sense (Oh! I am not buying my daughter pink stuff and raise my children gender neutral!) but, like, for real, challenging the material conditions of gender inequality. Véra Pávlovna Kirsánov, you may have just become one of my favourite fictional characters. <3

[Thom · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to understand the underpinnings of modern Russia and its recent history, you have to understand Nikolai Chernyshevsky. Lenin for one credits "What is to be done" as the most influential book in the development of his social conscious, and without him no doubt the world would be a very different place than it is today. A must read.

[Sergey · Rating 5 out of 5]

That was wonderful. Indeed, I want to read this book again even after I have just read it. Is there there a better way to rate a book?

[Chrissie]

Free download available at Librivox. Translated by Nathan Haskell Dole.

To be read alongside Fathers and Sons as well as Notes from the Underground. The three books can best be viewed as a conversation between the three authors.

[Ana Carvalheira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Em boa hora, a “Guerra e Paz Editores” deu à estampa a tradução para português de uma das obras mais importantes do século 19, aquela que, muitos intelectuais, se referem como um documento que está na génese da Revolução Russa de 1917.

Segundo Joseph Frank - estudioso da literatura americana e especialista em vida e obra do romancista russo Fyodor Dostoevsky – “o romance de Tchernichévski, mais do que “O Capital” de Marx, forneceu a dinâmica emocional que eventualmente desembocou na Revolução Russa” revelando no autor russo o papel fundamental de um escritor de construir história.

O Que Faze? configura um relato carregado de utopia e de boas intenções para um futuro melhor, para uma época que se previa, derivada de uma enorme necessidade do contexto social, uma alteração de mentalidades, da forma social, da distribuição dos ganhos e dos lucros, numa sociedade oprimida, profundamente agrícola, mas que via da figura do Czar – etimologicamente este termo deriva da palavra latina Caesar - Alexandre III, o seu imperador, pai dos povos, contudo absolutista. No sentido temporal da narrativa, vivia-se uma época em que o líder da população russa oprimia o seu povo uma vez que as reformas internas levadas a cabo por seu pai, Alexandre III optou por reverter as políticas liberais que foram, até então, implementadas.

Mas esta narrativa traz uma nova conceção de vida e de trabalho comunitário. Traz também uma nova configuração das relações afetivas entre os casais e, dentro dessa perspetiva, considero uma dinâmica muito à frente do seu tempo.

Vamos por partes:

- a ação começa apresentando-nos Vera Pavlova, jovem que vivia em casa dos pais sem nunca se ter identificado com a conceção de vida dos seus progenitores … a única saída consistia na fuga desse ambiente pernicioso para a sua forma de encarar a vida e o mundo. De forte personalidade, é a própria Verothka que sê-nos dá a conhecer. “Chama-me sonhadora, pergunta-me o que eu quero da vida. Eu não quero dominar nem ser dominada, não quero enganar nem fingir, não quero seguir a opinião dos outros, ir atrás do que os outros me recomendam, mas das quais não preciso. Eu não me acostumei com a riqueza, não preciso dela. Porque eu teria de procura-la apenas porque os outros pensam que ela é agradável a todos e, por isso, deveria também se agradável para mim? Eu nunca fiz parte da boa sociedade, não experimentei o que é brilhar socialmente, nunca me senti atraída por isso (…). Eu que nunca sacrificarei nada por alguma coisa que não me é necessária: não, não me sacrificarei nem a mim nem ao mais pequeno capricho. Quero ser independente e viver a minha própria vida. Estou pronta para fazer sacrifícios pelas coisas que me são realmente necessárias”. O extraordinário desta postura, é o seu contexto social e político da Rússia da segunda metade do século 19. Mais parece de que o autor está a caracterizar-me, eu que vivo neste primeiro terço do século 21.

Mas essa postura de liberdade e auto estima não fica por aqui. Continuando com a caracterização da sua personagem, Tchernichévski alimenta a construção de uma pessoa única: “Não quero ficar a dever nada a ninguém, de modo que ninguém possa vir até mim e dizer-me que tenho a obrigação de fazer algo por si. Quero fazer apena aquilo que desejo. E que os outros também possam fazer apenas aquilo que desejam. E não quero exigir nada de ninguém. Não quero atrapalhar a liberdade de ninguém, e quero ser livre também”.

Embora extensa, foi necessária esta caracterização da personagem de Vera Pavlona pois será à sua volta que todo o enredo e a sua importância se desenvolverá.

- Verinha, dentro dessa forte personalidade, sente necessidade de sair de casa de seus pais pois, dentro de um conflito de personalidades, principalmente, com a sua mãe, procura encontrar um caminho onde o pensamento principal residia na máxima: ”Eu não tenho medo, tenho carácter”. Casando por amor, Vera junta-se a Dmitri Lopukov, estudante de medicina e professor de seu irmão Fedor. Entre os dois, surge uma atração e uma forma muito peculiar de viver a noção de casamento: com independência física, mental e intelectual. Será esse o segredo de uma união eficaz? Estou em crer que sim. O que o casal pretendia era ter a noção de que “quando se tem a obrigação de em relação a alguém, por alguma razão especial, a relação entre os dois já está em tensão”. Nada mais certo! E quando Vera Pavlona sentiu uma atração por Kirsanov, amigo íntimo do deu marido, este optou pelo suicídio para deixar a sua amante prosseguir o seu caminho com a pessoa que passou a ocupar um lugar no seu coração, numa altura em que divórcios não faziam parte da estrutura social.

- A protagonista casa-se, então, com o médico Kirsanov que surge muitas vezes na narrativa como Alksandr, Satcha ou Kirsanov e a partir daqui é que começamos a compreender não só o que é amar alguém que “significa ficar alegre com o que é bom para o outro, ter prazer em fazer tudo o que é necessário para que o outro fique melhor. O que é melhor para ti faz-me feliz. Mas és tu quem deve decidir o que é melhor para ti. Ficar triste para quê? Se estiver bem, eu também estarei”. E mais à frente, confidencia-nos que “felicidade completa não existe sem independência completa. Pobres mulheres, somente algumas de vocês têm essa felicidade”.

- Mas a parte mais importante no contexto daquilo que Tchernichévski nos quis introduzir foi o modelo segundo o qual “o desejo de livrar-se do tédio”, entendido como o motor das nossas ações, o que levará Vera a criar um atelier de costura e será esse o fundamental aspeto, que este livro de Tchernichévski, será considerado como uma inspiração para a Revolução de 1917.

- Tendo em conta que o trabalho livre e voluntário confere “satisfação, felicidade e prazer”, Vera Pavlovna cria a melhor conceção de ciência económica em que os lucros são distribuídos por todas as trabalhadoras dos seus ateliers, em que as compras conjuntas resultam de uma redução dos preços dos bens necessários à vida, assim como formas de alojamento coletivo que levam à construção de uma ideologia económica em que todos saem a ganhar.

É muito difícil reduzir a apropriação desta excelente narrativa a uma ou duas páginas. Ela é muito mais complexa – as metáforas, as simbologias utilizadas pelo autor -, muito mais haveria a acrescentar mas deixo a quem se interessar pela leitura deste extraordinário romance, a descoberta destes e outros elementos também eles de extrema importância para a compreensão global deste romance único na história da literatura.

Deixo apenas mais quatro refelxões que me parecem fundamentais para a compreensão de “O Que Fazer? e que podem merecer a sua leitura por parte de quem ficou interessado:
- foi escrito por Tchernichévski, entre 1862 e 1864 enquanto estava em exílio na Sibéria, no qual ficaria até à morte;

- a página 345 oferece-nos uma belíssima definição sobre o que é a paixão: ”todo o ser sente extraordinário frescor e leveza. É como se a própria atmosfera que a pessoa respira mudasse. É como se o ar estivesse tornado mais puro e rico em oxigénio (…);

- a forma como o autor interage com o leitor, questionando-o sobre o desenvolver da narrativa;

- a galeria de personagens: excetuando aquelas que já foram assinaladas, uma menção muito especial para Rachmetov, talvez o avatar de Nikolai Tchernichévski e a belíssima Katerina, Kátia, Vasilevna que tudo assimilou, compreendeu e partilhou.


-

[Elalma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Per me � un libro speciale. Non per i meriti letterari o per lo stile, ma per la storia di questo rapporto uomo-donna basilare per la societ�, per il modo di vedere l'organizzazione del lavoro, attuali utopie che non vediamo realizzarsi neppure ora. Nessuna indagine psicologica (cos� non si rischiano toppate ;-) che toglierebbero freschezza al racconto, apprendiamo i fatti in maniera quasi oggettiva. E lo scrittore ci bacchetta pure nella buffa prefazione ed epilogo. Vera � una donna moderna. Ci si riconosce facilmente, nelle sue teorie sull'amore, sulla donna e sulla vita.

[Maria Thomarey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ένα εξαιρετικό δείγμα στρατευμένης τέχνης και επαναστατικής φλόγας. Ιστορία είναι απλή και ίσως απλά υπάρχει για να περικλείει μέσα τα φιλοσοφικά και πολιτικά μηνύματα του συγγραφέα. Το βίβλιο γράφτηκε ενώ συγγραφέας του ήταν στη φυλακή και δημοσιεύτηκε σε συνέχειες. Νομίζω ότι έχω ξαναγράψει αυτό το γεγονός τους δαιμονισμένους του Ντοστογιέφσκι, αλλά έχω την αίσθηση ότι επειδή όντως το γευστική και ότι παίρνειςέφσκι ήταν φίλη μέχρι μια κάποια στιγμή, συνοδοιπόροι θα έλεγε κανείς, όταν ο Ντοστογιέφσκι άλλαξε στάση Στράφηκε εναντίον στο φίλο του. Πάντα λοιπόν πίστευα ότι η σκηνή της φωτιάς τους δαιμονισμένους έχει να κάνει με το Τζέρ Νιέφσκυ και το επίμετρο με επιβεβαίωση. Λίγο πριν συλλάβουν λοιπόν το συγγραφέα αυτού του βιβλίου στην Αγία Πετρούπολη μπήκανε πολλές και μικρές φωτιές. Η πόλη καιγόταν. Ο Ντοστογιέφσκι λοιπόν έξαλλος πήγε στο σπίτι του Τσέρνι σεέφσκι τον έπιασα από τα πέτα και άρχισε Να του ουρλιάζει ότι αυτός φταίει για όλα και ότι πρέπει να σταματήσει τα πάντα. Λίγο μετά συνέλαβαν τον παίρνειςέφσκι.

[Lara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lo voy a meditar porque el libro en sí me ha dejado loca

[liking · Rating 5 out of 5]

Поглощая очередной талмуд Радзинского, мама не удержалась от комментария: «И тут этот Чернышевский! Говорят, настольная книга революционеров. Надо будет перечитать, а то у меня со школы кроме довольно банального сюжета о Верочке-швее в голове ничего не задержалось». Пару недель спустя она подошла ко мне снова: «Посмотри, нет, ну ты посмотри, опять он!» - и тычет пальцем в высказывание В.И.Ленина, который признавался, что роман «Что делать?» его "всего глубоко перепахал". Тут уж я не выдержала, нашла томик в библиотеке и приготовилась прорываться сквозь дебри печатного текста, чтобы удовлетворить свое любопытство.
И каково же было мое удивление, когда я увидела гладкую прозу, которая с каждым перелистыванием только подогревала к себе интерес.
То, что очутилось в моих руках, в самом деле представляло собой описание нескольких лет жизни девушки Веры (приблизительно с 18 до 28), так что мама по сути своей не ошиблась. Но только по сути, недаром ведь в подзаголовке звучит мысль, что роман этот "о новых людях". А без Лопухова и Кирсанова Вера Павловна мало бы чем отличалась от большинства небогатых девушек своего времени. Переводить же бумагу и чернила ради заурядной бытовой истории было бы делом бессмысленным. Но, к счастью для читателей, автор предпринял все необходимое, чтобы встреча этих героев состоялась. Посредством длительных бесед с одним из людей передовых взглядов запрятанные поглубже зачатки свободолюбия проросли в девушке, достигнув своего апогея, вследствие чего все ее существование резко сменило свой вектор.
Поскольку под передовыми во второй половине XIX века понимались взгляды социалистические и даже революционные, то в книге ярко проиллюстрирован соответствующий утопический образец уклада семейной жизни, взаимоотношений между супругами, организации досуга, ведения дел на предприятии, а также роли женщины в обществе. Как писал в своей статье П.Николаев «именно “семейный” сюжет позволил Чернышевскому вести свою пропаганду логически убедительно, от частного к общему и снова – к частному». Следить, как ловко ему это удается, - само по себе уже невероятно увлекательно.
Но имеется в запасе и вишенка на торте. Николай Чернышевский был высокообразованным, начитанным человеком, отчего слог его и проводимый им психологический анализ каждого действа притягивают к себе магнитом.
Книга дышит нравственными идеалами, она пропитана разумными дискуссиями, внутренними монологами героев, их любовью к жизни. И что для меня самое, наверно, важное – в романе нет философствования ради философствования, люди через общение приходят к каким-то умозаключениям и начинают действовать.
Обогащающее и мотивирующее чтение, 10 из 10.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an interesting novel that I feel very few have heard about! This novel employs so many different literary devices that I feel a lot of other authors and stories could not get away with so well, but this one does! From Vera's dreams, to Rakhmetov's importance (despite his minor role), to the focusing on a completely different set of characters in the last chapter... it's all pulled off so well.
Ultimately this is a book about hope for a different society and revolution. Chernyshevsky was a proponent of women's rights and bettering everyone's lot in life and this shows very clearly through his writing, despite his having to be careful to avoid being caught out by the tsarist censors. I very much appreciate his revolutionary optimism and vision- even if it's at least somewhat utopian, I think it's very cool to read so clearly about what this man saw as an ideal post-revolutionary Russia. When reading socialist theory you don't see a lot of that typically. People often ask what socialists think the world might look like post-revolution and it's hard to know what to say. Chernyshevsky's got it all figured out! Even if his ideas are certainly dated at this point, I think it was really cool to see that. Also, this was definitely a character driven novel which is cool, and despite having some weird, stilted (again, dated) dialogue, it was enjoyable seeing the character's develop. Vera's dreams in general were a cool device. I'm glad I finally read this!

[Elettra · Rating 5 out of 5]

La lettura di “Che fare?” è stata per me molto sorprendente e stimolante. Scritto nel 1862 da Černyševskij mentre era imprigionato nella fortezza di Pietro e Paolo per le sue idee sovversive contro lo zar Alessandro II sfuggì alla censura zarista divenendo una pietra miliare ideologica per intere generazioni di rivoluzionari russi. Le idee di Černyševskij influenzate dal socialismo utopico e dal materialismo razionale hanno creato un testo unico, stimolante ed attraente e altamente formativo. Definito il "breviario di ogni giovane russo" “Che fare?” ha fornito infatti alle nuove generazioni un modello di vita costruttiva e positiva e un progetto sociale alternativi al nichilismo materialista imperante all’epoca. La narrazione parte lentamente, un po’ in sordina, presentando la società della classe media e dell’alta borghesia di San Pietroburgo come un luogo di oppressione e convenzioni soffocanti, contro cui si ribellano i protagonisti: Vera, Lopuchov, Kirsanov, gli "uomini nuovi" del romanzo. L’esposizione poi si sviluppa illustrando il modo nuovo e alternativo di vivere dei protagonisti che rompe con le tradizioni e le consuetudini sociali. Questi “uomini nuovi” sono essenzialmente intellettuali progressisti, razionali, onesti e in tutte le loro azioni si oppongono alle convenzioni sociali costruendo un modo di vivere diverso e migliore. Nella società che vogliono creare per esempio, il ruolo della donna è paritario, basato sull’assoluto rispetto ed indipendenza economica e sessuale. Vera Pavlovna avvierà una impresa cooperativa di cucitrici basata sulla proprietà collettiva e sulla parità di diritti e retribuzione: è in nuce qui il modello di un’impresa socialista. Importante è anche la teoria dell’“egoismo razionale”, secondo la quale l’agire per sé stessi in modo illuminato, cioè razionale ed onesto, coincide con il benessere della società. L’impatto culturale e storico di questo testo è stato notevole soprattutto su studenti ed intellettuali e non è un caso che Lenin nel 1902 riprese lo stesso titolo per un suo saggio politico. La prosa di Černyševskij è nel complesso piuttosto didascalica, tuttavia si distingue per vivacità e partecipazione perché spesso l’autore interviene per dialogare con il lettore e convincerlo delle sue idee. Ci sono spesso anticipazioni o interruzioni della narrazione che sono finalizzate a concentrare l’attenzione del lettore sui valori e sui principi che guidano le azioni dei personaggi. Opera assolutamente valida.

[Bahman Bahman · Rating 2 out of 5]

امداد یازدهم ژوئیه سال 1856 بود که آثار پریشانی و اضطراب در قیافه خدمتکاران یکی از مهمانخانه های پطرزبورک مشاهده می شد. این مهمانخانه در کنار ایستگاه راه آهن مسکو قرار داشت و ساعت 9 شب پیش، مسافری به این مهمانخانه آمد و اتاقی اجاره کرد. برای ثبت نام شناسنامه خود را به دفتر تسلیم کرد و برای خود چای و کتلت سفارش داد و گفت که چون خسته است و می خواهد آسوده بخوابد، شب هنگام مزاحم او نشوند. بعلاوه تاکید کرد که فردا صبح ساعت 8 او را بیدار کنند زیرا کاری واجب در پیش دارد. سپس به اتاق خود رفت و در را به روی خود بست. مدتی چنگال و بشقاب را به یکدیگر می زد تا صدایی از آنها شنیده شود. اما پس از اندک زمانی همه صداها خاموش شد و در نتیجه چنین تصور می رفت که مسافر از فرط خستگی به خواب رفته است...

[Yulia Kazachkova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Потрясающе. Почему эта книга о человеческом достоинстве не стала настольной книгой феминизма? Потому что была написана мужчиной?) или потому что задолбала всех еще в школе?

“Роман «Что делать?» меня всего глубоко перепахал. Это вещь, которая даёт заряд на всю жизнь.” — сказал В.И. Ленин, и теперь я его очень хорошо понимаю.

Сама я прочитала “Что делать?” впервые в 14 лет и невероятно гордилась собой: мне было все понятно и даже понравилось. А что там могло не понравиться? Мелодраматическая упаковка романа воспитания с ироническими вкраплениями и счастливым концом.

И вот, 30 лет спустя, на словах “забота о людях” в первом сне Веры Павловны я чуть не расплакалась. Представляю какой бомбой это все было в середине 19 века. Идеалистические, но от того не менее достойные представления о социальной справедливости, отношениях между мужчиной и женщиной, о роли женщины в обществе, о ее силе только дай ей раскрыться… Нашлось место и самоорганизующимся сообществам (швейные мастерские), и честным куртизанкам, и капиталистам с человеческим лицом. Отдельный уникум — железный человек Рахметов, о котором мои родители всегда говорили охотно и весело, видимо, этот персонаж больше всего запоминался советским школьникам ))

В мое время роман из школьной программы был уже исключен, но о теории разумного эгоизма Чернышевского мы точно слышали в курсе русской литературы в университете. А я ни разу об этом концепте и не вспомнила сейчас, читая, потому что очевидно же, что под разумным эгоизмом кроется уважение и любовь к людям. Забота о людях… Редко когда в литературе встретишь подобные примеры психологической чуткости и неравнодушия к ближнему.

[منوچهر محور]

دو ترمی که زمان دانشجویی توی کتابخانه دانشگاه کار می‌کردم این کتاب و قرارداد اجتماعی را لای کتابهای تخصصی در یک قفسه کاملا بی‌ربط پیدا کردم و خواندم. هر دو چنان پوسیده بودند که با هر ورق زدن به از هم‌پاشیدگی کامل نزدیک‌تر می‌شدند.

اما این کتاب به قول مارشال برمن «نه طرح داستانی داشت، نه شخصیت‌های جذاب،... نه زمینه یا محیطی روشن و نه وحدت صدا و حس.» (ص ۲۶۴) به نظرم روش قصه‌های کودکان را برای یاد دادن ادب و تربیت در پیش گرفته بود منتها برای تصویر کردن جامعه آرمانی فردا. داستایفسکی هم که در «جنایت و مکافات» حسابی «ورا پاولونا»های زمانه را مسخره کرده. اما از قضای روزگار...  در کتاب «تجربه مدرنیته» خواندم که چرنیشفسکی این کتاب را در زندان پطر و پل و به انتظار محاکمه‌اش می‌نوشت. ارزش کار او تاثیر «انسان‌های جدیدِ» «چه باید کرد؟» بر متفکران هم‌نسل خودش، نویسندگان روسیه و متفکران سیاسی بود؛ در خواستن دنیایی نو. چرنیشفسکی رویایی پروراند و رفت؛ رفت به سیبری و در آنجا پوسید، چون جرات کرده بود رویاپردازی کند.