Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Arcadii and Bazarov visit Bazarov’s home and are greeted warmly by Bazarov’s prents. His mother, Arina, can’t contain her emotions and is a whimpering mess as she embraces her son. Bazarov’s father, Vassilii, makes excuses for her, but it is obvious he, too, is overcome with emotion at having his son home. Bazarov’s parents are humble, decent people. Like Arcadii’s father, Bazarov’s father says he tries to keep up with the times. He is a retired army doctor who continues to advise peasants when they seek his help. Bazarov’s mother is a gentle woman who showers her son with unconditional love. Bazarov seems irritated by their devotion.

Vassilii is thrilled to hear Arcadii praising his son. Later in the day, Bazarov reveals to Arcadii his feelings of futility and insignificance. He contrasts this with his parents who seem to be content with so little and with a life he characterizes as deadening. The discussion becomes increasingly hostile until interrupted by Vasilii. The village priest joins them for dinner. Bazarov announces he is bored and plans to leave. He dismisses Arcadii’s concern that his parents will be disappointed to have him leave so soon. Chapter 21 ends with a poignant image of the elderly couple consoling each other over their son’s departure.

Bazarov is increasingly morose and irritable. They make a surprise visit to Anna Odintsova and stay a few hours before heading back to Arcadii’s home. Meanwhile, Nicholai’s problems with his farm are multiplying. Arcadii takes off to visit Anna and Katya on his own.

____________

Bazarov’s parents seem to be a warm, loving couple who are totally devoted to their son. Since Bazarov was raised in a nurturing and loving environment, I wonder why he is so cold toward them. Why does he reject his parents’ demonstrations of love? Is this a case of a child needing to distance himself from his parents to find his own way, or is there more going on than that?

Is the rift between Bazarov and Arcadii widening?

Vassilii reveals to Arcadii that he worships his son:
I must tell you that I . . . deify my son; I won’t comment on my old wife—everybody knows how mothers are—but I dare not reveal my feelings before him, because he does not like that sort of thing. He’s opposed to all emotional demonstrations . . .

Do you sympathize with Bazarov’s parents for feeling obliged to conceal the love they feel for their child? Or do you sympathize with the child who rejects his/her parents’ demonstrations of love? Or both?

I wonder who Bazarov’s intellectual inspiration is. Somebody he knows or read influenced his thought. He comes from a loving home which he rejected somehow. Every teen experiences this but I don’t think you stay away unless there’s either trauma or a philosophical reason.

Bazarov rejects his parents’ love as overbearing. What caused that, and which event created the inertia to stay away?

I wonder why the second visit to Odintseva was met with such lukewarm welcome. Was she guarding against Bazarov’s return to intimacy?

It seems to me that Turgenev portrays his older characters much more sympathetically than the younger ones. The older characters want to try to do the right thing as they see it. They care for their sons without reservation while the younger generation comes off as harsh, dogmatic, intensely negative, and unkind. The Kirsanov and Bazarov elders are struggling to stay afloat on their farms and are hoping that their sons can help them deal with their difficulties. Turgenev makes it all too clear that the parents are overwhelmed by their precarious situations and want and need their sons' help. Instead, Arkady, under the influence of Bazarov, and Bazarov himself are oblivious and uninterested in their parents' hardships. Instead they are self-absorbed, prideful, and judgmental. The introduction to a translation I began reading reported that Fathers and Sons when first published was criticized harshly by the new generation of readers and critics. It’s easy to see why.

Underlying the nihilism I see despair, meaning an entire absence of hope for the future of Russia. The national turmoil, the uprooting of centuries of tradition and practice, has been immensely hard. The older generation still has its long-standing principles and beliefs to look to but Bazarov and his ilk disdain all this, are prepared to overthrow it all, but have no forward plan. From my vantage point this reeks of immaturity. By advantaging their sons with every prerogative they could afford, did the fathers do more harm than good to their sons? In this sense are the fathers unintentionally complicit in their sons’ selfishness and negativity?

Gary wrote: "Underlying the nihilism I see despair, meaning an entire absence of hope for the future of Russia."

I think Russian nihilists did have hope, maybe a bit perverted. According to Bazarov's hints here and there (sorry I can't quote, don't remember exact spots in the text), they do have hope for Russia at some point in the future but maintain that their immediate task is to get rid of (negate, destroy, etc.) the current social, cultural and political structure of Russia which is rotten through and through (according to their view) and stays in the way for the better future.

Gary wrote: "By advantaging their sons with every prerogative they could afford, did the fathers do more harm than good to their sons? In this sense are the fathers unintentionally complicit in their sons’ selfishness and negativity?"

I agree, they did. But I think they did not have any other better choice. Better to say, they couldn't act any other way. I feel from the book that the fathers, somehow, mostly subconsciously, felt that any confrontation or even quiet intellectual opposition might only bring oil to the flame. It feels that the new generation, or rather the Bazrovs' part of it, only waited for provocation for even more negativity. It feels like the fathers were simply doomed, from the book, anyway... Actually, that's exactly what eventually happened in Russia for real.
Only P.P. Kirsanov could stand up to Bazarov. Not having his own kids incidentally.

Seems like the youthful belief in nihilism and liberation from social, cultural, and ecomonic traditions is hollow. Neither Arcadii nor Bazarov have economic independence. They are dependent on the very traditions they disparage. Since they have no substantial independence from which they might embrace the quaint traditions of their parents, they create a hollow independence by bad humor and emotional distance. Armchair reformists. They make a mockery of visionary youth!

Is Bazarov the hero? Is he the character of lasting consequence in this novel? Does his blindness to his own inertia on the fulcrum between tradition and progress make him a tragic figure?

Suzann wrote: "Is Bazarov the hero? Is he the character of lasting consequence in this novel? Does his blindness to his own inertia on the fulcrum between tradition and progress make him a tragic figure?"

I think these questions are best to discuss in the very end, in the book as a whole.

Suzann wrote: "Seems like the youthful belief in nihilism and liberation from social, cultural, and ecomonic traditions is hollow. Neither Arcadii nor Bazarov have economic independence. They are dependent on the..."

That's a great comment, Suzann!

Tamara wrote: "Bazarov’s parents seem to be a warm, loving couple who are totally devoted to their son. Since Bazarov was raised in a nurturing and loving environment, I wonder why he is so cold toward them. Why does he reject his parents’ demonstrations of love? Is this a case of a child needing to distance himself from his parents to find his own way, or is there more going on than that?"

I think there is more going on. Bazarov gets confronted with the limitations of his nihilist word view, especially when it comes to close human relationships such as strong family bonds and the powerful attraction to a beautiful woman. All these emotions are quite intense and not compatible with a purely rationalist outlook. One gets the sense he is no longer comfortable in his own skin. He needs to leave in order to regain his equilibrium.

I think what is going on here is Bazarov's confrontation with meaning and purpose in life. Earlier he is quite dismissive when it comes to the importance of human relationships. He is in no hurry to go see his parents even though he had been absent for three years. In contrast, he stays only three days. His parents may live a quaint life, but their lives are filled with meaning and purpose. By all appearances they live a loving marriage, Vassily even in retirement functions as the country doctor for his community, and Arina keeps house. By comparison Bazarov's life at this point has little purpose to it let along meaning.

Tamara wrote: "Do you sympathize with Bazarov’s parents for feeling obliged to conceal the love they feel for their child? Or do you sympathize with the child who rejects his/her parents’ demonstrations of love? Or both?

Bazarov is young. He either denies or has no clue as to the strong bonds that bind families, especially those who are very loving. He is their only child! Only having a family of your own will give you first-hand insights how all-encompassing a parent's love is for their child(ren). So my sympathies are with the parents here. They waited three years for him. Imagine the longing and endless waiting they suffered during his long absence, the void he left behind. Their family is not complete without him. Now that he is home all these pent-up emotions find release, especially for his mother. Again, my sympathies are with her.

Gary wrote: "It seems to me that Turgenev portrays his older characters much more sympathetically than the younger ones. The older characters want to try to do the right thing as they see it. They care for thei..."

I agree. In fact, I don't see him portraying the younger characters with any sympathy. Arcadii seems very shallow. He follows Bazarov around like a little lapdog, parroting his ideas. And Bazaraov strikes me as being a thoroughly unsavory character, full of self-importance.

Turgenev was criticized by both sides of the spectrum for his ostensibly unfair portrayal. But I don't see that. I don't see him siding with Bazarov, at all. I think his sympathies lie with the older characters.

Suzann wrote: "Is Bazarov the hero? Is he the character of lasting consequence in this novel? Does his blindness to his own inertia on the fulcrum between tradition and progress make him a tragic figure?"

Great question, Suzann. I'll raise it when we discuss the book as a whole.

Kerstin wrote: "I think what is going on here is Bazarov's confrontation with meaning and purpose in life. Earlier he is quite dismissive when it comes to the importance of human relationships.."

I see Bazarov as adhering to some sort of hierarchy of values in which his theories, principles, ideas, scientific inquiries, and attempts to dominate and control nature (and women) are elevated above human connections, emotions, context, and intimacy. He deludes himself by believing he is an independent, autonomous being. He rejects his parents' displays of affection because they remind him of something he would prefer to forget, i.e. that he is no different from the rest of humanity. We are intricately connected with one another and rely on each other for our very existence in an interdependent web of life.

Tamara wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "I think what is going on here is Bazarov's confrontation with meaning and purpose in life. Earlier he is quite dismissive when it comes to the importance of human relationships.."

..."
Your comment reminds me of an old Sting song called Russians. It was about the Cold War, but it applies to any time period and any nation.

We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
But what might save us, me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too

Bazarov seems to be forgetting, or self-denying, that he is of the same biology as everyone else and like Arkady, has a doting family of his own.