Tasneem Irhouma 20157896

October 17th, 2017

ENGL319

Fathers and Sons: An Analysis

Throughout history, clashes between former and newer generations have always been a

topic of interest and controversy. History is repeating itself constantly, in the sense that the

newer generation is seen as more liberal and progressive than its more conservative and

traditional preceding generation. This is seen even today, with conflicts between the Baby

Boomer and Millennial generations ranging from the economy crash debacle to the Baby

Boomers’ frequent criticism of the Millennial dependency on technology. This is something that

has been seen not only through different time eras, but also is a universal conflict that is present

in almost every culture and nation. Fathers and Sons, written by Ivan Turgenev, gives the

audience a glimpse into 19th century Russian society and bases much of the novel around the

theme of generation clashing.

Past Criticism of Fathers and Sons

Turgenev introduces Bazarov, a nihilist in a time where being a nihilist in Russia was as

controversial as being a communist during America’s Cold War era. Because of Bazarov’s

nihilistic viewpoints and bluntness when sharing them, a plethora of controversy was raised, with

the main question being whether Bazarov is hugely admirable or hugely damaging still a

debatable subject to this day. There is one thing that isn’t very dubious: Bazarov’s character had

a huge impact on Russia’s society in the 19th century, coupled with still being a relevant

character to today’s world. Critical reception of the novel was hugely mixed, with people either

absolutely hating Bazarov and everything he stood for or absolutely loving him. This is

1
highlighted in Edward Wasiolek’s Fathers and Son: Russia at the Cross-Roads, in which

Wasiolek discusses the aftermath of Fathers and Sons and how critics received it. He begins by

giving some context and background information in how Turgenev first got the idea of Fathers

and Sons: “a young provincial doctor who made a strong impression on him […] became the

prototype for Bazarov” (p. 10). This led to Turgenev’s aspiration to write a novel that expressed

the budding innovative social varieties at the time, and thus, the character of controversy-

seeking, guileless, opinionated Bazarov was born.

The problem that surfaced with Bazarov, however, was that he was one that did not

please the traditionalists nor the liberals. He wants to throw away all customs and traditions and

“was crude, insensitive, and lacking in ideals” (p. 11), which is sometimes portrayed in a

glorifying manner, ultimately upsetting traditionalists; conversely, as the novel progresses, it

becomes manifest that Bazarov is sloppy in terms of keeping true to his beliefs and is not as

adamant in his philosophy as he made it seem when arguing with the characters representing the

older generation, Nikolai and Pavel, essentially showing Bazarov out to be a hypocrite and only

a nihilist when it comes to benefit him personally. Bazarov was shown to be a messy character,

and Turgenev was heavily criticized for it because, according to one critic, Turgenev did not

know how to portray Bazarov in a clean, concise manner; he did not “know what to consider him

—a productive force in the future or a stinking abscess of an empty culture […] Bazarov cannot

be both things at the same time” (p. 11-12)

With the flood of criticism also came a fair amount of praise for the novel and what

Bazarov stood for. Dmitry Pisarev, a renowned radical writer and social critic of mid-19th century

Russia, saw himself in the depiction of Bazarov and hailed Bazarov as the hero that the newer

generation of his time needed. To him, Bazarov was “superior to every character in the novel in

2
character, idea, and vision and justified every failing that others saw” (p. 13). He states that

Bazarov is superior because of his lack of morals; despite lacking in morals, religion, and ethics,

Bazarov, for the most part, does act morally. He has a respectable place in society, works hard

for his education, doesn’t live off his parents’ wealth, and this makes him above the rest because,

unlike traditionalists and others who need the idea morals and religion to guide them, Bazarov

does not, as he knows what’s best for him without the pressure of religious or societal

punishment to keep him grounded.

Contemporary Criticism of Fathers and Sons

Due to the timeless story element that Fathers and Sons holds, its criticism is not limited

to just during the time period of which the novel was written, but also receives controversial

opinions about the characters and theme in more recent times.

Conversely, contemporary criticism extended to not only the social commentary of the

novel, but also the syntax and structure that Turgenev used. David Lowe, the head of European

Collections and Cataloguing in Cambridge University, says that he regards the novel as a

“comedy” due to Turgenev’s tendency to jump from complex syntax and structure to simplicity,

as well as the inconsistent narration: “the narrator wavers between authorial omniscience and the

limited first-person point of view of a faceless participant in the novel.”

Furthermore, criticism also extended outside of the focus on Bazarov’s character to Anna

Odintsova as well, making her out to be the more significant antagonist than Bazarov was

deemed to be in the earlier times. Words used to describe her include “cold”, “frigid”,

“epicurean”, and “untouched by any emotion” (p. 15), all with a very manifest negative

connotation. Even the most recent critics have taken to drawing fire towards Odintsova, with Eva

Kagan-Kans claiming that Odintsova “brings destruction to Bazarov” (p. 15). Wasiolek disagrees

3
with these points and counters them by justifying Odintsova’s coldness; he justifies her

emotional absence by mentioning her father’s death and the toll it possibly could have had on

her. He says that her “cynicism or cold-hearted calculation” (p. 15) is not her acting out of spite

or emotional unavailability, but “from a sense of realism and duty” (p. 15).

Wasiolek also mentions that critics of contemporary times rather favoured Bazarov and

found any excuses for his behavior, unlike the older critics who tended to rip Bazarov to shreds,

which may be the reason for making Odintsova out to be the antagonist and worthy of criticism.

Bazarov’s “animal lunge” at Odintsova is merely dismissed because of his “virility and vitality”

(p. 16); his hypocrisy, specifically with deeming love and attraction useless only to fall in love

with Odintsova, is not because he cannot stay true to his ideals, but rather because “he is broken

by fate, not through failure of will or intellect” (p. 16). Bazarov’s fall was not due to his own

actions and his failure to sort distance his ideals with his subconscious wants, but rather was the

fault of Odintsova’s seduction and leading-on. Essentially, contemporary criticism is more

concerned with preserving Bazarov’s image of a hero and representation of the new generation

while Odintsova takes most of the slamming criticism and blame for Bazarov’s demise, and

Wasiolek ultimately summing up their thoughts with one line: “Bazarov can do no wrong, and

Odintsova can do no right” (p. 15-16).

Personal Analysis

Bazarov manifestly represents the nihilist movement; however, that is just the surface of

what Bazarov symbolizes and it should be more generalized. Bazarov, to many, represents the

“new man,” or the “sons” that are revolting against the traditional “fathers”. What gives this

novel such high literary merit is that Bazarov is not just representative of the rebelling new age

of 19th century Russia, but rather can be applicable almost universally at any period of time.

4
Though much more exaggerated than most would see, Bazarov is the embodiment of the new

generation and the potential brought forward with it. Ideals that have been passed down for

centuries are being challenged and new, questionable ideals are brought forward.

As a person who was born and raised in Canada, a country known for its liberal views

and progression, and as a person with parents born and raised in the North African country of

Libya, a country that relies heavily on tradition and cultural norms to lead daily life, I understand

what Turgenev was trying to portray with the juxtaposition between the father characters

(Nikolai and Vissily) and the son characters (Arkady and Bazarov). My ideals and morals are too

liberal for my parents’ liking and Libya’s social expectations of what one must have as moral

obligations, making our mentalities clash almost daily. On the other hand, my ideals and morals

are also too traditional for the new liberal age of Canada, essentially disbarring me from relating

to liberals fully. I relate to Bazarov more than I would like to admit but I also do disagree with

him on many terms, ultimately leaving me torn on whether he is praiseworthy or formidable.

Bazarov is comparable to the new radical liberal of today, who feels the need to share

how religion is a useless practice and science will prevail all. Though I am not radically

religious, I do believe in the idea that religion is necessary for many to give their lives a higher

meaning, which Bazarov would completely disagree with. Conversely, it is agreeable that it is

sometimes obtuse to hold onto morals that have no place in society today. Without the

progression of mentality and letting go of cultural norms, women would have never had an

education; open racism and racial segregation would be a much more widespread issue than they

are; technology and other scientific breakthroughs would never be as prevalent because

traditional means of doing anything would be prioritized. Bazarov, with all his confidence and

5
cynicism and discourtesy, represents progression and how important it is to abandon old ideals

when they simply aren’t useful anymore.

Though Bazarov is the focus of the novel, I feel Arkady is a much more relatable

representation of what the new ideal generation is: a mix of valuing old traditions while being

open-minded towards newer ideals. Bazarov, in the simplest sense, is more of a representation of

what too much progression can do and how detrimental it can be, which is evident in his demise

at the end; as A.V. Knowles says, “his futile death underscores the relative insignificance of his

philosophy and the transience of social problems” (p. 18). On the contrary, Pavel is a

representation of what holding onto traditional ideals too tightly can do; he is shown as a bitter

man, whose emotions got the best of him and cannot let go of a woman he once loved. Arkady,

on the other hand, balances out these two contrasting characters quite well. At the beginning of

the novel, Arkady is seen as not much more than a loyal underdog to the tremendously strong-

spirited Bazarov. Arkady feels the need to defend their friendship and Bazarov’s lack of morals

when others question it; however, as the story progresses, Arkady begins to question some of

Bazarov’s thinking, such as his opposition towards marriage and love in general, as well as his

stance on women’s rights and misogynistic tendencies. Moreover, Arkady does not lose his

credibility like Bazarov did, as he never did claim to consistently follow the exact ideals that

Bazarov was preaching. Bazarov lost his credibility when he tore Pavel apart for loving a

woman, only to later on do the same; despite his efforts to stay away for Anna and get over her,

Bazarov’s attraction towards her shows that his ideals and lack of a set moral guide do not make

him any more superior to anyone else or any less likely to feel love and other emotions that

makes a person vulnerable, though Bazarov seems to think otherwise. Arkady fell in love with

Katya and married her, allowing himself to still appreciate the traditional sanctity that marriage

6
holds in the majority of cultures but also shows that he is progressive and open-minded with his

nihilistic comments throughout the novel. This, to me, is what the new generation is truly about:

being able to look forward to new ideals while still having an approval towards the traditions that

have been valued for centuries before. Throwing away ideals completely is just not logical, as

mentality would not allow for a person to completely rewire themselves just for the sole purpose

of trying something new, when the comfort of familiarity is still present.

All in all, Fathers and Sons is a story that is still relevant almost 200 years after it is

written, and will probably still be germane in another 200 years. With almost every character

contrasting in their principles and ethics, the story offers a character that everyone can relate to;

whether it’s Pavel, the uptight traditionalist, or Bazarov, the embodiment of radical progression,

there is much to be discussed through both praise and criticism. Its controversy is what makes it

such a unique novel that challenges the ideals and morals of both traditionalists and liberals, and

for that, is worthy of the literary merit it has received.