Fathers and Children

A great Russian classic but in the traditional Russian genre. Very descriptive writing of people and places with the "normal" tragic Russian ending. Turgenev easily captures the soul of Russian writers of the 18th century.

I'm working my way through the great Russian works -- Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol, Solzhenitsyn, et al. This, of course, is on any list of the Russian greats so I dove in. At barely 200 pages, its easy to check off the list but I certainly didn't get the same reaction I did to the others, even compared to the shorter works such as Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich". There's no need for a detailed plot examination as others have done. Suffice it to say, while certainly not bad, I wouldn't rank it near the top with those previously mentioned.

Horrible. Horrible. I mean you.

I never want to have one of these questionnaires interrupt my enjoyment of a book. This is offensive . I do not , and will not pay for your service if you are so I intrusive.

Too disgusted to read beyond the first page because of the pompous ridiculous translation. Instead of doing an honest translation, this particular translator, Richard Freeborn, insists on inserting his own limited understanding of anything Russian.

Turgenev is wonderful. This translation is awful. The translator does not / can not speak English. It's as if she did it with a dictionary and thesaurus and no working knowledge of spoken English. Also lots of typos in the Kindle edition.

Arkady calling his father "Daddy" on page 5 - a ridiculous translation

Bought a paperback. "Papa" brought relief!

A very silly mistake and did not auger well for the rest of the book - one star.

Enough time often goes by between me purchasing a book and reading it that sometkmes I haven't the slightest clue what prompted me to buy it in the first place. This one I can easily explain. Way back in the ancient days of 2007 I went to see the Broadway production of Tom Stoppard's "Coast of Utopia" (all three plays in one day, which earned me a pin I still have and expanded my tendency to be a sucker for ambition beyond doorstopesque bricks of literature) which for those who aren't well versed in Stoppard or the theatre, was a trilogy of plays focusing on the debates between various Russian philosophies in the mid to late 1800s. Populated with a number of actual historical figures, I went into it knowing maybe two things: that Ethan Hawke and Billy Crudup were in it and I didn't know a blessed thing about Russian history or philosophy.

Fortunately for me and by completely random chance I had a professor of Russian literature or history from out of town (I don't remember which, though I suspect literature) sitting right next to me who during intermissions perhaps noticed me frantically flipping through the program trying to tell my Belinsky from my Bakunin and was able to give me a primer on what the heck all the people on stage were arguing about. During the course of our discussions (or, more precisely, her telling me and me trying to absorb it before the house lights went down again) she pointed out some decent literature to look for from the principles in the play. Author Ivan Turgenev was a character in the play and "Fathers and Sons", she said, was the book to read from him.

Thus, duly instructed, I went out and got it and here we are now. So, random helpful professor from a decade before whose name I never got, if you're reading this now somehow, sorry it took so long and I hope I do the book justice.

The first thing you'll probably notice about the book is that it isn't a thousand pages long like every other Russian novel I've ever read. In fact its quite slim and out of its less than three hundred page length about seventy pages of that is a framing lecture from well known academic Sir Isiah Berlin. The lecture is stuck at the front of the book and actually provided me with a nice refresher on all the stuff I'd forgotten from "Coast of Utopia" years ago although the rare person out there who is terrified of reading spoilers on a book published when Abraham Lincoln was still President may want to save it for the end. But, as dry as it can be for someone who isn't in the field, it did establish a decent context for what you're about to experience.

And what you'll experience is a surprisingly modern feeling novel. Taking its title absolutely literally, it is indeed about the relationships between fathers and son but what Turgenev does here is expand that relationship into an examination of the growing philosophical divide between generations, in this case the liberals and the nihilists . . . both of whom wanted social change in Russia. The liberals wanted things done at a bit of a slower pace or at least not lighting stuff on fire in the process while the nihilists in the early days seem like a cross between really mean beatniks and Heath Ledger's Joker, rejecting all authority and basically wanting to burn it all down before lighting the ashes on fire just to be sure its adequately cooked. And then making it someone else's problem to start over.

Its not very easy to write a plot around people arguing philosophy, especially not in the mid-1800s where the whole concept of what a "novel" was hadn't quite been formulated yet. Turgunev manages to pull it off through the interactions of recently graduated college student Arkady and his best friend Bazarov, both of whom come to stay with Arkady's father bringing this new hip thing called nihilism to shock the fuddy-duddys right out of their socks, daddy-o. As you can imagine, none of it goes over well.

Beyond the whole "19th century Russian literature" thing, how well you'll respond to this book depends on how you react to Bazarov, who graduated school with a Master's in Pissing People Off and basically spends the entire book being more in-your-face those those creepy spider-things from "Alien" that lay eggs in your chest. He spouts off constantly about social issues until he manages to make every single interaction resolutely uncomfortable, leading to either squirmy disagreement in the case of Arkady's dad (who's pretty polite) or his older brother Pavel who with his artistocratic airs basically wears a coat of buttons for Bazarov to push. But despite his prickliness and his tendency to think he's right about everything he never came across for me as anymore irritating than he was supposed to be, a young college guy high on philosophy who thinks he's got it all figured out.

Of course, this is 19th century Russia and it turns out no one has anything figured out. With the country in a state of flux and deciding exactly what kind of country it wanted to be you could imagine discussions like Arkady and Bazarov's taking place at tables all across the nation, probably only sometimes leading to duels. Turgenev has a sensitivity to every point of view and he goes out of his way to make everyone sympathetic in some way (as divisive as Bazarov can be, he's liked by a number of people due to his intelligence, even if some think he's just full of hot air) . . . he depicts a world where everyone knows things have to change to get better but no one is quite willing to give up their way of life to do it.

To that end Turgenev sticks our pair of friends in as many situations as a short book can manage, pitching Bazarov against Arkady's family, his own family (whose devotion to him is heartbreaking in how much he doesn't seem to care about it) and a wealthy young widow and her sister that the two of them spend some time with. Their constant struggles to understand each other, to sort of weave a path between the future and the traditional values that no one quite wants to give up yet, is what gives the book its friction.

As we move from one scene to another where Bazarov drops rhetorical bombs all over the place while waiting for microphones to be invented so he can start dropping those as well it should be no surprise that love both sort of shows a way and complicates things immensely, leading to everyone questioning how well their philosophies work when laid up smack dab against reality and the world they currently live in. It leads to one of the great doomed sequences I've read in literature (the Russians seem to have this knack for depicting the act of slowly dying with just enough melodrama to make it realistically awful) where even when you know its coming you feel a cold pit of inevitability suddenly form in your stomach. And in the end, things have to go on, and they do.

Short and very easy to read (its length is like an eighth of a subplot in "War and Peace") considering its translated from Russian and written while my ancestor were still in Europe content they were experiencing the best pizza . . . its not a book that will weigh heavy on you like the blunt objects in training that Tolstoy and Dostoevsky have cradfted but despite its guise as a study in generational conflict it feels more naturalistic than I expected. People get along and people fight and when the fighting gets tough they wonder if beliefs mean more than family or friendship and if so is that worth it instead of maybe trying to listen to each other. Which is still a debate worth having, whether its a hundred and fifty years ago or today.

Oddly, I despised the character Bazarov for much of the book. He grew on me, though as his character matures throughout the book. As time went by my opinion changed to pity, respect, and ultimately admiration. It wasn't until the end that I even realized he is the main character. I mistook Arkady as the mc, originally. But, in the end the whole story fleshes out very well and is an admirable literary treasure.

An amazing work, full of the many facets of family; Ivan Turgenev 's classic stitches together the lives of parents and children. I've read almost every major work of Feodor Dostoyevsky's, and a few of Leo Tolstoy's works, but now with this first foray into Ivan Turgenev's novels, it feels like closing the circle.

Dostoyevsky is my favorite of the three, by far, but I'd think Turgenev is a bit simpler. It would possibly be an easier introduction into the work of all three... or at least Fathers and Sons would be. It really is a relief to have found new territory here to fill my reading list, since I've all but exhausted Dostoyevsky's work.

Though the title refers to Parents and their children, the book goes much further into the meaning of love, and the enduring relationships between husbands and wives, and brothers.

I liked Anthony Heald's nuanced dramatization of the easily stereotyped Elmer Gantry a few years ago, when I was listening to Sinclair Lewis adaptations after making my way through his major novels. I assume Ivan Turgenev was in a way the Lewis of his day, half a century earlier, in sending up social mores and what a hundred years after Fathers and Sons was called "the generation gap."

This eight-hour reading of this 1862 work shows off Heald's ability to make characters brusque (Bazarov has a touch of blustering John Wayne to me), timid (most of the women regardless of class), bumptious (Arkady and his father Nikolai too), or flustered (Pavel among others). He also pays attention to the arguments advanced by the rude nihilist, and those of the Kirsanov brothers in reply: at one point the blunt doctor-to-be is chided as being among "four and a half" such angry young men.

In the narrative, both men face the opposition of the nobles and the upper class to their bold rejection of tradition and religion. Turgenev skims past these divisions, preferring to elaborate the psychological tensions as well as highlight the natural beauties apparent to one who in his earlier "hunting sketches" drew the plight of the suffering forward, as contrasted with the angst of graduates.
As my first exposure to Turgenev, this proved an engaging effort. I can see why Henry James praised his control of the narrative, and why Joseph Conrad would be attracted to its dissection of ideals. I'm not sure if it's risible that Bazarov for all his boasts of poverty--"my grandfather ploughed the land" visits his parents' home and mentions to Arkady that B's family only had fifteen (or was it twenty-two in another telling?) serfs. I suppose destitution was relative; I'd like to know Turgenev's take on it all.

As well as what "she's been through fire and water" and as a wag adds "all the brass instruments" means. While a bit may be lost in translation--Heald used the uncredited public domain Constance Garnett rendering while I followed along in the copyright-free 1948 Richard Hare version---this remains a valuable look at the up-and-coming tensions that would in half-a-century tear Russia apart. (P.S. As the store herds all the editions and media for such public-domain works into one, this is for the Heald audio although posted under Walter Zimmerman's heading.)

Rereading Turgenev is such a pleasure, especially his keen, intuitive observations. He published "Fathers and Children" in 1862 just after the 1861 liberation of the serfs in Tsarist Russia, close to the same time as the emancipation of the slaves in the US. The actual story takes place a couple years earlier in 1859 just before Tsar Alexander II emancipates the Russian peasants. In the narration one can see the change coming in the generational shift from older autocratic aristocrats to the ostensibly enlightened landowners. The gentry are already anticipating this emancipation and experimenting with shared use of the land, so basically sharecropping. And it has intractable problems, just like in the US. The younger generation is aware that there has been some phenomenal change, although no one is quite sure what it all means. Young Arkady, from the landed gentry, is optimistic. His well-meaning father Nicolai is trying to go with the changes, like trying to abandon the practice of flogging serfs, not totally successfully. The father even contemplates marrying the serf woman who is his mistress and mother of his new baby. Another student, Arkady's friend Bazarov, from the exceptionally thin Russian middle class, is cynical and nihilistic,rejecting all authority, eager to see all structure swept away, interested only in scientific facts. And his parents are also well meaning but confused. Worst of all, Bazarov is unkind to his mother, for a Russian a grave sin. Turgenev absorbs from his changing world a secondary question: If serfs and slaves are no longer chattel what does that mean for women? The early translations distorted the Russian by making the title "Fathers and Sons," so simply patrilineal. The Russian is clearly "Fathers and Children"--women play a key role in the Russian. This edition with the more accurate title and extensive commentaries makes that clear. The emancipated women in the story are not very appetizing, Kukshina is pretty disgusting. Anna is charming, but has no children. The only positive women are Fenechka, his father's peasant-mistress, but so orderly and such a good mother, they at first think she must be German, and Katya, Anna's younger sister, who has combined the best of the old ways with the best of the new. Bazarov is revolutionary but sterile, his cruel logic gets him into a serious conflict with Arkady's uncle, but Bazarov does not die in the duel. The figure of Bazarov is exceptionally ambiguous, attractive and dangerous. Turgenev somehow anticipates by decades the attractive and dangerous revolutionaries of the People's Will. These anarchistic ideas were new on the Russian scene at the time, only taken seriously by a handful of people. Did Turgenev know such goofy ideas would eventually do away with his world, probably he did not. He has Bazarov later succumb to an infectious disease, and his ideas pretty much die with him. Arkady marries Katya and presumably establishes a real Russian family. Order prevails, nihilists fade away. Traditional women carry on the culture. A lovely prediction that did not come true. Instead, in reality the Bazarovs would prevail. Alexander II, the most enlightened Tsar in Russian history, was murdered by revolutionary anarchists from the People's Will in 1881, and Alexander's grandson Nicholas II saw him die and was terrified the rest of his life, distrusting the Russians he ruled. Turgenev was a powerful observer and somehow knew the destructive force of nihilism. Turgenev certainly was onto something happening in the Zeitgeist, but he overestimated the strength of the ruling system and overestimated its ability to reform with time from within with small steps like Arkady's father marrying the serf mother of his child. (Something Turgenev who had a similar situation did not do...as we know from this editions commentaries...) Life in Russia would have been much more rational if Turgenev's passive assumption of reform from within, by small enlightened steps of reconciliation and rationalization, had prevailed. Turgenev's observations are more accurate than he likely realized at the time, like a security camera capturing images of seemingly random actions. But it is all so lovingly described, the countryside, the manners of the peasants and landowners, such a lovely portrait of a lost world on the brink....

Back in my younger days, when the civil rights movement was at its peak, African-Americans called those of their number who adhered to white rhetoric or white behavior "oreos", referring to those innocuous cookies which were dark brown on the outside, but had a white center. I thought of those long-ago cookies when I'd finished FATHERS AND SONS because despite his radical, nihilistic rhetoric, his insistence that science was everything, the Bazarov character's behavior didn't vary all that much from the older generation's. Ultimately, I felt, he was a Russian "oreo"; he talked the radical talk, but inside he was of the same old country gentry.

In beautiful language, Turgenev describes the scene in the countryside as a young student returns home to his father's estate, bringing with him a friend who rejects all commonly-held ideas and behavioral norms. He believes that everything in Russian society must be erased and a fresh start made. He has profoundly influenced young Arkady, who claims that his friend is the future, a genius, an amazing man. Arkady's father, a widower, has married again and had a child. He lives with his brother, a fine-mannered aristocrat of the old school, who takes an instant dislike to Bazarov. Bazarov and Arkady meet Anna Odintsova and her daughter. Bazarov has sworn off 'love' as a bourgeois or feudal notion, but he does fall in love nevertheless. He also winds up fighting a duel with Arkady's uncle despite his detestation of such customs. Arkady too succumbs to the country norms and conforms to the usual patterns of the time. I will not say how the book ends, though I'm sure somebody has already done so in these reviews. I felt that the ending was unworthy of such a great writer. The book peters out more or less. I wouldn't read this book for a great, dramatic, human epic like "Anna Karenina" or "The Brothers Karamazov".. Rather, it is a great novel because of the skill of the author, which even in translation, shines through wonderfully. This is one of the great Russian classics. Don't miss it.

Ivan Turgenev's Fathers and Sons was written in 1862, that considers the general nature of conflicts between generations, but specifically those in mid-19th century Russia as emancipation of the serfs was imminent and the empire was attempting a rapid advance into modernity. Turgenev develops his approach through presenting the opposing ideologies of the young, self-styled nihilist Bazarov and the more sophisticated, conservative, westernised Paul Petrovich. The pair are the progeny of seeds planted by Tsar Peter the Great, a paternal archetype, a century ago before. His supposed reforms had included affectations such as French conventions and French language adapted by the nobles and Prussian style military uniforms.

Yet there remained a cultural cringe against which Bazarov rebelled, resenting a Russian perspective whereby his country saw itself outside looking in towards the more economically and industrially developed European states. Bazarov's senior, the Francophile Paul Petrovich, educated in a European style military academy, had often travelled to Europe, and affected English dress. Turgenev derides him through his nephew Arcady who says of him that he was "a society lion in his day." But Turgenev implies that not only Petrovich's day, but the day of his type, is nearly done. Paul typified the aristocratic young men, the boyar generation who lived according to an imported code of honour and dignity.

Yet despite his contempt for imported conventions, the younger Bazarov fails to grasp the irony that he too is a product European nihilism. Yet he saw himself as part of a more enlightened generation, seeing in Petrovich the class and the generation that had suppressed Bazarov's generation, that had isolated Russia from the revolutions of 1848, that could have led to the importation of genuine reform. Bazarov voices resentment that affectations of European conventions without incorporation of European advances in science and politics had resulted in Russia humiliation in the Crimean Peninsula against a foreign allied army with problems of supply and a low degree of cohesion.

Petrovich finds it insupportable to be told that his generation had meant nothing by an upstart nihilist, and indeed Bazarov's judgement was harsh given the genuine changes that had occurred in the last century. Paul Petrovich and Bazarov stand for extremes in difference between generations, though Turgenev is careful to show that there are softer hues of difference as those between Arcady and Nicholas and between Basarov and his parents. Though the story may appeal primarily because it has a particular 19th century, Tsarist Russian flavour, the intergenerational conflicts also have a much wider appeal across times and cultures.

Turgenev, Ivan S. Fathers and Sons

Bazarov, the hero of this exposure of the pre-Revolution Russian aristocracy, is an intriguing character. He calls himself a Nihilist and his presence is felt even when the action moves to the estates of his young friend Arkady. For Bazarov is honest and direct, not to say rude to those who offer him accommodation, friendship and sympathy. Whilst Arkady is shy and reserved in expressing his feelings for Katia, his friend declares his passion outright for her elder sister Anna Sergievna. He accepts her cool response and prepares to leave. While others sport, chatter and socialise Bazarov studies frogs and is haunted by the fact of his insignificance compared with the eternity that surrounds him. He loves his parents but delays his visits to these ‘insignificant’ people.

The tension in the novel reaches its climax when Paul Petrovitch - Arkady’s uncle and an admirer of his brother Nikolai’s mistress Thenichka - witnesses Bazarov giving the lady a passionate kiss. Insensed by the effrontery he challenges the young man to a duel. Bazarov is obliged to accept what he sees as a ridiculous act and in a somewhat farcical encounter succeeds in inflicting a minor wound on his military antagonist. Thus the conflict between the generations is pilloried by the author.

To a large extent this is a novel of ideas. There are many political discussions regarding the status of workers on the estates and the position of women in society. Bazarov merely observes, rarely venturing an opinion. This disengagement is part of his charm, which is not lost on either of his female admirers, the high-born Anna Sergievna and the humble Thenichka. The plain fact is that Bazarov does not belong in the world of sqiredom, but to ‘the hard, bitter, reckless life of Nihilism.’

Fathers and Sons is by Russian standards a short novel, but it is packed with ideas, often far too eloquently expressed for modern tastes. Moreover there are other difficulties - the wretched names, the diminutives, the alternative forms of address, the formality of the language and the reader-addressing, none of which are likely to appeal to the Twenty-first Century reader. If you are prepared for this then you may still find this to be a riveting read.

After graduation from university, Arkady returned to his father’s house for a visit. Arkady’s friend Bazarov came with him. Bazarov and Arkady’s father, Nikolai, had never met until this visit. Nikolai was very much looking forward to having his son home. He anticipated the friendly conversations they would have and imagined he and his son becoming closer to each other. However, Nikolai was disappointed when it became evident that Arkady was enthralled with Bazarov’s nihilistic views. Bazarov himself was aloof during the visit. Though he was rarely rude outright, he had no patience for polite gestures and voiced his opinions regardless of whether anyone took offense. Nikolai had a kind and gentle spirit. Rather than defend against Bazarov’s assaults on tradition and authority, he considered Bazarov as perhaps correct, and lamented that the time of his own generation was passed.

Meanwhile, Arkady and Bazarov met Anna at a dance. Anna was beautiful and a woman of the world. She was enchanted by Bazarov’s courageous outlook and powerful demeanor. She invited the two friends to her house and they accepted her invitation. During their visit, Arkady became infatuated with Anna, but she took little interest in him. Anna and Bazarov spent much time together. Against his own will and sense of logic, Bazarov fell in love with Anna. To escape the sadness of his unrequited infatuation, Arkady spent most of the visit with Anna’ younger sister.

After various dramas and disappointments, the two men left Anna’s home to see Bazarov’s parents. Bazarov’s mother and father were elated over their son’s visit. Though they did everything they could to show their love for Bazarov, the relationship between the parents and the son was strained by Bazarov’s dislike of affection and absorption with himself. He had no sympathy for his mother’s religious fervor and frenzied devotion or his father’s fumbling attempts at camaraderie. After a short while, he and Arkady returned to Nikolai’s estate.

The ending shows the worth of Bazarov’s nihilism in the face of the human condition. Through the power of his charisma he made people believe that his ideas were new, but in truth they were only manifestations of his own vanity. And vanity is as old as mankind; the delusion from which all sins arise. Bazarov paid the price for his delusion, and made others suffer as well.

This novel is a picture of the perennial conceit of youth in conflict with the acquired wisdom of elders. The young believe they have discovered new truths by simply discarding old ones, while the old folks see this mistake for what it is yet recognize their own tenuous grasp on anything true. Some, like Bazarov’s parents, find solace in religion. Others, like Bazarov, take their strength from cold logic and experience. And there are those, as Arkady, who choose to occupy themselves with love and family. But in the end, life is as much a mystery to fathers as it is to sons.

Now I have read Chekhov and Gogol; Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky... who remained but Turgenev?

Here, I was told, I would find one of the greatest books of the 19th Century, and both the first Nihilist and the first Bolshevik. Well... I did enjoy the book, but the style is not my preference, and so it should be no surprise that it will not go on my "best of" list. Maybe I would like it better, were I not reading Henry Miller as well?

If one likes the formalism of the 19th Century, one will find a very good book here, though, to me, it felt somewhat inconsistent. Too often, in the first chapters did I see the author's strings as he tried to construct his story. These vanish by the middle of the work, but are cumbersome while they last.

Perhaps I would not have noticed, were I not particularly preoccupied with the issue at the moment. Every book I read, it seems, suffers some flaw brought on by whatever point of writing I am hyper-focusing on at the moment.

In the end, Turgenev examines a theme dear to my own heart, and for that, he gets points, as he does for his (mostly) well-drawn characters (or, as well drawn as the form allows). I also liked the length of the work, and his reasonable (among some of his contemporaries) use of chapter breaks.

Overall, I don't think I will be reading more of the author's works any time soon. If I feel the need to return to 19th Century Russia, I will do so through the eyes of Chekhov or Gogol.

A note on translation: So much with these books depends on a good translation. I could not help but feel, several times, that I was not getting my money's worth. I feel there was probably more here, at times, than I was being allowed to see, because the translator was not equal to the task.

I read Fathers & Sons in the Constance Garnet translation (despite what Nabokov and others say, I think she's still the best Russian translator we have, and well worth seeking out [note: I did NOT read the Kindle edition of this, but a paperback version translated by Garnett]. In my opinion, no one else comes close to matching her: the other versions all seem wooden and dead in comparison).

Turgenev is masterful at the quick biographical sketch, and in making little details come alive. His one-page, quick background story of his brother Pavel's pursuit of the unattainable woman, as well as the sense that he'd thrown his life away in useless pursuit, is heartbreaking and a marvel of economy. And Madame Odintsov: now there's a surprise! Where else do we see such a complex portrait of a strong independent woman in - well, in almost ALL of literature? And all the more remarkable that it's set in the mid nineteenth century. Then, in the end, the novel takes its dark turn (one never quite knows where it's going; it continually surprises), and you realize that everything is more complex than you thought. It reminds me of The Plague, in a way, and the ending, despite a sort-of brushtroke of heavenly forgiveness, seems breathtakingly - almost astonishingly - existential. It's absolutely stupendous, and I have to echo Chekhov's enthusiasm for it: "My god! What a magnificent thing Fathers and Sons is!" Especially in the Garnett translation...

Turgenev is seldom recognized as one of Russia's literary heavy weights, but in "Fathers and Sons", he captures the ongoing struggle between the older, more conservative generation (the serf owners still clinging to class divisions and specific gender roles) and the nihilistic youth that would eventually issue in a new era in Russian history (a classless society in which traditional values would be abandoned for philosophical ideals).
The story centers around a serf-owning Father and his educated Son. The son returns home after years away and brings with him a young nihilist, a brash young man who dismisses and essentially laughs at the values of his friend's father. Much to his credit, the father does his best to understand the radical views of the nihilist, but through his honest attempt at understanding, he begins to see the flaws and contradictions in this unfamiliar philosophy. Much to his credit, Turgenev remains remarkably objective in his portrayal of the competing generations and their views, and it is only through the character's actions does the author show glimpses of what he may believe.
As the story progresses, the two young friends visit comrades and relatives, and in each encounter, their beliefs are pitted against the realities of every day life. When the nihilist begins to fall in love with a radical young woman, he is torn between rebelling against romance or denying the core of his beliefs. The father attempts to embrace some of the nihilist's views in his treatment of both his serfs and the much younger woman that he has made his bride, only to be confronted by his flamboyant brother who finds the hypocrisy in his every action; and when an unexpected duel pops up between the nihilist and another, Turgenev deals with it as if it were a nuisance, essentially painting it as the bygone of the past that it would soon become.
Without making any grand statements or arriving at any conclusions about what is right or wrong, Turgenev has created an engaging snapshot of one family and its internal turmoil over the decade long transition that Russia was undergoing. Understated, philosophical without being preachy or overbearing, "Fathers and Sons" captures the nineteenth century struggles of the Russian everyman and serves as an excellent complement to the more recognized works of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.

Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov, a recent university graduate, returns to his parents' farm in a remote Russian province, accompanied by a school friend named Bazarov. Arkady's father, Nikolai Petrovich, is a widower. His brother Pavel Petrovich lives with him on his estate. Even though the "old men" in the story are only in their mid-forties, it soon becomes apparent that the two generations do not see eye to eye. Bazarov is a self-proclaimed nihilist who has taken Arkady under his wing. Bazarov scoffs at the older men's romantic ideals and aristocratic pretensions, while they cannot fathom his total lack of moral purpose and conviction. Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov soon develop a strong dislike for one another. Nikolai Petrovich feels uncomfortable in the presence of his own son, for he is ashamed to tell Arkady that he has taken a lower-class woman as a live-in lover.

Ivan Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons, originally published in 1862, was one of the first Russian works to be widely read throughout Europe and America. The story takes place at a time when Russia was emerging from its feudal past, and the newly reformed system of land ownership was transforming serfs into tenant farmers. Each character is representative of a different social strata and ideology, though apparently reform hadn't yet spread to the nation's literature because none of the important characters are peasants. Much of the novel revolves around political and social issues that will be lost on today's readers, unless you happen to be really well-versed in Russian history. What's left for those readers who aren't is a novel about personal relationships. For most of its length, the book is simply a series of conversations in which the characters get to know one another. Unfortunately, these dialogues are often dull and at times even annoying. As I read the book, the adjective that kept popping into my head was "well-described". Turgenev is an observant student of human nature, extremely skilled at depicting realistic human interaction, but he is either unable or unwilling to make the reader care about these characters. Bazarov ends up being the protagonist, which is unfortunate, because he's the least likeable person in the book. His juvenile cynicism gets old very fast. He can't even allow himself to love for fear of cracking his nihilist facade and displaying any sentimentality that may be perceived as a sign of weakness. Arkady is a much more sympathetic character, but unfortunately Turgenev grants him a lot less ink than his unpleasant friend.

Like Bazarov, one can sense that Turgenev, when writing this book, was making a conscious effort to be modern and iconoclastic. He is determined to present a bluntly realistic world where the characters don't behave according to romantic conventions. It's almost as if the story is deliberately boring in order to make a point. Yet in the end he resorts to the sentimentality of love and death just to generate some interest and empathy for these characters. The last quarter of the book is much stronger than the rest, because things actually happen.

Fathers and Sons may be Turgenev's best-known and most highly acclaimed work, but I found it so-so at best. Despite the author's perspicacity, this novel leaves an empty feeling that would make Bazarov proud. If this is the best Turgenev's got to offer, I think I'm done with him.

Ivan Turgenev's Fathers and Sons was written in 1862, that considers the general nature of conflicts between generations, but specifically those in mid-19th century Russia as emancipation of the serfs was imminent and the empire was attempting a rapid advance into modernity. Turgenev develops his approach through presenting the opposing ideologies of the young, self-styled nihilist Bazarov and the more sophisticated, conservative, westernised Paul Petrovich. The pair are the progeny of seeds planted by Tsar Peter the Great, a paternal archetype, a century ago before. His supposed reforms had included affectations such as French conventions and French language adapted by the nobles and Prussian style military uniforms.

Yet there remained a cultural cringe against which Bazarov rebelled, resenting a Russian perspective whereby his country saw itself outside looking in towards the more economically and industrially developed European states. Bazarov's senior, the Francophile Paul Petrovich, educated in a European style military academy, had often travelled to Europe, and affected English dress. Turgenev derides him through his nephew Arcady who says of him that he was "a society lion in his day." But Turgenev implies that not only Petrovich's day, but the day of his type, is nearly done. Paul typified the aristocratic young men, the boyar generation who lived according to an imported code of honour and dignity.

Yet despite his contempt for imported conventions, the younger Bazarov fails to grasp the irony that he too is a product European nihilism. Yet he saw himself as part of a more enlightened generation, seeing in Petrovich the class and the generation that had suppressed Bazarov's generation, that had isolated Russia from the revolutions of 1848, that could have led to the importation of genuine reform. Bazarov voices resentment that affectations of European conventions without incorporation of European advances in science and politics had resulted in Russia humiliation in the Crimean Peninsula against a foreign allied army with problems of supply and a low degree of cohesion.

Petrovich finds it insupportable to be told that his generation had meant nothing by an upstart nihilist, and indeed Bazarov's judgement was harsh given the genuine changes that had occurred in the last century. Paul Petrovich and Bazarov stand for extremes in difference between generations, though Turgenev is careful to show that there are softer hues of difference as those between Arcady and Nicholas and between Basarov and his parents. Though the story may appeal primarily because it has a particular 19th century, Tsarist Russian flavour, the intergenerational conflicts also have a much wider appeal across times and cultures.

Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" is a classic of 19th century Russian literature that needs no recommendation from me. So what distinguishes this edition from others is the additional material, in this case the 1963 foreword by Rosemary Edmonds, the translator of this edition, and also the 1970 Romanes Lecture by Isaiah Berlin, titled "Fathers and Children", about Turgenev, his place in the Russian literary and political intelligensia, and how both the Russian left and right perceived him and his novels. The sheer range and depth of Berlin's lecture has the unintended effect of putting Edmonds' fine foreword rather completely in the shade, especially as Berlin's lecture comes first in this volume. Edmonds' translation reads well, fitting her characterization of Turgenev as "urbanely international and highly civilized".

I should also note that "Fathers and Children" isn't simply a play on "Fathers and Sons", but is the actual title for the novel that Berlin uses. This raises the question of what the actual translation of the novel's title is from the original Russian, but I am not qualified to answer this question. In any event, this edition is worthwhile not merely for the novel, but for the introductory material, very substantial icing on the literary cake.

While I also love the fiction of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, having read this, Turgenev's most famous and popular novel, I was not surprised to learn from the editor of this edition that Turgenev was the most popular Russian novelist in Europe during the shared lifetimes of these three giant authors. And, perhaps surprising, throughout the 1850s and 60s, Turgenev was also the most famous and popular in Russia itself.

Fascinatingly, too, he was the most controversial and there was passionate debate both for and against Turgenev and this novel that continued right up until the 1950s.

Turgenev's greater popularity arguably rests on his deeper humanity and, thereby, psychological and emotional complexity, which he breathes into his principal characters from their first introduction. Unlike Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, whose own characters' complexity seem to originate more from subsequent experiences of trauma, crisis and conflict in their lives.

Of the characters themselves, there is much to enjoy, be engaged as well as challenged by. Bazarov and Arkady, university students, take a holiday together, visiting Arkady's landlord and liberal-minded, caring father (Nikolai) and uncle (Pavel), formerly a distinguished army captain, at Nikolia's farm and home, with whom Pavel also lives. The conflict between `fathers and sons' is played out primarily in this holiday, arising because of Bazarov's deepseated nihilism and his insistent, relentlessly stern advocacy of his negative, annihilistic views as he expresses them towards Nikolai and Pavel.

The story is worth reading just two characters alone: Bazarov himself, who is vividly infuriating and an anti-hero one will never forget on reading. He is supremely arrogant and contemptuous of others; recognising no rules of conduct or recognition of anything of value, save that which he himself defines and determines; is rude to his charming and much devoted friend, Arkady, who is himself in such awe of Bazarov and he can't help but give allegiance to him and his negative vision and attitude towards society, history, life in general (and particular). Even though this allegiance, along with Bazarov's comments, confound and upset Arkady's father - and frankly infuriate Pavel, ironically it is Bazarov's nihilistic own rejection of Arkady's friendship that brings Arkady to his senses, thereby explicitly reaffirming his humanism, empathy and love he always felt for both his father and uncle.

While Nikolai and Arkady are also very well drawn, besides Bazarov, the other character who is memorable, amusing - with a caustic sense of humour and irony -superbly realised, and great fun to read about - is Pavel. He's a Russian who, while now elderly, remains as he was from his youth: distinguished, handsome, a reputation as a `lady-killer', with an aristocratic flair, and besotted with English bespoke and colourful tailoring and fancy accoutrements (handkerchiefs, cufflinks, neckerchiefs). He's also deeply civilised, graceful, yet in no doubt of his views, with a strong and independent viewpoint and depth of character. He is also deeply generous and caring, having giving much of his money to Nikolai, to help him keep his farm and land.

And the intense debates between Pavel (increasingly infuriated), and Bazarov (bored, steely, deeply rude and negative), are worth the price of the novel many times over.

A note on this edition:

Because there are several editions of this novel available to buy, and some much cheaper than this one, I first wanted to highlight that I believe this one is by far the best to date, for two reasons: the translator, Rosemary Edmonds' version, is elegant and smooth, and her own introduction is excellent - providing meaningful reflection and understanding not only of the novel, but Turgenev's talent, other works, and the political and literary times he lived through. The second major reason is because this edition (I think) is the only one that contains Isaiah Berlin's brilliant, insightful lecture on the novel that he first gave in 1970, and was included in this edition from 1975 onwards, and that offers much insight into the novel's historical context and background in terms of philosophy and politics in Russia during Turgenev's lifetime.

There are multiple Fathers and Sons translations, and Richard Freeborn's is particularly controversial. It is certainly readable and does a remarkable job of conveying Turgenev's poetic prose. However, Freeborn tries to convey the character Bazarov's slangy speech by using Southern American dialect - a risky tactic that many will appreciate but some will loathe. Anyone looking for a worthy translation who is not bothered by this would do well to pick up Freeborn's version, but others are warned.

Now to the book itself. Though not Russian fiction's father in Nikolai Gogol's sense of adapting the language and producing its first notable fictional works, Ivan Turgenev is the direct antecedent of the psychological characterization and philosophical dramatization that is most closely associated with it and thus arguably its true father. Fathers and Sons, his most famous work and masterpiece, was the first Russian novel to attract Western praise, particularly winning over Henry James, who hailed it as a masterwork and championed Turgenev over the Russian writers who soon overshadowed him. One can debate Turgenev's merits relative to giants like Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy, but he certainly provides an interesting contrast, and Fathers and Sons has long had an indisputable place alongside their great works in the world canon.

The book is of course most famous for Evgeny Vasilevich Bazarov, its protagonist, who is both painstakingly realistic and thoroughly symbolic. He typifies the young, European-influenced, middle-class liberal that Turgenev rightly thought was a rising Russian power. A self-proclaimed nihilist, he rejects religion, conventional morality, and nearly every other traditional Russian virtue. He claims to believe in nothing but has a great passion for science and seems to believe in a sort of self-reliance. Though influenced by archetypes like Alexander Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, he was an essentially original creation - Turgenev's most memorable and famous character. Anyone at all familiar with Russian literature can immediately see that he became a prototype, his most famous manifestation being Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment a few years later. However, he is interesting enough in his own right, and his ambivalent depiction is fascinating. Though he is ostensibly a cautionary figure, a negative example, Turgenev was open-minded enough not to condemn him outright. His dark end is indeed a warning that pure nihilism is a dead end, but Turgenev at times seems as enthralled by Bazarov as anyone. This ambiguity was the main reason that the novel got very mixed reviews; it satisfied neither those who sympathized with Bazarov nor those who condemned him. Turgenev was stung and wrote less prolifically and enthusiastically from then on, but time has shown that the uncertain portrayal is exactly the book's greatest strength. Bazarov represents a path that Russia could have taken - or, if you will, one pole of human nature -, though admittedly an extreme one, and cannot be lauded or condemned outright. Turgenev was brave enough to give an honest portrayal, and the profoundly believable and insightful psychological portrait retains its power. Bazarov is one of the most interesting characters in a century full of great ones. He is hard to fully love or hate; he certainly has many despicable qualities, but only Pollyannas can deny some of his points, and the force with which he argues, in combination with his cynical apathy, has a certain perverse charm. We can debate him and what he stands for ad nauseum, but it is unlikely that anyone who reads the book will soon forget him.

There is of course far more to the novel, not least its vivid dramatization of the title's implied generation gap. Turgenev saw an ever-widening chasm between the liberals of his generation and the Bazarovs, dramatizing it with striking verisimilitude and stunning philosophical and psychological depth. His generation is represented by the brothers Nikolai and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. They have also embraced Europeanization but in ways that Bazarov finds contemptibly superficial: speaking French, wearing foreign clothes, etc. More fundamental is their continued clinging to traditional morality and institutions. Their interactions with Bazarov make clear that, religion and morality aside, the generation gap was to a great extent a class issue. The Kirsanovs are aristocrats, and Pavel Petrovich in particular resents the upstart Bazarov. Their clash soon culminates in a highly symbolic duel suggesting, especially in its aftermath, that while the Bazarovs may initially gain the upper hand, there is much to be said for the older generation, which should not be written off so quickly. Nikolai Petrovich is more moderate, abandoning tradition to the extent of taking a lower-class woman as a mistress and even having a child with her, yet aware enough to constantly worry about offending his brother. He can sympathize with Bazarov and is even willing to listen to his ideas but above all simply wants harmony. His son Arkady is at yet another place on the spectrum, respecting the elders but so naïve and joyous in his youthfulness that he becomes a Bazarov disciple almost without knowing.

These conflicts play out in various ways but primarily through Arkady, the only character who really changes. It can be assumed that he was squarely in familial tradition before college, where he nearly became a Bazarov clone, and he finally takes solace in love's redemptive power. There is no doubt that Turgenev thinks this last the right path - that we are supposed to think, as Arkady finally does, that Bazarovism leads only to wasteful self-destructiveness, making true happiness impossible and keeping us from doing the world any good. Some will of course disagree, but Arkady's progression is very plausibly written; it is hard not to sympathize and be glad for his eventual peace and bliss. The novel is thus among other things an excellent bildungsroman.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the book is how Turgenev dramatizes all this - and even makes his point clear - without heavy-handedness. Novels tackling such weighty issues often let didacticism overwhelm story, but Fathers and Sons is never guilty of this nearly always fatal sin. He is also a master stylist; his often lyrical prose encompasses not only dense philosophical speculation but also much sublime beauty. The last paragraph in particular is unforgettable in its precise beauty and profoundly moving sentiment - so well-written that even those who cynically disagree with the conclusion, and thus the book's overall message, cannot deny its immense power. Most notable of all is that Turgenev manages to do all this in under 250 pages. This is the greatest difference between him and the more famous Russian masters known for their thick tomes. Turgenev eschews their great attention to detail, lengthy dialogue, and long philosophical asides. Those who, like James, detested such "loose, baggy monsters" may join him in preferring Turgenev, and the differences are substantial enough that even those who dislike Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and their ilk should not pass over Turgenev automatically on account of it. That said, he shares enough of their great elements - indeed, inspired many of them - that their fans should check him out. His remarkable conciseness is certainly less intimidating, and there are many benefits to reading the Russian greats chronologically. In short, the appeal of Fathers and Sons is so great and diverse that the book is a must for practically anyone who appreciates great literature.

Turgenev's novels express a continual desire to find a new model for the Russian male, a hero for the time - idealistic and progressive, but also practical, his nature and strength still rooted in the very land itself. While some of these characteristics are evident in the heroes of Nest of the Gentry, On The Eve and Rudin, there's still something lacking, the Russian men still ruled by their hearts more than their minds, unable to break from the shackles of old society, old tradition and old ways of thinking.

In Fathers and Sons (1862), Turgenev creates a character, a Nihilist, to overthrow these old values. Into Bazarov, Turgenev pours all the qualities that he believes the Russian man should have - stout-hearted, educated, intelligent, decent and self-sacrificing, yet ruthlessly contemptuous of old ways. He is no respecter of the "sacred tradition", the aristocracy, or indeed the lower classes, who still cling to the securities they knew under the old feudal system. Ironically, the nihilistic, revolutionary character of Bazarov would find favour with neither the old establishment nor the new regime, making life in Russia difficult for Turgenev (who had already been imprisoned for his support of Gogol), and later see him going into exile.

Fathers and Sons however goes beyond the historical importance of the work, touching on sentiments in the father/son relationship that are still relevant today - the need to break with the past and overturn old ideals, and the sadness of the wedge that this places between parent and child, but the necessity of doing so in order to find a new and better expression in the evolving modern world. In many ways however, the world in Fathers and Sons still resembles that of Rudin, with the same kind of characters, landowners and aristocrats on country estates, with the same social divisions, having the same fruitless discussions about art, family and society - even if it is to condemn them here - while forming romantic attachments.

Fathers and Sons however is certainly a much better constructed and balanced novel than Rudin, the characters actively pursuing revolution rather than merely talking about it, although perhaps because of their very nature, they still fail to make a significant impression on society. Turgenev's model of Bazarov as a character for the future of the new Russia therefore doesn't entirely succeed and there is still some romanticism both in the character and Turgenev's depiction of him. It would take better writers like Tolstoy and Chekhov to delve deeper into the Russian character - and human nature - and bring it out in all its complexities and contradictions. Bazarov then is very much a hero for his time, and Fathers and Sons, although perhaps Turgenev's best novel with much to admire in it, is also very much of its time, while Tolstoy and Chekhov are eternal.

Every since the beginning of time there has been generational conflict but also love between parents and children. In his classic Russian masterpiece of 1861 the novelist Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883)illuminates these issues in a short book of 225 pages. We see different philosophies from the characters ranging from skepticism to pious Christian belief.
The novel is set shortly before the emancipation of the Russian serfs in 1861. Arkady, a young graduate of the University of Petersburg, and his friend Barzhov, a medical student, arrive at his father Nikolai's small run down estate. Barzhov and Arkady are nihilists who wish to eschew every form of romanticism in life. They claim to disdain music and poetry believing in materialism and scientific progress. Barzhov is a pre-Bolshevist in his disdain of traditional religion, morals and Russian society. He is influenced by Hegel and urges revolution in Russia. Arkady is a shallower and weaker young man. He loves his father, his old roue of an uncle Pavel who lives on the estate and is a follower of Barzhov. The two former students learn Nikolai has a young mistress who has produced a child. They cast no scorn on Nikolai for this reality and wish the old man well. It is obvious that Arkady is a man who loves his father, mourns his mother and old nursemaid and enjoys the beauty and simplicity of the Russian countryside.
Later in the novel there will be two romances. Barzhov feels attracted to the wealthy and beautiful Anna while Arkady falls for her younger sister. Barzov dies helping peasants during a typhoid epidemic while Arkady weds the young lady he has been courting. Father Nikolai weds the mistress and the couple live happily together on their estate.
The novel is famous for its introduction of nihilism in Russian fiction. Barzhov is a fascinating and complex human being. He speaks against marriage and love but it is clear he is a man who loves and feels deeply. His deathbed scene is short but powerful. The picture of his weeping parents visiting his grave is a high emotional mountain in the land of literature. It is a scene not easily forgotten. This is a book calling out for a modern screen treatment.
Turgenev is excellent in his lyrical descriptions of the Russian peasants, the changing seasons and the flora and fauna of the countryside. Despite several readings I always enjoy this powerful prose work of a master of the art. If you are just beginning to read Russian literature this is an excellent short work to begin your journey. The long introductory essay on the life and works of Turgenev and the liberal agenda in nineteenth century Tsarist Russia is also a classic deserving of your attention. Excellent and moving. This is a novel to be cherished!

Though not Russian fiction's father in Nikolai Gogol's sense of adapting the language and producing its first notable fictional works, Ivan Turgenev is the direct antecedent of the psychological characterization and philosophical dramatization that is most closely associated with it and thus arguably its true father. Fathers and Sons, his most famous work and masterpiece, was the first Russian novel to attract Western praise, particularly winning over Henry James, who hailed it as a masterwork and championed Turgenev over the Russian writers who soon overshadowed him. One can debate Turgenev's merits relative to giants like Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy, but he certainly provides an interesting contrast, and Fathers and Sons has long had an indisputable place alongside their great works in the world canon.

The book is of course most famous for Evgeny Vasilevich Bazarov, its protagonist, who is both painstakingly realistic and thoroughly symbolic. He typifies the young, European-influenced, middle-class liberal that Turgenev rightly thought was a rising Russian power. A self-proclaimed nihilist, he rejects religion, conventional morality, and nearly every other traditional Russian virtue. He claims to believe in nothing but has a great passion for science and seems to believe in a sort of self-reliance. Though influenced by archetypes like Alexander Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, he was an essentially original creation - Turgenev's most memorable and famous character. Anyone at all familiar with Russian literature can immediately see that he became a prototype, his most famous manifestation being Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment a few years later. However, he is interesting enough in his own right, and his ambivalent depiction is fascinating. Though he is ostensibly a cautionary figure, a negative example, Turgenev was open-minded enough not to condemn him outright. His dark end is indeed a warning that pure nihilism is a dead end, but Turgenev at times seems as enthralled by Bazarov as anyone. This ambiguity was the main reason that the novel got very mixed reviews; it satisfied neither those who sympathized with Bazarov nor those who condemned him. Turgenev was stung and wrote less prolifically and enthusiastically from then on, but time has shown that the uncertain portrayal is exactly the book's greatest strength. Bazarov represents a path that Russia could have taken - or, if you will, one pole of human nature -, though admittedly an extreme one, and cannot be lauded or condemned outright. Turgenev was brave enough to give an honest portrayal, and the profoundly believable and insightful psychological portrait retains its power. Bazarov is one of the most interesting characters in a century full of great ones. He is hard to fully love or hate; he certainly has many despicable qualities, but only Pollyannas can deny some of his points, and the force with which he argues, in combination with his cynical apathy, has a certain perverse charm. We can debate him and what he stands for ad nauseum, but it is unlikely that anyone who reads the book will soon forget him.

There is of course far more to the novel, not least its vivid dramatization of the title's implied generation gap. Turgenev saw an ever-widening chasm between the liberals of his generation and the Bazarovs, dramatizing it with striking verisimilitude and stunning philosophical and psychological depth. His generation is represented by the brothers Nikolai and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. They have also embraced Europeanization but in ways that Bazarov finds contemptibly superficial: speaking French, wearing foreign clothes, etc. More fundamental is their continued clinging to traditional morality and institutions. Their interactions with Bazarov make clear that, religion and morality aside, the generation gap was to a great extent a class issue. The Kirsanovs are aristocrats, and Pavel Petrovich in particular resents the upstart Bazarov. Their clash soon culminates in a highly symbolic duel suggesting, especially in its aftermath, that while the Bazarovs may initially gain the upper hand, there is much to be said for the older generation, which should not be written off so quickly. Nikolai Petrovich is more moderate, abandoning tradition to the extent of taking a lower-class woman as a mistress and even having a child with her, yet aware enough to constantly worry about offending his brother. He can sympathize with Bazarov and is even willing to listen to his ideas but above all simply wants harmony. His son Arkady is at yet another place on the spectrum, respecting the elders but so naïve and joyous in his youthfulness that he becomes a Bazarov disciple almost without knowing.

These conflicts play out in various ways but primarily through Arkady, the only character who really changes. It can be assumed that he was squarely in familial tradition before college, where he nearly became a Bazarov clone, and he finally takes solace in love's redemptive power. There is no doubt that Turgenev thinks this last the right path - that we are supposed to think, as Arkady finally does, that Bazarovism leads only to wasteful self-destructiveness, making true happiness impossible and keeping us from doing the world any good. Some will of course disagree, but Arkady's progression is very plausibly written; it is hard not to sympathize and be glad for his eventual peace and bliss. The novel is thus among other things an excellent bildungsroman.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the book is how Turgenev dramatizes all this - and even makes his point clear - without heavy-handedness. Novels tackling such weighty issues often let didacticism overwhelm story, but Fathers and Sons is never guilty of this nearly always fatal sin. He is also a master stylist; his often lyrical prose encompasses not only dense philosophical speculation but also much sublime beauty. The last paragraph in particular is unforgettable in its precise beauty and profoundly moving sentiment - so well-written that even those who cynically disagree with the conclusion, and thus the book's overall message, cannot deny its immense power. Most notable of all is that Turgenev manages to do all this in under 250 pages. This is the greatest difference between him and the more famous Russian masters known for their thick tomes. Turgenev eschews their great attention to detail, lengthy dialogue, and long philosophical asides. Those who, like James, detested such "loose, baggy monsters" may join him in preferring Turgenev, and the differences are substantial enough that even those who dislike Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and their ilk should not pass over Turgenev automatically on account of it. That said, he shares enough of their great elements - indeed, inspired many of them - that their fans should check him out. His remarkable conciseness is certainly less intimidating, and there are many benefits to reading the Russian greats chronologically. In short, the appeal of Fathers and Sons is so great and diverse that the book is a must for practically anyone who appreciates great literature.

Fathers and Sons is perhaps the defining document of Russian literature regarding the question of the emergence of a new generation of modern thinking. It is here that we find Bazarov, the essential nihilist of his time, (a kind of nihilism one would identify with materialism and positivism) is situated vis-à-vis the aging values of another Russia. Circulating around this central conflict would emerge the basic clash between the tenets of a scientistically oriented materialism and a religious idealism devoted to the tenets of eastern orthodoxy. And despite the apparently schematic tenor of such a story, Turgenev's artistry imbues characters like Bazarov with wonderfully conceived contradictions--for Bazarov is ultimately at bottom a profoundly sensitive and caring individual, he is at odds with himself and his commitment to the cold, calculating determinism of the modern. A wonderful novel that holds up to the very heavy weights of a Dostoevsky or a Tolstoy.

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 review will cover both the audio book and my impression of the novel.

The narrator was George Guidall. He had a pleasant voice and was easy to understand and listen to. He didn't do the types of characterizations that I learned to like in other readers. Thus, when different characters were speaking, you couldn't tell them apart by the way he spoke. In the case of this novel, it wasn't very important, since the dialog is clearly spelled out who was speaking. I would say that this reader was acceptable, but not outstanding.

The novel itself was very interesting mainly on account of the character of Bazarov, who is a nihilist. It gave me a good feel for what a nihilist really thinks. In this case, Bazarov has many good characteristics along with his strange beliefs and is well liked by the majority of the characters.

I thought that Turgenev did a good job of exploring this character and his relationships with others and the changes that occurred within himself. The other main characters were his best friend and both of their fathers. The generational differences were fascinating and the way that the fathers were so open minded with the new ways their sons were thinking was interesting to me.

It gave me a good glimpse into 19th century Russia. If I look at the author's peers, I still like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky better, but he is still worth reading.

Rereading this book after a lapse of many years was a little like revisiting a place seen in childhood -- it seemed smaller than remembered, or at least more limited. I think my disappointment centered on Turgenev's killing off Bazarov (sorry if that's a spoiler). In an earlier novel involving a revolutionary, On the Eve, the same thing happened. Killing off a character is a great way to avoid dealing with the problem he or she represents. Some readers have described Turgenev as impartial, but I don't believe that's true. Turgenev doesn't like revolutionaries. He likes nice, normal, stable people. Despite the vividness of Bazarov as a character, there are ways in which he fails to be really representative of a generation of radical intellectuals. Radical intellectuals are not typically loners. They have circles, comrades, mentors. Bazarov is not shown in a radical milieu but on a visit to his friend Arkady's home, where he confronts Arkady's liberal father and conservative uncle. (Arkady is not a radical but a nice, normal, stable kid who came under Bazarov's influence at college and will quickly outgrow it.) After a few weeks the two friends leave for the nearest town, and they meet two other "advanced" individuals -- who are portrayed not as thinking people but as followers of intellectual fashion, in really vicious caricatures. Then they meet Anna Odintsova, a beautiful, intelligent, wealthy widow who invites them to her estate. On the estate Bazarov falls desperately in love with her, and there are scenes of romantic tension that are really quite well done -- except that when Odintsova asks Bazarov what he plans to do with his life he doesn't have an answer. That was surely his cue to win her with his vision of a future. But he doesn't have one -- that is, Turgenev doesn't let him have one -- and so she feels that he really represents "nothing" and does not respond to him. Whereupon he pines away and dies, basically, like a character in a sentimental novel, but not like the man of vitality and intellectual interests (i.e. no sophomore but a doctor with a way with children) that he had been shown to be.
It's a testimony to the power of art that a generation of radicals would accept the label Turgenev coined for it -- "nihilists" -- a coinage which seems to me unfriendly, like Turgenev's treatment of Bazarov generally. Names have real power, and we'll never know if positive developments might have had more chance in Russia without this label. At first I gave this thing a four, because it's a classic and is undoubtedly beautifully written. But I really don't like it.

In his remarkable masterwork, Ivan Turgenev gives a Russian face to a phenomenon that re-occurs throughout history. As sons rebel against the ways of their fathers, the sons search for a better life. In 19th century, the conflict is only differentiated by its setting.

The novel centers on the friendship of Bazarov and Arkady, who becomes friends at the university. In their travels, they on separate occassions stay with each other's families as well as a upper caste people. In these travels, Bazarov's thoughts on nihilism are put to the test. Often, he tears at the fabric of society. Though Arkady is somewhat naive, he struggles with his friends ideology.

There is little doubt that Bazarov is an educated man as he explores medicine at each destination. Yet the beauty of the story lies in the fact that the simplest things elude him. Though his parents and Arkady's father are portrayed as being simple, they possess what Bararov lacks. The way the story leads into it makes the ending that much more appropriate.

Even as history repeats itself, many will learn the lesson of this beautiful story before ever reading it. Some will never learn it. Yet the poetic realism of this masterpiece reminds readers that even a story of failure can be worthy.

The multitude of reviews for this very famous book...Well, son, there's nothing new to say in this review. So, here are a few of the things (some trifling) that gave me such pleasure when I read this back toward the end of high school.
1. The scene early in the book between Fenitchka and Pavel Petrovitch. Later, Fenitchka confesses discomfort around Pavel, due to Bazarov's romantic advances in the garden. Was I alone in seeing a bit of the ole wist of the bachelor (which is refered to several times in the novel, apropos of Pavel) in Pavel's appreciation of Fenitchka and babe?
2. The duel between Pavel and Bazarov is masterfully and elegantly rendered. Piotr cringing behind a tree in my edition's woodcut was a bonus.
3. The melancholy that pervades the entire book. Yes, I've weaned myself on Faulkner and Chekhov, where all humor is black humor. Bazarov dying of typhus from surgical infection, Anna Sergeyevna appearing at the Illyitch abode dressed as a mourning wife, though she earlier spurned Bazarov's romantic advances...All minutely and beautifully portrayed.
4. Description! Character Development!: The moles on Arkina Illyitch's(Bazarov's mother)face, Pavel tugging his moustaches in moments of skepticism or perplexity. Madame Kukshin, with her deranged Russian volumes and compound to render dolls' heads unbreakable...Why do I love this stuff?
Russian authors...You gotta love 'em!...

Characters are carefully described to respresent different political and cultural positions in the 19th Century Russia where old and new are unclear but in vigorous transition. Unlike Dostoevski (whom I admire as well), Turgenev's approaches to the characters and stories are rather calm and controlled. They are not exaggerated or dramatic, their thoughts do not shift back and forth, and there is not alot of pondering. In the end, wherever the history takes, there is a sense of continuation of life, "However passionate, sinning, and rebellious the heart hidden in the tomb, the flowers growing over it peep serenely at us with their innocent eyes; they tell us not of eternal peace alone, of that great peace of "indifferent" nature; they tell us, too, of eternal reconciliation and of life without end.

With Fathers and Sons, Turganev shocked the Russian literati with his portrayal of Bazarov, the self-described 'nihilist'. Rejecting everything and recognising no single authority, Bazarov was a kick in the teeth of the aristocracy's grand old men, a rebellion of the son against the father.

Evgeny Bazarov is a young man, with ideas that he believes are the only rational, reasonable way to live and behave. He is contemptuous of love, of sentimentality, of tradition and of the aristocracy. Yet he is intelligent and capable, and believes the way he does not through a sense of hostility and outrage, but because it seems right to him. His younger friend, Arkady, considers Bazarov his 'mentor', and though the two disagree with the depth of nihilism that is necessary for accurate living, they are for the most part in agreement.

Bazarov's nihilism is argued amongst the characters at several different stages of the novel. Turganev chose not to make the hero an unassailable target - both the negatives and the positives of such an outlook are admirably explained, discussed and dissected. The characters are intelligent in their own field or experiences, and all are willing to add to the argument. Obviously, the title should reveal to all that it is the father's of the two main characters, Arkady and Bazarov, who have problems with the younger generations ideas, though the 'fathers' of the story do try to understand Bazarov's thinking, rather than merely stamping him down with their experience and wisdom.

The characters are very well realised. Pavel Petrovich is the typical Russian aristocrat, unable to fully understand the scope of change that the emancipation of the serfs will bring. Arkady is the eager student, a man who wishes to embrace the concepts of nihilism, but who finds himself drawn into sentimentality towards his family, and who falls in love. Katya, Arkady's love, is one of the shallowest characters, but even she works on a level beyond being merely a foil to Arkady's belief. Anna Sergeevna, Katya's sister, is a tremendous character, being both passionate and intelligent, and able to duel equally - and sometimes better - against Bazarov's wit.

A word on the translation by Richard Freeborn. For the most part it is good, and the dialogue is very good, but there are moments that feel awkward or amateurish. An odd turn of phrase or - more common - an inexplicably placed colloquial term of slang phrase lessens the impact of a scene. Bazarov referring to his 'mates' in conversation tends to decrease the impact of the ideas set forth, and while would not have been so noticeable if the entire novel was constructed in such a matter, the rest of the writing is quite formal, and as it is, the narrative structure suffers somewhat. Regardless, Fathers and Sons is a very interesting examination of the conflict of ideas that parents and their children necessarily experience, and has the admirable quality of being fair and honest to both sides, with very little in the way of bias on either side, even considering that Bazarov is the main thrust of the narrative.

I have just finished reading this wonderful book, "Fathers and sons", and I wanted to share my impressions with you. Oh, what a superb novel! I will never forget Bazarov and his constant questioning, his revulsion against nothingness, his moodiness, his noble demeanor.

Turgueniev places in Bazarov the almost unbearable burden of nihilism. Nihilism as a philosophical posture, a methodic negation of systems of belief; nihilism as a continuous quest for the truth. Bazarov's nihilism derives in action and not in an empty criticism of reality that may end up in mere discouragement. As Ortega y Gasset once said: nihilism as a result of having wondered about every ideological creation, every philosophical stance.
Family ties and the confrontation among generations of fathers and sons are also masterly depicted throughout the book. Turgueniev portrays the perplexity of the father when faced with the reality of time ticking inexorably away as well as unconditional love for the son that comes home after a long absence.
I will never forgive Turgueniev for denying Bazarov the possibility of happiness. But I am no one of importance to say what the author should or should have not written. Anyhow, Bazarov's stance before death is as unforgettable as that of Camus' Meursault in "L'etranger" or the anonymous character condemned to capital punishment in Victor Hugo's "Le dernier jour d'un condamné". And here, dear friend, I must make a confession: I have still tears in my eyes, something that Bazarov would have never approved of. If he saw me right now, he would certainly accuse me of being romantic. He would consider my behavior as that of a foolish waif, a weakness proper of a bourgeois woman. Yet, my friend, I don't complain about it: he may be right, but I can't conceal emotion. I hope you will understand me.
What shall I add? You know this novel better than I do. Far from Dostoievsky's books whose characters are constantly dwelling on the brink of madness, this is still a Russian novel, full of sadness and melancholy, where the eternal brooding over social justice in a country that remained feudal until the XXth century taints the story form the first page to the last...

'Fathers and Sons' by Turgenev is no doubt a very importnat book - considered to be Turgenev best work, it features beautiful poetic descriptions, very sharp and wiity dialogues, poignant characters - some spiky and some very soft, and conflicts that will never die and remain relevant until today (like that of nihilism - the term which was coined by Turgenev in this book). It is very captivating and i found Bazarov to be a very interesting charcter (although it seems less original when you look on the literature of the last century. We must remember Bazarov was the Father of the Nihlisits to come. and the originality is his). However, I feel somewhat ambivalent about Turgenev - first of all because his ugly way of treating Dostoevsky at the time, and the way he mocked the young Dostoevsky. Secondly, i'm not sure if it's merely deformed hazy memory but i belive if found his book 'home of the Gentry' to be a better book - maybe because it was more naive and sublime. Anyway, it's certainly a very important book, maybe even a masterpiece - but for me it is not in the level of the great masterpieces of Tolstoi and Dostoevsky. That is because in my opinion his messages and his way of giving them are inferior in it's profoundness to those of the previous two.

...Actually, some of my favorites are the Russian writers and true to form, Turgnev's is a novel of philosophy, love (both brotherly and romantic), and sprinkled with a little adventure and tension. Uncharactaristic of Russian novels though, is Turgnev's terse, economical form and (in my opinion) his neutrality to the chaaracters involved. Unlike Tolstoy, there are no seemingly irrelavent asides, and unlike Dostoevsky, Turgnev doesn't play favorites with the characters.
The novel itself is about a young man (Arkady) returning home from college with a friend (Barazov). These two boys are nihilists (meaning they accept no tradition or general truth outside of the scientific). Arkady's father and uncle are traditionalists and the clash is interesting and as several reviewers mention, shockingly relevant to our current climate.
Another point of departure from the Russian Novel... is that the characters change very much through out the novel. Instead of accentuating character traits and sticking with those, Turgnev cleverly weaves the characters through the ups and downs of love, travel, deuling and death. If you appreciate good characters as I do, you will find the growth of these multi-faceted characters thrilling. You might even want to keep a highliter handy for some of the authors amazing observations and lines (i.e., "After all, he didn't become a nihilist for nothing!") ...

I am slowly working my way through the great works of Russian literature - in translation and in chronological order. FATHERS AND SONS was written in 1862. Thus, it is after the classic Russian novels of Pushkin, Lermontov, and Gogol. But - at least in my self-directed reading program - it is the first "Western" Russian novel. Its predecessors were distinctively Russian. FATHERS AND SONS, although very much concerned with Russian subjects, strikes me as a novel that, in tone and style and with its philosophical dimension, might well have come from the pen of a Frenchman, Englishwoman, or German; it is, in a word, "Western". It also is excellent.

As the title suggests (a more literal translation of the Russian would be "Fathers and Children"), the novel explores generational differences, if not quite outright conflict (though at one point the friction does spark a duel). It is set in 1859, on the eve of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia. There are two representatives of the younger generation (Eugene Bazarov and Arcady Kirsanov) and three representatives of an older generation (their fathers plus Arcady's uncle Peter). The central character is Eugene Bazarov, who "admits no established authorities [and] takes no principles for granted"; for him, the only truths are those of science. Eugene Bazarov is an archetype of the new generation of thought that began sweeping Russia in the 1850's and came to be called nihilism; in fact, the word "nihilist" was invented by Turgenev and introduced in FATHERS AND SONS.

Turgenev does not take sides as between the romantic idealists of the elder generation and the materialists (or nihilists) of the younger one. As for Eugene, life o'ertakes him and he, reluctantly but ineluctably, compromises his tough, unsentimental principles of nihilism. Likewise with Arcady's uncle Peter, who is chief standard-bearer of the old order, and his principles.

As well as featuring the relations between generations, FATHERS AND SONS also features relationships between the sexes. In the course of the novel, both of the younger heroes develop intense romantic attachments with women (in both cases, somewhat to the surprise of all concerned). Several flirtatious conversations in which the participants discover and then reveal their feelings are among the highpoints of the novel. In addition, there are the touching marriages of Eugene's elderly parents and Arcady's widowed father and a much younger woman (younger than Arcady).

Turgenev seems to be skeptical of the political and social changes that are afoot in Russia. I believe he would be skeptical of all ideologies. But he is a humanist, and when it comes to men and women, somewhat of a romantic. As I read the last third of the novel, the words and music of "As Time Goes By" played in my mind.

The volume I read is an old Signet Classics paperback, with a 50 cent price, translated by George Reavey. I bought and first read it sometime in the early 1970s. I remembered little about the novel, other than having had a generally favorable impression. Now I am very taken with it. Perhaps it is one of those novels that are more appreciated towards the later stages of one's life. In any event, I now view FATHERS AND SONS as a classic novel, one that could be read both for sheer pleasure and for its humanism every ten years or so.

Fathers and Sons has been hailed as a masterpiece of Russian literature, but I knew nothing about it before picking it up. I was certainly impressed.

The book centers around Yevgeny Bazarov, a young radical who embraces the idea of nihilism. Bazarov rejects the old conventions of the past (religion, aristocracism, liberalism, essentially all "-isms") and believes that life is meaningless. During his travels with his friend, Arkady Kirsanov, he discusses and argues his beliefs with both parents and other characters. Despite his insistence that nothing in life has any meaning, Bazarov is a caring, loving man.

What happens in the plot is of little importance compared to the progression of Bazarov and his beliefs over the course of the novel. The novel's ending comes suddenly, but is not surprising.

What is more crucial to the novel's success is the way it captures the essence of people's relationships and feelings through Turganev's recounting of events. One always can tell where people stand in their opinions of each other simply by their basic actions.

I was fascinated that in Bazarav, I could see feelings about tzars and social class in general which was reminiscent of the impending Soviet Communist Revolution. I also saw overtones of modern existentialism in a 19th century novel.

Like many Russian novels, Fathers and Sons can be somewhat wordy and complex. I am not sure if the English translations are to blame or if the style of Russian writing is simply not what Americans are used to. Nonetheless, Fathers and Sons is a classic and should not be missed.

Ivan Turgenev was the first of the Russian writers of the XIX Century to make a name for himself outside his country. His novels influenced many of the great writers of the first half of the next century, such as Conrad, Virginia Wolf, Galsworthy and Henry James, who admired the Russian writer deeply. In his most famous novel, `Fathers and Sons', the writer focus on the never-ending clash between generations.

Although it is set in the XIX Century Russia, the narrative has universal and timeless connotation. "Fathers and Sons" focus on the conflict between younger member of Russian society that longed for reforms, and old intellectuals who were committed to political and aesthetical ideals of Western civilization.

Turgenev is known as one of the most objective writers ever, and it is clear in this text. However matter-of-fact, his narrative is meticulous e fulfilled with details and important background information of most characters. His choice of words is precise, and it is clear mostly in the dialogues.

As it is known, Turgenev kept a journal as if it were written by one of his main characters, Bazarov. This character has become one of the most important heroes of literature and his figure has influenced many writers. He repudiates everything that cannot be scientifically explained, and personalizes the spirit of revolution. On the other hand, Pavel Petrovich is his contrast and very conservative.

"Fathers and Sons" is a symptomatic novel exposing where Russia was being let to. As some characters know, the society had to change, and not become the same (like in "The Leopard"). Drastic changes were necessary and they came some years after Turgenev's novel. As we all know, this change is called Revolution.

Turgenev is a master story teller, whether it takes the form of a novel or his shorter stories. This book, however, takes on special significance. Not only is it well-written, displaying the craft of the novelist as it matured in the mid-nineteeth century, but like many of his fellow Russians, he captures the imagination, themes, ideas, and sensibilities of presence that make Turgenev a twentieth-century joy to read.
This alone is sufficient warrant to read the book. But, there's equally important social reasons to read it. Turgenev is to the novel what Nietzsche is to philosophy, and that they were cotemporaneous is no mistake. "Fathers and Children" is a novel about nihilism, despair, and raw will to power in a vein too similar to Nietzsche to be ignored.
What makes Turgenev singularly important is his writing one of the truly "post-modern" novels as far as his themes go, but writing within the classical tradition of a well-developed plot, story, characters, ideas, and psychology. In many ways, Turgenew anticipates Freud, Kierkegaard, Joyce, and Eliot, while retaining the style of Hawthorne, Austin, and de Balzac. It's a wonderful synthesis -- a masterful story with critically important ideas and themes.

I read this edition because it happened to be available at my library. In my opinion it is a high quality translation, very readable -- even today, over fifty years after it was published. Buy a cheap used copy of this and I don't see how you can go wrong. It also includes some of the author's own comments made after his original publication. (Which, although they are inserted as a foreward, should not be read until after you finish the text).

A great book, in my estimation, is one that touches your heart and causes you to change for the better. Ivan Turgenev's novel, Fathers and Sons is, in my view, such a book. Turgenev was not well liked in Russia in his lifetime and is not now, even, regarded as among the foremost of Russian novelists and for good reason. Turgenev scorned his mother country, spending much of this life in France living with the woman he loved and her husband. In the novel he also has a son (Arcady) gently remove from his father a book by Puskin he was reading, substituting for it a book by a German writer no less--high sacrilege even in 19th century Russia. More to the point, in the two young men who are the focal point of the story, Turgenev created characters who display a negative and even hostile view of Russia.

The novel has three settings. The first is at the country estate of Nicholas Petrovich Kusimov whose son, Arcady has just graduated from the university and is returning home accompanied by his fellow graduate and mentor, Eugene Vassilich Bazarov. It is Bazarov who becomes the lighting rod and center of the plot. He instantly quarrels with Nicholas' brother, Paul, an aristocratic defender of the status quo. Arcady shares Eugene's nilistic view of life, but is clearly softer and less critical than his intense friend.

After a time the pair go to town where they meet Madame Anna Sergeyevna Odinizov, a youngish (29) widow living in relative luxury with her younger sister, Katya. Both young men fall in love with the widow, Arcady with the sort of hopeless puppy love attraction for an older woman and Eugene without admitting it, in a more mature manner. Madame Odinizov is drawn to Eugene's mental acuities and intensity, but it is not clear that she loves him. Arcady, for his part, finds solace with the younger and more submissive Katya. Finally Bazarov blurts out his love for Madame Odinizov which she seemingly rejects and the two young men leave to visit Bazarov's parents.

Vassily Ivanich Bazarov is a retired army doctor who now lives with his kind-hearted wife, Arina, on a farm. Both parents, especially, Arina, are thrilled that their son has returned home, but Eugene scorns them as he has all others. Finally after some days he says he is bored and wants to leave. The parents are heartbroken, but understand that their son has greatness in him and cannot be confined to living in obscurity. Arcady then returns to Madame Odinizov's and develops his relationship with Katya, while Eugene returns to the Kusimov estate to resume his biological experiments.

The greatness of the book, where it leaves an indelible impression, comes in the last 50 pages. The tragedy that occurs comes suddenly and unexpectedly and touches the lives of all the characters. It will touch your life too and leave you with a greater appreciation for life in all its wonders and futility.

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.

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.

This novel is set against the backdrop of Russian nihilism of the 19th century. Russia was opening up to the West and the new Russian intelligentisa set out to relentlessly question received opinion through scientific and materialistic reasoning.

The novel has little to narrate by the way of plot. The hero collapses without a struggle when his scientific rationalism and aggressive rejection of any explanation except materialistic ones leaves him helpless to deal with the emotion of love he finds within himself when he and a friend meet a intelligent lady in Moscow. He slowly loses out in the triangle, his friend come follower moves aways because of his self-interest and he himself contracts tuberculosis.

Yet there is something about Bazarov - the hero - that makes him one of the eternal and powerful literary heroes ever created.

It is as if the seed of tragedy is built in the rebel personality trying to challenge and change everything on grounds of reason. So strong and yet so vulnerable as to be unable to deal with simple human emotions and helpless against fate.

This novel was Turgenev's argument against the Russian nihilists of his time, but ends up immortalizing the nihilist hero in his failed rebellion. This novel is sure to leave you a little disturbed even one and a half century after Russian nihilism has come and gone.

Of what I call the "Russian Inklings" Turgenev is by far the most accessible, this book being the apogee of his career, much like B&K with Dostoyevsky, and W&P with Tolstoy.
Fathers and Sons not only is a shorter read than the two masterpieces mentioned above, it is subsequently faster paced and less of a cerebral and psychological labyrinth.
There seems to be two protagonists, something that Russian writers did fairly often in contrast to western literature which usually has only one hero, or protagonist. Turgenev's usage of two protagonists conveys two invaluable view to every circumstance, character, and event that transpires in this books 350 pages.
The novel takes place during the "scientific enlightenment," of Russia where romanticism currently, or perhaps already has been dethroned by the resident naturalistic sciences and breeds secular agnosticism, or Deductionary Atheism.
**The book was received hilariously by critics. Many radical naturalistic atheists both loved and hated it. The critics that loved the book (in the late 1880's) were enamored with Turgenevs scientific objectivity, and humored pokes at both radical romanticism and radical nihilism. The critics who despised the book felt that their intellectual camp had been fraudulated, and required reconciliation.
**I want to point out that many themes spoken of by these Russian authors, and explicitly Turgenev, are issues that are still at the forefront of political and philosophical debate. Nihilism is really the anthem of Hume's deductionary logical philosophy of indeterminism. It is the purest form of naturalistic sciences and often times is confused with empiricism. I wish to point out that governmental forms like socialism, that wish to divide any personal belief with public display, (similar to Socialist France) are displaying the very same traits and political referendums fought for by the youth in this book.
**The youth of today, I would say as a majority (and being one of them), are not sympathetic towards selfish conservatism, which is represented in this book by Arkady's uncle, (Arkady being the Romantic protagonist). The emotional turmoil and intellectual struggle that the characters go through in the throngs of political debate are incredible.
***MOST IMPORTANTLY: *** Bazarov (the 2nd of the two protagonists) represents the theoretical Jesus of nihilism. Turgenev constructs him faithfully and without bias, and allows the man to live and breathe and think so perfectly throughout the enirity of the work. For that reason alone the book is worth reading.

**Bazarov may be my favorite character in any novel, only short of Alyosha in B.K. I say this because Bazarov represents the secular humanist who is self gratified in his scientific altruism, but (not to spoil anything) rounds with an ironic existence.

Five stars, awesome, objective russian literature, that like most, is dynamically applicable to the modern political melting pot.

A Misunderstood Man: A Deeper Look
Ivan Turgenev, a nineteenth century Russian writer, developed a masterpiece of a tale in his short novel, Fathers and Sons which tells of the generational tensions that arise in the 1860s as the idea of nihilism is introduced. The story follows the life of a Arkady, who while attending St. Petersburg meets a fellow student Bazarov, who greatly intrigues him due the stark differences Bazarov has, compared to his aristocratic family at home in being a nihilist. Arkady brings Bazarov home to stay with him and his family for a time which begins to add to the plot development as tensions rise between Arkady’s family, specifically his father, Nicolai and Uncle Pavel due to different point of views (4). Coming from an aristocratic background, Arkady struggles to fully identify with his family in way of political views or to side with Bazarov who is pioneering the view of nihilism. When the novel, Fathers and Sons was first published there was much debate on whether or not Turgenev had presented the controversial character of Bazarov in either a positive or negative light. For each view point there was and is sufficient evidence. Bazarov, the nihilist, depending on the reader’s viewpoint and perspective can either be cast as either a catalyst for positive change or as the antagonist of the story that is portrayed negatively to impress that a is not beneficial.
In the controversial time period of the 1860s where new ideas and ways of thinking were emerging, radicals sought to be the change and support the expansion of perspective and abandon the ways of their ancestors. Bazarov would have been considered a radical as he was an avid nihilist in the novel Fathers and Son. The readers that were radicals of the time when the novel was published criticized Turgenev due to the fact they thought he cast a negative light on Basarov, portraying him negatively so as to say he disapproved with nihilism or change from tradition. One of the first instances in the book that portrays Bazarov negatively is right after Arkady introduces Bazarov to Uncle Pavel. Before tensions are even built regarding politics, simply from first impression, Bazarov calls Pavel a “queer fish” (12). To a radical reading the novel this comment appears to make Bazarov seem like a rude person and is Turgenev’s first small way to make readers look down on him. Another negative aspect of Bazarov is that he is presented as one who disrespects and does not appreciate life giving things such as art, poetry or music. In regards to Bazarov’s distaste for beauty Nicolai, Arkady’s father, said, “You deny everything; or speaking more precisely you destroy everything…But one must construct you know (39).” Nicolai is offended that Bazarov simply want to clear away the old and start anew. He believes that the younger generation should build or “construct” upon the already laid foundation.
Another way in which it appears Turgenev represents Bazarov in a bad light is in the way Bazarov treats and acts around women or people in authority. He seems to have no true respect or appreciation for a women’s intellect or personality but instead only views them as sexual conquests. When Bazarov first meets Madame Odintsov he simply thinks of her as a “body” saying of her, “What a magnificent body…shouldn’t I like to see that on a dissecting table (63).” This comment devalues women and makes Bazarov appear like an animal, upsetting radicals reading the novel. In regards to authority, Bazarov has a problem with thinking of himself more highly than he ought. Not only does he disagree with Pavel and Nicolai but he goes farther saying, “"Why should I depend on them? Much better they should depend on me (21).” This shows how conceited Bazarov was, thinking the older generation should serve him. Pride was a huge issue for Bazarov that appears all throughout the novel in many instances. Bazarov believes that the world should revolve around him. He highly disrespects his parents and does not appreciate them in the least bit. Of his parents he said, “One needs people, even if it's only to have someone to swear at (104).” In being a nihilist and not truly believing in anything it seems Bazarov is dead to emotion or feeling and does not know how to correctly interact with others.
Although many thought that Bazarov was represented too harshly, some thought the opposite; they believed Bazarov to have been represented in a sympathetic manner that went against their traditionalist views. When the reader first hears of Bazarov he is being bragged on by his friend Arkady. Arkady talks about his relationship with Bazarov saying that he prizes it. This signifies that Bazarov is respected by his peers. One of the first blatant instances in which the soft side of Bazarov is seen is when Arkady and Basarov visit with Fenichka, Arkady’s maid who he had relations with, and her son Mitya. While visiting the mother and child, readers see Bazarov interact with care towards Fenichka questioning about the baby’s well-being and when he goes to hold the baby the baby goes to him willingly. Bazarov mentions that children like him and Dunyasha, another servant girl, confirms this when she says that children know who love them. In discussing how Bazarov implements caring qualities, one must also consider the instance in which Bazarov is forced to participate in a dual with Pavel using pistols. During the dual, Bazarov shoots Pavel in the thigh, instead of taking the additional shot that he could have used he uses his medical knowledge to care for Pavel.
From the beginning of the novel, Bazarov is known to have a strong and inspiring personality. To Pavel he once said, “In these days the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate – and so we repudiate (42).” Strength is emulated in being able to express these thoughts to an elder of opposing viewpoints. Continuing, Bazarov is shown to be courageous in the beliefs that he holds and not afraid to defend them; he is a born leader. Bazarov is positively portrayed in the sense that he is a very motivated individual who works hard to accomplish tasks and experiments. A nihilist such as Bazarov do not being in anything and do not believe in any common core principles. When views are so counter cultural and the person who holds these beliefs has an open confidence, there is quite a strong personality behind that. Anna Sergeyevna or Madame Odintsova notices this strength; “she liked Bazarov for the absence of gallantry in him, and even for his sharply defined views. She found in him something new, which she had not chanced to meet before, and she was curious (70).”
Another positive angle of Bazarov is seen on his death bed. Readers are drawn to admire Bazarov for the talent that he does indeed possess as well as his admirable goals to accomplish great things with his life. Bazarov, on thinking back on his goals and on his own life says, “And yet there was a time when I, too, thought of all the things I would do, and never die, why should I (160)?” The nihilist does not fear death yet he is certainly humbled by it. It is evident that under all the possible negative faults, Bazarov had good intentions and truly he desired to make a lasting impact on the realm of the world that he worked within. Up until his death and even in his death he never faltered in his strong beliefs, despite gaining humility (161). This casts radicals such as him as being strong, and constant people.
Although there are several reasons that traditionalists give criticizing Turgenev for portraying Bazarov sympathetically, there is more evidence and support for the radical’s argument that Bazarov was portrayed harshly and negatively. Even the times throughout the story in which circumstances made it seem that Bazarov being a nihilist was a positive decision are highly overruled by how many times he is seen having no respect for the past generation, anyone in authority and any women he had romantic interests with. Bazarov tends to have a negative outlook and perspective on life due to his not believing in anything. He seems to be held back by his radical views, not being able to truly live or love freely. The way in which Bazarov explains nihilism in the beginning of the novel even has an edgy and conceited tone, it being: “ A nihilist is a man who does not bow down before any authority, who does not take any principle of faith, whatever reverence that principle may be enshrined in” (17).
In conclusion, Bazarov in the novel Fathers and Sons was a highly controversial character who was viewed very differently by each of the extreme ends of the traditionalists and radicals. Each group disagreed with the way in which the Russian novelist had portrayed a nihilist in the time period he did. Overall, the novel works through a common tension that happens whenever change in the new generation arises. The issue of whether the old is a sufficient enough foundation to build on or whether it needs to be completely demolished to begin afresh is relevant even in current times. Bazarov can be seen in many of the new and emerging radical groups of today; many of which are not looked upon with esteem.

I really love the great Russian authors such as Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, and I had never really heard of Turgenev, but when I found a book by him I thought I should read it. Turgenev is a grand writer in his own right, and this particular book is the one that is his masterpiece. It is about fathers and sons, but it's also about the influences that other people have on impressionable young people. And it's about passion and love, but a love that actually harms a young man. It all takes place in Russia before the Revolution, but all of the social wrongs are depicted and we get a clear idea of why the Revolution happened. We also get a wonderful description of what life was like in the country in Russia during these troubled times. The plot is simply drawn and easy to follow, and the characters are straightforward and typecast to a point. I think his simple descriptions of the growing political anarchy in Russia during the nineteenth century are very effective and his portrayal of the troubled state of the peasantry is brilliant in its simplicity. I certainly would recommend this book if you are fond of nineteenth century Russian literature. It's certainly a little easier to read than you'd expect.

Turgenev definitely writes with a lighter touch than Tolstoy or Dostoevsky--which is not to say he's lightweight, just that he doesn't dwell on the heavy (maybe ponderous) "God and Man" issues of the other two. Many Russians see Turgenev as more Western than other Russian writers, almost French, and his writing does have a certain elegance to it. There are social themes but it seemed to me the social issues were a backdrop for the inner lives of the characters. Bazarov is indeed a nihilist but that seems incidental to the nuances of his personality, which Turgenev develops masterfully. Each of the characters could easily lapse into typecasting but Turgenev has a fundamental sympathy for and awareness of their personalities, so the writing is good even if you have no particular interest in the historic dynamics of the dawn of post-serfdom Russia.

What does the word “friend” mean to a person? A friend is someone who is always there for the other person, who will tell their friend the truth when they don’t see the truth, and will lend a helping hand when they need it. In Fathers and Sons, Ivan Turgenev exposes a relationship between two friends, Arkady and Bazarov; although friends like these may not always turn out the way it is thought to be. Turgenev provides the reader with a relationship that begins well, but then proceeds downward.
The beginning of Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev proceeds with Arkady’s father, Nikolai Petrovitch who was anticipating the coming of his son, Arkady. When Arkady arrived to see his father, his father did not accept his son to be different from the Arkady he knew before he went to college. Bazarov was a good friend to Arkady. Arkady follows Bazarov beliefs but as the novel goes on Bazarov may break his belief and his friendship.
Nikolai welcomed his son and Bazarov to his home where he had a few servants and a servant woman, Fenichka, who was Nikolai’s mistress. Bazarov and Arkady spent most of their days separated. Arkady used the days to be with his father. Every evening before going to bed Arkady and Bazarov would talk with each other about their day. One evening Arkady and Bazarov were talking about Arkady’s family escpecially his uncle, Pavel. Bazarov told Arkady that he did not like Pavel and that hurt Arkady because that was his uncle.
Not much time had passed before Arkady and Bazarov ventured out to the next town to see Arkady’s uncle who was a privy-counselor. The reason for venturing out was Bazarov’s suggestion but this is what Arkady thought “In his heart he was highly delighted with his friend’s suggestion, but he thought it duty to conceal his feeling. He was not a nihilist for nothing (47).” From what Arkady said, he looked up to Bazarov and followed what he did. In this point of the relationship it is just the beginning but the following part of the relationship is where the friendship begins to shake.
The two friends arrived in the town to where they were welcomed by Arkady’s uncle, Matvei Ilyich Kolyazin. He invited them to a ball and insisted on introducing them to some new ladies to become acquainted with society. Bazarov and Arkady met up with the governor of the town where the governor invited them to the ball. The two agreed to going to the ball and on their way back from the governor’s they ran into a disciple of Bazarov’s named Sitnikov.
A few days later Arkady, Bazarov, and Sitnikov arrive at the ball only to find a lady so attractive their eyes could not handle her beauty. Her name was Madame Odintsova. Arkady asked Sitnikov if he knew her, he told him she did and asked if he would like to introduce them. Bazarov and Arkady thought this lovely woman was divine. Herein lays a major problem two men chasing after the same woman. Bazarov asks Arkady what he thinks of her and he says she is very sweet and kind while Bazarov seems to only care about her figure. Arkady does not fancy the way he thinks of her. Again, “Arkady was wounded by Bazarov’s cynicism, but –as often happens- he reproached his friend not precisely for what he did not like in him” (60).
During this time Madame Odintsova told Arkady that he is welcome anytime to her place. Before they arrive at her hotel their conversation was hostile.
“‘I’m surprised at you!’ cried Arkady. ‘What? You, you, Bazarov, clinging to the narrow morality, which …’
‘What a funny fellow you are!’ Bazarov cut him short, carelessly. ‘Don’t you know that “something wrong” means “something right” in my dialect and for me? It’s an advantage for me, of course…
Arkady made no answer, and knocked at the door of the apartments (60).”
This is a point of their relationship where the friendship begins to wear on Arkady. Arkady was offended by this but because he is following the belief in nihilism he obstained from saying a word. Arkady noticed something in Bazarov and how he interacted with Madame Odintsova. He put his guard down and actually strikes up conversation with her which was unusual for him.
Bazarov and Arkady decided to set off to Madame Odintsova’s house because she had gone back after the ball was finished. Now Madame Odintsova had a younger sister, Katya, who seemed very nice but Arkady was still in love with Madame Odintsova even though she called him a schoolboy. Bazarov would spend time with Madame Odintsova while Arkady spent time with her sister which Arkady was slightly angry about.
During this time at Madame Odintsova house Bazarov spent all of his time with Madame Odintsova. Arkady was still in love with Madame Odintsova from the first time he saw her at the ball. He did not like the fact that Bazarov was always with her. Arkady always had to go to her sister which in sometimes he did enjoy.
Knowing this, Bazarov started to fall in love with Madame Odintsova and for Bazarov to let himself believe he was in love with her was almost unethical. Arkady and Bazarov would speak about both Katya and Madame Odintsova, during the evening before going to bed; they would come to a disagreement on the subject matter. After Bazarov told Madame Odintsova he was in love with her, they left to see Bazarov’s parents.
Arkady and Bazarov get into an argument and are about to fight but because Bazarov’s father steps in nothing happens. Bazarov says to his father “Come, shut up, father; don’t show off (107).” How rude of Bazarov to speak that way to his father. Arkady now believes his friend is more of his enemy. Bazarov does not appreciate his parents and Arkady sees this in his friend realizing he does not want to be his friend.
They leave immediately driving back to Arkardy’s house but make a stop at Madame Odintsova. While at her house, they realize it was a mistake but Arkady discovers he would rather see Katya than Madame Odintsova. They arrive home at last and are welcomed with open arms. Arkady and Bazarov go their separate ways on the property because Bazarov realizes the only friend he has now is Fenichka. The conversation starts off well but doesn’t end well:
Yevgeny, you know I have always been open with you; I can assure you, I will swear to you, you’re making a mistake.’
‘Hm! That’s another story,’ remarked Bazarov in an undertone. ‘But you needn’t be in a taking, it’s a matter of absolute indifference to me. A sentimentalist would say, “I feel that our paths are beginning to part,” but I will simply say that we’re tired of each other.’
‘Yevgeny” (142-143).
What a statement! “We’re tired of each other.” What a friend Bazarov is, after all Arkady was his student and disciple. Arkady saw how he was being treated by Bazarov and wanted nothing to do with him even though they had been through so much together. Bazarov soon was infected with a disease and died while Arkady married Katya.
A friendship cannot be taken for granted and forgotten, it is a give and take relationship not a one way street. Through Turgenev’s novel the reader sees how through a series of events a friendship can crumble. Friendship can be a beautiful thing but when someone stabs their friend in the back it becomes hard to forgive that someone.

Fathers and Sons, written by Ivan Turgenev, is a novel that shows the vast differences between the Romanticism of old and the blossoming age of science. In this novel, Arkady invites his close friend Bazarov to return home with him over the holiday. As the two young men return home, they are met by Arkady’s father, a mild mannered individual, influenced by poetry and romantic literature. As the parties join, ideals begin to unfold, as the mild mannered father is met by the nihilist Bazarov. As the novel progresses, tension rises. Both romanticism and nihilism are fleshed out, as each character’s values, principles, and ethics are challenged.
In this novel the son, Arkady, is challenged most. His character is transformed as the book progresses, shifting from an individual that is uncertain in his beliefs, to a man that stands up for his convictions. From the beginning of the novel until the end, Arkady is challenged in his beliefs, continually deciphering between his families traditional background, and Bazarov’s nihilist persuasion. As the plot thickens, the characters change, and the drama mounts, Arkady is brought to he realization that although friendships may come and go, family is forever.
As the book opens there is a sense of innocence that foreshadows Arkady. As the chapter begins, Arkady’s father is waiting for him to return from college, and when he finally sees his son he eagerly kisses him on the cheek. After Arkady is met with a kiss he quickly responds by saying “ Let me shake myself first, daddy” said Arkady, in a voice tired from traveling, but boyish and clear as a bell, as he gaily responded to his father’s caresses; I am covering you with dust” (4). This response by Arkady shows his innocence, as he responds to his father by calling him “daddy.” The author also lets the reader know the youthful presence of the boy, by remarking that his response was tired, yet “boyish.” Bazarov, when asked about his father, responds in a lazy, yet “manly” voice. The contrast is quite shocking, immediately showing the innocence of Arkady in direct opposition to the mature Bazarov.
As the conversation between Arkady and his father progress there is a sense of admiration for Bazarov, as Arkady states to his father, “Please, daddy. Do be very kind to him. I can’t tell you how much I esteem his friendship” (8). Yhe beginning of Arkady and Bazarov’s relationship is quite steady. This line shows not only the innocence of Arkady, but his loyalty. Arkady admires his friend Bazarov, and is looking out for his best interest.
Chapters 6 and 7 begin the separation of these friends’ relationship as Bazarov is critical of Akrady’s unlce, calling him archaic. “Your uncles a queer fish,’ Bazarov said to Arkady, as he sat in his dressing gown down beside, smoking a short pipe…An antique survival” (12)! This hurts Arkady, as he is forced to defend the honor of his uncle. Arkady states, “So you see Yevgeny, observed Arkady, as he finished his story, how unjustly you judge my unlce” (25)! As the story begins to unfold, Arkady is caught in the cross hairs as he is forced to decide between siding with the critical Bazarov, or his traditional family. This dissension begins to create an uneasy shift in the relationship between Bazarov and Arkady.
As the story continues, Arkady remains faithful to his friend and his family. Although Bazarov has no problem analyzing and critiquing his father and uncle, Arkady remains by his side, as he generously defends his family. Despite his efforts however, Arkady quickly realizes that although he would like to maintain his love for Bazarov, his relationship with him is beginning to deteriorate.
As the climax approaches, the relationship between Bazarov and Arkady turns south. Arkady is overcome with rage as he begins to brashly respond to his once friend Bazarov. “I wonder you’re not ashamed to attribute such ideas to me! Retorted Arkady hotly; I don’t consider my father wrong from that point of view; I think he should marry her. Hoity-toity! Responded Bazarov tranquilly. What magnanimous fellows we are! You still attach significance to marriage; I didn’t expect that of you” (33). As the story unwinds, the relationship between Bazarov and Arkady begins to as well. The once patient Arkady lashes out, as the author states that he “hotly” responded to the comments of Bazarov. As the reader continues, Bazarov emphatically states, “ I have looked at all of your father’s establishment, Bazarov began again. The cattle are inferior, the horses are broken down; the buildings are up to much, and the workmen look confirmed loafers; while the superintendent is either a fool or a knave, I haven’t found out which yet” (33). In disgust, Bazarov throws one final punch, knocking the wind out of Arkady and their friendship, as Bazarov calls his father a fool.
As the relationship between Bazarov and Arkady is nearing its end, Bazarov moves from criticizing Arkady’s family, to criticizing Arkady himself.
“Bazarov at first stirred a little in his bed the he uttered the following rejoinder: You’re still a fool, my boy, I see. Sitnikivs are indispensable to us. I- do you understand? I need dolts like him. It’s not for the gods to bake bricks, in fact! Oho! Arkady thought to himself, and then in a flash all the fathomless depths of Bazarov’s conceit dawned upon him. Are you and I gods then? At least, you’re a god; am not I a dolt then? Yes,’ repeated Bazrov; you’re still a fool” (88).
As Bazarov finishes Arkady is left stunned. Not only has his friend criticized the traditional practices of his family, but he has elevated himself above Arkady, calling arkady a fool, while referring to himself as a god. Arkady is taken back, and ultimately introduced to the “fathomless depths” of Bazarov’s Conceit.
As the book draws to a close, Arkady is confronted with the reality that although Bazarov is his friend, the ideals and opinions of his family matter most. In the final chapters of this novel, Bazarov grows ill, and eventually dies. The once enraged Arkady shows pity on his friend, cherishing the bond they once shared. As time passes, Arkady marries the love of his life, Katya, and when they attend the departure dinner for his Uncle Pavel, Katya states during the toast, “To the memory of Bazarov, Katya whispered in her husband’s ear, as she clinked glasses with him. Arkady presses her hand warmly in response, but he did not venture to propose this toast aloud” (165). Despite the probing of his wife, Arkady remains firm, understanding that the approval of his family is vastly more important than the companionship of the late Bazarov. Arkady no longer admires the ideals of his late friend, but cherishes the future with his family.

An essay on the book...
WARNING: SPOILERS!

Dawning Conceit: The Breaking of a Friendship

We use the term ‘best friends forever’ to describe those friends that are closest and dearest to us. Every friendship though, will have to stand the test of time and endure times of disagreement or hardship. The book Fathers and Sons, by Ivan Turgenev, takes us into the lives of Arkady and Bazarov and we watch to see if their friendship will endure a difficult time. The story begins with Arkady and Bazarov being extremely close and Arkady admires his friend very much, but, as the story progresses, Arkady realizes the differences between him and Bazarov and they begin to break apart.
In the beginning of the story, Arkady’s father, Nikolai, is anticipating the return of his son who is now graduated from St. Petersburg. It seems that there is a past of a strong relationship between father and son and Arkady is thrilled to introduce his friend Bazarov to him: “Let me introduce you to my great friend, Bazarov, about whom I have so often written to you” (Turgenev 4). We also see how much Arkady values Bazarov as he says, “Please, dad, make much of him. I can’t tell you how I prize his friendship” (Turgenev 6).
Even though Arkady gives the impression that he is very close to Bazarov, we see very early on that they have different ideals. We learn that Bazarov is a nihilist and that his beliefs have rubbed off on Arkady. Bazarov believes that everything must get torn down and that there is no real reason to believe in anything. But Arkady clearly still deeply cares for his father and family. “He [Arkady] said no prayers for himself that night” (Turgenev 19). This is a very selfless act for one who claims to also believe in nothing at all. We also see that Arkady is caught in the middle of defending those closest to him. His father Nikolai and his Uncle Pavel do not agree with Bazarov’s nihilistic beliefs, but Arkady comes to his defense. Bazarov is not very fond of Pavel either and puts him down by saying, “What an eccentric uncle you have!...only fit for an exhibition!” (Turgenev 18). He also puts down Nikolai: “But your father’s fine. A pity he has a weakness for reciting verse; it’s unlikely that he understands much about estate management” (Turgenev 18). Arkady also quickly defends both his uncle and his father showing how much he cares for each. Later, Bazarov laughs at the idea of the father of a Russian family playing the cello: “Bazarov continued laughing; but Arkady, as much as be revered his mentor, this time didn’t even smile” (Turgenev 34). We see here that Arkady is beginning to have some friction with Bazarov. These early disagreements show the beginnings of disruption in their friendship.
Arkady and Bazarov leave on a trip to visit a friend of Arkady’s, Matveilyich Kolyazin. While there, they are invited to a ball. It is at this ball that Arkady meets the lovely Madame Odintsova and her sister, Katya. Arkady also meets another friend of Bazarov’s: Sitnikov. As he converses with Sitnikov, Arkady begins to realize that he is very similar to him in the way that he is infatuated with everything that Bazarov says and agrees with everything he believes. Arkady asks, “Are you and I gods then? At least, you’re a god; am I a dolt then?” (Turgenev 88). To this Bazarov responds, “Yes . . . you’re still a fool” (Turgenev 88). Arkady is beginning to see how little Bazarov actually values him and how much he puts him down. “Only then in a flash did all the fathomless depths of Bazarov's conceit dawn upon him” (Turgenev 88). Arkady is building up the confidence to live his life the way he wants to.
The two friends then travel to Bazarov’s house where they have a disagreement about relationships, love, and ultimately beauty and, once again, they find that they disagree on their beliefs and ideals. In the end, Bazarov undercuts Arkady and mocks Pavel once more by calling him an idiot. Arkady is fed up and hurt by Bazarov’s comments, “No friendship could bear such strain for long.” They leave for Arkady’s home again but are clearly at odds now as they traveled “In silence, only rarely exchanging a few insignificant words, they travelled as far as Fedot’s” (Turgenev 112).
While Arkady finally spends some time at Madame Odintsova’s house, he is reflecting back at his relationship with Bazarov and sees how much Bazarov influenced and controlled both himself and Madame Odintsova. As he talks with Katya he says, “Do you discover, may I ask, that I’ve shaken off his influence now?” (Turgenev 137). He truly understands how much his relationship with Bazarov has broken apart and is becoming a strong, confident individual who is standing up for himself. When Bazarov returns to Madame Odintsova’s house and they are ready to part ways, Bazarov says to Arkady, “And now, I say again, good-bye, for it’s useless to deceive ourselves - we are parting for good, and you know that yourself” (p. 150). The two friends fully realize that their bond has broken and that they have grown apart.
Through the course of the book, we see that the friendship between Arkady and Bazarov grows apart. Arkady started out very fond of Bazarov and fully accepting of his lifestyle, beliefs, and ideals – but as the story concludes, Arkady has become an independent man full of love for beauty and has broken away from the conceit of Bazarov. Just as every friendship must stand the test of time and difficulties, this once strong friendship has grown apart and each man has gone his separate way.

In Ivan Turgenev’s novel, Fathers and Sons, he describes a friendship that revolves around nihilistic beliefs. When the main character, Arkady, converts from his aristocratic views to this intriguing view of nihilism, thanks to the help from his influential friend Bazarov, conflict arises. At first, Arkady is infatuated with the idea that this new belief system gives him the freedom of respecting and believing nothing. While at the same time, events occur that tear Akady in two and create tension between his family and his friend.
After several months of not seeing his father, Arkady comes home after graduating college and is reunited with his father. Arkday is not alone, but brings his companion who greatly influenced him, Bazarov, home to meet his family. Arkady’s father Nikolai is overjoyed to be reconnecting with his son, and on the ride back to their farm, he begins sentimental conversations with his son. To his surprise, he finds that his son is not willing to engage in emotional dialogue. His father tried discussing with Arkady the problems that he dealt with on the farm and how he felt emotionally attached to the home where his son was born. However, Arkady cut him off and told him, “Come, dad, that makes no different where a man is born” offering an anti-romantic view (Turgenev 7). This conversation was just the beginning of Arkady avoiding speaking with his father on personal terms and gearing the conversation for more formal topics.
Once Nikolai, Arkady and Bazarov arrive at their home, they were acquainted with Arkady’s uncle, Pavel, who had strong aristocratic beliefs just as his brother Nikolai. During dinner, Arkady was conscious how he steered the conversation between his family and Bazarov. He thought to himself how he no longer desired to be treated like a child and made his sentences “quite unnecessarily long, avoided the word ‘daddy,’ and even sometimes replaced it by the word ‘father,’ . . . he poured into his glass far more wine than he really wanted, and drank it all off” (Turgenev 12). After dinner, Bazarov retorted to Arkady, “Your uncle’s a queer fish” when Arkady stuck up for his uncle and snapped back, “Why, of course you don’t know . . . he was a great swell in his own day, you know. I will tell you his story one day” (Turgenev 12). In addition to his rude comment about his uncle, Bazarov is bold enough to observe his father, Nikolai by saying, “An antique survival! But your father’s a capital fellow. He wastes his time reading poetry, and doesn’t know much about farming, but he’s a good-hearted fellow” (Turgenev 13). Arkady rebutted back, “My father’s a man in a thousand,” becoming defensive about his father. However, when he was in his father’s presence he spoke on more prosaic terms in order to avoid emotional conversations that proved how he now agrees with his nihilistic friend. In fact, Nikolai and Pavel were inquiring who Bazarov was and Arkady was delighted and proud to tell him that his friend was a nihilist. Right away, Pavel was revolted at this belief and observed that these people accept nothing, when Arkady corrected him by noting that nihilists respect nothing. Arkady continues to inform his uncle that “A nihilist is a man who does not bow down before any authority, who does not take any principle on faith, whatever reverence that principle may be enshrined in” (Turgenev 17). Arkady’s eyes sparkled every time he described this fascinating belief system even though his family was against this belief and strongly held to their old aristocratic traditions.
Later on in the story, we see that Arkady finds out that Bazarov and his uncle participated in a duel. Bazarov ended up shooting and harming his uncle Pavel, which left Arkady ashamed. In addition to Arkady’s negative opinion about the duel Bazarov participated in, he also begins to see a conceited side of Bazarov that no longer makes his friendship with him as appealing. Bazarov boldly states to Arkady how he does not need “dolts” in his life and he compares himself to a god. Arkady speaks up and questions Bazarov, “Are you and I gods then? At least, you’re a god; am I a dolt then?” (Turgenev 88). Bazarov confidently responded back, “Yes . . . you’re still a fool” (Turgenev 88). Bazarov has referred to Arkady throughout the novel as a “fool” or a “boy” and after this point in the story, we see the friendship begin to fade.
Perhaps the most significant turning point for Arkady is when he meets a young woman by the name of Katya. Although Bazarov looked down upon marriage as this aligned with romanticism, Arkady begins to deviate from this belief once he falls in love with Katya. To Bazarov’s surprise, Arkady openly admits to Katya, “I am not the conceited boy I was when I came here . . . I no longer look for my ideals where I did . . . up until now I did not understand myself” (Turgenev 146). He continues to explain that he never should have deviated from his traditions and is happy to return to his true feelings due to meeting Katya when he declares, “I set myself tasks which were beyond my powers . . . My eyes have been opened lately, thanks to one feeling” (Turgenev 146). He is in love with Katya and is allowing his companion and his nihilistic beliefs to slip away once he asks for Katya’s hand in marriage. Arkady slowly begins to notice that he no longer wants to share the same beliefs as his conceited friend, especially after Bazarov calls him a fool for his behavior that deviated away from their nihilistic beliefs. One of the last conversations that separate the two companions forever was the marriage discussion where the different beliefs are apparent between the two men because of their responses. Arkady mournfully states to Bazarov, “You are parting from me forever . . . and have you nothing else to say to me?” (Turgenev 151). Bazarov quickly responds, “Yes, Arkady, yes, I have other things to say to you, but I’m not going to say them, because that’s sentimentalist—that means, mawkishness” (Turgenev 151). Arkady embraced his friend and became emotional allowing tears to fall from his eyes. In response to Arkady’s closure, Bazarov retorts, “That’s what comes of being young” and quickly departed from his friend who turned from the nihilistic views.
Unfortunately, this friendship between Arkady and Bazarov only survived for a short period of time because of the shared belief system. Once Arkady chose to not hold onto the nihilistic beliefs, their friendship broke apart. Arkady realized that family meant more to him than a belief that did not allow love and respect to others. It is interesting how the two friend’s lives end very differently after they both separated and took different beliefs. Arkady grew to love romanticism once again and married Katya, while Bazarov was rejected by a woman he began to grow fond of. Bazarov was so stubborn in his belief system that he left no room for relationships, which resulted in him dying alone as a nihilist.

Like almost every Russian author on the planet Turgenev writes in a heavy, dense style, and, yes, you can expect to trip over a couple dozen names in the first few pages. But if you struggle through the first few chapters you'll find a truly good book.

One thing many readers will like is its comparatively diminutive size: compared to some of Turgenev's later compatriots this is a very small book but like his fellow Russian authors there are elements of love, religion, philosophy, social commentary, and politics throughout the book.

The book centers around the differences between progressives and conservatives in relation to the generation gaps between young and old and the new progressives (nihilists) find their logic and science fails in the light of love.

I found the book to be very readable and accessible and a good story that still has relevance.

'Fathers and Sons' by Turgenev is no doubt a very importnat book - considered to be Turgenev best work, it features beautiful poetic descriptions, very sharp and wiity dialogues, poignant characters - some spiky and some very soft, and conflicts that will never die and remain relevant until today (like that of nihilism - the term which was coined by Turgenev in this book). It is very captivating and i found Bazarov to be a very interesting charcter (although it seems less original when you look on the literature of the last century. We must remember Bazarov was the Father of the Nihlisits to come. and the originality is his). However, I feel somewhat ambivalent about Turgenev - first of all because his ugly way of treating Dostoevsky at the time, and the way he mocked the young Dostoevsky. Secondly, i'm not sure if it's merely deformed hazy memory but i belive if found his book 'home of the Gentry' to be a better book - maybe because it was more naive and sublime. Anyway, it's certainly a very important book, maybe even a masterpiece - but for me it is not in the level of the great masterpieces of Tolstoi and Dostoevsky. That is because in my opinion his messages and his way of giving them are inferior in it's profoundness to those of the previous two.