The attitude of critics to the novel “Fathers and Sons. Literary and historical notes of a young technician Critical article fathers and sons

Processes taking place in the literary environment in the 1850s.

Roman I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". Criticism of the novel.

In the first half of the 1950s, a process of consolidation of the progressive intelligentsia took place. The best people united on the main question of serfdom for the revolution. At this time, Turgenev worked a lot in the Sovremennik magazine. It is believed that under the influence of V. G. Belinsky, Turgenev made the transition from poetry to prose, from romanticism to realism. After the death of Belinsky, N. A. Nekrasov became the editor of the journal. He also attracts Turgenev to cooperate, who, in turn, attracts L. N. Tolstoy and A. N. Ostrovsky. In the second half of the 1950s, a process of differentiation and stratification took place in progressively thinking circles. Raznochintsy appear - people who do not belong to any of the classes established at that time: neither to the nobility, nor to the merchant, nor to the petty-bourgeois, nor to the guild artisans, nor to the peasantry, and also who do not have personal nobility or spiritual dignity. Turgenev did not attach much importance to the origin of the person with whom he communicated. Nekrasov attracted N. G. Chernyshevsky to Sovremennik, then N. A. Dobrolyubov. As a revolutionary situation begins to take shape in Russia, Turgenev becomes convinced that it is necessary to abolish serfdom bloodless way. Nekrasov, on the other hand, advocated a revolution. So the paths of Nekrasov and Turgenev began to diverge. Chernyshevsky at this time published a dissertation on the aesthetic relationship of art to reality, which infuriated Turgenev. The dissertation sinned with the features of vulgar materialism:

Chernyshevsky put forward in it the idea that art is only an imitation of life, only a weak copy of reality. Chernyshevsky underestimated the role of art. Turgenev did not tolerate vulgar materialism and called Chernyshevsky's work "dead". He considered such an understanding of art disgusting, vulgar and stupid, which he repeatedly expressed in his letters to L. Tolstoy, N. Nekrasov, A. Druzhinin and D. Grigorovich.

In one of his letters to Nekrasov in 1855, Turgenev wrote about such an attitude towards art as follows: “This ill-concealed hostility to art is filth everywhere - and even more so in our country. Take away this enthusiasm from us - after that, at least run away from the world.

But Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov advocated the maximum convergence of art and life, they believed that art should have an exclusively didactic character. Turgenev quarreled with Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, because he believed that they did not treat literature as the artistic world, which exists in parallel with ours, but as an auxiliary tool in the fight. Turgenev was not a supporter of "pure" art (the theory of "art for art's sake"), but he still could not agree with what Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov consider piece of art only as a critical article, not seeing anything more in it. Because of this, Dobrolyubov believed that Turgenev was not a comrade to the revolutionary-democratic wing of Sovremennik and that at the decisive moment Turgenev would retreat. In 1860, Dobrolyubov published in Sovremennik a critical analysis of Turgenev's novel "On the Eve" - ​​the article "When will the real day come?" Turgenev completely disagreed with the key points in this publication and even asked Nekrasov not to print it on the pages of the magazine. But the article was still published. After this, Turgenev finally breaks with Sovremennik.

That's why your new novel"Fathers and Sons" Turgenev publishes in the conservative magazine "Russian Messenger", which opposed the "Contemporary". The editor of Russkiy Vestnik, M. N. Katkov, wanted to use Turgenev's hands to shoot at the revolutionary-democratic wing of Sovremennik, so he readily agreed to the publication of Fathers and Sons in Russkiy Vestnik. To make the blow more tangible, Katkov releases a novel with amendments that reduce the image of Bazarov.

At the end of 1862, the novel was published as a separate book with a dedication to the memory of Belinsky.

The novel was considered by Turgenev's contemporaries to be rather polemical. Until the end of the 60s of the XIX century, there were sharp disputes around it. The novel touched too much to the core, too correlated with life itself, and author's position was quite controversial. Turgenev was very upset by this situation, he had to explain himself about his work. In 1869, he published an article “On the occasion of Fathers and Sons”, where he writes: “I noticed coldness, reaching indignation, in many people close to me and sympathetic; I received congratulations, almost kisses, from people in the opposite camp, from enemies. It embarrassed me. grieved; but my conscience did not reproach me: I knew well that I was honest, and not only without prejudice, but even with sympathy, reacted to the type I had brought out. Turgenev believed that “the whole reason for the misunderstandings” lies in the fact that “the Bazarov type did not have time to go through the gradual phases through which literary types usually go,” such as Onegin and Pechorin. The author says that “this has confused many [.] the reader is always embarrassed, he is easily seized with bewilderment, even annoyance, if the author treats the depicted character as if he were a living being, that is, he sees and exposes his good and bad sides, and most importantly , if he does not show obvious sympathy or antipathy for his own offspring.

In the end, almost everyone was dissatisfied with the novel. Sovremennik saw in him a libel on progressive society, and the conservative wing remained dissatisfied, since it seemed to them that Turgenev had not completely debunked the image of Bazarov. One of the few who liked the image of the protagonist and the novel as a whole was D. I. Pisarev, who in his article “Bazarov” (1862) spoke very well about the novel: “Turgenev is one of the best people of the past generation; to determine how he looks at us and why he looks at us this way and not otherwise, means to find the cause of the discord that is noticed everywhere in our private life. family life; that discord from which young lives often perish and from which old men and women constantly grunt and groan, not having time to process the concepts and actions of their sons and daughters for their stock. In the main character, Pisarev saw a deep personality with powerful strength and potential. About such people, he wrote: “They are aware of their dissimilarity with the masses and boldly move away from it by actions, habits, and the whole way of life. Whether society will follow them, they don't care. They are full of themselves, their inner life.

Turgenev's work "Fathers and Sons" caused a wide resonance. Many articles were written, parodies in the form of poetry and prose, epigrams and caricatures. And of course, the main object of this criticism was the image of the main character - Yevgeny Bazarov. The appearance of the novel was a significant event in the cultural life of that time. But Turgenev's contemporaries were by no means unanimous in their assessment of his work.

Relevance

Criticism of "Fathers and Sons" contained a large number of disagreements that reached the most polar judgments. And this is not surprising, because in the central characters of this work the reader can feel the breath of an entire era. The preparation of the peasant reform, the deepest social contradictions of that time, the struggle of social forces - all this was reflected in the images of the work, made up its historical background.

The debates of critics around the novel "Fathers and Sons" lasted for many years, and at the same time, the fuse did not become weaker. It became obvious that the novel retained its problematics and topicality. The work reveals one of the most important characteristic features Turgenev himself is the ability to see the trends that are emerging in society. The great Russian writer managed to capture in his work the struggle of two camps - "fathers" and "children". In fact, it was a confrontation between liberals and democrats.

Bazarov is the central character

The conciseness of Turgenev's style is also striking. After all, the writer was able to fit all this huge material into the framework of one novel. Bazarov is involved in 26 of the 28 chapters of the work. All other characters are grouped around him, revealed in relations with him, and also make the character traits of the main character even more prominent. The work does not cover the biography of Bazarov. Only one period from his life is taken, filled with turning events and moments.

Details in the work

A student who needs to prepare his own criticism of "Fathers and Sons" can note brief and accurate details in the work. They allow the writer to clearly draw the character of the characters, the events described in the novel. With the help of such strokes, Turgenev depicts the crisis of serfdom. The reader can see "villages with low huts under dark, often up to half-swept roofs." This indicates the poverty of life. Maybe the peasants have to feed the hungry cattle with straw from the roofs. "Peasant cows" are also depicted as skinny, emaciated.

In the future, Turgenev no longer paints a picture of rural life, but at the beginning of the work it is described so vividly and revealingly that it is impossible to add anything to it. The heroes of the novel are worried about the question: this region does not impress with either wealth or hard work, and it needs reforms and transformations. However, how can they be fulfilled? Kirsanov says that the government should take some measures. All the hopes of this hero are on patriarchal customs, the people's community.

A brewing riot

However, the reader feels: if the people do not trust the landowners, treat them with hostility, this will inevitably result in a revolt. And the picture of Russia on the eve of reforms is completed by the bitter remark of the author, dropped as if by accident: “Nowhere does time run as fast as in Russia; in prison, they say, it runs even faster.

And against the background of all these events, the figure of Bazarov is looming by Turgenev. He is a person of a new generation, who should replace the "fathers" who are unable to solve the difficulties and problems of the era on their own.

Interpretation and criticism of D. Pisarev

After the release of the work "Fathers and Sons", its heated discussion began in the press. It almost immediately became polemical. For example, in a magazine called " Russian word”In 1862, an article by D. Pisarev “Bazarov” appeared. The critic noted a bias in relation to the description of the image of Bazarov, said that in many cases Turgenev does not show favor to his hero, because he feels antipathy to this line of thought.

However, Pisarev's general conclusion is not limited to this problem. He finds in the image of Bazarov a combination of the main aspects of the worldview of raznochintsy democracy, which Turgenev was able to portray quite truthfully. And the critical attitude of Turgenev himself to Bazarov in this regard is rather an advantage. After all, both advantages and disadvantages become more noticeable from the outside. According to Pisarev, the tragedy of Bazarov lies in the fact that he does not have suitable conditions for his activities. And since Turgenev does not have the opportunity to show how he lives main character, he shows the reader how he perishes.

It should be noted that Pisarev rarely expressed his admiration literary works. It just can be called a nihilist - a subversive of values. However, Pisarev emphasizes the aesthetic significance of the novel, Turgenev's artistic sensitivity. At the same time, the critic is convinced that a true nihilist, like Bazarov himself, must deny the value of art as such. Pisarev's interpretation is considered one of the most complete in the 60s.

Opinion of N. N. Strakhov

"Fathers and Sons" caused a wide resonance in Russian criticism. In 1862, an interesting article by N. N. Strakhov also appeared in the Vremya magazine, which was published under the publication of F. M. and M. M. Dostoevsky. Nikolai Nikolaevich was a state adviser, publicist, philosopher, so his opinion was considered weighty. The title of Strakhov's article was “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". The critic's opinion was quite positive. Strakhov was convinced that the work was one of best novels Turgenev, in which the writer managed to show all his skill. The image of Bazarov Strakhov regards as extremely typical. What Pisarev considered to be completely accidental incomprehension (“He bluntly denies things that he does not know or does not understand”) Strakhov perceived as one of the most essential features of a true nihilist.

In general, N. N. Strakhov was pleased with the novel, wrote that the work is read with greed and is one of the most interesting creations Turgenev. This critic also noted that "pure poetry" and not extraneous reflections come to the fore in it.

Criticism of the work "Fathers and Sons": Herzen's view

In Herzen's work entitled "Once again Bazarov" the main emphasis is not on Turgenev's hero, but on how he was understood by Pisarev. Herzen wrote that Pisarev was able to recognize himself in Bazarov, and also add what was missing in the book. In addition, Herzen compares Bazarov with the Decembrists and comes to the conclusion that they are "great fathers", while the "Bazarovs" are the "prodigal children" of the Decembrists. Nihilism in his article Herzen compares with logic without structures, or with scientific knowledge without theses.

Criticism of Antonovich

Some critics about the novel "Fathers and Sons" spoke quite negatively. One of the most critical points of view was put forward by M. A. Antonovich. In his journal, he published an article entitled "Asmodeus of our time", which was devoted to the work of Turgenev. In it, Antonovich completely denied the work "Fathers and Sons" any artistic merit. He was completely dissatisfied with the work of the great Russian writer. The critic accused Turgenev of slandering the new generation. He believed that the novel was written to reproach and instruct the youth. And also Antonovich was glad that Turgenev had finally revealed his true face, showing himself as an opponent of any progress.

Opinion of N. M. Katkov

The criticism of "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev, written by N. M. Katkov, is also interesting. He published his opinion in the Russian Bulletin magazine. The literary critic noted the talent of the great Russian writer. Katkov saw one of the special merits of the work in the fact that Turgenev was able to "catch the current moment", the stage at which the writer's contemporary society was. Katkov considered nihilism a disease that should be combated by strengthening conservative principles in society.

The novel "Fathers and Sons" in Russian criticism: Dostoevsky's opinion

F. M. Dostoevsky also took a very peculiar position in relation to the main character. He considered Bazarov a "theoretician" who was too far removed from real life. And that is precisely why, Dostoevsky believed, Bazarov was unhappy. In other words, he represented a hero close to Raskolnikov. At the same time, Dostoevsky does not strive for a detailed analysis of the theory of Turgenev's hero. He correctly notes that any abstract theory must inevitably break up against the realities of life, and therefore bring a person torment and suffering. Soviet critics believed that Dostoevsky reduced the problems of the novel to a complex of ethical and psychological nature.

General impression of contemporaries

In general, criticism of Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" was largely negative character. Many writers were dissatisfied with Turgenev's work. The Sovremennik magazine considered in it a libel on modern society. Adherents of conservatism were also not sufficiently satisfied, since it seemed to them that Turgenev did not fully reveal the image of Bazarov. D. Pisarev was one of the few who liked this work. In Bazarov, he saw a powerful personality who has serious potential. The critic wrote about such people that, seeing their dissimilarity with the general mass, they boldly move away from it. And they absolutely do not care whether society agrees to follow them. They are full of themselves and their own inner life.

The criticism of Fathers and Sons is by no means exhausted by the considered responses. Almost every Russian writer left his opinion about this novel, in which - one way or another - he expressed his opinion about the problems raised in it. This is what can be called a true sign of the relevance and significance of the work.

A complete collection of materials on the topic: criticism of fathers and children from experts in their field.

Reviews of critics turned out to be the most controversial: some admired the novel, while others openly condemned it.

Criticism about the novel "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev: reviews of contemporaries

Critic M. A. Antonovich, 1862:
“... And now the desired hour has come; long and eagerly awaited ... the novel came at last ... well, of course, everyone, young and old, rushed at him with fervor, like hungry wolves on prey. And the general reading of the novel begins. From the very first pages, to the great amazement of the reader, he is seized by a kind of boredom; but, of course, you are not embarrassed by this and continue to read ... And meanwhile, and further, when the action of the novel unfolds completely before you, your curiosity does not stir, your feeling remains untouched ...

You forget that you have a romance in front of you talented artist, and imagine that you are reading a moral-philosophical treatise, but bad and superficial, which, not satisfying the mind, thereby makes an unpleasant impression on your feelings. This shows that the new work of Mr. Turgenev is extremely unsatisfactory in artistic terms ...

All the attention of the author is drawn to the main character and others. actors, - however, not on their personality, not on their spiritual movements, feelings and passions, but almost exclusively on their conversations and reasoning. That is why in the novel, with the exception of one old woman, there is not a single living face and living soul ... ”

(article "Asmodeus of our time", 1862)

Critic, publicist N. N. Strakhov (1862):
“... Bazarov turns away from nature; Turgenev does not reproach him for this, but only draws nature in all its beauty. Bazarov does not value friendship and renounces romantic love; the author does not defame him for this, but only depicts Arkady's friendship for Bazarov himself and his happy love for Katya. Bazarov denies close ties between parents and children; the author does not reproach him for this, but only unfolds before us a picture parental love. Bazarov eschews life; the author does not expose him as a villain for this, but only shows us life in all its beauty. Bazarov rejects poetry; Turgenev does not make him a fool for this, but only depicts him with all the luxury and insight of poetry ...

Gogol said about his "Inspector General" that there is one honest face in it - laughter; so exactly about “Fathers and Sons” one can say that they have a face that stands above all faces and even above Bazarov - life.

We have seen that, as a poet, Turgenev this time is irreproachable to us. His new work is a truly poetic work and, therefore, bears in itself its full justification ...

In Fathers and Sons, he showed more clearly than in all other cases that poetry, while remaining poetry ... can actively serve society ... "

(article “I. S. Turgenev, “Fathers and Sons”, 1862)

Critic and publicist V.P. Burenin (1884):

“... It can be said with certainty that from the time

"Dead Souls"

Gogol, none of the Russian novels made such an impression as "Fathers and Sons" made when they appeared. A deep mind and no less profound observation, an incomparable ability for a bold and correct analysis of life phenomena, for their broad generalization, affected the main idea of ​​​​this positively historical work.

Turgenev explained with living images of "fathers" and "children" the essence of that vital struggle between the obsolete period of the serf nobility and the new transformative period ...

... In his novel, he did not at all take the side of the "fathers", as the then progressive criticism, which was not sympathetic to him, claimed, he did not at all intend to exalt them over the "children" in order to humiliate the latter. In the same way, he had no intention of presenting in the image of a representative of children some kind of model of a “thinking realist”, which the younger generation should have worshiped and imitated, as progressive criticism imagined, sympathetically with his work ...

... In the outstanding representative of the "children", Bazarov, he recognized a certain moral strength, energy of character, which favorably distinguishes this solid type of realist from the thin, spineless and weak-willed type of the previous generation; but, recognizing the positive aspects of the young type, he could not but debunk him, could not but point out his inconsistency before life, before the people. And he did it...

... As for the significance of this novel in native literature, its rightful place is among such creations as Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin", " Dead Souls Gogol, Lermontov's "Hero of Our Time" and Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace"…”

(V.P. Burenin, “ Literary activity Turgenev". SPb. 1884)

Critic D. I. Pisarev (1864):

“... This novel, obviously, is a question and a challenge addressed to the younger generation by the older part of society. One of the best people of the older generation, Turgenev, an honest writer who wrote and published The Hunter's Notes long before the abolition of serfdom, Turgenev, I say, addresses the younger generation and loudly asks him the question: “What kind of people are you? I don't understand you, I can't and can't sympathize with you. Here's what I've noticed. Explain this phenomenon to me." This is the true meaning of the novel. This frank and honest question came at the right time. It was offered together with Turgenev by the entire older half of reading Russia. This challenge to an explanation could not be rejected. Literature needed to answer it…”

(D, I. Pisarev, article "Realists", 1864)

M. N. Katkov, publicist, publisher and critic (1862):

“...everything in this work testifies to the ripened power of this first-class talent; clarity of ideas, skill in delineating types, simplicity in conception and course of action, restraint and evenness in execution, drama that arises naturally from the most ordinary situations, nothing superfluous, nothing holding back, nothing extraneous. But besides these general merits, Mr. Turgenev's novel is also of such interest that it captures the current moment, captures the escaping phenomenon, typically depicts and imprints forever the fleeting phase of our life ... ”

(M. N. Katkov, “Turgenev’s novel and his critics”, 1862)

Review in Library for Reading (1862):

"…G. Turgenev condemned the emancipation of women, which was taking place under the leadership of the Sitnikovs and manifested in the ability to fold rolled cigarettes, in the merciless smoking of tobacco, in drinking champagne, in singing gypsy songs, in a drunken state and in the presence of young people hardly known, in careless handling of magazines, in senseless interpretations about Proudhon, about Macaulay, with obvious ignorance and even aversion to any practical reading, which is proved by uncut magazines lying on the tables or constantly cut up on nothing but scandalous feuilletons - these are the accusatory points on which Mr. Turgenev condemned the method of development in our country women's issue…”
(Magazine "Library for Reading", 1862)

The article by N. N. Strakhov is devoted to the novel by I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". The issue of critical material concerns:

• the meaning of the literary-critical activity itself (the author does not seek to instruct the reader, but thinks that the reader himself wants this);
• the style in which literary criticism should be written (it should not be too dry and attract the attention of a person);
• discord between the creative personality and the expectations of others (as, according to Strakhov, it was with Pushkin);
• the role of a particular work ("Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev) in Russian literature.

The first thing the critic notes is that "a lesson and teaching" was also expected from Turgenev. He raises the question of whether the novel is progressive or retrograde.

He notes that card games, casual clothing style and Bazarov's love for champagne are some kind of challenge to society, a cause of bewilderment among the readership. Strakhov also noted that there are different views on the work itself. Moreover, people argue about who the author himself sympathizes with - "fathers" or "children", whether Bazarov himself is guilty of his troubles.

Of course, one cannot but agree with the critic that this novel is a special event in the development of Russian literature. Moreover, the article says that the work may have a mysterious goal and it has been achieved. It turns out that the article does not claim to be 100% true, but tries to understand the features of "Fathers and Sons".

The main characters of the novel are Arkady Kirsanov and Yevgeny Bazarov, young friends. Bazarov has parents, Kirsanov has a father and a young illegal stepmother, Fenechka. Also in the course of the novel, friends get acquainted with the Loktev sisters - Anna, in the marriage of Odintsova, at the time of the unfolding events - a widow, and young Katya. Bazarov falls in love with Anna, and Kirsanov falls in love with Katya. Unfortunately, at the end of the work, Bazarov dies.

However, for the public and literary criticism The question is open - do people similar to Bazarov exist in reality? According to I. S. Turgenev, this is a very real type, although rare. But for Strakhov, Bazarov is still the product of the author's imagination. And if for Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" is a reflection, his own vision of Russian reality, then for a critic, the author of the article, the writer himself follows "the movement of Russian thought and Russian life." He notes the realism and vitality of Turgenev's book.

An important point is the critic's comments regarding the image of Bazarov.

The fact is that Strakhov noticed an important point: Bazarov is given the features of different people, so each real person something like him, according to Strakhov.

The article notes the sensitivity and understanding of the writer of his era, a deep love for life and the people around him. Moreover, the critic defends the writer from accusations of fiction and distortion of reality.

Most likely, the purpose of Turgenev's novel was, in general and as a whole, to highlight the conflict of generations, to show the tragedy human life. That is why Bazarov became a collective image, was not written off from a specific person.

According to the critic, many people unfairly consider Bazarov as the head of the youth circle, but this position is also erroneous.

Strakhov also believes that poetry should be appreciated in "fathers and children", without paying too much attention to "back thoughts". In fact, the novel was created not for teaching, but for enjoyment, the critic believes. However, I. S. Turgenev nevertheless described the tragic death of his hero not without reason - apparently, there was still an instructive moment in the novel. Yevgeny had old parents who yearned for their son - maybe the writer wanted to remind you that you need to appreciate your loved ones - both parents of children and children - parents? This novel could be an attempt not only to describe, but also to soften or even overcome the eternal and contemporary conflict of generations.

Article by D.I. Pisarev's "Bazarov" was written in 1862 - just three years after the events described in the novel. From the very first lines, the critic expresses admiration for Turgenev’s gift, noting the impeccable “artistic finish” inherent in him, the soft and visual depiction of paintings and heroes, the closeness of the phenomena of modern reality, making him one of the best people of his generation. According to Pisarev, the novel stirs the mind due to its amazing sincerity, feeling, and immediacy of feelings.

The central figure of the novel - Bazarov - is the focus of the properties of today's young people. The hardships of life hardened him, making him strong and whole in nature, a true empiricist, trusting only personal experience and sensations. Of course, he is prudent, but just as sincere. Any deeds of such natures - bad and glorious - stem only from this sincerity. At the same time, the young doctor is satanically proud, which means not self-admiration, but “fullness of oneself”, i.e. neglect of petty fuss, the opinions of others and other "regulators". "Bazarovshchina", i.e. the denial of everything and everything, the life of one's own desires and needs, is the true cholera of the time, which, however, must be overcome. Our hero is struck by this disease for a reason - mentally, he is significantly ahead of the others, which means that he influences them in one way or another. Someone admires Bazarov, someone hates him, but it is impossible not to notice him.

The cynicism inherent in Eugene is dual: it is both external swagger and internal rudeness, stemming both from the environment and from the natural properties of nature. Growing up in a simple environment, having experienced hunger and need, he naturally threw off the husk of "nonsense" - daydreaming, sentimentality, tearfulness, pomp. Turgenev, according to Pisarev, does not favor Bazarov at all. A refined and refined person, he is offended by any glimpses of cynicism ... however, he makes a true cynic the main character of the work.

The need to compare Bazarov with his literary predecessors: Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin and others. Traditionally, such individuals have always been dissatisfied existing order, stood out from the crowd - and therefore so attractive (how dramatic). The critic notes that in Russia any thinking person is "a little Onegin, a little Pechorin." The Rudins and Beltovs, unlike the heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov, are eager to be useful, but do not find application for knowledge, strength, intelligence, and the best aspirations. All of them have outlived themselves without ceasing to live. At that moment, Bazarov appeared - not yet a new, but no longer an old-time nature. Thus, the critic concludes, "The Pechorins have a will without knowledge, the Rudins have knowledge without a will, the Bazarovs have both knowledge and will."

Other characters of "Fathers and Sons" are depicted very clearly and aptly: Arkady is weak, dreamy, in need of guardianship, superficially carried away; his father is soft and sensitive; uncle - "secular lion", "mini-Pechorin", and possibly "mini-Bazarov" (corrected for his generation). He is smart and has a will, appreciates his comfort and "principles", and therefore Bazarov is especially antipathetic to him. The author himself does not feel sympathy for him - however, as well as for all his other characters - he is not "satisfied with either fathers or children." He only notes their funny features and mistakes, without idealizing the heroes. This, according to Pisarev, is the depth of the writer's experience. He himself would not be Bazarov, but he understood this type, felt him, did not deny him "charming strength" and brought him tribute.

Bazarov's personality is closed in itself. Having not met an equal person, he does not feel the need for it, even with his parents he is bored and hard. What can we say about all kinds of "bastards" like Sitnikov and Kukshina! .. Nevertheless, Odintsova manages to produce on young man impression: she is equal to him, beautiful in appearance and developed mentally. Carried away by the shell and enjoying communication, he can no longer refuse it. The explanation scene put an end to the relationship that never began, but Bazarov, oddly enough, in his character, is bitter.

Arkady, meanwhile, falls into love networks and, despite the hasty marriage, is happy. Bazarov is destined to remain a wanderer - homeless and unkind. The reason for this is only in his character: he is not inclined to restrictions, does not want to obey, does not give guarantees, craves voluntary and exclusive location. Meanwhile, he can only fall in love with a smart woman, and she will not agree to such a relationship. Mutual feelings, therefore, are simply impossible for Evgeny Vasilyich.

Further, Pisarev considers aspects of Bazarov's relations with other heroes, primarily the people. The heart of the peasants "lies" to him, but the hero is still perceived as a stranger, a "clown" who does not know their true troubles and aspirations.

The novel ends with the death of Bazarov - as unexpected as it is natural. Alas, it would be possible to judge what future would await the hero only when his generation reaches a mature age, to which Eugene was not destined to live. Nevertheless, great figures (under certain conditions) grow out of such personalities - energetic, strong-willed, people of life and business. Alas, Turgenev does not have the opportunity to show how Bazarov lives. But it shows how he dies - and that's enough.

The critic believes that dying like Bazarov is already a feat, and this is true. The description of the death of the hero becomes the best episode of the novel and perhaps the best moment of the entire work of the brilliant author. Dying, Bazarov is not sad, but despises himself, powerless in the face of chance, remaining a nihilist to the last breath and - at the same time - keeping a bright feeling for Odintsova.

(AnnaOdintsova)

In conclusion, D.I. Pisarev notes that Turgenev, starting to create the image of Bazarov, wanted, drawn by an unkind feeling, to “smash him to dust”, he himself gave him due respect, saying that the “children” are on the wrong path, while at the same time placing hope and hope on the new generation. believing in him. The author loves his characters, is carried away by them and gives Bazarov the opportunity to experience a feeling of love - passionate and young, begins to sympathize with his creation, for which neither happiness nor activity is possible.

There is no need for Bazarov to live - well, let's look at his death, which is the whole essence, the whole meaning of the novel. What did Turgenev want to say with this untimely but expected death? Yes, the current generation is mistaken, carried away, but it has the strength and intelligence that will lead them to the right path. And only for this idea can the author be grateful as "a great artist and an honest citizen of Russia."

Pisarev admits: Bazarov is bad in the world, there is no activity, no love for them, and therefore life is boring and meaningless. What to do - whether to be content with such an existence or to die "beautifully" - is up to you.