Customer Reviews

Fathers and Sons (Popular Classics)

5 star:		(43)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is the first fiction book I've read in a long time, and I have to say I'm not too disappointed. Fathers and Sons relates not only the generation gap in 19th century Russia, but also shows how fragile and fake the entire Russian system was in that time period. Every character symbolizes an important facet of Russian society. Paul Petrovich is the old slavophile nobility, convinced that Russians and their ways are the best in the world while they wear English clothing and speak and read in French. His brother Nicholas is the bridge between the old world and the new world, trying to fit in with the new ways while he only understands the old customs. Arcady, who represents those in society who outwardly follow the latest trendy beliefs but can't shake their emotions or their humanity. And Barazov, who represents youth, with its eternal promise of new ideas and ways, but who are blind to their own naive hypocrisy. Certainly there are other characters, but these major figures shape the plot of the book.

Turgenev manages to leave no stone unturned, casting withering attacks on peasants, psuedo-intellectualism, government officials, corruption, and conventions. The book mentions that Turgenev alienated and angered many in Russia with this book, and the reader will quickly see why.

Turgenev recognized the backwardness of Russia, and that it must change if it were to survive in a new world. The big question was how, and Turgenev shows that while idealists like Bazarov may have new ideas (Bazarov's idea was nihilism, a belief in nothing), those ideas mean nothing if not backed up with solutions to the problems.

An excellent book, and very readable. The price is low enough that most people really don't have an excuse to give this one a shot.

In Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, as in most of Chekhov, nothing much really happens. People talk a lot and that's about it. Should be dull, right? But it isn't. The talk, and the characters revealed, reflect the profound changes that were being felt in Russian society at the end of the 19th Century; changes that would set the stage for much of what was to happen in the 20th Century. But more important to a modern reader, the ideas and the real life implication of those ideas are as current and relevant as when Turgenev wrote. Bazarov, the young 'nihilist', sounds just like the typical student rebel of the 60's (or of the Seattle WTO protests just recently). He has the arrogance and the innocence of idealistic youth. He is as believeable, and as moving in his ultimate hurt, as any young person today might be confronted with the limitations of idealism and the fickle tyranny of personal passion.

I loved this book when I first read it as a teenager and I enjoyed it even more on subsequent rereadings. It makes the world of 19th century Russia seem strangely familiar and it gives many a current political thread a grounding in meaningful history.

The one factor that keeps being brought up in other reviews is the apparent lack of plot. A key point is not being brought in; the nature of Russian literature is to create a socially conscious society. While American and European authors can enter whatever realms they choose and write vivid, thrilling stories, Russian novelists enter a more subdued state. Their concern is not whether their readers are on the edge of their seats in suspense, their concern is that society be made aware of the changes and problems that are arising.

'Fathers and Sons' achieves that very well, pitting old Muscovite traditions against the new Western ideas. It's not a page turner, because it isn't supposed to be.

I thought it was a brilliant piece. Turgenev outlines quite clearly using only a handful of characters just how opposed the two sides of Russia are. And in the end, he makes very clear that one will have to give. The story is made better because Turgenev shows no favoritism. He carries out his job as an author to the letter: to present the problem, without offering the solution. That is for the reader to decide.

And as the book draws to a close, the reader is left wondering, 'Which direction is better?'

This is such a wonderful novel about two young men returning home from University - Arkady Kirsanov and his friend, Yevgeny who is known mostly as Basarov. Firstly they stop at Arkady's father's poor farm - but he is a landowner. Arkady's father's name is Nikolai and living with him is his brother Pavel. What contrasts we immediately meet - Nikolai whose wife has died (Arkady's mother) but who is living with one of the local peasant women (Fenitchka) and has a son by her, and Pavel whose playboy life collapsed when the princess he hoped to marry rejected him.

So here we have two young men with all the potential of their living beings contrasted with Nikolai and Pavel and their strange life outcomes. What complicates the matter is that Basarov is a nihilist - someone called him the first 'angry young man'. He is cynical and argumentative - prepared to accept Nikolai's simple innocence and honesty in living, unprepared to tolerate Pavel's Anglophile airs and graces.

The young men move on to Basarov's parent's place (simple folk living a traditional old age) but on the way meet Madame Odintsova - quickly called Odintsov (presumably because she is widowed). They spend some time with Odintsov and we learn her name is Anna Sergyevna. Anna lives with her younger sister Katya and and older aunt. The contrasts are once again evident. Anna has no feeling for Arkady at all and quickly Arkady and Katya become friends as Anna and Basarov fascinate each other. But Basarov is appalled at his romantic feelings - not what he expects a nihilist should experience! And when Odintsov's flirting causes him to express that love he has to flee to his parent's place horrified by what he has felt.

But he is no more at home with his parents whose love and affection overwhelms him, so the young men return to the Kirsanov's farm, stopping briefly at Odintsov's country residence where they are not really welcomed. However Arkady, home again, is ill at ease and has to return to Odintsov, leaving Basarov behind. What happens at Odintsov's residence is perhaps not unexpected, what happens at the Kirsanov's farm - with Fenitchka and Pavel is remarkable. Eventually Basarov joins Arkady at Madame Odintsov's before returning home. The outcomes I will leave to Turgenev.

As a mid-fifties person myself I can readily identify with Nikolai and Pavel who see themselves as old, although they too are only fiftyish. But we all have memories and I can see myself as Basarov and Arkady - in some ways each of them, but in no ways entirely either of them. While, as a young man, I too had ideals (anarchist rather than nihilist) that I used to obscure other things in my life, subsequent experiences in my life have lead me to regret that path my life took for a while. Turgenev's outcome for Basarov is entirely in accord with my view. But what then of Pavel?

Perhaps the most extraordinary thing for me about this beautiful novel is that at the end - but not during the novel - I loved each and every one of the characters. The title of this review is a quote (p203 Konemann edition) and it is my feelings that are immensely positive from reading this book.

Other recommended reading:

For a non-Russian view of Russian people read 'Under Western Eyes' by Joseph Conrad

This book is known mostly, perhaps, for the character of Bazarov, widely considered the vanguard of nihilism in literature, especially in Russia. Bazarov is a significant fact of fiction, a sketch of the young middle class intellegentsia developing in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. Brash, self-confident, iconoclastic, educated young men like Bazarov were popping up all over Russia. Turgenev finds a way to tie this into a rich tapestry of love, familial relationships, and simplicity that Arkady and Bazarov, the young men, succumb to. Even in his determination to change the world by destroying it so it can be rebuilt, Bazarov does not overcome the strong bonds of family. Love and family has the sort of redemptive power found so often in War and Peace, and indeed, Turgenev writes from a similar perspective and on a similar wavelength as Tolstoy. This book, while not big on plot, is to be appreciated for blending its simple prose with a poetic passion in showing how love between fathers and sons is ageless, and love between men and women occurs. I found the last passage very moving.

Turgenev's Fathers and Sons is a timeless novel. Set in mid-19th century Russia it follows a few weeks in the lives of two young men, Arkadi and Bazarov. Turgenev sets the characters beliefs against each other and against themselves.

Fathers and Sons operates on many levels, a story of generation vs generation, of ideology vs love, new vs old and friend vs friend. Turgenev takes the pair on a journey through rural Russia. Each stop along the journey sets up the scenario for the tensions and revelations of the characters.

The character of Bazarov is one of the most vivid characters in literature. The timeless representation of a brash bright young man ready to teach the world everything it's doing wrong.

When Fathers and Sons was first published it caused outrage on both the right and the left in Russia. Both sides believed their characterizations were overdone and many never forgave him.

Fathers and Sons is highly recommended. Easily one of the best novels I have ever read.

Turgenev's novel is a poignant portrayal of life's transition: of young men and women entering adulthood, and parents entering old age and possible obscurity. The parents, like Nickolai and Vassily, seem to venerate their children like paupers to princes, seeing them as heirs to the world. The old Romantics seem lost in the new Nihilist world that Bazarov, Arcady, and even Sitnikov are preaching. The generations are at a crossroads: while the older generation tries to understand and leave the reigns for its descendants, the younger people feel invincibly wise and superior, and yet unknowing of what to do with their lives.

Bazarov assumes too much. His arrogance is overwhelming and irritating. He talks to his hosts, including parents, like they are children, and yet takes every luxury and resource they offer him. He never fails to take all that is given. His father showers him with love and kindness, shelter and money, and yet Bazarov will not even allow his father to hold a conversation with him, and stops him each time his father wishes to express himself to his son in his own way. Even more aggravating is Bazarov's action toward Fenichka. Nickolai offers him a roof and room, food, comfort - all for a virtual stranger - without complaint, and yet Bazarov sees fit to seduce the mother of his child. His regret is short-lived, and pride follows.

At this point most would tend to like the aristocratic character of Paul, who defends his brother's honor without anything to gain himself. While a duel is a rather foolish affair it nevertheless let Bazarov know that there are consequences to his unremorseful actions. And in the end, the reader can see the sincere kindness that Arcady had tried to convince Bazarov that Paul had, but that his mentor did not believe. Bazarov is certainly a force in the book, but Paul seems to be the most effective catalyst to the rest of the characters. I did not quite understand the reference in the book to Paul being a corpse at first, but I supposed it meant that he had changed forever, that he would never again see his aristocratic pretenses in the same way again.

Arcady is another likable character in the book, although his maturation and break with Bazarov seemed frustratingly slow at times. He keeps to a truer degree an idea of equality among classes, while Bazarov says it but doesn't seem to really believe it, and talks to them more as an aristocrat at times than an equal. Yet at the same time, Arcady retains his father's Romantic nature, and is thus able to function more effectively throughout the book. Bazarov, in contrast, seems to feel the need to move on to a different place each time his strict belief system is compromised. It is no coincidence, I'm sure, that most of the Romantics seem to go on living extraordinary lives in the end while Bazarov does not and Sitnikov is miserable, and even Madame Odintzov, who was infatuated with and much like Bazarov, does not find true love or happiness. Indeed, it is the end of the novel, being Bazarov's fate, which gives the story its true emotional weight. It is a well-written tale of generations that is certainly worth the journey.

I'm still a little disoriented at this Amazon site. I'm not sure if this is the Edmonds translation circa 1960s or not. That is when I first read this novel and it is the copy I still own. The Penguin Classics version is the one I am referring to. I've written other critiques, thinking I was talking about Penguins, only to subsequently discover I was on the wrong entry. If this is indeed the Edmonds-Penguin edition, let me first refer the reader to the eloquent and unsurpassed introduction by Isaiah Berlin. It runs for 50+ pages, but is the most precise, uncorrupted look at mid-19th century Russian literature that I have come across. If you want a supreme overview by a great thinker on a great subject, go directly to this introduction, do not pass go. If you have even indirectly perused The New York Review of Books, you know who Berlin is, and how revered a thinker he is. Here he sums up pre-revolutionary Russia in a few pithy phrases. He also speaks for me and for those of my particular generation who are caught between ideologies, as the "liberals" in Turgenev's time were. On Turgenev, the author: "He went on believing - perhaps this was a relic of his Hegelian youth - that no issue was closed for ever, that every thesis must be weighed against its antithesis, that systems and absolutes of every kind - social aand political no less than religious - were a form of dangerous idolatry." This is a novel about a "superfluous" man who was trapped between ideologies in 19th centrury Russia, when the young "nihilists" were at odds with the old-line liberals. This is what makes the novel so relevant in any age. There are always going to be clashes between generations and between those who hope for the "de-struction" of an old edifice for an only partially imagined design for a new one. Turgenev presents us with perhaps the most truthful representation of this timeless, generational conflict. Russian literature is essentially a triumvirate : Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Turgenev. If I were a manager, I would probably have Turgenev bat leadoff. He gets his point across better than the other two, though he doesn't have the bat speed. Chekov or Pushkin (though not in the triumvirate) could bat second, depending on who was hot at the time. I would have a really difficult time deciding between Tolstoy or Dostoevsky for clean-up hitter. E-mail me for your votes. I would also like some reader feedaback as to the origin of the word "nihilst" or nihilism. I doubt sincerely whether Turgenev coined the term. It sounds more like Bakunin or Herzen to me. What are your thoughts on the subject?

I think the thing I enjoyed most about "Fathers and Sons" was that it was short. The great Russian classics we generally think of are "War and Peace", "Crime and Punishment", etc. These are all long, drawn out books. "Fathers and Sons", thankfully, is short(er), with fewer characters and less confusion as to which person is which, especially since few have similar last names. Confusion does arise between Nicholas Petrovich and Paul Petrovich, his brother. There it is important to remember who is who, but luckily, their personalities are very different and it becomes clear very soon.

Another thing that is nice about "Fathers and Sons" is that it's different. It is not a book of great dramatic fighting (though there is one). It feels human and realistic. All the characters have both virtues and flaws that are easy to relate to. The ending is sad, but at the same time it is happy. It doesn't feel over-done, and I especially liked how the romance stuck in was sweet and not too out-there.

The book also reflects the difficulties Russia had during that period of time. Things were changing and some didn't welcome the change as much as others. Things that had once been acceptable became strange, and the people who believed in the old things became outdated. This book shows the concept of a generation gap beautifully while maintaining an interesting plot and characters.

I recommend it, partially because it's simply a good book, and partially because it shows that not all Russian classics must be long, drawn-out, and with lots of complicated names. Turgenev, who came before Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, will hopefully remain with them on the literary level for a long time to come.

Ivan Sergeyevich Turgenev, who lived through 1818-83, is thought to be one of the finest Russian writers. He studied in Moscow, St Petersburg and Berlin, then became a strong advocate of Russia's westernization. Here we see his masterpiece "Fathers and Sons" which I personally came across through the recommendation of a close friend.

Turgenev is a master of engaging the reader through the complexities of his characters. While you may initially feel contempt for some them, the more you learn of their contrasting personalities, you will eventually love them all in the end. If not for their beliefs and actions story-wise, then for how deep and well thought-out their various histories are. You may find yourself endlessly devouring page after page, wanting to know more about these fascinating people he's created.

For me, reading this book was like opening my eyes to a world I long neglected. In the next few days, I will no doubt find myself hunting down more of his works. In "Fathers and Sons" he focuses on every character's humanity and principles, then lets it all play out with such craft and unmistakable skill. From their conflicts and influences with each other, every character develops and yet remains the same.

Every scene he creates, is depicted vividly, with descriptions of subtle details in the backgrounds bringing his world to life. From the effortless way he lets the reader see his visions, we can easily grasp the character of his creations, their moods, their thoughts, and how we can relate to their emotions. It is certainly a crime for someone who's even remotely interested in novels not to read this book. And for those who aren't, they shouldn't neglect reading this either, they might just find something they will love.