During the 1860s, there were new, different streams of thoughts that were emerging. In Fathers and Sons, Bazarov was a nihilist, and represented the younger generation who believed in Bazarovism. Turgenev’s description of Bazarov and his attempts to change Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov, a Romantic, reveals what Turgenev thought toward nihilists. Bazarov’s actions and thoughts mirror the thoughts of those young scholars during the 1860s. Throughout his novel, Turgenev’s portrayal of Bazarov create a description of Bazarovism, a different and new type of literary type and thought for Russia during the 1860s. These new literary and intellectual types of thought grew from the generational difference between the fathers and the sons. As it grew out of a difference between generations, Bazarovism is largely different from Romanticism, what the fathers believe in, and is related to nihilism.
Turgenev, in describing what type of person Bazarov was, coined the term nihilism. In Fathers and Sons, Arkady, Nikolai’s son, states that Bazarov is a nihilist. Turgenev then describes the actions of Bazarov, creating a new intellectual thought, Bazarovism. Bazarovism is mostly derived from his own actions and views, but is also influenced by others’ reactions to the way Bazarov acts. As a nihilist, Bazarov rejects anything unless it has been previously proven to be true. Arkady tells his father, Nikolai, and Pavel, his uncle, that as a nihilist, Bazarov “looks at everything critically.” Instead
Keeping this in mind, it comes as no surprise that Raskolnikov would feel utterly abhorred when Svidrigaïlov refers to them as “birds of a feather”(p.340; Part 4, Chapter 1). While Svidrigaïlov is rather keen of their shared similarities, such as their status as murderers, Raskolnikov willingly fails to realize these associations. Raskolnikov’s better side objects to the hedonistic behavior of Svidrigaïlov, decrying him as a man of the most abject nature. The dramatic irony lies in the fact that Raskolnikov desires to be an “extraordinary” man, the very epitome of Svidrigaïlov, a man he holds in no high regard. Despite their superficial variances and dissidences, Raskolnikov had slowly rendered himself into a facsimile of the man he detested, Svidrigaïlov. Although both men, whether knowingly or unknowingly, desire to transcend above the ordinary masses, it is only a matter of time before self-realization indicates the folly of their ways.
Mikhail Lermontov’s ‘A Hero of our Time’ is set in the 1840s, a crucial time in Russian history. Pechorin was a revolutionary character in Russian literature due to his cynical and amoral personality that alienates him from all social strata. ‘A Hero of our Time’ generated a large amount of outrage from the public due to Lermontov, claiming Pechorin to be the ‘hero’ of our its time. ’Bela’ is a framed narrative portrayed from the views of an old friend, Maxim Maximych, however, the story told by Maxim Maximych suggests it is an unjust and biased view of our ‘hero’ thus we as readers are to depict the true ‘hero’ Pechorin is. Examining the chapter ‘Bela,’ his actions signify his capability to damage a society, demonstrating him to be the callous and manipulative character he is.
“They walked and talked of the strange light on the sea… talked of how sultry it was after a hot day” and discussed employment and birthplaces (897). After departing from Yalta, Chekhov details Gurov’s dreary life of “children [having] breakfast and getting ready for school… entertaining distinguished lawyers... walking his daughter to school” (901, 905).
Aleksandar Nikitenko was among one of the serfs who served in Russia during the early 1800s. He was born from Ukraininan parents in Voronezh Province. His parents, soon along with Aleksandar, were serfs of the immensely wealthy Sheremetev family. Nikitenko’s father was chosen at a very early age to go to Moscow to sing in Count Sheremetev’s choir. While there, he received an education that allowed him to pursue intellectual interests. Nikitenko looked up to his father and believed that having to be kept in bondage despite his knowledge was entirely unfair. Throughout his life, Nikitenko is accepted by intelligent teachers for being quite knowledgeable. However, he is time and time again held inferior because of his social status. His family, had it not been for serfdom, would have probably been a part of a provincial middle class because of their associations with nobles and merchants.
Hadji Murat, Tolstoy's second book with the Caucasus as its setting can be considered a work of historical fiction that is a beautiful tale of resistance, and a window into not only the Caucasian War of the mid-nineteenth century, but also the culture of the Russian Empire during this period. As a work of fiction the reader must be wary of depictions of actual persons such as Tsar Nicholas I, whom Tolstoy was not enamored with, to say the least, but many insights about the period and its people can be gleaned from the story. The novel is one of great contrasts between Chechens and Russians and also of what life was like during this time.
But it is also this spiritual deterritorialization that follows Nabokov throughout his life that makes his account of his life seem more artistic and disconnected, even if there is a profound emotional impact on the reader in the end. While some moments in his life might evoke sympathy, like his retelling of his father’s death, or make readers to take a side, such as the incident with Nesbit during his time in Cambridge, Nabokov keeps the reader at a distance by concealing his feelings in rhetoric. An example of this is the “short biography” (173) of his father. Using vivid details to describe his father, one can feel the spiritual resonance the experience had on Nabokov. “And behind it all there was yet a very special emotional abyss that I was
In its historical context Notes from the Underground was written at a time when Russian writers were attempting to revive opposition to Reformation. These writers emphasized the ills of “separation, egotism and autonomy” that permeated much of 19th century Russia (Golstein 1998, p. 194). Russian writers were expressing the opinion that humanity was lacking in meaningful direction. In this regard, Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground is a representation of the hero who embodied separation but invariably fails, thus embodying the concept of anti-heroism (Golstein 1998, p. 194).
Imperial Russian society during the time of serfdom was characterized by constantly changing social order. The society experienced a complex social change at the threshold to emancipation. It was undergoing many changes with increasing westernization and serfdom culture that gave rise to formation of new classes (raznochintsy) during the nineteenth century. Many authors have reflected and emphasized this component of change in the structure of pre-emancipation Russian society. This paper will examine how two writers: Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev, in their novels, Dead Souls and Fathers and Sons depict the society’s constantly changing nature through the relationships between their characters and the development in their beliefs and ideas. Although both the novels explore societal change during the pre-emancipation of serfs, the emphasis of change is different in both the novels. In Fathers and Sons, Turgenev oversees shifting values prevalent in the society. He explores the shift in generational values by depicting the difference in beliefs of characters like Bazarov and Nikolai. On the other hand, in Dead Souls Gogol focuses on issues of morality in society. He depicts a struggle for morality and portrays a corrupt society through the landowners and the protagonist, Chichikov, in his book.
In this paper, I plan to explain Dostoevsky’s criticism of Western Individualism. Dostoevsky’s first criticism resides in the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it, “which is presented by the character Alyosha (Dostoevsky 3). Allowing this character to discuss this topic, along with the commentary of Ivan, demonstrates their mindset to solely focus on their own lives, opposed to caring for others. This leads to them living for the now, and not focusing on how their decisions will affect their future or others. Dostoevsky disapproves of this notion because living by this mentality encourages the guidance of logic, which is dangerous because it could tell you to kill yourself. From Dostoevsky’s Eastern Orthodox background, he believes that the only way from living from this situation is to deny it. By denying this way of living, the focus toward life will not be directed toward yourself, but toward the way you can impact the environment around you. Ivan clearly does not believe in these values, due to his intentions to commit suicide at the age of thirty. As said before, living by the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it” leads to death, and Ivan indulges in this to the fullest (Dostoevsky 3).
Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “Dostoevsky, the only one who has taught me anything about psychology.” The two writers share many similarities and differences. Dostoevsky clearly had an effect on the thinking of Nietzsche. The two would be considered both philosophers and psychologists. Both writers became prominent in the late 19th century in Germany and Russia respectively. Dostoevsky was noted for his Russian literary classics and would be responsible for a flowering of late 19th century Russian literary culture. His Russian contemporaries include Leo Tostoy and Anton Chekov. Dostoevsky’s most famous works include The Brothers Karamozov, The Idiot, and Crime and Punishment.
We will begin with an analysation of his family situation. Praskovya, his wife, had been a love constructed from the start of an economic and sociological expectation rather than that of a true courtship. The happiness therefore of the union was derived solely of a necessity to fulfill a desire on the part of others for a “success” of sorts, surely her desire as well. “Ivan Ilyich could have counted on a more illustrious match, but even this one was quite good. He had his salary, and her income, he hoped, would bring in an equal amount. (Tolstoy, 56)” Tolstoy goes on to make several remarks on the benevolent nature of the relationship between he and his wife. The arrival of his children creates no great marker in his life, and proves to be little more than a factor in his ever-lengthening retreat into his life of solitude and work.
Nihilism is one of the most difficult philosophies to accurately define because of its ambiguous nature. In its simplest form, one might consider it an extremely pessimistic form of skepticism in which the individual discounts even the idea of existence. Therefore, to a nihilist, all values, relationships, authority, beliefs, and emotions are baseless and empty. First popularized in Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons in 1862, nihilism is associated with a revolutionary movement that occurred in Russia from 1814 to 1876. The principles of nihilism often can be linked with those of utilitarianism, existentialism, and anarchism. Dostoevsky demonstrates his aversion to this philosophy through
In 19th century Russian literature there was often a gender inequality depicted between the male and female characters. Women were expected to get married, start a family, and obey their husbands. Women often made sacrifices and married men they weren’t fond of in order to support their families. Anton Chekhov’s writing questions these gender relationships. The female characters have a strong presence within Chekhov’s works, and they transcend typical gender roles.
Nihilism in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons has several characters that hold strong views of the world. For example, Pavel believes that Russia needs structure from such things as institution, religion, and class hierarchy. On the other hand, Madame Odintzov views the world as simple so long as she keeps it systematic and free from interference.
The author showed his opinion on the structure of the society, social norms and beliefs. He expressed his disagreement with “The Extraordinary Man Theory”. He told the audience that all people have feelings and emotions and cannot rely only on logic and calculations. People cannot hurt others and go unpunished. The ending of the novel helped to strengthen his ideas and convictions. In the end, everyone in the novel received the deserved punishment assigned either by the law or by fate. Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov realized that their actions were wrong and contradicted to the all social norms. They recognized that they were not extraordinary men. Dostoevsky made this novel very educative and filled with morality. It is great for people of all times and generations. It reveals what is good and wrong; it teaches how to be a