The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

So we've come to chapters 5 and 6! I think a lot of people are behind, but I'll go ahead and post the discussion questions:

1. Are you familiar with any of these fortunetelling practices from the party, for Christmas, Solstice, or New Year's? Do you have any in your culture? (I'll tell you about some Czech practices in the comments - but maybe not today as I have a project to do. Remind me in a few days if i forget.)

2. What was Tatiana’s dream? What do you think it means? And, am I the only one who was thinking of Labyrinth, and picturing Onegin as Jareth the Goblin King? :-)

3. Why is Onegin angry with Lenski at the party? How does he get revenge?

4. How does Onegin feel about Lenski’s challenge? Do his feelings change?

5. The cynic kills the idealist (is this a metaphor or just a story?).

These chapters are quite significant, so I hope we can have a nice discussion when people catch up!

Tatyana's dream was terrifying. As soon as Onegin killed Lenski, I knew that something bad was going to happen.
Onegin behaved very badly at the party, and even worse at the duel. He should have fired into the air.

I am finding the reading schedule very difficult to keep up with. Hopefully, I will be caught up some time this week.

I am glad to know you are reading the book, but don't worry. You will still be able to comment after we begin another book. The thread will stay open. I look forward to reading your comments, now and later.

I keep asking myself why Onegin saw the need to fight the duel in the first place. He knew that Lensky was younger than he was, and a romantic.

Maybe it drove away his boredom for a little while.
The way I read it, Onegin didn't intend to actually hit Lenski when he fired. Did i read it right?

That could be the case, but generally in a duel they shoot straight up if they don't want to hurt each other. So it looks like he didn't aim up, but was surprised that he hit him. Onegin is a mixture of contradictions.

Eugene is a hero of a novel in poem form, as is Don Juan in the book by Byron.
Don Juan is more likeable than Eugene, I think maybe because he is not bored all the time.
I really like books by Russian authors because I find they generally have their distinctive characteristics, unlike the rest of Europe.
One of the main reasons is the size of the country and the cold winter. I think life in the country is different than in smaller countries. Does anyone have any other ideas about things that are specific to Russia?

I only finished chapter 5, so I can’t comment on Onegin’s attitude towards the duel. However, what strikes me is Onegin’s general lack of intentions. He’s a man adrift, left rudderless by his romantic nausea or spleen. A 'Byronic' hero. Or a parody of that figure.

That brings me to the idea of the 'superfluous man'. Onegin is often mentioned as the prime example of the type (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfl...), though others would debate that. In my understanding the superfluous man is a cultured and essential moral character, unable to accommodate to the brutality and banality of life in Russia. This estrangement may lead to an amoral stance, but the fault has to be sought in the circumstances.

It is not clear that Onegin’s nihilism (or that of Lermontov's Pechorin) stems from specific local conditions. His 'Byronic' nature would indicate a more general romantic type being the object of Pushkin’s wit (and self-mockery). Now Turgenev’s Rudin, another superfluous man, is a completely different character. Turgenev called him a nihilist, but Rudin is rather an amoral idealist and much more than Onegin a prisoner of circumstances.

A third variation of 'superfluous man' is the anti-hero Tchulkaturin from Turgenev’s novella ’The Diary of a Superfluous Man’. He, however, is not a type, but an individual case of an unloved child growing up as someone unable to interact and therefore socially superfluous. A related case is Goncharov’s Oblomov, who does certainly represents a type, and one that is in many ways the opposite of Rudin (Oblomov is an aristocrat so utterly lacking will-power that he is hardly able to rise in the morning).

So there are at least variations on the theme of the superfluous man, but what all these examples have in common is that they are presented as 'nuanced' heroes. We are not invited to admire or condemn them. Another interesting aspect is that while the superfluous man is a Russian invention, most Western readers do not seem to find it difficult to relate. Apparently we don’t need to own 'souls' for that.

PS: I mixed up the Turgenev characters Rudin, the 'superfluous man' and Bazarov, the nihilist. However, while Bazarov revolted against the ineffective attitude of the 'Fathers' (Rudin may be understood as one of them), he eventually proves to be just as futile in his own way. The point being that idealism and nihilism often seem related in mysterious ways - for instance in the 'Byronic' type.

Wendel wrote: "I only finished chapter 5, so I can’t comment on Onegin’s attitude towards the duel. However, what strikes me is Onegin’s general lack of intentions. He’s a man adrift, left rudderless by his roman..."

Wendel -- you have me wondering if Count Rostov in A Gentleman in Moscow would be considered a 'superfluous' man. In a sense, he is a man who his country has deemed as 'superfluous', unnecessary, yet in the most constrained of circumstances, he stumbles upon and accepts ways to be contributory to people within what Stephen R. Covey would call his "circle of influence."

From (partial) definition of superfluous: "exceeding what is sufficient, necessary, normal, or desirable : superabundant, surplus, nonessential, supererogatory."

I'm afraid "nonessential" is the synonym I associate most closely with "superfluous." I may need to go and read the background you mention.

PS: I just finished listening to AGiM this afternoon so am still processing the story relative to Russian-told tales and my (scant) knowledge of Russian history. A very enjoyable listen that has me wondering about Amor Towles's process in creating the story he tells.

Lily wrote: "you have me wondering if Count Rostov in A Gentleman in Moscow would be considered a 'superfluous' man..."

I can’t be sure Lily, but based on your book’s description I doubt it. It seems to me that the outside constraints that cause the condition must be internalized. Being 'superfluous' is after all a sickness.

"The superfluous man (Russian: лишний человек, líshniy chelovék) is an 1840s and 1850s Russian literary concept derived from the Byronic hero.[1] It refers to an individual, perhaps talented and capable, who does not fit into social norms. In most cases, this person is born into wealth and privilege. Typical characteristics are disregard for social values, cynicism, and existential boredom; typical behaviors are gambling, drinking, romantic intrigues, and duels. He is often unempathetic and carelessly distresses others with his actions."

From the Wiki article Wendel cited. (Based on this description, Count Rostov in AGiM is a man treated as unnecessary by his country who chose not to live out his life in that manner. Onegin, on the other hand, did not make himself necessary or vital, either to others or to himself. And yet so much sad potential is squandered.

Wendel wrote: "Being 'superfluous' is after all a sickness. ..."

Say more?

A lot of that description does apply to Onegin.

Lily wrote: "Wendel wrote: "Being 'superfluous' is after all a sickness. ..." Say more?"

The WP article stresses the 'Byronic' element, but it seems to me that in the '50s and '60 when people like Turgenev developed the concept the stress was more on political aspects. That is, on the moral effects Russian autocracy had on the 'thinking' members of the aristocray.

Being 'superfluous' goes beyond mere romantic spleen and it is a specific Russian (aristocratic) condition. On the other hand it is never just a matter of repression, it is a disorder: the 'superfluous' man has accepted his state of passivity and is at the same time torn by of self-reproach. Which may or may not be hidden behind a cynic mask.

Wendel wrote: "...the 'superfluous' man has accepted his state of passivity and is at the same time torn by of self-reproach. Which may or may not be hidden behind a cynic mask...."

I just finished A Gentleman in Moscow, for the month's read with my f2f book club. I thoroughly enjoyed it -- for "why", try my review. But more relevant here was a discussion I encountered with someone who did not like the book (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...) which, in an attempt to understand her viewpoint, led me to an Amazon review that started thus:

"...I simply could not suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy this. First of all, though the writing was eloquent and beautiful, this particular Gentleman is not Russian in thought, character or action. He is more British in nature or simply a "generic aristocrat." Even the descriptions and back story of his childhood are more descriptive of the English aristocracy than the Russian. Generally, the pre-revolutionary Russian Aristocracy was self-serving, corrupt and oppressive. The Revolution didn't happen because they were an enlightened, progressive bunch...." by an Amazon customer, 9/28/16

The comment made me realize how little I know about the Russian aristocracy's history. My knowledge is flavored by Tolstoy's novels and a bit of historical novel/biography reading.

I happen to like the opera Onegin as well as the book. Both pieces of art probe the nature of heartlessness, insincerity, naivety, basic decency, and the dignity of the commitment of one's word. (I saw the HD version of the MET production a couple of years ago.)

https://www.metopera.org/season/2016-...

If you are in a place where you can receive HD broadcasts, Eugene Onegin will be featured on April 22. I don't know what is offered internationally, if at all. Not sure that I can get to the broadcast this year, but certainly tempting.

http://www.metopera.org/Season/In-Cin...

(My imagination based on the book might well produce some of the country scenes, especially, somewhat differently, but am glad for the melding my brain cells have had the opportunity to experience....)

PS "Live in HD transmissions are seen on more than 2,000 screens in 70 countries across the globe."

http://www.metopera.org/Season/In-Cin... -- has a "Select a theater" option.

I have never been able to make up my mind completely regarding historical fiction. The best thing seems now to read it as just fiction and forget about history.

In history truth may be relative (though falsehood is not), but still, everything should be questioned. Fiction on the other hand belongs to the realm of subjectivity. And while I’m always interested in historical background, that concerns the author and his intentions, rather than the story.

But sometimes it is just difficult to let history go. That is one of my problems with 'War & Peace', Tolstoy is trying so hard to write some new kind of history and so utterly failing.