Anyone read this?

I havent read that but did read and enjoy Fathers and Sons although as with many famous russian novels i didnt get the shock of the political commentary that made it famous as I am not a 19th century russian. It was good though.

>>9408630
He is good, and kind of a stylistic oddity amongst Russians. Have read Fathers and Torrents, both of which read quickly.

My favorite novel... I'm learning Russian because of it

>>9408630
I've read the latter, it's worthwhile.

I've read Fathers and Sons and was quite unimpressed to be honest.
>muh nihilism, fuck authoritah
It gets old rather quickly.

>>9411049
That attitude concerns a single albeit major character, anon. Get your shit together.

>>9411049
>a moralistic novel which criticizes nihilism
>turgenev gives a voice to youth attracted by nihilism, a movement that was gaining traction as he was writing it

if 'muh nihilism' is the only thing you got out of reading turgenev, perhaps 19th century lit isn't for you

?

>>9408630
quite literally my favorite book in existence. i felt nothing but moved through the entire work, and expected so little, something on the level of leskov. in my humble opinion, Living Relics is the greatest short story ever written. I sure hope you like the book, no accounting for taste, though. Check out Leskov as well, not nearly as good, but pleasant.

>>9411049
Wasn't he one of the people that first coined the term though?

>>9408630
>fathers and sons
it's a good book. don't expect it to have the moralistic/societal commentary of tolstoy or the ecstatic spiritual revelations of d-stoy.

it's a much quieter and more intimate book; i felt sad without weeping, i felt comfort without warmth—i suspect this was intentional and i mean no knock against turgenev by comparing him to the above.

i think it could either be seen of as a blackpill if nihilism were correct (or if you saw it as correct) or it could be immensely hopeful if you didn't identify with the young nihilist or his sad lad of a dad.

obviously anyone who purports such a shallow interpretation of the book as >>9411049 is incapable of elementary literary analysis; it's not a mysterious or difficult book in the least.

Kinda excited to read Turgenev, once I get over my crush on Chekhov.

>is turgenev as good as they say
>as they say
>asks "they"

if you are interested in two books by turgenev, why don't you read them and then discuss the author. Why do you ask /lit/ if they think if Turgenev is as good as /lit/ says. Why? If the answer is NO you will stop being interested in him? Or do you just want to know what to think while reading him.

I've been here so long and yet i can't believe how unbelievably stupid you are. My god, my fucking god. Is it so terrifying to your small underdeveloped brain to move into a work of art with no premanufactured conceptions of it? Did it never occur to you that what the people here tell you is what yo could tell others after you read his works? Are you too stupid for that? I swear to god if i see one of these threads again on /lit/ i may do something that you folks would regret terribly.

>>9411049
>not intelligent enough to read books

>>9408630
Father and sons is a fantastic book.

>>9411049 is retarded, or a troll, probably both.

i read spring torrents and it was just ok

>>9413771
some teacher you would be. stop wearing that mask, fie, fie, your true intent is clear as i read your "contributions". you would be anonymous if you weren't so fucking obnoxious.

>reading translations

You aren't reading Turgenev, that's for sure!

As a Russian this is most boring of all Turgenev books, perhaps because it was forcefed to us in Soviet school because of 'ideas' and everyone back then hated 'ideas'.

>>9414779
>it sucks because i read it in school
finally, a parallel to catcher in the rye!

>be me
>22 year old pseud
>first semester at uni
>think Turgenev is obscure because he isn't Dostoevsky
>look up Russian professors, find one that teaches russian literature
>not in her class but go to her office hours
>walk in and start sperging about literature
>she looks extremely uncomfortable
>pronounce it "TUR-gah-NEV" the entire time

>>9411177
The nihilist was such a small part of the story. He was mostly an annoying foil meant to shock ivan's contemporaries with modern thought. The character didn't age well, but in context, he was historically important to the cohesiveness of the novel.

>>9412089
It was beautiful because it was ordinary. Soaring passages or deep insight in the psyche would be out of place.

>>9414859
I think we've all done that.

>>9414859
people like this will never make it

>>9415920
people who think in terms of "making it" and "not making it" don't make it

>>9415933
But I already made it.

>>9415935
made what?

I cried on the train reading this. Turgenev is a lot better than Chekhov I think. His stories are so sincere and "spiritual". He's also great at painting pictures of places. You really feel what he writes about.

Chekhov does love better though. Nobody has beat him when it comes to that.

"A Living Icon" has to be my favourite short story of all time.

>>9415980
I fully agree about Turgenev being a master of sculpting a scene. His simplicity is his beauty and, for me, his writing is like a good father speaking the basic truths of life to his readers in a way that is eloquent and erudite while being within the bounds of the common lexicon.

>>9415980
imho goethe does the most sentimental love. chekov is colder and too matter of fact. there are no abstracts like goethe and the particulars are mentioned too often. even gogol falls to this beginner's mistake. it's good to read it, but don't ever write like that.

>>9415906
trip-dub: i respectfully disagree. though not at all a nihilistic novel, the two 'sons' are the novel's foci. the nihilist son is the more interesting, and the novel's tragic source.

I would argue that in Fathers and Sons, both the uncle and the friend act as caricatures of Russian traditionalism and the contemporary spread of western thought, respectively. The story is not theirs, it's the father and son who are less set in their beliefs and willing to compromise that form the main cast. Their reactions to those schools of thought allow those who side with one or the other to gain understanding of the other side of the coin, so to speak. Bazarov is intentionally abrasive, just as Pavel is intentionally uptight. They are devices to play the actual humans against and watch them grow.

Neither is Paradise Lost Satan's. But. Deny B deny (tragic) consequence. He dominates the novel.