I'm a little conflicted by "Fathers and Sons"; when I read it oh so many years ago I was heavily into Dostoevsky, and in reading that he and Turgenev were at odds with one another, I confess I had a bias before reading the first page.

Turgenev was the "Westerner" and liberal; moreover, he meant the nihilist character Bazarov to be a positive figure and sympathized with by the reader. At the time I found it ironic and somehow a discredit to him that the effect on Russia was the exact opposite. In laying bare the beliefs of those who would tear down all social conventions, as Alan Hodge stated in the introduction to this slim text, "Turgenev was horrified to find himself congratulated by crusty old believers in serfdom, whose friendship he did not welcome, and bitterly reproached by the young reformers, whose views he largely shared."

Over the years, however, I have read other works by Turgenev and while I prefer the weightier angst of Dostoevsky, I have come to appreciate the humanity and pastoral charm of Turgenev. Maybe it's analogous to liking the intellectual John Lennon best in youth, but then coming to appreciate the heart of Paul McCartney more with time. :-)

This book was a lightning rod when it was published in 1862; it's certainly worthy of a read not only for its insight into the politics and generational rift of its time, but also for the beauty of its writing.

Some quotes....

On "death":
“Look!” Arcady suddenly exclaimed. “A withered maple leaf has left its branch and is falling to the ground; its movements resemble those of a butterfly in flight. Isn’t it strange? The saddest and deadest of all things is yet so like the gayest and most vital of creatures.”

On individuality:
“…may I state that it’s not worth the trouble to make a separate study of individuals? All men are similar in body and soul; each one of us has a brain, a spleen, a heart, and identically formed lungs; and the so-called moral qualities attributed to us are the same in all: slight variations only prove the rule. One human specimen affords an adequate basis for judging the rest. People are like trees in a forest; no botanist would dream of studying each birch tree in detail.”

On life:
"Here, in the cool shade, she read and worked, or surrendered herself to that sensation of perfect peace with which we are all presumably familiar and whose charm lies in a barely conscious and silent observation of the sweeping wave of life that for ever rolls all round us as well as within us."

On meaninglessness:
“The confined space I occupy is so minute when compared with the rest of the universe, where I am not and have no business to be; and the fraction of time I shall live is so infinitesimal when contrasted with eternity, in which I have never been and shall never be…And yet here, in this atom of myself, in this mathematical point, blood circulates, the brain is active, aspiring to something too…What a monstrous thing! How absurd it seems!”

On nihilism, hey there has to be at least one quote on that here. :-)
“Aristocracy, liberalism, progress, principles,” Bazarov said in the meantime, “just think, what a lot of foreign – and useless – words!” … “Our actions are governed by utility,” Bazarov said. “In these days, negation is the most useful thing of all – and so we deny.”
“…But it is essential to construct as well.”
“That is not our affair…First we must make a clean sweep.”
“…Formerly, young men had to study; they had no wish to be known as ignoramuses, and so willy-nilly they had to apply themselves. Now all they can say is ‘Everything is rubbish!’ And they have made their point. The young men are simply delighted. To be sure, before they were only blockheads, now they have suddenly become Nihilists.”

On togetherness:
“It can’t be helped, Vasya. A son is like a lopped-off branch. As a falcon he comes when he wills and goes where he lists; but you and I are like mushrooms growing in a hollow tree. Here we sit side by side without budging. But I shall stay with you for ever and unalterably, just as you will stay with me.”

On the younger generation:
"Once I had a quarrel with our late mama; unwilling to hear me, she was shouting her head off…I finally told her that she was incapable of understanding me: ‘We belong to different generations,’ I said."

Reading "Fathers and Sons" makes it clear that life in mid-19th century Russia was very different from my own life, and being transported is one of the great joys of reading to me. Another great joy is the opposite effect which is highlighted in that last quote; to see that many aspects of the human condition were the same, have always been the same, and will probably always be the same. ( )

It is easy to see why this novel is considered a masterpiece of Russian literature. Written in the mid-19th century, it deals with intergenerational conflict (i read somewhere that originally, the title was something like "Parents and Children"), with each major character personifying types found in Russian society - the older generation who come from the fading world of the nobility but at the same time attempting to be liberal in their views, and those of the younger generation who advocate nihilism and free thought. The protagonist, an intelligent young doctor, Barazov, represents youth, strength, new ways and ideas, but with very little awareness of his own naïveté and hypocrisy. He is arrogant of any manifestation of "weakness" such as the finer emotions, and when he falls deeply in love with a woman, who was his equal in strength of will and ideas, he goes through an intense struggle with himself. The other characters in the novel provide a brilliant counterpoint to the personality of Barazov, and the exchange between and among them in a subtly woven plot underlies the the slowly changing political and social landscape of the country, signaling a restlessness that characterize periods of transition or upheaval.

This book has all the elements I look for in a work of fiction, which means I liked it immensely. It is intense but not tedious, written with economy without being terse, lyrical without romanticizing, and revolve around themes that appeal to both intellect and heart. ( )

I've not read a Russian novel that has disappointed me. That was not until now.

From start to finish, I really wanted this to be over and done with. I kept with it, hoping it would be more than it was. But like most novels that are very influential, it contains only the seeds of genius and not the full flower.

Dostoesky and Tolstoy would later do what Turgenev could not with this novel and, having read them, it's hard to go back to Turgenev's Fathers & Sons.

So, should I have read this before reading Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and Goncharov? No. If I had, I probably would never have wanted to read another classic Russian novel in my life again. I know this is the novel that started the modern Russian literary movement. But I hated it.

My verdict? This is for hardcore Russo-lit lovers. Others, move on to later stuff and, if you can't hack that, get into Solzhenitsyn. ( )

I read this long ago when taking a world lit class and the only part I now recall is an older generation liberal talking to a Nihilist and being astonished at his lack of a more positive philosophy. ( )

Bazarov turns everyones life upsidedown. He regards nothing and in the end he gets nothing. Not a bad egg though the Russians to this day can't decide just what made him tick. I read the Norton Critical Edition. The little essay by Isaiah Berlin I found made the most sense to me. I must admit that I've never felt at home in the Great Tangle that is Russian Literature, though as I get older I'm finding my way a little better. Turgenev is pretty much smooth weather compared to the stormy climes of Dostoyevsky and company. And I have no doubt that he was every bit as lovable that old Henry James says he was.
I'm what you would call a cold reader, but I had a little tear in my eye as my thoughts were cast upon Bazarov's old parents after his untimely (was it?) death. Death brought on by a pin prick from his trusty scalpel. ( )