Status
Missing
Call number
Genres
Collections
Publication
Franklin Library (1984), Edition: No Additional Listings Printed
Description
Classic Literature. Fiction. HTML: Clashes and conflicts between fathers and sons are a story as old as humanity itself. Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev uses the turbulence of familial relations as a symbolic lens through which to explore the changing of the ideological guard in his native country. Turgenev's best-known work, Fathers and Sons is widely regarded as the first Russian novel to gain prominence and critical acclaim in Western literary circles..
Media reviews
Turgenev was advancing, novelistically, a line of thought that runs through all his work. Beliefs are admirable, strong beliefs perhaps even more so. But there is a point at which belief can tip over into fanaticism. Turgenev had seen this with Belinsky, and in Bazarov he re-created and dramatized
Show More
it. Bazarov loves nature but turns it into a science project, loves Odintsova but feels bad about it, and loves his parents but refuses to indulge this affection by spending time with them. All of this, from Turgenev’s perspective, is a mistake. It’s well and good, in other words, to talk about the existence of God and the future of the revolution, but you need to take a break for lunch.... When I first read “Fathers and Sons,” I was in college; all I cared about were the sons, their willingness (in Bazarov’s case) to die for their beliefs, their certainty. Reading the book again, twenty-five years later, I found myself rooting for the fathers. What might they do to bridge the divide? And why were their sons so mean to them, after all the fathers had done? Sure, they weren’t perfect, but they were doing their best!
That, of course, I see now, is what the book is about. This rupture between parents and their children is what happens, over and over, with every new generation; there is nothing for it, no remedy, no answer. Who is right in “Fathers and Sons”: the fathers or the sons? They’re both right, and they’re both wrong, and neither will ever understand the other. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member atheist_goat
This is a barrel of laughs. Lesson: nihilism will kill you. In the form of typhus.
LibraryThing member gbill
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
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.
Turgenev was the "Westerner" and liberal; moreover, he meant the
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member atimco
I picked up Fathers and Sons because it seemed an approachably slim volume to start me off in Russian literature. I'm going to jump into that ocean headfirst eventually, but let me dabble my toes a bit first and get used to the temperature. The title hints that it is a story about generational
In many ways this felt like a screenplay. I'm not exactly sure why, but as I was reading I was struck by the theatricality of the scenes and descriptions. Especially in the beginning, Turgenev gives us a lot of background information on the characters and their histories... the sort of things that a movie would show us to set up the characters and their surroundings. Sometimes it was choppy, a little too much of an info dump.
I found some of the the characters quite underdeveloped, like Fenichka and Katya. Others, like Nicholas and his brother Paul, get great attention when they're onscreen and then just... disappear. Arcady is us, I think... drawn along by Bazarov's genius and admiring his ways not for their own merit, but because they are his. There is something magnetic about him. Or maybe we are Nicholas and Vasily, floundering around in a world that is changing too quickly for our comfort. What about Fenichka, content to leave the wrangling to others and follow her natural impulses? Or Bazarov's mother, terrified because of her son's philosophy? Maybe we are each of these characters at some point in our lives.
Bazarov was one of those characters you just enjoy, not because you like him but because he's just so unpredictable and masterful. He's fascinating to watch, a bundle of contradictions because of his nihilism. He believes in pure science, but is that really kosher for a strict nihilist, to believe in anything? Why should one study so hard to be a doctor, if nothing means anything and every institution should be pulled down? Why bother?
I guess this is the thing that disappointed me the most in this story: I still feel quite in the dark as to nihilistic philosophy. It seemed like Bazarov is supposed to be just a mouthpiece for the nihilistic worldview — which is fine by me, actually, in a novel like this — but whenever he gets into philosophical discussions, they always stop short. It could be that I was missing it, but the arguments and opposing viewpoints ended right when I wanted them expanded upon, just when things were getting good! Maybe Turgenev was being careful of not weighing his story down too much, leaving room for some plot and character development. And maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of Russian literature.
My copy is translated by George Reavy. Aficionados of Russian lit can tell me if it's a good translation or not. I'm glad I read this, but I can't conjure up any real enthusiasm for it. Tolstoy is bound to be better.
Show More
differences, how family members with wildly different philosophies interact with one another, and it is that on one level. But it is also a portrayal of the different positions (or branches of the family) of philosophy in general. Modern nihilism squares off with traditional religiosity and the liberal Russian politics of 1862. Sounds like fun, right?In many ways this felt like a screenplay. I'm not exactly sure why, but as I was reading I was struck by the theatricality of the scenes and descriptions. Especially in the beginning, Turgenev gives us a lot of background information on the characters and their histories... the sort of things that a movie would show us to set up the characters and their surroundings. Sometimes it was choppy, a little too much of an info dump.
I found some of the the characters quite underdeveloped, like Fenichka and Katya. Others, like Nicholas and his brother Paul, get great attention when they're onscreen and then just... disappear. Arcady is us, I think... drawn along by Bazarov's genius and admiring his ways not for their own merit, but because they are his. There is something magnetic about him. Or maybe we are Nicholas and Vasily, floundering around in a world that is changing too quickly for our comfort. What about Fenichka, content to leave the wrangling to others and follow her natural impulses? Or Bazarov's mother, terrified because of her son's philosophy? Maybe we are each of these characters at some point in our lives.
Bazarov was one of those characters you just enjoy, not because you like him but because he's just so unpredictable and masterful. He's fascinating to watch, a bundle of contradictions because of his nihilism. He believes in pure science, but is that really kosher for a strict nihilist, to believe in anything? Why should one study so hard to be a doctor, if nothing means anything and every institution should be pulled down? Why bother?
I guess this is the thing that disappointed me the most in this story: I still feel quite in the dark as to nihilistic philosophy. It seemed like Bazarov is supposed to be just a mouthpiece for the nihilistic worldview — which is fine by me, actually, in a novel like this — but whenever he gets into philosophical discussions, they always stop short. It could be that I was missing it, but the arguments and opposing viewpoints ended right when I wanted them expanded upon, just when things were getting good! Maybe Turgenev was being careful of not weighing his story down too much, leaving room for some plot and character development. And maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of Russian literature.
My copy is translated by George Reavy. Aficionados of Russian lit can tell me if it's a good translation or not. I'm glad I read this, but I can't conjure up any real enthusiasm for it. Tolstoy is bound to be better.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jwhenderson
The novel Fathers and Sons, like other great works of literature, has a timeless quality. The characters are memorable and the plot, while not terribly complicated, is universal in its aspect. It reads like Dostoevsky written by Flaubert. Bazarov represents the nihilist while his friend Arkady
Show More
appears to agree. They flummox Arkady's father Nikolay and his brother Pavel. But it is soon the women who get the upper hand, whether the lower-class Fenichka or the wealthy widow Anna Odintsov. Of the characters Bazarov stands out as most significant. His nihilism is particularly interesting since it was not the sort of nihilism I had previously encountered in Western European intellectual history, but it is more like a sort of empiricism. As such it was a Russian intellectual movement in the 19th century that insisted that one should not believe in anything that could not be demonstrated to be true. As a critical approach to virtually everything it is a powerful force used by Turgenev through the character of Bazarov to provide an alternative to the traditions and romanticism of the 'fathers' of the novel. The force does not prevail however. The strength of Bazarov's intellectual approach to everything crumbles in the face of both nature and love. His adoring friend Arkady loses interest in it and Bazarov himself succumbs; first to the personality of Madame Odintsov and finally to the infection that leads to his untimely death. The world goes on, but the ideas presented are not vanquished but merely lie dormant, to be resurrected in continuing political unrest in Russia. Show Less
LibraryThing member varwenea
There are so many ways to start the review of “Fathers and Sons”. Do I address the obvious “generation gap” concept that is FAR ahead of its time? How’s about the role it played in the transitional Russia during the rumbling years against the old money and serfdom? What about the
The many facets of this book are made the more interesting in this edition, which was enriched with a sizable lecture by Isaiah Berlin and an informative introduction by the translator, Rosemary Edmonds. Regardless of one’s view, Turgenev’s burial was attended by the Imperial Government, the intelligentsia, and the workers’ organizations – noted by Berlin in 1970 as perhaps the first and last time where these groups met peacefully in Russia. That’s got to be worth something to note a career!
Turgenev’s writing charm is not in the heavy subjects or weighty writing style akin to Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, his great contemporaries. He allows the reader to connect empathically to his characters. We have in Nikolai, the kindly widowed father, in Arkady, the son finding his new path (or not), in Bazarov, the brazen mentor and vocal “nihilist” who frees himself from allegiance to anything and anyone, in Anna, the strength of a woman in her daily estate dealings - both beautiful and clever, in Pavel, the ‘lost’ uncle who gave his life away for love, and many more. Each character is richly crafted that you have an empathy and comprehension of their motivations. Despite an insistence that women opt to be silent and even beaten, Turgenev created many strong women, both in the home and in their business.
I won’t attempt to elaborate further on this classic except to say it is certainly charming with some heart string tucking, but not overtly. (I loved Bazarov’s sweet, sweet parents.) 4.0 stars for the book plus 0.5 stars for the bonuses in this edition.
Favorite Character: Anna Sergeyevna Odintsov – for her many strengths but also her melancholy
Least Favorite Character: Yevgeny Vassilyich Bazarov – for hating art (blasphemy!) and being self-centered
Some Quotes:
On the generation divide:
"Once I quarrelled with our late mamma: she stormed and would not listen to me… At last I said to her, ‘Of course, you cannot understand me: we belong to two different generations,’ I said. She was dreadfully offended but I thought to myself, ‘It can’t be helped. It is a bitter pill but she must swallow it.’ You see, now our turn has come, and our successors say to us, ‘You are not of our generation: swallow your pill’.”
On nihilism:
“Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles – think of it, what a lot of foreign.. and useless words! To a Russian they’re not worth a straw…… In these days the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate – and so we repudiate. Everything.”
“…But one must construct too, you know.”
“That is not our affair… The ground must be cleaned first.”
“…In the old days young people had to study. If they did not want to be ignorant they had to work hard whether they liked it or not. But now they need only say, ‘Everything in the world is rubbish!’ – and the trick’s done. The young men are simply delighted. Whereas they were only sheep’s heads before, now they have suddenly blossomed out as nihilists!”
On individuality (or the lack thereof!):
“… I assure you the study of separate individuals is not worth the trouble it involves. All men are similar, in soul as well as body. Each of us has a brain, spleen, heart, and lungs of similar construction; and the so-called moral qualities are the same in all of us – the slight variations are of no importance. It is enough to have one human specimen in order to judge all the others. People are like trees in a forest; no botanist would dream of studying each individual birch tree.”
On women, men, and love:
“Anna Sergeyevna was a rather strange person. Having no prejudices of any kind, and no strong convictions even, she was not put off by obstacles and she had no goal in life. She had clear ideas about many things and a variety of interests, but nothing ever completely satisfied her; indeed she did not really seek satisfaction. Her mind was at once probing and indifferent; any doubts she entertained were never soothed into oblivion, nor ever swelled into unrest…… Like all women who have not succeeded in falling in love she hankered after something without knowing what it was. In reality there was nothing she wanted, though it seemed to her that she wanted everything…… She had conceived a secret repugnance for all men, whom she could only think of as slovenly, clumsy, dull, feebly irritating creatures.”
On melancholy:
“I have no desire, no longing for life. You look at me incredulously; you think those are the words of an aristocrat covered in lace and sitting in a velvet armchair. I don’t deny for a moment that I like what you call comfort, but at the same time I have very little desire to live. Reconcile that contradiction as best you can.”
On family:
“It can’t be helped, Vasya. A son is an independent person. He’s like a falcon that comes when he wills and flies off when he lists; but you and I are like the funguses growing in a hollow tree: here we sit side by side, not budging an inch. It is only I who will stay with you always, faithful for ever, just as you will stay with me.”
On love and connection:
“They were both silent; but the way in which they were silent, the way in which they were sitting together, spoke eloquently of the trustful intimacy between them, each seemed unmindful of the other and yet full of an inward joy at being together.”
Show More
criticisms that Turgenev received from BOTH the Left and the Right accusing Turgenev of being both “Father” and “Son”? Should I examine Turgenev’s personal view which he claimed to align most with Bazarov, the steely, indifferent nihilist (except on art)? The many facets of this book are made the more interesting in this edition, which was enriched with a sizable lecture by Isaiah Berlin and an informative introduction by the translator, Rosemary Edmonds. Regardless of one’s view, Turgenev’s burial was attended by the Imperial Government, the intelligentsia, and the workers’ organizations – noted by Berlin in 1970 as perhaps the first and last time where these groups met peacefully in Russia. That’s got to be worth something to note a career!
Turgenev’s writing charm is not in the heavy subjects or weighty writing style akin to Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, his great contemporaries. He allows the reader to connect empathically to his characters. We have in Nikolai, the kindly widowed father, in Arkady, the son finding his new path (or not), in Bazarov, the brazen mentor and vocal “nihilist” who frees himself from allegiance to anything and anyone, in Anna, the strength of a woman in her daily estate dealings - both beautiful and clever, in Pavel, the ‘lost’ uncle who gave his life away for love, and many more. Each character is richly crafted that you have an empathy and comprehension of their motivations. Despite an insistence that women opt to be silent and even beaten, Turgenev created many strong women, both in the home and in their business.
I won’t attempt to elaborate further on this classic except to say it is certainly charming with some heart string tucking, but not overtly. (I loved Bazarov’s sweet, sweet parents.) 4.0 stars for the book plus 0.5 stars for the bonuses in this edition.
Favorite Character: Anna Sergeyevna Odintsov – for her many strengths but also her melancholy
Least Favorite Character: Yevgeny Vassilyich Bazarov – for hating art (blasphemy!) and being self-centered
Some Quotes:
On the generation divide:
"Once I quarrelled with our late mamma: she stormed and would not listen to me… At last I said to her, ‘Of course, you cannot understand me: we belong to two different generations,’ I said. She was dreadfully offended but I thought to myself, ‘It can’t be helped. It is a bitter pill but she must swallow it.’ You see, now our turn has come, and our successors say to us, ‘You are not of our generation: swallow your pill’.”
On nihilism:
“Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles – think of it, what a lot of foreign.. and useless words! To a Russian they’re not worth a straw…… In these days the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate – and so we repudiate. Everything.”
“…But one must construct too, you know.”
“That is not our affair… The ground must be cleaned first.”
“…In the old days young people had to study. If they did not want to be ignorant they had to work hard whether they liked it or not. But now they need only say, ‘Everything in the world is rubbish!’ – and the trick’s done. The young men are simply delighted. Whereas they were only sheep’s heads before, now they have suddenly blossomed out as nihilists!”
On individuality (or the lack thereof!):
“… I assure you the study of separate individuals is not worth the trouble it involves. All men are similar, in soul as well as body. Each of us has a brain, spleen, heart, and lungs of similar construction; and the so-called moral qualities are the same in all of us – the slight variations are of no importance. It is enough to have one human specimen in order to judge all the others. People are like trees in a forest; no botanist would dream of studying each individual birch tree.”
On women, men, and love:
“Anna Sergeyevna was a rather strange person. Having no prejudices of any kind, and no strong convictions even, she was not put off by obstacles and she had no goal in life. She had clear ideas about many things and a variety of interests, but nothing ever completely satisfied her; indeed she did not really seek satisfaction. Her mind was at once probing and indifferent; any doubts she entertained were never soothed into oblivion, nor ever swelled into unrest…… Like all women who have not succeeded in falling in love she hankered after something without knowing what it was. In reality there was nothing she wanted, though it seemed to her that she wanted everything…… She had conceived a secret repugnance for all men, whom she could only think of as slovenly, clumsy, dull, feebly irritating creatures.”
On melancholy:
“I have no desire, no longing for life. You look at me incredulously; you think those are the words of an aristocrat covered in lace and sitting in a velvet armchair. I don’t deny for a moment that I like what you call comfort, but at the same time I have very little desire to live. Reconcile that contradiction as best you can.”
On family:
“It can’t be helped, Vasya. A son is an independent person. He’s like a falcon that comes when he wills and flies off when he lists; but you and I are like the funguses growing in a hollow tree: here we sit side by side, not budging an inch. It is only I who will stay with you always, faithful for ever, just as you will stay with me.”
On love and connection:
“They were both silent; but the way in which they were silent, the way in which they were sitting together, spoke eloquently of the trustful intimacy between them, each seemed unmindful of the other and yet full of an inward joy at being together.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member dandelionroots
Even though the conflict between generations is centered around the historical event of the emancipation of the russian serfs, it is relevant to every generational conflict. The extremists at either end will never understand each other, yet there is a delightful middle ground to be struck and exist
Show More
happily in. The characters were more life like than anything I've read in a long while, which turned what could have been a relatively dull classic into a page turner. I cared about his portraits. Show Less
LibraryThing member deebee1
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
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.
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member deeEhmm
Was surprised by my love for this book. It was gripping, funny, touching. Who knew. I picked it up because of a memoir I was reading in which the narrator was enamored of "The Russians," and because I'd always been curious. So glad I did.
LibraryThing member Smiler69
Finished Fathers and Sons yesterday, another quickly devoured novel. Don't think I'll take the time to properly review it, but I will say that while I worried I wouldn't be thrilled by a novel in which one of the main characters is an unpleasant Nihilist with an attitude to match, I was on the
So much for NOT writing a review. :-)
Show More
contrary pleasantly surprised to find this novel touch on a variety of other subjects I ended up finding quite engrossing indeed, so that even Bazarov, the unpleasant proponent of Nihilism in question became, if not appealing exactly, essential to a masterful whole. Some of the topics broached are the major shift going on in Russia during the mid-19th century, with landowners 'freeing' their serfs and allowing them to become paid tenants and the attendant class conflicts; the concept or what makes up a true Russian identity; the generation gap and how the old guard is always relegated to obsolescence by the young. In other words, social conflicts seem to be at the heart of this novel, but these subjects became all the more interesting to me thanks to the deft hand of Turgeniev, who presents these from the unique standpoints of young student Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov, who brings his friend and Nihilistic hero Yevgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov on a visit to his family farm to meet his father and uncle. Arkady Nikolaevich's father Nikolai Petrovich is excited to get together with his grown son again, looking forward to a forging a close friendship with him based on intellectual equality, and thinks himself to be 'with the times' by embracing modern socioeconomic concerns (having among other things recently emancipated his serfs and removed himself to a smaller house with few paid servants) and keeping up with all the latest authors (but at heart a great lover of the Romantic Old Guard Pushkin). However, his hopes are fairly dashed when Bazarov is introduced into the household with his uncouth, brusque manners and disdain for art, tradition, and sentimentality. Arkady has become Bazarov's disciple and parrots his older friend's ideas, though all the while he is made uneasy by Bazarov's repeated critical sallies and generally disrespectful attitude toward his beloved father and his uncle Pavel Petrovich, a gallant aristocrat very much attached to tradition and keeping up appearances, which Arkady nevertheless sees as a tragic hero. Through this prism we see a whole nation shifting toward what laid the ground for the inevitable Russian Revolution and the Communist USSR, though again, Turgeniev, far from making his protagonists all black or all white, lets them evolve throughout the novel and experience conflicting emotions and motivations. Here, together with a large dose of philosophical doctrine, there is also love and romance and it's deceptions, there is even an unlikely duel which ends rather unexpectedly. In other words, it is a mix of intellectual ideas and romantic concerns and for this reason, still feels incredibly modern and shows us once again that human nature never really changes much. So much for NOT writing a review. :-)
Show Less
LibraryThing member jackkane
Considering its notoriety, Turgenev's novel is surprisingly tame. In the end, the symbol of progressivism - Bazarov - dies, while the old aristocracy continues about its business, covering itself under a guise of liberalism.
Bazarov, for all his rhetoric, is an arrogant hypocrite. He chatters about
From a historical perspective, 'Fathers and Sons' is quietly perceptive. The emancipation of 1961 merely exchanged one form of slavery for another. The aristocracy relinquished official feudalism, but didn't change much until 1917. The Russian muzhik continued his hard life through the Red revolution, and into today's capitalist oligarchic 21st century Russia. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
In the end, Turgenev's novel is just another 19th century story about idle aristocrats moping about, taking long walks to divert boredom, falling in love, and dying of horrible deceases. The most appealing aspects of the novel are its humanity and its brisk, readable style.
Bazarov, for all his rhetoric, is an arrogant hypocrite. He chatters about
Show More
work, but does nothing useful. He frolics around aristocratic manors, talks down to everybody, and dissects frogs. He frowns upon women and love, but falls for Odintzova. He despises romanticism and espouses nihilism, without realizing that the latter is the radical successor of the former. He denounces artistocratism, but engages in a duel he recognizes as ridiculous. In the end his pride consumes him and he dies an ugly death, to the horror of his doting parents and his frigid sweetheart.From a historical perspective, 'Fathers and Sons' is quietly perceptive. The emancipation of 1961 merely exchanged one form of slavery for another. The aristocracy relinquished official feudalism, but didn't change much until 1917. The Russian muzhik continued his hard life through the Red revolution, and into today's capitalist oligarchic 21st century Russia. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
In the end, Turgenev's novel is just another 19th century story about idle aristocrats moping about, taking long walks to divert boredom, falling in love, and dying of horrible deceases. The most appealing aspects of the novel are its humanity and its brisk, readable style.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Clara53
Unquestioningly, a classic. Different in its substance from the gripping and heart-rending prose of Dostoyevsky, but a classic nevertheless. Apart from the main plot and the ever-existing question of a generation gap, Turgenev brings to light such relevant to that day and age issues as the peasant
I read this book in the original years ago (it was a part of high school curriculum and was required reading, thus making it less appealing at the time) and now refreshed my memory, with deeper understanding of the book, in translation, which is quite adequate, though, naturally, cannot quite be a substitute for the original - but it fell into my hands at a used books shop and grabbed my nostalgic attention.
Show More
question (with all its tormenting difficulties just prior to abolition of serfdom in Russia), the highly controversial idea of nihilism, and description (even though in a slightly caricature form) of a burgeoning feminism trend. Some minor characters are stereotypically comical, but the main ones are given a thoroughly thoughtful and serious portrayal. Bazarov's father impressed me the most. I read this book in the original years ago (it was a part of high school curriculum and was required reading, thus making it less appealing at the time) and now refreshed my memory, with deeper understanding of the book, in translation, which is quite adequate, though, naturally, cannot quite be a substitute for the original - but it fell into my hands at a used books shop and grabbed my nostalgic attention.
Show Less
LibraryThing member KristianATJ
"Of course, you cannot understand me: we belong to two different generations"
It is expected that each new generation will challenge the ideas and the ideals of the generation they succeed - it is, in theory, how society evolves. Ivan Turgenev used Fathers and Sons as a means of exploring
The character who dominates the novel, Yevgeny Vassilyich Bazarov, certainly fits into that template. Proclaiming himself a nihilist, he casts his shadow over proceedings, offering his anti-philosophies at regular intervals, and by his very nature represents challenge, announcing this fact when stating that "in these days the most useful thing we can do is repudiate - and so we repudiate." This 'question everything' mentality is the central theme of the narrative, and whilst his brusque exterior can be extremely trying at times, there is an undoubted intelligence behind each of his proclamations. Bazarov is of the opinion that "all men are similar, in soul as well as in body," an overwhelmingly negative mindset that cuts to the heart of his nihilism - if you can't believe in human beings and their individuality, why believe in anything?
Arkady Petrovich is his friend and disciple, a man so taken with Bazarov that he mimics him as best as he is able, whilst not quite able to take the principles of nihilism fully to heart, leading to various faux pas on his part that make him appear to be something of a simpleton. Trust Bazarov to best summarise Arkady when telling him "you're a soft-hearted mawkish individual...you're timid, you've no confidence in yourself." The pair spend the duration of Fathers and Sons together, and their relationship could almost be described as familial, were there anything of the paternal about Bazarov. Arkady looks up to Bazarov, who responds to such devotion in the dismissive manner with which he treats everything he encounters.
Bazarov's opinionated nature extends to Arkady's father, Nikolai Petrovich, whom he describes as "a good man, but he's old-fashioned, he's had his day." Which is typically blunt, but not particularly unfair. After all, Nikolai is something of a nostalgist, which is indicative of the backwards-looking nature that younger generations typically rally against. At the same time, though, he is desperate to cling on to some semblance of his youth, in order that he might remain close to Arkady - and that he wants to be a friend as much of a father is somewhat troubling in itself - and to this end, he has taken up with a young girl named Fenichka, as though her youth and her innocence might rub off on him. Yet we care about him all the same, because his affection towards his son is genuinely touching, as is his exasperation upon realising how much his son has changed.
"Why should we talk of love?"
The novel takes an interesting diversion from these issues during the middle section, presenting a Midsummer Night's Dream-esque sequence of romantic attachments badly in need of correction by a Puck figure: Madame Anna Odinstov manages to capture the heart of both Bazarov and Arkady; Arkady would be better served investing his feelings in Katya, Anna's younger sister, who clearly carries a torch for him; and Anna feels nothing for Arkady but is clearly drawn to Bazarov. Away from the realms of Shakespearean fantasy, it is unsurprising that this passage doesn't provide an entirely happy ending, but it does have some fantastic exchanges between Anna and Bazarov who, despite his best efforts, cannot help but fall for her, declaring with a passion bordering on obsession "that I love you idiotically, madly." We soften to him a little at this point, because we see the humanity that lies beneath the exterior self he projects - he is clearly not immune to the power of love, and becomes more relatable for exactly those reasons. Later, he reveals to Fenichka the weight of his loneliness: "if only I could find someone to take pity on me." At this point, it becomes obvious that the self-confidence he seems to exude is at least partially a facade. But then when we see his interactions with his family, our attitude shifts again - he comes across very badly, meeting their delight at seeing him for the first time in three years with his trademark condescension, in the process appearing to be a man without sentiment, especially when dismissing them on the grounds that he has nothing much to say to them.
"Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles - think of it, what a lot of foreign and useless words! To a Russian they're not worth a straw"
Turgenev had an axe to grind with the Russian ruling classes - and indeed anyone in a position of authority - and uses parts of the novel to do so, finding humour in the ridiculous contradictions and hypocrisy inherent within the system. Consequently, a governor is described as "a man who, as is often the case in Russia, was at once progressive and despotic;" a superintendent of the Provincial Treasury, meanwhile, coins the phrase "every wee busy bee takes a wee bribe from every wee flower" as a quaint way of justifying his corruption. It's moments like these that give credence to Bazarov's declaration that "we should not accept any species of authority."
Despite the message contained within the text, it never really feels like you're being lectured at, which is always a danger. Turgenev puts his point across by crafting characters who are both complex and believable, and creating an engaging narrative, meaning that the point of the novel is taken on board without any risk of the reader resenting its insistence. The ending stays true to that which preceded it, and is touched with a sense of melancholy even though the plots resolve themselves in the expected manner. For Arkady, there is contentment to be found in his acceptance that he isn't a nihilist after all; he is much more cut in the mould of his father. For Bazarov, there is the only fate a man of his nature could possibly expect. The character stands out as one of the greatest literary creations of the nineteenth century, a man whose presence illuminates every page he appears on.
It is expected that each new generation will challenge the ideas and the ideals of the generation they succeed - it is, in theory, how society evolves. Ivan Turgenev used Fathers and Sons as a means of exploring
Show More
generational differences, which proved to be a great source of controversy when the novel was first published in 1862 - it read as an attack on the traditional values of contemporary Russian society. Which it almost certainly was, but its importance has persevered because the theme never grows old - Turgenev offers a timeless message, suggesting that it is the natural function of society to aspire towards progression, and that such a thing requires change inspired by new ways of thinking.The character who dominates the novel, Yevgeny Vassilyich Bazarov, certainly fits into that template. Proclaiming himself a nihilist, he casts his shadow over proceedings, offering his anti-philosophies at regular intervals, and by his very nature represents challenge, announcing this fact when stating that "in these days the most useful thing we can do is repudiate - and so we repudiate." This 'question everything' mentality is the central theme of the narrative, and whilst his brusque exterior can be extremely trying at times, there is an undoubted intelligence behind each of his proclamations. Bazarov is of the opinion that "all men are similar, in soul as well as in body," an overwhelmingly negative mindset that cuts to the heart of his nihilism - if you can't believe in human beings and their individuality, why believe in anything?
Arkady Petrovich is his friend and disciple, a man so taken with Bazarov that he mimics him as best as he is able, whilst not quite able to take the principles of nihilism fully to heart, leading to various faux pas on his part that make him appear to be something of a simpleton. Trust Bazarov to best summarise Arkady when telling him "you're a soft-hearted mawkish individual...you're timid, you've no confidence in yourself." The pair spend the duration of Fathers and Sons together, and their relationship could almost be described as familial, were there anything of the paternal about Bazarov. Arkady looks up to Bazarov, who responds to such devotion in the dismissive manner with which he treats everything he encounters.
Bazarov's opinionated nature extends to Arkady's father, Nikolai Petrovich, whom he describes as "a good man, but he's old-fashioned, he's had his day." Which is typically blunt, but not particularly unfair. After all, Nikolai is something of a nostalgist, which is indicative of the backwards-looking nature that younger generations typically rally against. At the same time, though, he is desperate to cling on to some semblance of his youth, in order that he might remain close to Arkady - and that he wants to be a friend as much of a father is somewhat troubling in itself - and to this end, he has taken up with a young girl named Fenichka, as though her youth and her innocence might rub off on him. Yet we care about him all the same, because his affection towards his son is genuinely touching, as is his exasperation upon realising how much his son has changed.
"Why should we talk of love?"
The novel takes an interesting diversion from these issues during the middle section, presenting a Midsummer Night's Dream-esque sequence of romantic attachments badly in need of correction by a Puck figure: Madame Anna Odinstov manages to capture the heart of both Bazarov and Arkady; Arkady would be better served investing his feelings in Katya, Anna's younger sister, who clearly carries a torch for him; and Anna feels nothing for Arkady but is clearly drawn to Bazarov. Away from the realms of Shakespearean fantasy, it is unsurprising that this passage doesn't provide an entirely happy ending, but it does have some fantastic exchanges between Anna and Bazarov who, despite his best efforts, cannot help but fall for her, declaring with a passion bordering on obsession "that I love you idiotically, madly." We soften to him a little at this point, because we see the humanity that lies beneath the exterior self he projects - he is clearly not immune to the power of love, and becomes more relatable for exactly those reasons. Later, he reveals to Fenichka the weight of his loneliness: "if only I could find someone to take pity on me." At this point, it becomes obvious that the self-confidence he seems to exude is at least partially a facade. But then when we see his interactions with his family, our attitude shifts again - he comes across very badly, meeting their delight at seeing him for the first time in three years with his trademark condescension, in the process appearing to be a man without sentiment, especially when dismissing them on the grounds that he has nothing much to say to them.
"Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles - think of it, what a lot of foreign and useless words! To a Russian they're not worth a straw"
Turgenev had an axe to grind with the Russian ruling classes - and indeed anyone in a position of authority - and uses parts of the novel to do so, finding humour in the ridiculous contradictions and hypocrisy inherent within the system. Consequently, a governor is described as "a man who, as is often the case in Russia, was at once progressive and despotic;" a superintendent of the Provincial Treasury, meanwhile, coins the phrase "every wee busy bee takes a wee bribe from every wee flower" as a quaint way of justifying his corruption. It's moments like these that give credence to Bazarov's declaration that "we should not accept any species of authority."
Despite the message contained within the text, it never really feels like you're being lectured at, which is always a danger. Turgenev puts his point across by crafting characters who are both complex and believable, and creating an engaging narrative, meaning that the point of the novel is taken on board without any risk of the reader resenting its insistence. The ending stays true to that which preceded it, and is touched with a sense of melancholy even though the plots resolve themselves in the expected manner. For Arkady, there is contentment to be found in his acceptance that he isn't a nihilist after all; he is much more cut in the mould of his father. For Bazarov, there is the only fate a man of his nature could possibly expect. The character stands out as one of the greatest literary creations of the nineteenth century, a man whose presence illuminates every page he appears on.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Kristelh
19th century Russian literature set in 1859. (Follows the Paris Revolution, Crimean War, Nicholas I) A book about fathers and their sons. The sons have been to university and been educated. They have embraced nihilism. The Nihilist movement was a Russian movement in the 1860s which rejected all
"All moral disease derives from poor education, from all the rubbish with which people's heads are filled from birth onwards--in short, from the shocking state of society. Reform society, and there'll be no more disease". This is a statement by Bazarov. I think this statement has proven to be untrue many times. Poor education does not equal moral disease, nor does good education preclude moral disease. The origin is something else.
The women characters are interesting. We have Fenichka who is "living with Nikolai and has a son but no marriage", we have Anna who is a widow and has been alluded to as empty headed who is quite intelligent and a bit of a nihilist herself, and Katerina the young lady who is quiet but probably the strongest of all. And not to omit, Bazarov's mother who is the one with the property and money but also a lot of superstitions. Bazarov's attitude is quite antifeminist but over all the book is filled with storng women.
I enjoyed the book. As a Russian novel it wasn't hard to read. I am not a fan of nihilism but I learned a lot and find it interesting that it was a Russian movement. The novel contributes to the Russian literature and Russian history, it is not only relevant to its 19 century setting but also offers some relevance to the present and a good reminder that generations do change. The characters were well crafted. This is more a character study than a plot driven book.
Show More
authorities.It is derived from the Latin nihil, meaning "nothing". The decision has been made to emancipate the serfs which happened in 1861. The fathers are doing their best to cooperate with the mandate. The opposite of nihilism is romanticism and the author has set the book up through the fathers and sons to contrast the different philosophy. "All moral disease derives from poor education, from all the rubbish with which people's heads are filled from birth onwards--in short, from the shocking state of society. Reform society, and there'll be no more disease". This is a statement by Bazarov. I think this statement has proven to be untrue many times. Poor education does not equal moral disease, nor does good education preclude moral disease. The origin is something else.
The women characters are interesting. We have Fenichka who is "living with Nikolai and has a son but no marriage", we have Anna who is a widow and has been alluded to as empty headed who is quite intelligent and a bit of a nihilist herself, and Katerina the young lady who is quiet but probably the strongest of all. And not to omit, Bazarov's mother who is the one with the property and money but also a lot of superstitions. Bazarov's attitude is quite antifeminist but over all the book is filled with storng women.
I enjoyed the book. As a Russian novel it wasn't hard to read. I am not a fan of nihilism but I learned a lot and find it interesting that it was a Russian movement. The novel contributes to the Russian literature and Russian history, it is not only relevant to its 19 century setting but also offers some relevance to the present and a good reminder that generations do change. The characters were well crafted. This is more a character study than a plot driven book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member vkyrt
Easy and pleasant to read, but hardly a "masterpiece". There is a structure and a kind of plot, but no sense of purpose. Characters just drift without a convincing explanation as to their motives, if they have any. You get the impression that Turgenev first thought up Bazarov the "nihilist" -
Show More
actually a depressed cynic who can't stand his own emotions - then sketched some feeble storyline to justify his existence in the novel. The book is not without qualities, however. The other characters, particularly the elderly, are finely sketched and there are some scenes which are very moving. There is tension here and there, but no development into something grand. "Torrents of Spring", by the same author, has a clear direction and is more fun. Show Less
LibraryThing member john257hopper
A marvellous novel about misunderstandings between the generations that is still relevant today, but also about how love can defy logic and humanise anyone. A very sad ending with Bazarov's parents weeping over his grave.
LibraryThing member DRFP
One of those shocking things - a supposed masterpiece that actually lives up to the hype.
Turgenev is definitely the best "novelist" of the great Russian authors of the 19th century. Tolstoy spent more time writing epics and short stories; Dostoevsky was more concerned with forcing his politics into
F&S is Turgenev's best work. All I can say is that on a personal level Turgenev's themes speak to me a great deal. As a result the crux of this novel wasn't the generational gap but more Bazarov’s complicated nature and his relationship with everyone around him.
As far as I'm concerned: a flawless read.
Turgenev is definitely the best "novelist" of the great Russian authors of the 19th century. Tolstoy spent more time writing epics and short stories; Dostoevsky was more concerned with forcing his politics into
Show More
his novels rather than writing simply good stories like Turgenev.F&S is Turgenev's best work. All I can say is that on a personal level Turgenev's themes speak to me a great deal. As a result the crux of this novel wasn't the generational gap but more Bazarov’s complicated nature and his relationship with everyone around him.
As far as I'm concerned: a flawless read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ErnestHemingway
"Have read Fathers and Children by Turgenieff and the 1st Vol. of Buddenbrooks by Thomas Mann. Frathers and Ch-en isn't his best stuff by a long way. Some swell stuff in it but it can never be as exciting again as when it was written and that's a hell of a criticism for a book... "
Letter to F.
Selected Letters, pg. 176
Letter to F.
Show More
Scott Fitzgerald, 1925Selected Letters, pg. 176
Show Less
LibraryThing member Magadri
An incredible read. The story holds your interest, the characters are very realistic and believable, and the content/theme is still relevant and always will be.
LibraryThing member Clif
Fathers and Sons, first published in 1862, is a classic of Russian literature that examines youthful idealism and its pitfalls. It is a depiction of two generations with widely differing political and social values. The setting is 19th Century Russia shortly after the emancipation of the Russian
Frankly, listening to the conflict portrayed in this book wasn't a pleasant experience for me. Thus, I can't recommend it as a book that others are likely to enjoy. But I felt better about the book after finishing it. I think the book's message is that the older and younger generations need to be more understanding of each other. We all need to mellow out a bit.
It's interesting to note that from our own perspective in history, the changes in 1862 were nothing compared to what was going to happen to Russia 50 years later. It's sad to realize that the presence of idealistic young people and liberal minded parents does not necessarily lead to peace for later generations. When will it ever end?
Show More
serfs. The narrative follows two young men returning home after spending years attending College. The result is a confrontation between the traditional fathers (but liberal minded) and their idealistic sons. The antagonism portrayed in the book demonstrates the timeless conflict between youth and their elders. There are plenty of contemporary generational and political resonances contained in the story if the reader looks for them. Frankly, listening to the conflict portrayed in this book wasn't a pleasant experience for me. Thus, I can't recommend it as a book that others are likely to enjoy. But I felt better about the book after finishing it. I think the book's message is that the older and younger generations need to be more understanding of each other. We all need to mellow out a bit.
It's interesting to note that from our own perspective in history, the changes in 1862 were nothing compared to what was going to happen to Russia 50 years later. It's sad to realize that the presence of idealistic young people and liberal minded parents does not necessarily lead to peace for later generations. When will it ever end?
Show Less
LibraryThing member Porius
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'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.
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ECBesa
My first novel by Turgenev and was very impressive. Good reason to go back on classics.
LibraryThing member booksfordeb
Generation gap in the 19th century. I read this book in college. I was drawn into the story rather quickly and thoroughly enjoyed the ride. Unusual characters, and a subtle plot. The older generation watching the decline of their society, while the younger generation moves towards liberalism and
Beautifully told and much lighter fare than Dostoevsky I remember that I appreciated reading this book while studying western civilization. Highly recommended.
Show More
ignores its own arrogance. The tale is timeless and classic. This almost appears to be a classic tale of older conservative values battling a younger liberal society. Beautifully told and much lighter fare than Dostoevsky I remember that I appreciated reading this book while studying western civilization. Highly recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member alanteder
In English language, translated from Russian, fiction, novel
LibraryThing member WorldInColour
Rather striking, though sometimes comes across a little bit forced and solemn. Which is, in the end, quite okay with characters like Bazarov that bring forward lots of interesting issues and ideas.
LibraryThing member Esta1923
Twenty-three brief chapters tell of a period in the lives of two young Russian men. Together they visit each of their families, and together they mix into society. It is a rambling tale. (My copy is illustrated with wood engravings by Fritz Eichenberg and has a foreword by Sinclair Lewis, and an
Show More
essay by John T. Winterich.) I do not know how long I've had it. . . it caught my eye recently, hence this brief review. Show Less
Subjects
Awards
Read Russia Translation Prize (2014-2016)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1862
Physical description
5.31 inches
ISBN
1509812164 / 9781509812165
Similar in this library
DDC/MDS
| 891.733 |