Fathers and Sons (Children and Sons)

Mikhail Morgulis remarked to me that children will not listen to thier parents, but they will watch. It is not our words, but our actions that determine how we will be judged. Examine the words and actions of Bazarov, Arkady, Pavel and Arkady’s father and determine if their actions are consistent with their words.

27 thoughts on “Fathers and Sons (Children and Sons)

  1. Ashley

    The father son dynamic in “Fathers and Sons” is pretty clear (and accurate) in the first half of this book as was the division between the new generation and the old. Though Arkady and Brazarov seem to represent the new outlook of nihilism and revolution, while Pavel, Nicholas, and Arkady’s father seem to represent the old school of “principles,” most of the characters’ actions are contrary to the ideologies they support.
    Brazarov is perhaps the most obvious example of contradiction. He preaches his nihilist ideals of believing in nothing (even going so far as to having followers) and later breaches his non-principles by falling in love. He seems to hold fast to his rules in his appearance of ambivalence towards Anna, but as the reader sees, he is inwardly conflicted.
    Arcady, on the other hand, has a less convincing case. Though he agrees with Brazarov and his views in public forums, he clearly has great respect for his father and his father’s principles. He is also an emotional character, almost coming to tears on a few occasions. Arcady also believes that his father should marry Fenichka, especially in relation to the “principles” that his father had always upheld in the past. Arcady’s perplexity as to why his father had not married her is testament to Arcady’s belief in the same principles, and therefore negates his nihilist views of “believing in nothing.”
    On the same note, Pavel and Nicholas’ views on “principles,” especially in relation to the new generation, are skewed because of their actions. On the one had, as I have already mentioned, Nicholas has this specific set of morals (he talks of taking in Fenichka as the right thing to do) but then catches himself treating her like a peasant and does not marry her. Pavel is also contradictory in his principles and actions since says that the nihilists do nothing for society, whereas he also shuns society and secludes himself in his brother’s estate in the country, contributing scarcely more to the public than the new movement.
    P.S. Sorry Sophie…I went over the word limit…..

  2. Casey Mahoney

    The great contrast between what the “nihilists” say and do certainly struck me while reading the first half of the book. In Chapter 17, the narrator says, “When [Bazarov] was alone, with indignation, he recognized the romantic in himself,” and indeed, Bazarov himself pronounces the words “I love you” despite the philosophy he propounds. Even more, Arkady’s seemingly blind, sometimes even endearing, discipleship of the intellectually rogue Bazarov (who I think is a sort of unwilling hyper-Byronic hero) does not line up with the obvious boyish, adolescent nature of his parental relationship.

    Even though the nihilists, along with the foil they find in the ultra-ordered Odintsova, too, want to take emotion out of the equation, the fact that they are biologically humans after their fathers—that is, the fact they are specimens meant to reason and emote—makes this desire seem ludicrous and impossible. Especially for the reader to whom the narrator makes visible each of the characters’ battles against emotion in the name of their (non-)philosophy, such attempts to deny these characteristics at the core of their existence seem to be pointless sophistry. Why try to deny the feelings you obviously know you’re having, right?

    As much as actions speak louder than words, I disagree that words and intentions have no bearing on judgment. The radicalism that these philosophers propose to separate themselves from the old order of their fathers’ generation is rooted in a desire (however narrow) for social change, which, in some measure, prevents our totally disparaging criticism.

  3. Lisa Eppich

    So far the interactions of the characters in this work represent the facades we put on to try and appear a certain way to our peers in order to be looked on more favorably. The father and son relationship between Arkady and Nikolai is particularly interesting: Arkady is clearly respectful of his father, and the two share many emotional traits. However, Arkady tries to hide this part of himself, which is perhaps his “true self”, because of his relationship with Bazarov. He looks up to Bazarov like an older brother, and because Bazarov is a rather overbearing person, Arkady is largely treated like an inferior. However, Arkady has been persuaded that nihilism is the wave of the future, and therefore he tries to validate himself in front of Bazarov. Arkady therefore adopts nihilism to appeal to Bazarov and to try and fit in with his generation, even though it is greatly outside of his true nature. Bazarov, too, tries to convince himself that nihilism is the way to go, but as Casey said he is a human being and can’t take emotions out of the picture, so really both boys represent the naiveté of youth thinking they have life all figured out when really they are lost and unsure of how to find their own generational identity, especially in an ever-changing Russia.
    Similarly, Nikolai looks up to his son. He seems to not want to be taken as an “old fool” and seems sad when finds out that his time is over. He doesn’t hide himself to the extent that Arkady does, as he does not fully believe his more emotional and traditional ideas are outdated, yet he says “I did so hope…to get on intimate terms with Arkady, and it turns out I’m left behind…I try in every way to keep abreast with the requirements of the day- and they say my day’s over” (78-79). Thus Nikolai doesn’t really cover himself up like his son does and try to be someone he’s not, yet he earnestly tries to understand where Arkady is coming from in order to not become irrelevant in his son’s life. Because of all these facades, the two men have a misunderstanding of their own roles: the father thinks he is looking up to his son, and the son thinks he has surpassed his father. Yet, their true emotions show that they not only have the same beliefs as one another, but that their relationship is paramount to both of them, as much as they try to hide it.

  4. Jennifer Ridder

    Father and Sons is a book that describes the relationships of young men and their fathers during a changing age. The overall structure of the novel is seen through the journeys home that the young students make. But by keeping the title constantly in mind, we see that the author is building their trials and tribulations around the two sons and their relationship with their fathers. Thus the larger structure of the novel is that it involves Arkady and Bazarov meeting Arkady’s father, and then leaving to meet Bazarov’s father. This allows the reader to perceive large and sweeping contrasts of fathers and sons. Through the passages we learn of the inter-generational conflict that profoundly affects the characters and their attitudes to life. In some instances the sons reflect their fathers and others they are determined to rebel. In passion, the sons are like their warm-hearted fathers. They mirror love like that of a father for his son, and the sons for their lovers. Still, a conflict in the demonstration of passion as the fathers must come to understand the generational differences as their son’s pursue women of lower class, towns or professions. However, the fathers are aware of such differences and question whether they themselves inhibit or promote such displays. In a moment of reflection, as Arkady runs off to find Fedosya, the narrator comments of Nikolai Petrovitch that he thinks, “Arkady did not listen to him, and ran off the terrace. Nikolai Petrovitch looked angry him and sank into his chair overcome by confusion. His heart began to throb. Did he at that moment realize the inevitable strangeness of the futures relations between him and his son? Was he conscious that Arkady would perhaps have shown him more respect if he had never touched on this subject at all?”(22). Fathers are forced to see that they influence their sons. By Nikolai relenting to the idea of his son and Fedosya he opened the door to the illicit lover of his son despite his true desires. If he had not said anything though, perhaps Adady would have just rebelled and gone after her or perhaps followed his fathers indifference. Instead by the father caring of Arkady, Arkady is compelled to care for someone else. Here, we begin to see the irrevocable love triangle that presents itself out of reflection of father’s actions. So though, the fathers and sons are navigating a generational divide the sons are still influenced by a fathers actions.

  5. Anonymous

    Towards the begining of the book, it was evident to me that Arkady still held his father’s ideals in great asteam although he claimed to be a nihlist like Bazarov. A few times Bazarov and other modern intelectuals make fun of him, telling him to listen to Katya play the piano because he is the only one who has any regards for music or art. Bazarov plays the role of a leader. He is supposed to be themost radical nihlist or most unorthodox. However during his time at Arkady’s house many of his actions countered his beliefs, and he made up exuses for his actions. Bazarov went walking in the woods or the fields every morning, he went to the pond as well. He justified these actions by saying they were purely scientific analysis, and he only wanted to get frog specimen. However he continues to spend a great deal of time outdoors. He talks long walks in the garden with Odintsova everday at her house. Although he claims to have no appreciation for art, nature, or beauty, judging from the amount of time he spends in nature, I would say he values it quite a bit. Of course we are also shown blatently

  6. Stewart Moore

    (i accidentally hit submit)..that Bazarov loves Odintsova. He seems to be at odds with his beliefs quite a great deal , and this is why he feels so much inner anguish. He is less of a nihlist than he would like to admit.

  7. Catherine Ahearn

    In many ways the disparity between the ways the characters in this novel act and what they think is a comment on theory itself. Most of the time, ideologies find their flaws in practice, as is the case in nihilism and Bazarov’s belief in it. Although it may appear ideal to believe in nothing and feel little, it is not part of human nature to do so. The very belief in nihilism is a contradiction to nihilism itself. I think Turgenev does a great job at making this tension clear as the book progresses. It is easy for Bazarov to act nonchalant and unbothered when he’s staying at Arkady’s father’s home. However, the first instance that we see him and his detachment challenged, it waivers and finally falls at the feet of Anna.
    Previously, Bazarov’s detachment made the other men uncomfortable, yet it is this same character trait that intrigues Anna- she sees a similarity between their outward dispositions. However, Bazarov crumbles at Anna’s probes revealing his love for her and simultaneously deconstructing his nihilistic outlooks. He loves her and says so, therefore he feels and believes and in doing so reveals the person by which he should be judged. Had Anna requited his love I would say that she is like Bazarov, but she does not (at least not yet) and so serves as a great character by which we can juxtapose and judge Barazov. The difference between Anna and Bazarov is that the later believed he understood himself, when he did not. Anna, on the other hand acknowledges that there are things about herself she does not understand, “’Why should you go? I did not understand you- you did not understand me,’ Anna Sergeevna answered him, but to herself she thought: ‘I did not understnd myself either.’” (97)
    Arkady is a more timid character and I believe his relation with Barazov and his relationship with Katya has supported so thus far.

  8. Kara Shurmantine

    I agree with Catherine, and I’ll add a bit to it. Her post helped me realize the reason I disliked Bazarov so much: his ideology is so essentially flawed, rendering him hopelessly hypocritical—“the very belief in nihilism is a contradiction to nihilism itself.” While reading, I felt impatient with Bazarov’s unyielding adherence to this hypocritical philosophy, and Arkady’s blind following of his mentor without regard to what he truly feels. My belief is that a great philosophical idea should not work in absolutes: it should allow for exceptions to its rules, should accommodate or at least consider every gray area. Nothing in life is absolute, nothing is black and white—if a philosophy claims to have the absolute answer to something, or to reject or uphold any idea or principle in absolute terms, that philosophy is being false to the very nature of life itself. Bazarov’s nihilism is ridiculous. It forces him into rejecting everything, even his own private and very real impulses towards affection and romance when Anna stirs his heart. It also causes his “disciples” to question their own beliefs and feelings, and deeply wounds the elders, who cannot conceive of a philosophy that rejects art, music and nature—life’s treasures of pure beauty. Perhaps he’s a Byronic hero; I practically hated him until he finally gave into the truth and confessed his love for Anna, which revealed, I suppose, depth and inner conflict and passion in his heart. But I cannot forgive him for the callousness with which he has treated his elders, and with which he has encouraged Arkady to treat his father. Nikolai’s innocent love and confusion at Arkady’s change just breaks my heart. I hope that the episode with Anna forces him to allow a little compassion and empathy to enter Bazarov’s life.

  9. Alexandra Boillot

    The actions of Bazarov, Arkady, and Nicholas are definitely not parallel to their words and what each of them pretends to stand for but on varying levels. Bazarov stands out as the worst violator of his own philosophy because he so vehemently states his views and says he is a true nihilist. Arkady, on the other hand, never declares his belief in nihilism as explicitly as Bazarov does and instead seems to believe more in Bazarov than his actual philosophy. Nicholas is the weakest example because his actions going against his traditional ideals are only in an attempt to close the gap between him and his son.

    Bazarov states that he believes in nothing and strongly criticizes all romantics and any actions that could be perceived as romantic. Showing emotion in general, then, and especially falling in love blatantly violate nihilism. However, Bazarov falls in love with Odintsova and even tells her that he loves her. Although he struggles internally with his feelings for her since they are in clear violation of everything he stands for, he cannot stop them. He used to tell people to “try and gain [a woman]; but if that proves impossible- well don’t bother, drop her.” He acknowledges that he cannot “gain” Odintsova but “[lacks] the resolution… to drop her.” Bazarov is truly distraught over his feelings for Odintsova but this does not change the fact that his actions do not go along with his nihilist words at all and are actually in direct contradiction with them.

    Arkady and his father’s actions are not as conflicting with their words because neither of them seem to have as strong of a philosophy or set of beliefs as Bazarov has so that they have more freedom in their actions. Although Arkady is somewhat of a nihilist, he still strongly defends his father’s and uncle’s traditional beliefs and way of life and clearly has romantic leanings with his appreciation for art and nature. Arkady definitely seems to be in more awe of Bazarov himself than of his philosophy. Arkady’s father, similarly, wants the approval of his son more than anything and in trying to maintain a close, equal relationship with Arkady, he reads some progressive books and tries to engage in conversation with some more progressive types. Although his way of life is clearly traditional he does try to at least learn what more progressive people believe Russian society should be like so he can close the generational gap between himself and Arkady.

  10. Zachary Harris

    While Nikolai and Pavel are liberals that claim to hope for social change to help the peasants, the way in which they act is completely contradictory. The estate that Nikolai runs is completely in disorder with the peasants living there “neither contented nor industrious”, and as Ashley said above, Nikolai does not treat Fenichka as a legitimate spouse because of her social class. Pavel, as Bazarov notes, thinks himself progressive because “once a month saves a peasant from being flogged.” However, he in fact does nothing to further the liberal cause and simply spends all his time at Nikolai’s home.

    Bazarov and Arkady have good reason to discount the liberal values of the older generation because of the apparent lack of ability of this generation to enact any serious reforms. Thus, they say that they place no value on anything because all of society’s conventions have not had any positive effect on the lives of Russians. Yet they face an impossible task in assigning no value to anything. Arkady by no means truly believes in the nihilist cause as he wants his father to marry Fenichka, truly does love nature, and represses many feelings so that Bazarov does not know his true attachment to things. He finds the idea of nihilism very enticing, but in no way is capable of living by its tenets.

    Bazarov too is incapable of truly discounting the value of all things. He seems to primarily strive to be a nihilist because he sees the faults in old liberalism and finds joy in shocking people with his way of thinking. This is evident in the way he greatly frustrates Pavel when Pavel questions his beliefs. However, Bazarov, as was said before, clearly finds many things worth valuing, such as conducting science experiments, discussing his ideas, and the mystical idea that the nihilist viewpoint will soon gain adherents and lead to a positive reformation of Russia.

    I feel that this novel essentially, at least so far, is showing the problem in Russia that the intellectuals can do nothing to reform their society and that because of this people will begin to develop radical ideologies in an attempt to make an impact on their society. This is shown to be equally ineffective as the nihilists are incapable of actually implementing their philosophy into the way they live.

  11. Anonymous

    it is obvious that it is stewart moore. It is hilarious that you posted that anonymously and was wrong.

  12. Kaylen Baker

    Nihilism is doomed from the start – how can someone care about nothing, but care about nihilism at the same time? Bazarov really does try though, and when he falls in love with Anna he fights against it as much as possible. Bazarov chooses to be a nihilist because he’s lazy, cocky, and cynical by nature, which nihilism encourages. He doesn’t like the outdoors, music, or other manifest emotions because he is so preoccupied with himself. He has an intrinsic outlook that he projects into his view of the world, and is compelling enough to make others believe him.

    Bazarov distains the aristocrats, because they think they are better while nihilists see all humans as the same. But why does Bazarov distain the peasants as well? He says, “so what, if they deserve to be despised!” Later he explains, “moral diseases derive from poor education…” But poor people have no choice in their education, how can they deserve this?

    However, it’s not fair to hold all four of these characters accountable for their actions by their words if we are going to talk about this story as if it’s plausible— it’s human nature to make mistakes against your own belief. The concordances should be recognized too. Pavel thinks respect is the most important thing a man can have and give, which is why Bazarov disturbs him. Even with wealth and rank it’s impossible to respect anyone when they aren’t honest. We know Pavel is – when Arkady tells Pavel’s story, he explains of him, “he was respected as well for his irreproachable honesty.” Not once does Pavel say something he doesn’t mean, he hardly ever keeps his thoughts to himself, and he isn’t afraid of confronting Bazarov about his offending ideal.

    Arkady obviously has many contradictions as other people have noted – he’s confused. Interestingly though, he tells his father, “a son should never be a judge of his father…” and he acts on his words in this case, never judging even though he thinks he believes differently. He even stands up for his father and uncle against Bazarov. Arcady inherited his daydreamer sensibility from his father, who, as a romantic, refuses to offend and dictate over anyone. His words match his actions, because he doesn’t make black and white judgments.

  13. Harry Morgenthau

    Oddly, I think that the characters whose actions and words most align are Arkady and Nikolai. Neither one of them is a strong-willed idealist like Pavel or Bazarov, but in their own, smaller ways, they manage to be very reliable. Neither man chooses to blindly preach things that are beyond them. Arkady is extremely intrigued by Bazarov’s ideology, but he does not profess that he is a master of it. He seems to freely recognize that he is not capable of fully reaching the points that Bazarov supports. But Arkady is willing to give it an honest shot. When he learns of Fenichka and his father’s illegitimate child, Arkady both speaks support and provides it. While he may have some inner feelings of superiority towards his father because of it, he does not act on them. Instead, he listens to his better nature and supports his father and Fenichka. While a son could easily turn bitter, he remains dedicated to his father.
    Nikolai speaks his unease to his son, and while he attempts to hold back some of his secrets, he cannot help but let them tumble into the open. Nikolai spends most of the first few chapters dousing his son with love, and he fully backs up all of it; his love is real. Nikolai recognizes that he does not know everything about his son’s new world, but he wants to learn. Nikolai sees his own ignorance and wants to amend it, just as Arkady does. He is both fascinated and frightened by his son’s new ideas, but even more than that, he hopes to come to understand them.
    Becuase of their ability to recognize their own ignorance, Nikolai and Arkady are kept from the brazen debates that consume and torture Bazarov and Pavel. While this may make them less exciting or powerful characters, they are also able to survive in a way that Bazarov and Pavel cannnot. Nikolai and Arkady bend while the others break.

  14. Brett Basarab

    It is quite clear that Arkady and Bazarov’s words are inconsistent with how they actually act. While both claim to be nihilists looking to revolutionize Russia, their behavior at the estate does not support their ideals. With Bazarov especially, his revolutionary fervor falls flat when we see how he truly acts.

    First off, Bazarov has a major problem with the aristocracy. To him, aristocracy represents the old and the obsolete in Russia, and he wants to do away with it. However, rather than spending time in Moscow or St. Petersburg, working to bring about change, Bazarov chooses to bide his time at an elegant, isolated estate. He lives in the lap of luxury, spending his time as he pleases and working on whatever biology project comes to mind. Essentially, Bazarov is living as an aristocrat. At the estate, he is isolated from the problems he wishes to change. By sitting around and discussing problems rather than working to change them, Bazarov presents himself as an elitist, rather than an activist.

    Bazarov also contradicts his nihilist beliefs by falling for Madame Odintsov. Clearly, he cannot help attaching himself to something and has repressed feelings he is unwilling to admit. One could almost see his nihilism as an attempt to conceal his emotions and appear as an infallible, modern revolutionary. Arkady, too, while claiming to be a nihilist, is not as flamboyant as Bazarov. That fact that he questions his beliefs proves that he cannot be a true nihilist; trying to figure out what he believes in is obviously not nihilism.

    Ultimately, this story comes down to the everlasting schism between the generations. The older generation cannot accept that the younger generation is growing up and may not have the same ideals. Meanwhile, the younger generation cannot accept its own naïveté, and often fails to live up to its overly idealistic philosophies.

  15. Ben Tabb

    As it appeared to me, there was a spectrum from liberalism to conservatism among the characters in this book (or if you will, nihilism to. . . non-nihilism). Barazov is clearly the ultimate nihilist, at least in his what he says. He will not concede anything to Pavel in his argument, and even when he clearly intends to enjoy nature or a nice picture, he denies it as nothing other than an attempt at pursuing knowledge. Clearly, he is so inclined towards nihilism that even he is not capable of reaching the standards he sets for himself. Being a human, he is susceptible to falling in love, and disappoints himself when he does. He holds himself to the highest standard of nihilism, and for this reason his actions cannot possibly live up to his words.

    Next on the spectrum is Arkady. He considers himself a nihilist, and clearly tries to live his life to the standards that Barazov sets, but it is clear he is not on the same level. He appreciates music, and although it appears to make him ashamed, he is willing to admit it. Also, he has pity for his father, and tries to make him happy, although he appears to see his father as being on a lower level than him, which is in part because his father sees Arkady as being better than himself. Also, Arkady is attracted to Anna, and not ashamed of his feelings.

    Arkady’s father is next on the spectrum. He does not buy into Nihilism, but is willing to hear its points. He realizes he is not the brightest, and therefore is the only character who is modest enough to look at other people’s beliefs and consider that he may not know all the truths of life. For this reason, it does not appear that his words and actions are inconsistent, since his words are not strong or certain. He appears to many to be a fool; he has trouble running his estate and he appears to be submissive to his own son, but he is the only one wise enough to admit when he does not know.

    Pavel is at the farthest end of the spectrum. He is conservative in his beliefs and unwilling to give any credit to the new wave of nihilism. He is fed up with the way Barazov asks, and feels that he is brash and disrespectful. We do not get to know Pavel that well, but it is clear that he values everything Barazov doesn’t. He completes the spectrum that the four characters manage to create by being the polar opposite of Barazov. Although his actions seem to coincide with his words, he does not seem especially wise. He seems to be an old aristocrat who cannot keep up with the changing of times. He believes in proper behavior and dress, but does little of note with his actions, and can’t offer any help to his brother as his estate is crumbling except to give him some money.

    I think that it’s clear that the two extremes in these cases are too set in their beliefs to acknowledge that there are cases when their rules may not apply. The two characters in the middle of the spectrum, while seen as lesser characters by those around them, and clearly less dynamic than the others, to me appear to be the truly wise ones. They recognize that life cannot be summed up by one simple set of rules or beliefs, and therefore are not dead set in their ways. They are the ones who thus far have erred the least from their ways, because their ways are the most plausible.

  16. Patrick O'Neill

    I think there is a very interesting dynamic not only between the respective characters in this novel but also within each of themselves as well. To begin with Arkady, several of the former posters have already mentioned how his respect for his father and uncle contradicted his nihilism. However, I do not necessarily hold the same opinion because in the instances when Arkady reflects about his father and uncle, there undoubtedly is affection in the sentiment, but I do not think this is out of respect, but rather a sort of pity. To me it often seemed more as if Arkady was tenderly looking down on Pavel and Nikolai, as a parent looks down with a smile at its cute child when it has some unintentional folly such as a light trip or fall. If this in fact is the case, he is just as pretentious and condescending as his friend Bazarov but Turgenev has cleverly disguised this sentiment in a way so that the reader may more readily sympathize with the “respectful” Arkady rather than the openly insolent Bazarov. Perhaps I am just at the moment in tune with the trickery of Gogol but I am still awaiting a clearer sign that Arkady in fact looks down upon the older generation so without already having read further I have yet to find out.

    I would also like to focus on Bazarov. I think Turgenev has constructed a wonderful character here, who most certainly contradicts his beliefs, as is evident in his dealings with Anna. The author definitely does not make it seem that way for the longest time, though, because in the earlier parts of the book, it does not seem that Bazarov moves an inch from his convictions and he is clearly a figure of authority, as he wields a considerable influence over Arkady (although their relationship seems to slowly change because of Anna) and his ideas and assertions always triumph in any argument. Thus, the reader comes to know Bazarov as a man devoted to his seemingly true ideals, which he is able to maintain in any argument. However, as has already been said here and in just about every other post, his love with Anna, and the fact that he is unable to deny it, clearly illustrates that he does not remain true to his nihilist convictions. I would also just like to second the argument that Brett conveys in his paragraph because it is something that I think a lot of readers, myself included, definitely might miss.

  17. Elise Hanks

    The philial relationships between father and son, brothers, and friends are an interesting reflection of a changing Russia. I’m not very familiar with the history of the country, but it appears that this generational gap separates Russian nationalists from the nihilist, the first real rejection of custom, tradition, and age-old patriarchal logic (that is to say, what has passed from father to son as “Truth”). It is interesting that Turgenev uses Bazarov as the personification of this youthful movement of nihilism to generate the generational gap that comes between most fathers and sons at the onset of adolescence (granted, Arkady is a bit older here… but not by too much). We see the close relationship between Arkady and Nikolai through their embraces and reminiscences at the novel’s outset; it later becomes apparent that Bazarov has stepped into Arkady’s life as his mentor and “hero” replacing Nikolai in Nikolai’s absence from Arkady’s life at university.

    As a side note regarding relationships between fathers and sons, I am interested in seeing the role (if any) the new baby has in Arkady’s life. Presumably it would have been thought by some that having a half-brother of a far less noble and legitimate birth would be looked down upon.

    I am also interested to see if there will be future discourses on love between fathers and sons. The loves of each character have had a huge part in defining his attributes and past; the women in their lives and the nature of the love between the characters and the women they love appear to be very important. We see Nikolai as a very shy, loving man who is an old and classic romantic. He never stops loving and thinking of his dead wife. Pavel is marked by his rather unrequited love and her rejection of him. He is a man who was undone by love; a man who was played a fool by a woman (certainly not something to be thought highly of at this time I imagine). Arkady is experiencing the first blush of love and lust with both Anna and Katya; he is learning the patterns of the heart (jealousy, melancholy, etc) and in his case we are also viewing his love through the double lens of the reader knowing that as a self-proclaimed nihilist he is not supposed to have so much emotion for these women. We also see Bazarov’s love for Anna and how it affects his constructs of women, society, and the characteristics of life and the world if it, in fact, does hold something true- that none escape from love.

    I am interested to see how these relationships develop and would like to see a discourse on love develop between the generations

  18. Anonymous

    I think the previous posts answer the original question of action/word consistency well. Harry points out that the two characters with less developed ideologies—the father and son—are less apt to contradict their words with their actions. Arkady spends hours listening to music and marveling over nature—actions nihilists like Bazarov reject. However, his understanding of nihilism is so incomplete that he is merely ignorant, not contradictory. His father too, although a member of the older generation, is much more open to new ideas than his brother Pavel is.
    I was struck by the similarities between Bazarov and Lermentov’s Pechorin. Although their basic ideology is different (nihilism v. superflouisity), both characters are plagued by the same illness. Their true emotions are contained in their attempt to reform to how they think they should be.
    One passage that pointed out the gap between Bazarov’s actions and words particularly struck me:

    ‘What a marvelous woman Anna Sergeevna is!’ exclaimed Arkady when he was alone with his friend in the room which had been allocated to them.
    ‘Yes,’ said Bazarov, ‘a woman with brains. Oh, and she’s seen a thing or two.’
    ‘In what sense do you say that, Evgeny Vasilich?’
    ‘In the best sense, the best, Arkady Nikolaich, my dear old fellow! I’m sure she runs her estate splendidly. But she’s not the marvel, the marvel’s her sister.’
    ‘What? That little dark girl?’
    ‘Yes, that little dark girl. There’s one who’s fresh and untouched and apprehensive and n ot talkative and everything you want. That’s the one to get busy on. You could make whatever you like out of her. But the other, she’s hardbaked.’

    Although Barazov says that Katya is the one to want, he spends all of his time with Anna and even proclaims his love to her. The ‘fresh and untouched’ Katya is like the Russia he imagines after the nihilists succeed in rejecting everything—a fresh slate ready to be perfected. However, just Barazov prefers Anna to Katya, does he perhaps not really prefer Russia the way it is?

    I looked over my notes and essay on Father’s and Son’s from the Russian History class I took freshman year. I seemed to be torn then as to the motive of Turgenev: was he on the side of the Fathers or the Sons? Perhaps the *****spoiler***** dual in the 2nd half will answer this question for me.

    Ashley- I forgive you

  19. Hannah Wilson

    There are many in which both Bazarov and Arkady either mimic, or purposefully rebel against their fathers, however I think that the relationship between Anna Odintosov and her family deserves a comment as well. Unlike Arkady’s family, they did not choose to settle in the country side, but were forced to because her father lost all of his money gambling. The narrator repeats over and over that “vulgar mediocrity was the only thing that repulsed her.” Anna’s beliefs are so similar to the life path of her father, that they must come from watching him rise and fall. The interesting thing is that she seems to live a very mediocre life. She does not seem particularly interesting, lives a very boring daily life and only values interactions with interesting people, not becoming one.

    While we see neither her father’s nor her mother’s actions or words, she seems to be more influenced by their absence than the younger men are by their living fathers. Arkady seems to respect his father but is temporarily deceived by nihilism and no longer believes that total clarity can be found in the country. Once he leaves St. Petersburg he realizes that perhaps everything that he has learned has no place in the countryside. She was forced to learn how to take care of the estate and deal with her angry, selfish aunt all on her own. Anna’s life has been defined by the lack of parental influence and personal experience navigating the world independently. An independent woman would have taken control of her estate and probably not married the old Odintosov just for security. Her conviction that she is very independent is very noticeable in the way she presents herself as aloof and distant from society; however it does not mimic how much she despises mediocrity.

    Her relationship with Bazarov is initially very odd, however it slowly becomes more and more typical and like any other Russian romance. Anna’s influence on him is so strong that he begins to lose some of his nihilistic convictions and softens up. His actions initially reflect his words of nihilism and a disdain for life. His attitude changes dramatically by the time he leaves Anna’s house. He is then shown as very passive, having allowed his emotion grab hold of his thoughts. I am very intrigued to see how Anna’s influence affects him on his journey home.

  20. Matthew Lazarus

    — “I’m a straightforward uninteresting person. I don’t know how to talk.”
    — “You are fishing for compliments, Evgeny Vassilich.”
    — “That’s not my custom. Don’t you know yourself that the graceful side of life, which you value so highly, is beyond my reach?”

    This question posed by Bazarov in his groundbreaking conversation with Anna Sergeyevna — as well as the animalistic lunge that followed — struck me as the biggest or perhaps most surprising concession from any one character. At a certain point when trying to reconcile the words and actions of characters, you have to start to wonder who is living in denial. The mere acknowledgment of this “graceful side of life” which Bazarov has worked so tirelessly to reject in so much as it becomes the defining aspect of his character, is a pretty big win for the romantics out there. It is obvious that passion exists within Bazarov, but instead of acting on it he recoils from himself, reverting back to properties of chemistry — the things that give him comfort and security. Similarly, when Bazarov gets carried away in conversation and lets slip about Anna’s beauty and intelligence, she immediately lights up and asks him to repeat himself, but by then Bazarov has noticed he has said too much, and he dismisses the previous comment. Bazarov seems to be the most conflicted character, and perhaps even the most pathetic, even more than that Sitnikov fellow. If Bazarov really wants to put the veil over his own eyes and make believe that all humans are like trees in a forest, he can go right ahead, but we see breaks in his character that allude us to the holes in his philosophy.

    As for Arkady, he finds himself in the middle of an ideological crossroads spanning generations. In the opening chapters, I thought Turgenev played the relationship between father and son extremely well, factoring in all the familial awkwardness one might expect when maturity levels are crossed with childhood settings and freshly honed newfound philosophies in the face of a sweet smiling Daddy. I felt as I’m sure we all did a twinge of very real and relatable sadness as I watched Arkady change the subject with his bubbly father from emotional to pedestrian. The only thing Arkady seems to be excited about early on is how much he respects and admires Bazarov. Arkady is trying to rebel from his past yes, but in the end I would say he is just like his father, in the way he isolates himself in forlorn when he admits to himself that he is in love with Anna. He claims to be the nihilistic Robin to Bazarov’s Batman, and he does support him when it is acceptable in dialogue, but we all know Arkady is no nihilist. He’s more a Bazarov…ist. On a final note I want to pay my respects to Elise’s comment; I too hope to see more extensive discourses on love between the gentlemen of the story. That’s where the good stuff is.

  21. Susanna Merrill

    Although, as everyone has pointed has pointed out, Bazarov’s actions (falling in love) do not square with his stated principles (not believing in love), he is perfectly aware of the fact himself and makes various efforts to control himself. I’m not sure, therefore, how hypocritical we can consider him: he is simply confronted with the impossibility of his ideals. He makes no attempt to mask his failure. I’m tempted to say (if only to say something different, as I have once again waited very late to post) that Bazarov is the least hypocritical of the characters in the novel. Failure, honestly acknowledged and battled against, is not the same as hypocrisy, it is just an inevitable part of having principles strong enough to warrant the name.

    As a character, Bazarov, unpleasant though we may find him, forces us to consider the same question that Mikhail, via Prof. Beyer, poses in the title of this post. As far as he is able, Bazarov tries to expose the actions of the people with whom he comes in contact for what they are, without excusing them by reference to their past or stated ideals or anything else. This is his main conflict with Arkady: Bazarov sees no reason to consider the factors Arkady urges him to consider before condemning Pavel as an old aristocrat. Arkady, and the reader, want to take Pavel’s past into consideration, to see something romantic in his story, and to let Pavel of as a product of his time. But Bazarov demands that we look only at the facts of Pavel’s behavior: he does nothing useful, his chief activity seems to be personal grooming, and he supports conservative politics. Similarly, he demands that we confront the silliness of Nicolas’ cello-playing and poetry-reading as silly forms of idleness in a man whose estate is slipping downhill, and he doesn’t allow the obstacle of Arkady’s filial relationship to him to affect his criticisms.

    I don’t appreciate, emotionally, Bazarov’s rudeness any more than Arkady seems to, but it may serve an important question. He forces us to look at the other characters unemotionally and unromantically, and even if we choose to reapply the softening layers of exonerating emotion through which we prefer to see them, at least we were forced, for a moment, to look at them in harsher light.

  22. Adam Levine

    “‘Then we realized that talking, simply talking all the time about our open sores isn’t worth the trouble…’” (40)

    Turgenev clearly develops the association between actions and words during the “skirmish” that breaks out in Chapter X. The scene is full of “talking, simply talking” – there is barely any action, and the details that the author reveals rarely describe anything besides the reactions to the dialogue. Thus, Turgenev wishes to expose Bazarov’s inherent hypocrisy by narrating the argument without acute attention to physical action. Most people have already identified the problems with Bazarov’s approach to Russian society, but I wanted to draw awareness to a moment in the text where Pavel himself seems to stump the nihilist. Later, after Bazarov states the above quotation, Pavel asks the young man, “‘But then why do you abuse others, even those very denouncers? Aren’t you doing a lot of talking, too, just like all the rest?…Are you taking action or what?’” (40) Turgenev states that “Bazarov made no reply” (40), a sign that the older gentleman has disclosed a crucial problem within the nihilist approach. Criticizing those for doing nothing is one thing, but to only criticize without any action or even plan for action deserves the same criticism.

    Pavel is not without fault either. For someone who claims to understand the authentic Russian perspective, he seems to spend most of his time comparing the country to England and busying himself with English societal trends. The two nations have distinct ideologies, yet Pavel continually connects them while simultaneously arguing that he understands the uniqueness of his native land. This view appears problematic to me. However, in general, I really value Kara’s point that anyone with such an extreme view cannot be taken seriously. Pavel allows more flexibility I believe, yet both seem to hold onto their respective sides very firmly. It seems that Turgenev questions whether actions really play a greater role in judging character, since his scenes of deep philosophical debate mainly involve dialogue.

  23. Natalie Komrovsky

    In response to Susanna’s comment-I can see Bazarov’s purpose, in forcing us to look at characters as they are and not by what happened to them before, who they’re surrounded by, what their circumstances are, etc. However, there are times when those things are important. Pavel may be an old aristocrat, but that doesn’t given Bazarov any reason to look down on him.

    That being said, I find Bazarov to be the most infuriating character in the world.

    In response to the blog-Nikolai and Pavel’s actions are in line with their words. They are the older generation, and they don’t pretend to be anything else. Pavel mocks Bazarov and Nihilism because that is how he really feels about them. Both Pavel and Nikolai are struggling to understand Arkady and Bazarov, but are unable to. Nikolai is upset with his son’s indifference towards him. Essentially, the emotions and actions of Nikolai and Pavel are in line with what they believe and with how they are identified.

    Arkady is pathetic. He doesn’t really believe in nihilism, he just for some unknown reason wants Bazarov to like and respect him, so he follows him around like a 4 year old agreeing with everything he says and trying to act the way Bazarov does. But he doesn’t really believe it, as there are times when he longs to connect with his father, or seems to be playing moderator between Bazarov and Nikolai/Pavel. He’s trying to please both sides, but in the end he really just has no spine and won’t face what he really believes in.

    Bazarov is equally pathetic, if only because he’s claiming (and really believing) to be a nihilist. He is arrogant and infuriating, believing that everything must be torn down. Now I’ll agree with Susanna that he is still truly a nihilist even though he’s shocked by his feelings for Anna. He tries to deny them, but can’t, which will likely throw him into some sort of crisis. As of right now, I think he’s grappling with the fact that his beliefs and his feelings aren’t in line with each other, and he needs to solve that. I don’t think this makes him less of a nihilist in belief, but that means he isn’t a true nihilist because he can’t live as one. Also he’s still probably the most infuriating character ever to be written in literature.

  24. Matthew Rothman

    To me, the words and actions of the sons in Turgenev’s novel seem no more inconsistent than those of any student with claims of knowledge of deep, philosophical truth. This is to say, as most students have mentioned already, that the actions and philosophy of Bazarov are decidedly inconsistent and that Bazarov struggles constantly with his own vehement beliefs. From a purely philosophical standpoint, nihilism necessarily becomes a consuming and unwavering philosophy, leaving no room for compromise. As Bazarov finds as the novel progresses, practicing the categorical rejection of all institution and meaning becomes far more difficult, particularly due to the philosophy’s simplistic denial of human emotion.

    In spite of the contradiction, however, I reject the idea that Bazarov is an outright hypocrite. The desire to eliminate emotion is common to everyone, particularly in times of deep, internal conflict, and nihilism seems to me a radical method of attempting to cope with emotional letdown. That the philosophy fails for Bazarov is ultimately a commentary with an obvious conclusion.

  25. Gabriel G Suarez

    For precisely this reason (our actions matter more than our words, and are on what we should be judged,) I can’t see Fathers and Sons as a story of inter-generational struggle. Rather, it seems more like a story that relates the similarity among people, across generations, despite their continued insistence on distinguished and distinguishable values. Bazarov’s infatuation with Anna, which takes him some time to admit to, also shows us how the trappings of society, which we hold onto so faithfully, can and often will come between a person and their “true feelings.”

    From Nikolai’s perspective, this could be a simple case of lost youth, yet his contemporary, Pavel, is equally lost. He feels morally secure with his set of values, and apparently feels as if believing in a thing is enough. He stays on his estate, secluded. Both these generation have these problems, these absurd “morals” that are little more that societal codes of conduct to affect a place in their generation. The elders, who are “principled,” of course, do nothing but talk and sometimes sulk. Arkady and Bazarov, on the other hand, while preaching detachment and abyss, go off falling in love! These are all dishonest people. And the second we take up a “philosophy” to govern our lives and interactions, we become like them.

Leave a Reply