Reading Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons", we constantly meet the author's characteristics and descriptions of the characters, the author's remarks and various comments. Following the fate of the characters, we feel the presence of the author himself. The author deeply experiences everything he writes about. However, his attitude to what is happening in the novel is ambiguous and not as simple as it might seem at first glance.
The author's position in the novel is manifested in descriptions, direct author's characteristics, comments on the characters' speech, in the construction of dialogues and remarks. For example, when the author describes Bazarov’s mother, he often uses words with diminutive suffixes and epithets that tell us about the character of the heroine: “... prop your round face with your fist, to which puffy, cherry-colored lips and moles on the cheeks and above the eyebrows the expression is very good-natured, she did not take her eyes off her son ... ”Thanks to special epithets and suffixes, we understand that the author treats Bazarov’s mother with sympathy, pities her.
Sometimes Turgenev gives a direct description of his characters. For example, about Pavel Petrovich, he says: “Yes, he was a dead man.” These words characterize Pavel Petrovich as a person no longer capable of real feelings; he can no longer develop spiritually, continuing to cognize this world, and therefore, he cannot truly live.
In many of the author's remarks, Turgenev's attitude towards his heroes is also felt. For example, commenting on Sitnikov's speech, the author writes that Sitnikov "laughed shrillly." Here, the author's obvious irony is felt, as in other comments on the speech of two pseudo-nihilists - Sitnikov and Kukshina.
However, if we talk about the climaxes of the novel, about its main character - Bazarov, then here the author's attitude cannot be unambiguously determined.
On the one hand, the author does not share the principles of his hero, on the other hand, he respects his strength and intelligence. For example, in the description of Bazarov’s death, the author’s respect for this hero is felt, because Bazarov is not cowardly in the face of death, he says: “I still don’t fear ...”
In the dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich (and this dispute is important for understanding the idea of the work), the author does not openly support any of the characters. The author seems to be on the sidelines. On the one hand, Bazarov’s reproaches of Pavel Petrovich’s unfoundedness are quite fair: “... you respect yourself and sit back ...”, on the other hand, Pavel Petrovich is right, speaking about the importance of “self-respect”. As Turgenev himself wrote, “... real clashes are those in which both sides are right to a certain extent,” and this is probably why Turgenev does not take the side of any of the characters, although he respects Bazarov’s mind and Kirsanov’s sense of self-esteem.
The epilogue of the work is of great importance for understanding the idea of the novel. The author describes Bazarov's grave in the epilogue and says that the flowers on the grave "say<...>about eternal reconciliation and about endless life...”. I think what is meant here is that the disputes between nihilists and aristocrats, "fathers" and "children" are eternal. It is from these disputes, clashes, speaking about the development of mankind and philosophical thought and is the life of people.
I must say that Turgenev does not give us explicit answers, he asks his reader questions, inviting him to think for himself. This seeming uncertainty, behind which the author's philosophical attitude to the characters and destinies described, is hidden, is not only in the epilogue. For example, when Turgenev talks about the life of Bazarov's mother, he writes: “Such women are now being translated. God knows if we should rejoice at this!” As you can see, the author avoids harsh tones in his judgments about the characters. It leaves the reader free to draw (or not draw) their own conclusions.
So, the author of the novel “Fathers and Sons” - Turgenev - does not impose his point of view on what is happening in the work, he invites readers to take this philosophically. The whole novel is perceived not as an ideological guide or praise to one of the characters, but as material for reflection.
When we read Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons", we constantly meet with the author's characteristics and descriptions of the characters, the author's remarks and various comments. We follow the fate of the characters and feel the presence of the author himself. He deeply cares about everything he writes about. His attitude to the events taking place in the novel is ambiguous and not as simple as it might seem at first glance.
The position of the author in the novel is manifested in descriptions, direct characteristics of the author, comments on the speech of the characters, in the construction of dialogues and remarks. For example, when the author describes Bazarov's mother, he often uses words with diminutive suffixes and epithets that tell us about the character of the heroine: "... prop your round face with your fist, to which puffy, cherry-colored lips and moles on the cheeks and above the eyebrows gave an expression very good-natured, she did not take her eyes off her son ... "Thanks to special epithets and suffixes, we understand that the author treats Bazarov's mother with sympathy, pities her.
Sometimes Turgenev gives a direct description of his characters. For example, about Pavel Petrovich, he says: "Yes, he was a dead man." These words characterize Pavel Petrovich as a person no longer capable of real feelings; he can no longer develop spiritually, continuing to cognize this world, and, therefore, he cannot truly live.
In many of the author's remarks, Turgenev's attitude towards his heroes is also felt. Commenting on Sitnikov's speech, the author writes that he "laughed shrillly." Here, the author's obvious irony is felt, as in other comments on the speech of two pseudo-nihilists - Sitnikov and Kukshina.
However, if we talk about the climaxes of the novel, about its main character - Bazarov, then here the author's attitude cannot be unequivocally determined. Yes, the attitude of the writer to his creation was contradictory. There was only one thing for sure - Bazarov was seen by him as a tragic figure. I dreamed of a gloomy, wild, large figure, half grown out of the soil, strong, vicious, honest - and yet doomed to perish, because it still stands on the eve of the future, I dreamed of some strange conversation with Pugachev ... ", - wrote Turgenev. The idea of the tragic nature of Bazarov's image is found more than once in the author's letters. And his main tragedy is in the futility of his desire to suppress human aspirations in himself, in the doom of his attempts to oppose his mind to the spontaneous and powerful laws of life, the unstoppable force of feelings and passions. Throughout the novel, one feels how the main conflict of the hero becomes more complicated and deepens, penetrates further and further into his soul. And the farther, the more acutely Bazarov's loneliness is felt - even in his communication with his friend Arkady, even in his parents' house. And the decisive point, which was to "impose last line on his tragic figure," was the death of the hero.
Bazarov stood “on the eve of the future,” but Turgenev himself did not know where his hero could go: “Yes, I really didn’t know what to do with him. I felt then that something new was born; I saw new people, but I could not imagine how they would act, what would come of them, I could not. I had to either be completely silent, or write what I know. I chose the latter. "
The writer tried to show truthfully character traits a new person, get used to his image. To do this, he kept a diary for two years on behalf of Bazarov. Turgenev did not hide his sympathy for Bazarov. He was attracted by the inner independence of the hero, his honesty, intelligence, desire for practical activity, consistency, steadfastness in defending his convictions, and a critical attitude to reality. "Bazarov is my favorite brainchild, on which I spent all the paints at my disposal," wrote Turgenev. However, the author did not share all the views of his hero. Therefore, with all truthfulness, he noted in Bazarov not only what constituted his strength, but also what, in its one-sided development, could degenerate into extremes and lead to spiritual loneliness and complete dissatisfaction with life.
Turgenev well noticed the distrust and contempt of the peasant for the master that had developed over the centuries. The scene of Bazarov's conversation with a peasant is endowed with great meaning. Turgenev comments on the protagonist’s self-confident statement that he is his own person for the peasants, Turgenev remarks: “Alas! Bazarov, who contemptuously shrugged his shoulder and knew how to talk with peasants (as he boasted in a dispute with Pavel Petrovich), this self-confident Bazarov did not even suspect that in their eyes he was still something like a pea jester. Such distrust of the people is quite natural, since the hero himself is in business social progress he counted more on people of spirit, such as himself, democratically minded intellectuals, but not on the strength and intelligence of the masses.
Of great importance for understanding the idea of the novel belongs to the epilogue of the novel. Turgenev describes the grave in which Bazarov is buried, and writes that the flowers on the grave "speak of eternal reconciliation and endless life ...". Apparently, he meant that the disputes between "fathers" and "children", nihilists and aristocrats, are eternal. From these disputes and clashes, which speak about the development of mankind and philosophical thought, the life of people consists.
Turgenev does not give us explicit answers; he poses questions to his readers, inviting them to think for themselves. Such seeming uncertainty, hiding the author's philosophical attitude to the characters and destinies described, is not only in the epilogue. So about the life of Bazarov's mother, he writes: "Such women are now being translated. God knows whether one should rejoice at this!" Here the author avoids harsh tones in his judgments about the characters and gives us the right to draw conclusions or not.
The author of the novel does not try to impose his own point of view on the events taking place in the work, he wants the reader to treat all this philosophically. The novel is perceived as material for reflection, and not as a hymn and praise to one of the characters and not as an ideological guide.
In I.S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons”, the author acts as a narrator and practically does not take an open authorial position. His views, attitudes towards heroes are manifested in compositional features novel, in the means of presenting images, rarely in open authorial statements.
The image of the author in Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons"
The non-openness of the author's position caused accusations against him from his contemporaries: both democrats and conservatives. These attacks made it necessary for Turgenev to explain himself, an article appeared "About" Fathers and Sons ". In it, the writer first of all determined his attitude towards the main character - Bazarov.
" In that wonderful person embodied - before my eyes - a barely born, still wandering beginning, which later received the name of nihilism. The impression made on me by this person was very strong and at the same time not entirely clear. At the same time, the writer himself admitted: "Bazarov is my favorite brainchild."
Thus, he, as it were, declared a huge work, a huge interest, which aroused in him the type of such a person as
But the reader gradually realizes that the writer does not share the positions of the hero.
The author's attitude to Bazarov's position
Turgenev, a man and a writer, is deeply alien to the philosophy of denial:
the crude materialism professed by the hero preaches that art is not necessary, love is only a physiological attraction, nature is only a workshop, and man is a worker in it, all people are the same, like trees in a forest.
At the same time, the figure of Bazarov turned out to be so strong, so humanly attractive, which the figures of other heroes are not. The author uses to express his point of view and refute the views of his protagonist.
So, Turgenev takes his hero twice to the same places: Maryino, Nikolskoye, parental home, but the second time a different Bazarov returns to the same place. Main character, who first arrived in Maryino, is confident in himself, he only condescends to talk, argue with Pavel Petrovich. Behind him is strength. Not without reason, after Bazarov's phrase about the denial of "Everything", Pavel Petrovich trembled. Arriving for the second time in Maryino, he, already deeply in love with Odintsova, does not argue, but works, tries to forget love, reduce it to physiology (the scene with Fenechka), agrees to a duel with Pavel Petrovich, denying duels as such, helps the wounded, calling words of gratitude even from his ideological opponent
("You have acted nobly").
Having fallen in love with Odintsova, this character, who denies lofty feelings in love and recognizes only physiology, begins to "become aware of romance in himself." His attitude towards his parents also changes: from annoyance to reconciliation and expression of feelings of love. Death elevates him above others, makes him a hero, shows his powerful nature. No wonder D.I. Pisarev wrote:
"To die the way Bazarov died is like accomplishing a great feat."
Bazarov's ideological opponent is Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. At first glance, the author shares his attitude to Bazarov's theories. But the very course of the story, the author's ironic attitude to the manners, love story, behavior of the elder Kirsanov allow us to say that the author does not consider the position of this hero to be correct. Sometimes a clear irony slips in relation to the writer, for example, when describing the hero’s clothes:
» This fez and casually tied tie hinted at freedom village life; but the tight collars of the shirt, though not white, but mottled, as it should be for morning dress, rested with the usual inexorability on the shaved chin.
Much closer to the author is the younger Kirsanov - Nikolai Petrovich. Turgenev is close to his aspirations for changes in life, the desire to understand the new generation, to feel its strength. When, after a dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, Nikolai Petrovich goes out into the garden and sees the beauty of a summer evening, we feel together with the author that the hero is right.
The lifelessness of the philosophical program of the main character is confirmed by minor characters- Sitnikov and Kukshina. If in relation to Bazarov Turgenev never sneers, then the portraits of these heroes betray a clear authorial hostility.
An anxious and stupid expression was expressed in small, however pleasant features his slick face…”
- This is about Sitnikov.
"There was nothing ugly in the small and nondescript figure of an emancipated woman, but the expression on her face had an unpleasant effect on the viewer"
- This is about Kukshina.
Turgenev's position in relation to other characters of the novel "Fathers and Sons"
The author sometimes judges his characters harshly. The figure of Anna Sergeevna Odintsova arouses the interest of both the writer and the reader, because she is so unlike Turgenev's girls previous novels. Author's attitude slips, for example, in his statement about the fate of Anna Sergeevna in the epilogue. Speaking about the marriage of Odintsova, Turgenev writes:
"They live in great harmony with each other and will live, perhaps, to happiness ... perhaps to love."
Calmness, which Anna Sergeevna values more than anything else, is unacceptable for a writer.
It seems that Turgenev takes the most explicit position in the epilogue of the novel. When describing the grave of Bazarov, tragic and philosophical notes sound. The futility of human striving to know and change the world, the greatness of nature compared to vanity human life- this is the author's credo.
Did you like it? Do not hide your joy from the world - share“No matter how passionate, sinful, rebellious the heart hides in the grave, the flowers growing on it serenely look at us with their innocent eyes: they tell us more than one eternal calmness, about that great calmness of “indifferent” nature; they speak of eternal reconciliation and endless life…”.
Not a single work of Turgenev caused such contradictory responses as his novel Fathers and Sons. Some critics said that Turgenev in his novel created the image of a new man, others perceived the novel as a parody of nihilists. Some argued that Turgenev "flogged the liberals", others reproached Turgenev for preaching conservative ideas. This happened, apparently, due to the difficulty of understanding the author's position. Indeed, Turgenev nowhere in the novel speaks directly about his likes and dislikes, neither praises nor condemns anyone directly. And yet, it seems to me, one can understand what the author thinks about life, if only to abandon straightforward assessments.
The main conflict of the novel is the conflict of "fathers" and "children". Most prominent representatives conflicting parties - Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. At first glance, their opinions are in everything opposite to each other. Pavel Petrovich is a supporter of following "principles", Bazarov denies any authorities. Pavel Petrovich admires the beauty of nature, and Bazarov says: "Nature is not a temple, but a workshop .-." Pavel Petrovich loves Schiller and Goethe, and for Bazarov "a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet." For Pavel Petrovich, love is high and beautiful mystery, and for Bazarov - a manifestation of physiology.
However, Turgenev convincingly shows that these opposites are imaginary. Love for Odintsova, ironically, affected Bazarov in the same fatal way as Pavel Petrovich's love for Princess R. In the end, both of them find a surrogate for their love in a feeling for Fenechka. Forcing them to fall in love with the same woman, Turgenev emphasizes the kinship of their destinies - all life turns out to be a victim of love. This is one of the ways of expressing the author's position in the novel - the equalization of opposites.
Excursions into the past acquire great significance in the novel. The narrative of the main events of the novel is constantly interrupted by retrospective inserts. The author persistently refers to the history of the "kind" of heroes, traces the change of generations. What is this change? With all the blood differences between “fathers and children”, their fates are close. The situations from the youth of Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov and his son are almost repeated: Nikolai Petrovich's father brought him to the university, and Nikolai Petrovich brought him to the University of Arcadia.
Internal connections are drawn between Anna Odintsova and her father. She also consistently strives for a secure existence. And her younger sister Katya is firmly on the beaten path. At the other pole of society - among the small estate Bazarovs - the strength of traditions is expressed in a different way. It is said about Arina Vlasyevna: “She was a real Russian noblewoman of the old time, she should have lived for two hundred years, in ancient times ...”.
The author depicts Russian life for almost fifty years. It reveals many negative sides epochs that have sunk into oblivion. In the regimental towns of the 1920s and 1930s, there was the realm of “mothers-commanders” (Chapter I). IN high society the same years - false Byronism, fatal passions (VIII chapter), the prosperity of card swindlers (XV chapter). However, the new time upsets the writer immeasurably more. Nikolai Petrovich let the peasants go to dues, started "on new way economy”, but he can not cope with the management of the estate. “Progressives” appeared in the bureaucratic world. Emancipated women (Kuktina) and tax-farmers (Sitnikov) arguing about freedom appeared in the county demi-monde. How flawed all these innovations are!
All past shortcomings: the poverty of the peasant village, inept management, bureaucracy, spiritual stagnation, have been preserved. And idle talk, practicality, possessive instincts have increased. And these are the "blood ties" of ties between different generations, those patterns of Russian life, the identification of which was the author's goal.
Reading Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons", we constantly meet the author's characteristics and descriptions of the characters, the author's remarks and various comments. Following the fate of the characters, we feel the presence of the author himself. The author deeply experiences everything he writes about. However, his attitude to what is happening in the novel is ambiguous and not as simple as it might seem at first glance.
The author's position in the novel is manifested in descriptions, direct author's characteristics, comments on the characters' speech, in the construction of dialogues and remarks. For example, when the author describes Bazarov's mother, he often uses words with diminutive suffixes and epithets that tell us about the character of the heroine: the expression is very good-natured, she did not take her eyes off her son ... ”Thanks to special epithets and suffixes, we understand that the author treats Bazarov’s mother with sympathy, pities her.
Sometimes Turgenev gives a direct description of his characters. For example, about Pavel Petrovich, he says: “Yes, he was a dead man.” These words characterize Pavel Petrovich as a person no longer capable of real feelings; he can no longer develop spiritually, continuing to cognize this world, and therefore, he cannot truly live.
In many of the author's remarks, Turgenev's attitude towards his heroes is also felt. For example, commenting on Sitnikov's speech, the author writes that Sitnikov "laughed shrillly." Here, the author's obvious irony is felt, as in other comments on the speech of two pseudo-nihilists - Sitnikov and Kukshina.
However, if we talk about the climaxes of the novel, about its main character - Bazarov, then here the author's attitude cannot be unambiguously determined.
On the one hand, the author does not share the principles of his hero, on the other hand, he respects his strength and intelligence. For example, in the description of Bazarov’s death, the author’s respect for this hero is felt, because Bazarov is not a coward in the face of death, he says: “I still don’t fear ...”
In the dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich (and this dispute is important for understanding the idea of the work), the author does not openly support any of the characters. The author seems to be on the sidelines. On the one hand, Bazarov’s reproaches of Pavel Petrovich’s unfoundedness are quite fair: “... you respect yourself and sit back ...”, on the other hand, Pavel Petrovich is right, speaking about the importance of “self-respect”. As Turgenev himself wrote, “... real clashes are those in which both sides are right to a certain extent,” and this is probably why Turgenev does not take the side of any of the characters, although he respects Bazarov’s mind and Kirsanov’s sense of self-esteem.
The epilogue of the work is of great importance for understanding the idea of the novel. The author describes Bazarov's grave in the epilogue and says that the flowers on the grave "speak of eternal reconciliation and endless life ...". I think what is meant here is that the disputes between nihilists and aristocrats, "fathers" and "children" are eternal. It is from these disputes, clashes, speaking about the development of mankind and philosophical thought, that the life of people consists.
I must say that Turgenev does not give us explicit answers, he asks his reader questions, inviting him to think for himself. This seeming uncertainty, behind which the author's philosophical attitude to the characters and destinies described, is hidden, is not only in the epilogue. For example, when Turgenev talks about the life of Bazarov's mother, he writes: “Such women are now being translated. God knows if we should rejoice at this!” As you can see, the author avoids harsh tones in his judgments about the characters. It leaves the reader free to draw (or not draw) their own conclusions.
So, the author of the novel “Fathers and Sons” - Turgenev - does not impose his point of view on what is happening in the work, he invites readers to take this philosophically. The whole novel is perceived not as an ideological guide or praise to one of the characters, but as material for reflection.
