Väter und Söhne: Roman

One of my all time favorites.

Bazarov turns everyones life upsidedown. He regards nothing and in the end he gets nothing. Not a bad egg though the Russians to this day can't decide just what made him tick. I read the Norton Critical Edition. The little essay by Isaiah Berlin I found made the most sense to me. I must admit that I've never felt at home in the Great Tangle that is Russian Literature, though as I get older I'm finding my way a little better. Turgenev is pretty much smooth weather compared to the stormy climes of Dostoyevsky and company. And I have no doubt that he was every bit as lovable that old Henry James says he was. I'm what you would call a cold reader, but I had a little tear in my eye as my thoughts were cast upon Bazarov's old parents after his untimely (was it?) death. Death brought on by a pin prick from his trusty scalpel.

This book throws me back to my teens, a time when I read all the great Russian authors. I really like this book, because it captured the atmosphere of the times. It does so in a style that is more gentle than Dostoevsky; and reaches down into the character of the protagonists. I wish, however, that it went deeper into the relationship between the generations. But then, that is my wish only!

Easy and pleasant to read, but hardly a "masterpiece". There is a structure and a kind of plot, but no sense of purpose. Characters just drift without a convincing explanation as to their motives, if they have any. You get the impression that Turgenev first thought up Bazarov the "nihilist" - actually a depressed cynic who can't stand his own emotions - then sketched some feeble storyline to justify his existence in the novel. The book is not without qualities, however. The other characters, particularly the elderly, are finely sketched and there are some scenes which are very moving. There is tension here and there, but no development into something grand. "Torrents of Spring", by the same author, has a clear direction and is more fun.

A fine, tender, evocative short novel portraying "liberal" Russian landowners and their nihilist sons mid-19th century, on the eve of the (troubled) emancipation of the serfs. Marvelous writing as translated here by Richard Hare. A book to re-read.

I loved this book - thanks to my son who introduced it to me. It is a book I hope to reread a few times.

Fathers and Sons, first published in 1862, is a classic of Russian literature that examines youthful idealism and its pitfalls. It is a depiction of two generations with widely differing political and social values. The setting is 19th Century Russia shortly after the emancipation of the Russian serfs. The narrative follows two young men returning home after spending years attending College. The result is a confrontation between the traditional fathers (but liberal minded) and their idealistic sons. The antagonism portrayed in the book demonstrates the timeless conflict between youth and their elders. There are plenty of contemporary generational and political resonances contained in the story if the reader looks for them. Frankly, listening to the conflict portrayed in this book wasn't a pleasant experience for me. Thus, I can't recommend it as a book that others are likely to enjoy. But I felt better about the book after finishing it. I think the book's message is that the older and younger generations need to be more understanding of each other. We all need to mellow out a bit. It's interesting to note that from our own perspective in history, the changes in 1862 were nothing compared to what was going to happen to Russia 50 years later. It's sad to realize that the presence of idealistic young people and liberal minded parents does not necessarily lead to peace for later generations. When will it ever end?

I'm surprised this book was so controversial when it was published, as it's largely a standard Russian novel- the focus on the lower nobility, attending balls, falling in love, fighting duels, unreturned affection, marriages, and a glimpse of the stunted lives and intellect of the peasants. Lermontov satirizes this type of novel long before Turgenev put pen to paper. The only notable divergence from the paint-by-numbers plot is the addition of Bazarov, a medical student who is a self-proclaimed nihilist, who denies all rules and traditions. According to his notes for the novel Turgenev wanted Bazarov to be "like a comet" (as Freeborn translates it), knocking everyone out of there rut. At this Turgenev fails; Bazarov comes off as less a comet than a contrarian, disagreeing with his elders and society more for the sake of disagreement itself than because of any true belief in the pointlessness of life.

The writing is largely functional, but there are a few places where the writing is noticeably bad. The arguments Turgenev writes out between Bazarov and Pavel are confusing, with characters giving responses that make little sense given the previous comment, and in general the segments where this occurs have no flow and feel stilted. Perhaps at the time this novel was written the characters conformed to easily defined types, allowing readers to fill in the leaps in dialogue in a satisfactory way, but that is no longer the case. There is also a line in the book that leads readers to believe a character has died when in fact that is not the case. I checked both the Garnett and the Freeborn translation and this is clearly a flaw in the original text, not in the translation.

There's a reason Turgenev exists today in the shadow of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Read Fathers and Sons if you want to experience more Russian literature, but don't expect it to reach the heights of the masterpieces in the genre.

This is Turganevs best work. Many of his situations mirror the modern father son relationships and the generation gap. Turganev is one of the best Russian writers of the 19th century. I really enjoyed this book. I would also reccomend Hunters Sketches

This book demonstrates how much has changed in the relationship between parent and child since it was written, and how much has stayed the same. It highlights the love of a parent and the pain of the loss when they are gone, and the struggle of the child to separate themselves from the ties of the parent and develop their own thoughts and attitudes.I found the writing, or perhaps the translation, stilted - which prevent an emotional attachment to the characters

I loved this book. The dueling scene is priceless. Let's go nihilists!

Was surprised by my love for this book. It was gripping, funny, touching. Who knew. I picked it up because of a memoir I was reading in which the narrator was enamored of "The Russians," and because I'd always been curious. So glad I did.

I'm a little conflicted by "Fathers and Sons"; when I read it oh so many years ago I was heavily into Dostoevsky, and in reading that he and Turgenev were at odds with one another, I confess I had a bias before reading the first page.Turgenev was the "Westerner" and liberal; moreover, he meant the nihilist character Bazarov to be a positive figure and sympathized with by the reader. At the time I found it ironic and somehow a discredit to him that the effect on Russia was the exact opposite. In laying bare the beliefs of those who would tear down all social conventions, as Alan Hodge stated in the introduction to this slim text, "Turgenev was horrified to find himself congratulated by crusty old believers in serfdom, whose friendship he did not welcome, and bitterly reproached by the young reformers, whose views he largely shared."Over the years, however, I have read other works by Turgenev and while I prefer the weightier angst of Dostoevsky, I have come to appreciate the humanity and pastoral charm of Turgenev. Maybe it's analogous to liking the intellectual John Lennon best in youth, but then coming to appreciate the heart of Paul McCartney more with time. :-)This book was a lightning rod when it was published in 1862; it's certainly worthy of a read not only for its insight into the politics and generational rift of its time, but also for the beauty of its writing.Some quotes....On "death":“Look!” Arcady suddenly exclaimed. “A withered maple leaf has left its branch and is falling to the ground; its movements resemble those of a butterfly in flight. Isn’t it strange? The saddest and deadest of all things is yet so like the gayest and most vital of creatures.”On individuality:“…may I state that it’s not worth the trouble to make a separate study of individuals? All men are similar in body and soul; each one of us has a brain, a spleen, a heart, and identically formed lungs; and the so-called moral qualities attributed to us are the same in all: slight variations only prove the rule. One human specimen affords an adequate basis for judging the rest. People are like trees in a forest; no botanist would dream of studying each birch tree in detail.”On life:"Here, in the cool shade, she read and worked, or surrendered herself to that sensation of perfect peace with which we are all presumably familiar and whose charm lies in a barely conscious and silent observation of the sweeping wave of life that for ever rolls all round us as well as within us."On meaninglessness:“The confined space I occupy is so minute when compared with the rest of the universe, where I am not and have no business to be; and the fraction of time I shall live is so infinitesimal when contrasted with eternity, in which I have never been and shall never be…And yet here, in this atom of myself, in this mathematical point, blood circulates, the brain is active, aspiring to something too…What a monstrous thing! How absurd it seems!”On nihilism, hey there has to be at least one quote on that here. :-)“Aristocracy, liberalism, progress, principles,” Bazarov said in the meantime, “just think, what a lot of foreign – and useless – words!” … “Our actions are governed by utility,” Bazarov said. “In these days, negation is the most useful thing of all – and so we deny.”“…But it is essential to construct as well.”“That is not our affair…First we must make a clean sweep.”“…Formerly, young men had to study; they had no wish to be known as ignoramuses, and so willy-nilly they had to apply themselves. Now all they can say is ‘Everything is rubbish!’ And they have made their point. The young men are simply delighted. To be sure, before they were only blockheads, now they have suddenly become Nihilists.”On togetherness:“It can’t be helped, Vasya. A son is like a lopped-off branch. As a falcon he comes when he wills and goes where he lists; but you and I are like mushrooms growing in a hollow tree. Here we sit side by side without budging. But I shall stay with you for ever and unalterably, just as you will stay with me.”On the younger generation:"Once I had a quarrel with our late mama; unwilling to hear me, she was shouting her head off…I finally told her that she was incapable of understanding me: ‘We belong to different generations,’ I said."Reading "Fathers and Sons" makes it clear that life in mid-19th century Russia was very different from my own life, and being transported is one of the great joys of reading to me. Another great joy is the opposite effect which is highlighted in that last quote; to see that many aspects of the human condition were the same, have always been the same, and will probably always be the same.

Generation gap in the 19th century. I read this book in college. I was drawn into the story rather quickly and thoroughly enjoyed the ride. Unusual characters, and a subtle plot. The older generation watching the decline of their society, while the younger generation moves towards liberalism and ignores its own arrogance. The tale is timeless and classic. This almost appears to be a classic tale of older conservative values battling a younger liberal society. Beautifully told and much lighter fare than Dostoevsky I remember that I appreciated reading this book while studying western civilization. Highly recommended.

A fine novel and one that can be enjoyed on many levels. There is the much celebrated frictions between the generations and the views of the progressives against the reactionaries and they are there throughout the novel. However for me it was the beautiful lyrical writing that I found so entrancing. Much of the novel takes place in pastoral surroundings as the characters move from one estate to another all with varying degrees of prosperity. Here the major protagonists expound their views and fall in love, despite their world view, even the nihilist Basarov falls in love. The characters are finely drawn their relationships are exquisitely portrayed, as is the countryside that surrounds them. For me this is not a political novel but more of a beautiful pastoral novel whose characters are touched by modern thoughts and ideas. The translation by Rosemary Edmonds captures the lyrical quality of the writing, perhaps a different translation might emphasise other qualities in the novel. I was a bit wary of Edmonds after reading her introduction where she seemed to be equating nihilists with 1960's beatniks, which I think misses the point and so maybe the political themes do not come out so well in her translation.

Wonderful book; brings out the similarities and differences for one generation to another. Great characters but it hard to compare it to the other Russian classics.

"We sit in the mud, my friend, and reach for the stars."First published in 1862 this novel is a piece of classic literature written by an author who at the time was considered as one of Russia's most ‘liberal’ authors and it addresses some of the differences of the period between the generations. Central to the story are two sons, Bazarov and Arkady, and their respective fathers focusing mainly on the relationship between Arkady and his father Nikolai.The novel was written at a time when the class system was undergoing major changes within Russian society. Bazarov believes that changes to the old tradition are good and essential, Nikolai’s brother Pavel fears and loathes it whereas Nikolai is simply trying to make the best of it. Bazarov is the central character of this novel. He is a nihilist who utterly rejects all the values on which society is based and spends a lot of time emphasizing on the importance of equality. He doesn't put much of store in art and romanticism but when he falls in love he is forced in to a re-evaluation. At times I found myself loving him whilst at others hating him but in truth due to censorship it is unlikely that the author would have been allowed to make him as radical as he probably would have liked.Most of the servant class characters show respectable levels of deference and commitment to their old masters but whilst many of them crave greater freedom they are also fearful of it. Fenechka is the outstanding example of this. She is the daughter of Nikolai former housekeeper, twenty years his junior, who on the death of her mother has a relationship with Nikolai bearing him a child. Fenechka is conscious of her own class status so when Arkady returns home from university she is not entirely certain that the love he shows her and her son is real or rather due to the influence of his friend and mentor Bazarov. Thus we have not only different generations but also differing classes struggling with these societal changes.Nowhere is this more apparent than in own Nikolai's home. Pavel, Nikolai's brother who lives with them, is committed to the old system and wants to retain the old class system whereas Nikolai shows openness to the changes but still cherishes the comforts that he has become used to. All this means is that we see someone trying to hold onto the old but unjust system (Pavel), someone accepting change without aggression (Nikolai), and someone who is suffering from the system but doesn't want to grab the opportunity of freedom (Fenechka) all living together under the same roof.There is very little action within this novel rather it's focus is on ideas which cover a number of spheres ranging from politics to nature to spirituality. But whilst there are conflicts the author also puts as emphasis on the importance of love in peoples' lives. Now whilst there are some compelling characters and it gives an interesting insight into a particular period of Russian history both societal and in literature meaning that I don't doubt it is of historical significance yet I still found this novel an OK read rather than a compelling one. I would have preferred a little more action and for that reason it failed to really grab my imagination. It is at least a reasonably quick read littered with short chapters meaning that you didn't get too bogged down in it hence the relatively low rating.

An incredible read. The story holds your interest, the characters are very realistic and believable, and the content/theme is still relevant and always will be.

Literature is full of proof that generational conflicts are eternal. Kids are always convinced their parents don't understand them, and in some ways, that's true. But in other ways, the parents understand more than the kids can even believe. If everyone lives long enough, one day that will become clear.Arkady is coming home after graduating from university to stay with his parents for a while, and his friend Bazarov comes with him. Bazarov is the classic "bad influence" that worries parents. He's cynical and not respectful of his elders' experience, and worst of all, he's a nihilist. (This was probably less comical before The Big Lebowski was made, or if you've never seen it. If you have, you may have the same reaction as I did every time someone brings it up, which was: hearing "We belieff in NUFFINK!" in a German accent.) Anyhow, there are tensions between the generations as well as tensions between contemporaries. After all, the older generation will always have a variety of ideas about the younger, from "get off my lawn!" to "oh, to be young and carefree." And the younger generation will be busy trying to find out where they fit in the world, how to define themselves and who to use as a model. On a larger scale, these conflicts are played out in the same way in countries, and Russia was in transition at the time when the book is set.Although I approached this novel with some trepidation because 19th-century Russian literature has always been difficult for me (I've tried Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and come to the conclusion that I need to read up on Russian history before trying again), it was an involving read. I didn't feel lost in the political situations (that references were amply footnoted helped).Recommended for: Generation X, people looking to ease into Russian literature.Quote: "The tiny space I occupy is so minute in comparison with the rest of space, in which I am not, and which has nothing to do wtih me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so insignificant beside the eternity in which I have not been, and shall not be.... But in this atom, this mathematical point, the blood is circulating, the brain is working and wanting something.... Isn't it loathsome? Isn't it petty?"

It is easy to see why this novel is considered a masterpiece of Russian literature. Written in the mid-19th century, it deals with intergenerational conflict (i read somewhere that originally, the title was something like "Parents and Children"), with each major character personifying types found in Russian society - the older generation who come from the fading world of the nobility but at the same time attempting to be liberal in their views, and those of the younger generation who advocate nihilism and free thought. The protagonist, an intelligent young doctor, Barazov, represents youth, strength, new ways and ideas, but with very little awareness of his own naïveté and hypocrisy. He is arrogant of any manifestation of "weakness" such as the finer emotions, and when he falls deeply in love with a woman, who was his equal in strength of will and ideas, he goes through an intense struggle with himself. The other characters in the novel provide a brilliant counterpoint to the personality of Barazov, and the exchange between and among them in a subtly woven plot underlies the the slowly changing political and social landscape of the country, signaling a restlessness that characterize periods of transition or upheaval. This book has all the elements I look for in a work of fiction, which means I liked it immensely. It is intense but not tedious, written with economy without being terse, lyrical without romanticizing, and revolve around themes that appeal to both intellect and heart.

Finished Fathers and Sons yesterday, another quickly devoured novel. Don't think I'll take the time to properly review it, but I will say that while I worried I wouldn't be thrilled by a novel in which one of the main characters is an unpleasant Nihilist with an attitude to match, I was on the contrary pleasantly surprised to find this novel touch on a variety of other subjects I ended up finding quite engrossing indeed, so that even Bazarov, the unpleasant proponent of Nihilism in question became, if not appealing exactly, essential to a masterful whole. Some of the topics broached are the major shift going on in Russia during the mid-19th century, with landowners 'freeing' their serfs and allowing them to become paid tenants and the attendant class conflicts; the concept or what makes up a true Russian identity; the generation gap and how the old guard is always relegated to obsolescence by the young. In other words, social conflicts seem to be at the heart of this novel, but these subjects became all the more interesting to me thanks to the deft hand of Turgeniev, who presents these from the unique standpoints of young student Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov, who brings his friend and Nihilistic hero Yevgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov on a visit to his family farm to meet his father and uncle. Arkady Nikolaevich's father Nikolai Petrovich is excited to get together with his grown son again, looking forward to a forging a close friendship with him based on intellectual equality, and thinks himself to be 'with the times' by embracing modern socioeconomic concerns (having among other things recently emancipated his serfs and removed himself to a smaller house with few paid servants) and keeping up with all the latest authors (but at heart a great lover of the Romantic Old Guard Pushkin). However, his hopes are fairly dashed when Bazarov is introduced into the household with his uncouth, brusque manners and disdain for art, tradition, and sentimentality. Arkady has become Bazarov's disciple and parrots his older friend's ideas, though all the while he is made uneasy by Bazarov's repeated critical sallies and generally disrespectful attitude toward his beloved father and his uncle Pavel Petrovich, a gallant aristocrat very much attached to tradition and keeping up appearances, which Arkady nevertheless sees as a tragic hero. Through this prism we see a whole nation shifting toward what laid the ground for the inevitable Russian Revolution and the Communist USSR, though again, Turgeniev, far from making his protagonists all black or all white, lets them evolve throughout the novel and experience conflicting emotions and motivations. Here, together with a large dose of philosophical doctrine, there is also love and romance and it's deceptions, there is even an unlikely duel which ends rather unexpectedly. In other words, it is a mix of intellectual ideas and romantic concerns and for this reason, still feels incredibly modern and shows us once again that human nature never really changes much. So much for NOT writing a review. :-)

Paperback (edit)review This is the kind of book to read while still in college or in high school. Youth, realizing how bad and corrupt things are in the world become disillusioned and want to change it. In Fathers and Sons, Bazarov wants to destroy it, for he is a nihilist. This book is good on many different levels. It's a great historical piece, reflecting what was going on in Russia in the mid-19th century. Students were coming back from colleges in Western Europe, in some cases they were forcibly recalled by Russian law. These students, filled with ideas about how things can be, or taken aback at the backward customs and rituals in Russia. In the book, Barazrov and Arkady are two such students. Bazarov is the one with the fire in the belly. He wants to destroy the whole Russian system which resemble feudalism. The book documents his views and his fights with the landowners and the Fathers of Russia. It's also a great reflection of generational conflict. The young, wanting to change the world, the old who feel their ideas are fads to pass with time. There is even condescension about these ideas. I thought this was an excellent passage that reflected this:"Of course gentlemen, you know best; how could we keep pace with you? You are here to take our places. In my day, too, there was some sort of Humouralist school, Hoffman, and brown too with his vitalism--they seemed ridiculous to us, but, of course, they too had been great men at one time or another. Some one new has taken the place of Rademacher with you; you bow down to him, but in another twenty years it will be his turn to be laughed at." P 135When I read about generationally conflict today, this book reminds me how long that conflict has been going on. It gives me a better understanding of it. I felt the ending was a bit bleak. The man wanting change and railing against the system becomes a victim of it and dies, representing that death of progress in Russia at the time (the students were roundly rejected by the system and even by the peasants they were trying to help). Overall an excellent and short book. More passages: Then we suspected that talk, perpetual talk, and nothing but talk, about our social diseases, was not worth while, that it all led to nothing but superficiality and pedantry; we saw that our leading men, so-called advanced people and reformers, are no good; that we busy ourselves over foolery, talk rubbish about art, unconscious creativeness, parliamentarism, trial by jury, and the deuce knows what all; while, all the while, it's a question of getting bread to eat, while we're stifling under the grossest superstition, while all our enterprises come to grief, simply because there aren't honest men enough to carry them on, while the very emancipation our Government's busy upon will hardly come to any good, because peasants are glad to rob even themselves to get drunk at the gin-shop.' chap 5...es, yes. First a pride almost Satanic, then ridicule—that, that's what it is attracts the young, that's what gains an ascendancy over the inexperienced hearts of boys! Here's one of them sitting beside you, ready to worship the ground under your feet. Look at him! (Arkady turned away and frowned.) And this plague has spread far already. I have been told that in Rome our artists never set foot in the Vatican. Raphael they regard as almost a fool, because, if you please, he's an authority; while they're all the while most disgustingly sterile and unsuccessful, men whose imagination does not soar beyond 'Girls at a Fountain,' however they try! And the girls even out of drawing. They are fine fellows to your mind, are they not?''To my mind,' retorted Bazarov, 'Raphael's not worth a brass farthing; and they're no better than he.'the tiny space I occupy is so infinitely small in comparison with the rest of space, in which I am not, and which has nothing to do with me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so petty beside the eternity in which I have not been, and shall not be... P 144'Bravo! bravo! Listen, Arkady ... that's how young men of to-day ought to express themselves! And if you come to think of it, how could they fail to follow you! In old days, young men had to study; they didn't want to be called dunces, so they had to work hard whether they liked it or not. But now, they need only say, "Everything in the world is foolery!" and the trick's done. Young men are delighted. And, to be sure, they were simply geese before, and now they have suddenly turned nihilists.'Chap. 10'And now, I say again, good-bye, for it's useless to deceive ourselves—we are parting for good, and you know that yourself ... you have acted sensibly; you're not made for our bitter, rough, lonely existence. There's no dash, no hate in you, but you've the daring of youth and the fire of youth. Your sort, you gentry, can never get beyond refined submission or refined indignation, and that's no good. You won't fight—and yet you fancy yourselves gallant chaps—but we mean to fight. Oh well! Our dust would get into your eyes, our mud would bespatter you, but yet you're not up to our level, you're admiring yourselves unconsciously, you like to abuse yourselves; but we're sick of that—we want something else! we want to smash other people! You're a capital fellow; but you're a sugary, liberal snob for all that—ay volla-too, as my parent is fond of saying.'chap XXVI(less)

My first novel by Turgenev and was very impressive. Good reason to go back on classics.

I picked up Fathers and Sons because it seemed an approachably slim volume to start me off in Russian literature. I'm going to jump into that ocean headfirst eventually, but let me dabble my toes a bit first and get used to the temperature. The title hints that it is a story about generational differences, how family members with wildly different philosophies interact with one another, and it is that on one level. But it is also a portrayal of the different positions (or branches of the family) of philosophy in general. Modern nihilism squares off with traditional religiosity and the liberal Russian politics of 1862. Sounds like fun, right? In many ways this felt like a screenplay. I'm not exactly sure why, but as I was reading I was struck by the theatricality of the scenes and descriptions. Especially in the beginning, Turgenev gives us a lot of background information on the characters and their histories... the sort of things that a movie would show us to set up the characters and their surroundings. Sometimes it was choppy, a little too much of an info dump. I found some of the the characters quite underdeveloped, like Fenichka and Katya. Others, like Nicholas and his brother Paul, get great attention when they're onscreen and then just... disappear. Arcady is us, I think... drawn along by Bazarov's genius and admiring his ways not for their own merit, but because they are his. There is something magnetic about him. Or maybe we are Nicholas and Vasily, floundering around in a world that is changing too quickly for our comfort. What about Fenichka, content to leave the wrangling to others and follow her natural impulses? Or Bazarov's mother, terrified because of her son's philosophy? Maybe we are each of these characters at some point in our lives. Bazarov was one of those characters you just enjoy, not because you like him but because he's just so unpredictable and masterful. He's fascinating to watch, a bundle of contradictions because of his nihilism. He believes in pure science, but is that really kosher for a strict nihilist, to believe in anything? Why should one study so hard to be a doctor, if nothing means anything and every institution should be pulled down? Why bother? I guess this is the thing that disappointed me the most in this story: I still feel quite in the dark as to nihilistic philosophy. It seemed like Bazarov is supposed to be just a mouthpiece for the nihilistic worldview — which is fine by me, actually, in a novel like this — but whenever he gets into philosophical discussions, they always stop short. It could be that I was missing it, but the arguments and opposing viewpoints ended right when I wanted them expanded upon, just when things were getting good! Maybe Turgenev was being careful of not weighing his story down too much, leaving room for some plot and character development. And maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of Russian literature. My copy is translated by George Reavy. Aficionados of Russian lit can tell me if it's a good translation or not. I'm glad I read this, but I can't conjure up any real enthusiasm for it. Tolstoy is bound to be better.

The novel Fathers and Sons, like other great works of literature, has a timeless quality. The characters are memorable and the plot, while not terribly complicated, is universal in its aspect. It reads like Dostoevsky written by Flaubert. Bazarov represents the nihilist while his friend Arkady appears to agree. They flummox Arkady's father Nikolay and his brother Pavel. But it is soon the women who get the upper hand, whether the lower-class Fenichka or the wealthy widow Anna Odintsov. Of the characters Bazarov stands out as most significant. His nihilism is particularly interesting since it was not the sort of nihilism I had previously encountered in Western European intellectual history, but it is more like a sort of empiricism. As such it was a Russian intellectual movement in the 19th century that insisted that one should not believe in anything that could not be demonstrated to be true. As a critical approach to virtually everything it is a powerful force used by Turgenev through the character of Bazarov to provide an alternative to the traditions and romanticism of the 'fathers' of the novel. The force does not prevail however. The strength of Bazarov's intellectual approach to everything crumbles in the face of both nature and love. His adoring friend Arkady loses interest in it and Bazarov himself succumbs; first to the personality of Madame Odintsov and finally to the infection that leads to his untimely death. The world goes on, but the ideas presented are not vanquished but merely lie dormant, to be resurrected in continuing political unrest in Russia.

This work of fiction is set in Russia before the revolution. Serfdom was similar to slavery and the story contrasts the life of aristocracy with that of serfs. The main characters are two students: Bazarov being the leader and Arkady being his follower. The story is somewhat interesting in its description of the characters and was likely more of interest in the day of its writing. The eventual demise of Bazarov seems of limited importance since his existence was largely an annoyance to most. I do not recommend the book unless you are interested in Russian history.

One of those shocking things - a supposed masterpiece that actually lives up to the hype.Turgenev is definitely the best "novelist" of the great Russian authors of the 19th century. Tolstoy spent more time writing epics and short stories; Dostoevsky was more concerned with forcing his politics into his novels rather than writing simply good stories like Turgenev.F&S is Turgenev's best work. All I can say is that on a personal level Turgenev's themes speak to me a great deal. As a result the crux of this novel wasn't the generational gap but more Bazarov’s complicated nature and his relationship with everyone around him.As far as I'm concerned: a flawless read.

For once I read the book before reading the introduction; an approach which has its merits. The analysis in the introduction seemed to be a little over the top at first but then after learning of the letters Turgenev exchanged with Dostoevsky, particularly concerning the former's construction of the character Bazarov, really drives home how truly great novels are so much more than the product of a vivid imagination. The beauty of reading such works is to open my eyes to a place and period that was simply neglected in my early education due to the Cold War. Yet Turgenev highlights many issues which remain relevant in modern society: nationalism East or West, revolutionary or evolutionary development, the perpetual quest for newness in youth, to the pointlessness of life when humanity's frailty is illuminated. It also reunited me with the importance of the simple things in life which are often overlooked in our individual quests for glory which probably never arrives: the scene involving Bazarov's grieving parents still haunts me, as does the thought that Arkady is now under-the-thumb in an ever-so-happy way. The great writers were great because of their ability to intellectualise so many issues without a hint of discontinuity - a trait Turgenev displays with relative ease despite his own personal agonising over his critics (both revolutionaries and aristocrats). Indeed, had we never known about Turgenev's agonising from his letters, the work does not belie any such lack of confidence. Yet had I read the introduction first I may well have formed an entirely different view.

Twenty-three brief chapters tell of a period in the lives of two young Russian men. Together they visit each of their families, and together they mix into society. It is a rambling tale. (My copy is illustrated with wood engravings by Fritz Eichenberg and has a foreword by Sinclair Lewis, and an essay by John T. Winterich.) I do not know how long I've had it. . . it caught my eye recently, hence this brief review.

This novel is about a young man's struggle with his father's ambition for his life as the young man alternately fights and embraces that future.