The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

This novel keeps bring Chekov to my mind as the story seems to be capturing daily life without a true plot. We continue to meet many characters. Some of these are wealthy who seem to be playing at being liberal or nihilistic. Others are young and truly believe in nihilism. A fair amount of questions this week. Again, the questions are a place to start, but any discussion re author or book is wonderful.

Why is Nickolai afraid of Bazarov (chapter 10)

Can society survived without aristocracy? Why?

How is negating everything useful to society? To the individual?

Is it just the generation gap that has created this new way of thinking or something else?

Poetry, art, music, nature are among the things rejected by nihilism. How do these things influence society?

What are your thoughts regarding Bazarov's opinion that one human specimen is sufficient to judge the rest of humanity?

What do you think about Bazarov's opinion about love?

I am only halfway through this section, but will make a comment on the first question. I am finding this part a little depressing, probably because I'm relating to Nikolai and the way young people have always felt older people are in the way, and now that I am on that side of things, I understand his feeling of: but I've been trying, I've made these changes, can't I just hold onto these few things I still love, etc.

Makes me think of Bob Dylan:
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’

So his fear is of what Bazarov represents: this tide that he is afraid is sweeping him and the things he loves (like his books and music) aside, along with his sense of accomplishment and happiness with his life.

Nikolai is a naturally timid person, but he seems to be worried that Bazarov will take Arkady further away from him. And he's afraid of the future - how he will pay for the farm, for example - and is worried that Bazarov and Arkady may have a point about him being antiquated.

I don't think it's possible to negate everything. If you are negating everything else, you are affirming yourself and your own ego. You are saying that you're the only one on earth that can decide what's right.

I'll have to think more about the other questions.

Bazarov became even less tolerable. On top of his rudeness, he's also sexist. Seems that's about to come and bite him! I'm looking forward to finding out what happens next.

I found Bazarov irritating in the last section. Now he's truly annoying to me.

I've only read the first couple of chapters in this section. As a parent of two twenty-somethings I can really relate to how Nikolai feels. On the one hand, my eldest (almost 25) seems so impractical as to be not living in the real world. On the other hand, I know I am viewed as a fuddy-duddy who worries too much about everything, including things I suspect might go wrong (things that seem predictable to me, but my kid thinks they are inconceivable). I find this part of Fathers and Sons touching, because the author has captured so realistically the interaction between the generations.

I was thinking about the necessity of art when I was reading Bazarov's condemnation. I think artistic expression is one of things that makes us human. I don't really see how it's possible to destroy that.

I thought it was really sad when Nikolai overhead that he's out of date when he's tried so hard to be modern. It made me hate Bazarov.

I agree with you Amy about the necessity of art, and also found Bazarov even more annoying in this section.

Regaring the question above: What are your thoughts regarding Bazarov's opinion that one human specimen is sufficient to judge the rest of humanity? This could be at the heart of my disagreement with him.

Whatever his opinions about the direction society should be heading, his disregard for the differences, the details, the variations between people (and trees, for that matter), his clinical, calculating way of looking at the world feels lifeless and cold. For me, these variations are exactly what is important and interesting.

I don’t yet understand what he really values, what his utopia looks like, but I find it hard to conger any sympathy for this way of looking at the world.

I wonder if some of the things Bazarov said were just to get a rise out of people. Someone who respects science should know there's a wide variety in humanity and birch trees.

I haven't finished the reading for this week, but I have to comment on Chapter 13, in which Sitnikov takes Bazarov and Arcady to visit his friend Evanoska (probably misspelled). I could not believe the audacity and outright rudeness of this visit. First, drop in unexpectedly and bring two strangers along. Then, when offered a cigar, demand lunch and champagne instead. And the things Bazarov said to the hostess! And they went through four bottles of champagne for four people. And then they just walked out, without saying thank you or even goodbye.

Casceil wrote: "I haven't finished the reading for this week, but I have to comment on Chapter 13, in which Sitnikov takes Bazarov and Arcady to visit his friend Evanoska (probably misspelled). I could not believe..."

Definitely odd. And I got the impression she was playing at nihilism instead of it being a truly held belief.

Deborah wrote: "And I got the impression she was playing at nihilism instead of it being a truly held belief.."

The dynamics of the social interactions within the younger generation continue to remind me of people I knew in high school. There were a few very outspoken people with strong opinions, but more people were "followers," who agreed with what was being said because they wanted to belong. I felt like Evanoskya wanted to be seen as daring and sophisticated, and this was how she went about it.

Amy wrote: "I was thinking about the necessity of art when I was reading Bazarov's condemnation. I think artistic expression is one of things that makes us human. I don't really see how it's possible to destro..."

I agree that artistic expression is important. It is what makes us truly human. B. seems to think that people are all same, merely physical creations. What a depressing attitude.

I think that people who are negative about everything are afraid of life. If you commit yourself to nothing, you will never get hurt. You will also never have a genuine relationship with anyone.
At the end of Chapter 17, Bazarov has changed.
Arkady is not a strong character. He still idolizes B. I think that Arkady is going through a phase of hero worship. I don't for a moment think that he is a nihilist, just an impressionable, good natured young man.

Rosemarie wrote: "Amy wrote: "I was thinking about the necessity of art when I was reading Bazarov's condemnation. I think artistic expression is one of things that makes us human. I don't really see how it's possib..."

It can be protection, but does it also protect you from experience happiness?

If you don't take emotional risks, you can't get hurt. But you can also miss out on all that makes life worth living--love, a lasting relationship, appreciation of beauty, affection, and so on.

It does seem like the easy way out to just say you don't believe in anything. It was interesting that Pavel reacted with horror to (what I assume) was the realization that Bazarov didn't believe in god, but that didn't expand on that.

A bit behind, but just finished the chapters.

Bazarov isn't annoying me as much as he seems to be annoying most people here. (Although, he does annoy me). Young adults are trying to make sense of the world around them. Sometimes they come up with things that older adults think of as naive or that they don't quite understand. But it is an important thing for them to do.

And his contempt for the older generation is nothing new - I teach, and most of my students (generally 18-19 years old) look at me as if I'm irrelevant and clueless - every teacher has to come to terms with that or they will be very unhappy. ;)

Also, there are many people who mock those who seem to live for love. Again, it's not new.

Lastly, the younger generation generally wants to negate what the previous generation stands for. And that is also good. We need to challenge traditions and ways of doing things. It is the way we come up with new ideas and progress as a society.

I found myself more interested in what the women were doing. Bazarov dismisses them as a whole, but some of them - including Madame Odintsov, who Bazarov now loves despite himself - are overturning stereotypes. Madame Odintsov is independent, runs her estate, runs the household, has progressive ideas about her tenants, and unlike Arkady's father, does it well and is successful.

I feel badly for Arkady - unrequited love when it comes to Madame Odintsov. And nothing hurts more than to have a friend and mentor take the person you love. But he is a bit naive. And easily lead, and doesn't really think for himself. However, likable he is.

I don't think that any 21st century reader who knows something about 20th century history, especially the astronomical death toll exacted in Russia by the establishment of Bolshevism can read the conversation in Chapter 11 among Pavel, Nikolai, Bazarov & Arkady without disgust at the irresponsibility of the two younger men. Together they freely admit the irrationality at the bottom of the revolution they favor:

Pavel: "With you to act is to demolish. But how is such demolition to benefit when you do not even know its purpose?"
Arkady: "We demolish because we are a force...And a force need render account to no one."

So Bazarov & Arkady don't want to change the way things are because they think they have something better to offer. They want to change it because they can. And they don't feel themselves accountable to anyone for the results. I can't really blame Pavel for being exasperated. Maybe if Nikolai had given these two princes some hard work to do on the farm they wouldn't have been so bored as to entertain such senseless ideas.

Gyoza, the problem of the idle upper classes did not occur only in
Russia. The revolutionaries in France went the same way, only in the 18th century. Bazarov comes from a humble family and Nikolai is young and very impressionable. I have a read quite a bit about Stalin and the purges and these two would not have lasted long.
I don't know if you have read any more books by Turgenev, but they generally concern themselves with emotions and sentimental matters, i.e. love.

Rosemarie wrote: "Gyoza, the problem of the idle upper classes did not occur only in
Russia. The revolutionaries in France went the same way, only in the 18th century. Bazarov comes from a humble family and Nikolai..."

Do you mean Arkady? Nikolai is the father of Arkady.

Yes, I meant Arkady.Thanks for noticing the wrong name.

I don't think that idle upper classes are necessarily a problem, nor do I think they were peculiar to Russia. In fact, I fully intend to join the idle upper classes myself after I retire! It is possible for people, Russian or otherwise, with large amounts of leisure time to put it towards some productive and peaceful use. Their not needing to work for a living is why the aristocracy has made contributions out of all proportion to their numbers to the intellectual and artistic legacy of the West. I was criticizing the outlook of these two young oafs, Bazarov & Arkady and their seeming inability to think things through to their likely ends.

The French revolution, whether you are referring to its early or late stage was not brought about by idle upper class nihilists. It was started by aristocratic liberals who wished to have a less stratified and freer society. They did believe they had something better to offer. Then their movement was hijacked by toxic middle class leftist intellectuals like Robespierre whose main priority was equality rather than liberty, so they mowed down aristocrats, dissidents, peasants, and people of high accomplishment. They probably thought their vision of society was an improvement over the old though lots of people, including I, would disagree. I don't think even they were so silly as to claim to be doing all that just because they are a "force".

This is the first book by Turgenev that I've read and the part about relationships seems to begin at Chapter 17 when they meet Anna and Katya. In this book anyway, I doubt that love is the main subject when its title is Fathers and Sons. I figured it was mostly about tension between the generations' different ways of thinking. Although we shall see! I am far from finishing the book yet.

Chapter 10 rounds up the political debates, in which, as mentioned earlier, no one in Russia recognized him/herself. What interested Turgenev however, were not political programs, but the fundamental opposition he saw between the romanticism of the older and the rationalism/materialism of the younger generation.

According to Bazarov, things that can’t be measured do not exist. Ideals are meaningless, it’s better to read German chemists (Kraft und Stoff) than Pushkin. But this materialism does not really explains his violent streak, the idea that in Russia much has to be destroyed before anything positive can be achieved.

In this - my second - reading of F&S I realize that it is important to differentiate these two aspects of Bazarov’s thinking to appreciate Turgenev’s intentions. But we will pick up this line of reasoning in the last chapters, because from chapter 11 the book changes tack, meriting a separate post.

In chapters 12/13 Turgenev sketches a set of hilarious caricatures. The phony official Kolyazin, the opportunist Sitnikov, the liberated Kukshina. Always talking, never listening. An example of the absurdity of their idle talk is Kukshina’s intention to study a German chemistry book to improve her paste for making doll’s heads.

We also discover that Bazarov is a through and through misogynist. But he may be in for a surprise when he meets Odintsova, a widow of considerable means, age 29. Not the sugar-coated Russian novel heroine, but someone with a sharp eye for her own interests. In fact, she does not seem very Russian, even if she speaks the language well.

And she has a lot in common with Bazarov: self-made, no-nonsense, dominant, ego-centrist, materialist. Here is a woman Bazarov cannot ridicule. Soon he cannot deny any longer that something irrational can be all too real.