Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Bazarov and Arcadii visit Anna Odintsova in her hotel. Bazarov is nervous around her. She seems impressed with him and invites the two of them to visit her in her estate. They stay for a couple of weeks. They meet her younger sister, Katya, and her aunt. Both men have fallen in love with Anna although Arcadii spends more time with Katya. Bazarov encourages Arcadii’s attention to Katya.

Meanwhile, Bazarov is irritable and restless. He is conflicted between the love he feels for Anna and his previous rejection of romance as an outmoded notion. Anna probes Bazarov to reveal more about himself. She tells him she is unhappy and wonders if she is capable of experiencing love. The next day Anna continues to prod him until him until he finally breaks down and reveals he is madly in love with her. She reacts by saying he misunderstood her. He apologizes to her later. His friend Sitnikov shows up uninvited. The next day, the Arcadii and Bazarov abandon Sitnikov and head to Bazarov’s home.
_____________

Bazarov displays his nihilistic views in the discussion on art and on human beings. He questions the need for art, and he says this of people:

All people resemble one another in both body and soul; in each one of us the brain, the spleen, the heart, the lungs are arranged in the same way, and the moral qualities, so called, are the same in all: the slight variations are absolutely of no significance. A single human exemplar suffices to form a judgment concerning all the rest. People are as uniform as trees in a forest.

He seems to be reducing humans to their material components. Later, he attributes bad human behavior either to improper education or to the disordered state of society. Is he correct in claiming human beings can be reduced to mechanical processes and can be “programmed” to be better behaved?

Arcadii shares with Katya a love for music and for nature. But he seems unwilling or unable to recognize how much they have in common. Why?

Anna continues to prod Bazarov until she breaks his resolve and gets him to admit he loves her. Why does she react the way she did?

What do you think of the way Bazarov declares his love for Anna? Does it sound like a romantic declaration of love?

Bazarov tries to dismiss his romantic feelings and claims the society of women is trifling. Why is he determined to deny the impact of his feelings for Anna?

Arcadii and Bazarov both seem to deny themselves their true feelings and stubbornly persist in their idealized view of the world. This reveals their immaturity and inexperience, but since they are too young to realize this, they seem to repress their feelings or burst out and then flee from the consequences. Anna is older and a bit more subtle but she still runs away from her true desire or the consequences thereof.

Bazarov states that all human beings are the same, yet he can't refrain from thinking himself as above the others and Arcadii seems to realize this is becoming more clear as he gets to know more of him. Turgenev seems to dissect and criticize these vague frustrations of Bazarov and Anna by pinning it down as empty or ugly and banal:


Driven by vague emotions, the sense of life passing by, and a longing for novelty, she had forced herself to advance up to a particular line, and then to look beyond it, where she had found not even an abyss but just emptiness - or ugliness.

The arrival of something common and banal is often a relief in our lives; it relaxes us when we are too tense and sobers us when we are overconfident or overready to sacrifice ourselves, by reminding us how close to banality those very feelings are.

It's odd how the cold dissector is laid bare on the dissecting table in turn.

Borum wrote: "Anna is older and a bit more subtle but she still runs away from her true desire or the consequences thereof...."

Anna strikes me as being cold-hearted, manipulative, and calculating. Turgenev tells us she married Odintsov "out of calculation" and that "she had acquired a secret aversion for all men . . ." In spite of that, she seems determined to go after Bazarov. She reveals to him she is unhappy and incapable of falling in love. She projects herself as vulnerable. She flirts with him, pushes him and pushes him until she wrestles out his declaration that he is "foolishly, madly" in love with her. And then she backs off.

I have little sympathy for Bazarov because he is arrogant, rude, and full of himself. But I felt sorry for him here. He has an ego the size of planet earth, dismisses love and romance which he interprets as a sign of weakness. And, yet, he finds himself falling in love. It has set him all a-kilter. He doesn't know how to handle it.

It seems to me his declaration of love--as warped as it is--should have been handled with a bit more compassion and delicacy. He freaks Anna out with the ferocity of his passion. But all she can say is "You have misunderstood me." Her reaction struck me as cold-hearted and calculating, especially knowing how difficult it was for him to expose himself as vulnerable.

Anna and Bazarov are armored to protect their vulnerable selves. Mutual armor should keep the relationship at a comfortable pace. Small chinks in the armor as they come to understand their own passion.

Tamara wrote: "Is he correct in claiming human beings can be reduced to mechanical processes and can be “programmed” to be better behaved?"

On one level, I'd say that all human beings ultimately have free will. While I wouldn't say I'm an existentialist, I have been studying the philosophy recently and that is one of the things that I agree with them about. Ultimately, even if you're forced into it by circumstances or the alternative is death, all humans possess free will. They have the potential to be more than mechanical processes.

However, at the same time, I have to consider Russian "society" of 1859. Feudalism and serfdom were still alive and well, and while it can be argued that a human isn't only their mechanical processes, that system did do a incredible job in forcing the people into mechanical processes being the only thing a person can manifest without risking their lives.

So my answer is yes and no; or yo, if you will, since I'm feeling whimsical.

Tamara wrote: "Arcadii shares with Katya a love for music and for nature. But he seems unwilling or unable to recognize how much they have in common. Why?"

The romantic in me wants Arkady to see Katya for the age-appropriate, interesting (and possibly interested) person that she is. However, my side that leans towards verisimilitude understands that it's common for young men to lust after older women while ignoring the ones who actually want their attention. My writer side says that he can't fall for Katya, too, but for entirely different reasons (it would mar the story).

Tamara wrote: "Anna continues to prod Bazarov until she breaks his resolve and gets him to admit he loves her. Why does she react the way she did?"

I'm not sure if it's fair to her, but I felt like she wanted to enjoy Bazarov's adoration, but keep him in the friend zone. When Bazarov finally gives her what she wants, she doesn't know what to do with it, because she didn't want his love. Only his adoration and attention.


This seemed to me like Bazarov being overcome by true romantic feelings and finding himself, much like he would belittle Arkady for doing, valuing Anna's love despite himself, since doing so is against his own ideals. It was Bazarov wrestling with his own ideological self. What's most interesting is that he seems willing to consciously discard all of his nihilism and science if she had said she loved him.

Tamara wrote: "I have little sympathy for Bazarov because he is arrogant, rude, and full of himself. But I felt sorry for him here. He has an ego the size of planet earth, dismisses love and romance which he interprets as a sign of weakness."

A testament to Turgenev's genius. It's pretty difficult to make a character that readers will feel for despite themselves. And you experience a little of the pathos in feeling the same way that Bazarov feels for Anna despite his intellectual beliefs.

Aiden wrote: "I'm not sure if it's fair to her, but I felt like she wanted to enjoy Bazarov's adoration, but keep him in the friend zone..."

She wants him to adore her while simultaneously maintaining distance between them as friends. Isn't that selfish of her? Isn't it cruel to manipulate him in this way?

Aiden wrote: "What's most interesting is that he seems willing to consciously discard all of his nihilism and science if she had said she loved him..."

I agree. He is willing to abandon his former position if she had reciprocated his love. I think that makes her dismissal of him pretty reprehensible.

I read that whole scene between Anna and Bazarov as power play--who has power and who exerts power over whom.
Maybe I am being unfair to her but we know Anna is intrigued by Bazarov. It seems to me she wants to exert power over him. When she succeeds in doing so, she gives him a perfunctory dismissal.

The scene immediately reminded me of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and Other Poems of all things.

Would it have been worth while,
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,
To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it towards some overwhelming question,
To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”—
If one, settling a pillow by her head
Should say: “That is not what I meant at all;
That is not it, at all.”

Like Bazarov, Prufrock is ready to pour his guts out, to make himself vulnerable. But whereas Bazarov actually does so, Prufrock doesn't because he anticipates the worst: a perfunctory dismissal.

The power play is an interesting reading. I'm reading a new book on the revolutions of 1848-49 and today I happened to read that feminist issues weren't in play in those revolutions. There were women revolutionaries, but none of the constitutions even came close to female suffrage. It wasn't until the 1860s that women's issues became a serious topic.

I was also reading an essay today on Turgenev and his portrayal of the female nihilist (embodied by Kukshina in F+C). The essay pointed out that female nihilists of the period were different than the early liberal feminists. The feminists wanted gradual change, with minimal disruption, but the nigilistka (the feminized version of the word nihilist is derived from) wanted revolutionary change and full women's rights right away.

Your observation made me realize that I think Anna would fall into the 1860s Russian feminist category. Or, at least, Turgenev's portrayal of that type. It seems like feminists and nihilists don't mix. At least not in Anna's mind. It made me wonder if class was a factor in her rejection, too. She only just gained her higher status through being a rich widow. Barazov would seem like a step down.

Aiden wrote: "It seems like feminists and nihilists don't mix. At least not in Anna's mind. It made me wonder if class was a factor in her rejection, too. She only just gained her higher status through being a rich widow. Barazov would seem like a step down..."

I'm not sure I would call her a feminist by any stretch of the imagination. But I think you're right on target when you suggest class was a probable factor in her rejection of Bazarov.

I'm stepping out on a limb here, but it may be interesting, even though clumsy.

I find myself comparing Turgenev and Jane Austen. I know that is ridiculous. There are 50 years between "Fathers & Sons" and "Mansfield Park," and there is a huge difference, of course, between Victorian England and Austen's High Society versus Turgenev's Russian Bourgeoisie. That's what I find interesting. From the arid mannerisms of English Society to the hugs, kisses, crying, and warmth of the Russians. So different. Vodka and black bread versus abstemious Teatime.

Turgenev's characters are so genuinely warm in comparison. So lovable.

I know the two authors describe two very different social strata. I don't know enough sociology or literature for each environment, so my contrasting them is off the top of my head, inexpert, and clumsy, as I said.

But it does amuse me to set them next to each other. Aha, for the Russians, we also watched in Gogol another addition to this mixture. Does he portray the same cross-section of society as does Turgenev? But, no, Gogol's setting was village life in the hinterlands; Turgenev's, urbane.

I can see that in Russia, there very well could be a revolution against the aristocracy not far off, while in England, in no way will there be a revolution.

(That is not until the Labour win after WW1; hmm, well, maybe that's not so far off, looking for broad patterns of comparison of national identities).

Sam wrote: "I'm stepping out on a limb here, but it may be interesting, even though clumsy.

I find myself comparing Turgenev and Jane Austen. I know that is ridiculous. There are 50 years between "Fathers & S..."

That's an interesting comparison. As you noted, they are very different societies, but they have in common an intense focus on a small segment of their respective societies and depicting them well.

Tamara wrote: "Borum wrote: "Anna is older and a bit more subtle but she still runs away from her true desire or the consequences thereof...."

Anna strikes me as being cold-hearted, manipulative, and calculating..."

I agree. Both Bazarov and Anna are emotionally impoverished in different ways. With Anna she experienced very little emotional support in her life. Her aunt, who should have been a second mother to her, is a harpy. She has no barriers when it comes to crossing the line between being curious and becoming cruel.

Bazarov is in a philosophical prison of his own making. When passion comes barreling down on him he is mightily tested. Anna's relentlessness makes him break down. Maybe it takes someone as single-minded as Anna to make him face his own human frailties. This, of course, doesn't excuse her. Pavel, or any of the other characters, never challenged him to this extend. He was always able to safe face. Here he can't.

Tamara wrote: "Bazarov tries to dismiss his romantic feelings and claims the society of women is trifling. Why is he determined to deny the impact of his feelings for Anna?"

I think Mother Nature is outside his rational world view. How do you dissect and compartmentalize passion? Now what? You either deny Mother Nature and steadfastly cling to the world view no matter how absurd it becomes, or you adjust the world-view, which may not hold up once the cracks show. Either way is a rocky road and there is much to loose.

Tamara wrote: "I'm not sure I would call her a feminist by any stretch of the imagination."

I take you're meaning, and I agree that Anna definitely wouldn't be considered a feminist by the post-1960s American/Western European standards and meaning of the term. She may not even be a model Russian feminist of the 1850s, if such a model exists. However, she appears to be the controller of her household, with only an older aunt possibly senior to her. In a world dominated by paternalistic feudalism and the equally paternalistic Orthodox Church, I'd say she is somewhat radical in her lifestyle.

Again, not by the standards and goals of today, but by the standards of times, she's comparatively feminist, if we understand the term as someone who believes that women should have control of their lives and takes steps to bring that about (which is about as far as serious feminism had gotten in this time and place).

Sam wrote: "I find myself comparing Turgenev and Jane Austen."

Very different societies, but the comparison is apt, at least thematically. Class is a theme in most of Austen's work. Turgenev's narrator also uses something like the "free indirect discourse" device for which Austen is known in this novel.

Aiden wrote: "... she's comparatively feminist, if we understand the term as someone who believes that women should have control of their lives and takes steps to bring that about ."

I'm wondering what steps she took to gain control of her life. The only reason she has control of her life is because her husband died and left her his money. Or am I missing something?

Looking into "the free indirect style" that Aiden mentions, being associated especially with Austen, I admit I am not clear what that means in Turgenev. Is it standard narrative storytelling, or what? Hope I am not too simplistic in broaching this. Example would be welcomed.

Tamara wrote: "I'm wondering what steps she took to gain control of her life. The only reason she has control of her life is because her husband died and left her his money. Or am I missing something?

You are spot-on, Tamara. Anna got her independence the old-fashioned way with inherited money. In this case, her late husband.

Sam wrote: "Looking into "the free indirect style" that Aiden mentions"

Sorry. I didn't mean to say that Turgenev uses "free indirect discourse", which is a form of narration designed to blend the narrator's and the character's thoughts into one. The idea is to narrate the story through the mind of a character.

Example: "Aiden has too much to do today. What makes the list? Need to go to the grocery store to get oranges and milk. Rat traps? Better safe than sorry., etc." The italicized is a (poor) example of free indirect discourse. One of the things Austen is known for is being an early adopter of the technique in English and doing it well.

Turgenev doesn't use the technique, but his narrator does impute entire thoughts to facial expressions in a way that reminds me of that style.

Example: "Bazarov said all this with a look on his face as if he were thinking: 'You can believe me or not, it's all the same to me!'"

And his narrator gives a clear view of the class-conscious minds of the characters.

Thank you, Aiden. That was very helpful.