The Obscure Reading Group discussion
Home of the Gentry
>
Home of the Gentry -- Discussion Thread
I really enjoyed this book. I felt so sorry for poor Lavretsky; both of his great loves end in loss. Personally, I found Liza’s piety uninteresting, but after the duplicitousness and immorality of Varvara, I can understand why it might be attractive to Lavretsky–she’s the antithesis of his shallow, pleasure-loving wife. I’m a little less clear on her attraction to him, other than again, he is the antithesis of the shallow, vain fop that her mother wants her to marry. I alternately felt respect and exasperation for Lavretsky’s refusal to name Varvara’s crimes. I respected his adherence to his principles but REALLY wanted her outed, especially after she waltzes in and starts charming the pants off the more foolish characters. The reaction to Varvara’s appearance clearly delineates the more complex characters from the foolish. I loved the way Turgenev has her slide in (a la the Serpent in the Garden of Eden) to destroy Lavretsky’s happiness. She is silken malevolence; her every word and action is calculated and insincere.
The scene with Marya’s “intervention” with Lavretsky, advocating for his reconciliation with Varvara, is so funny! It makes me wonder if Jerry Springer has read this book; I can definitely see overtones of those talk shows in the book. And Marya’s determination to stick to her script, despite what is actually happening, is hilarious. She is committed to her role as relationship mediator and unwilling to have her dramatic moment stolen from her. I loved it when Lavretsky basically tells her to stick a sock in it!
The ending is sad but authentic. As others have noted, Liza’s decision to take the veil is both courageous and heartbreaking, as it definitively ends any hope Lavretsky has of ever being with her. Lavretsky, as always, accepts the hand that Fate has dealt him and continues on his stoic path, although we see that his heart remains true to Liza. His journey to the convent to catch a glimpse of her, and her muted response to his presence, is poignant and leaves me wondering: is such devotion to an unobtainable person a tribute to the endurance of love, or an indictment of it?
What if Turgenev wanted Liza and Varvara to intentionally be traditional and progressive? Too much good and too much evil . There was no balance . Maybe Home of the Gentry was a social experiment that Turgenev cloaked in a novel. Lavretsky is Russia caught between two worlds. Traditional and progressive, in the end Russia went with the same old same old for a few years more.
Ken wrote: "On a more serious note, I think mention of Rousseau speaks to the European influence Turgenev felt upon leaving Russia..."Ken, I think the French influence on Turgenev's story is very interesting. From Rousseau's influence on Fedor Ivanitch's education (gawd how stupid and inane THAT was), to Voltaire and the Candidean expression "il faut cultiver notre jardin" (Lavretsky's "mission" on his return to Russian as his response to Panshin when they argued about he he came back). Turgenev, like the other Golden Age Russian writers appeals to Europe in most things. While they (the Russian writers) might insist that Russian nature is truer and purer, Turgenev, as expressed in the story, sure drank the Kool-Aid with Rousseau's belief that women don't need any education beyond knowing how to care for children and/or men.
I can’t see Varvara as a symbol of progressive but rather of promiscuous. She made a point of being true to no one but herself. Possibly to her daughter. She had multiple affairs which would be why Lavretsky really didn’t know what had happened to her and could believe that newspaper article. Varvara may indeed be a more “modern” woman, an example of what a woman with money and no concerns about reputation can do or get away with. But I doubt all doors were open to her.
Sue wrote: "I can’t see Varvara as a symbol of progressive but rather of promiscuous. She made a point of being true to no one but herself. Possibly to her daughter. She had multiple affairs which would be why..."Yeah, when I said Varvara was rebellious earlier, I didn't mean that in any sort of respectable way. She is totally self-centered, extremely manipulative, and utterly dishonest. To me the contrast between Liza and her is very much one of the extremes of what a woman with a strong will could do/achieve, and an illustration of what the limits were for both. For, as some have said, Liza certainly has a strong will too, particularly when it came to her religious beliefs. Varavara appears to have risen to the station of "gentry" and the "home" that she settles in and is comfortable with is a much different one than that of either Liza or any of the other women.
I'm curious what others think Turgenev was trying to say about "home" when describing the situations and lifestyles of his "gentry" characters (as opposed to the servant-class ones).
Mod
I love your phrase silken malevolence, Cindy! I felt she was a very well-written character, and Turgenev didn't budge from her insincerity.
So I can't see Varvara as progressive either. But, to a mind that is strictly traditional, the progressive characters Varvara and Panshin both being incredibly selfish is making its point I suppose.
Was it pretty rare for women to be depicted as so sensual? Flaubert’s Bovary was published only three years earlier, and she was a bolt of lightening to society’s sensibilities, wasn’t she? Flaubert had to legally defend his morals against her, that he wasn’t setting her up as a heroine. Varvara lives and keeps enjoying herself. Good for her, I say. Down with the patriarchy, lol. Poor Lisa, wasn’t she like 17 and decided her life was over because of two “old” men?
Mod
Thanks for that research, Cindy. I think it's interesting that Turgenev doesn't even address divorce (unless I missed it), perhaps assuming that his readers, both in Russia (Russian Orthodox Church) and Europe (Roman Catholic Church) would understand it as a non-option.
But hey, was not Henry VIII a superfluous man, too? He got it done.
Speaking of The Diary of a Superfluous Man and Other Stories, I'm not sure Lavretsky is a neat fit, at least compared to, say, Pechorin, in Lermontov's wonderful book A Hero of Our Time.
Devil may care, reckless, drinking, gambling, lazing about, getting into duels when NOT lazing about, Levretsky doesn't exactly check all those boxes.
But he is very much, to address Sara's question about Turgenev and his views on the gentry, a lost soul with lots of time and money on his hands. In that sense, there's a bit of Oblomov's wu wei in play (that being the ancient Chinese concept of "inaction" or "inexertion" -- the gentle art of working hard at getting nothing done -- perfect fodder for monkey minds and romance).
Mod
Ken, I think the French influence on Turgenev's story is very..."
Cherisa -- Yes, the French influence is BIG with Turgenev, but Tolstoy as well. Think of all that French in War & Peace. The noble class in Russia was a Francophile one, and knowing the French language was de rigueur (see?).
A couple times in HOTG, I saw the noun form of a Voltaire follower. Voltairean, was it? Don't see that one very often, at least not anymore. Voltaire and Rousseau were oil and water.
And speaking of arguments, we have to get to the big argument Lavretsky has with his old friend Mikhalevich in Chapter XXV. It's too late (for me, anyway) to jump in that pool today, though.
Plateresca wrote: "Speaking of secondary characters... I've found Lemm's story the saddest part of the book. What happened to that beautiful piece of music he wrote, do you think he destroyed it (or just never wrote ..."Plateresca, I loved Lemm, and, yes, his story was heartbreaking, much sadder to me than Lisa's even. I was hoping that he would become a permanent member of Lavretsky's household, appreciated for his quiet artistry and integrity, but alas.
Ken wrote: "Cindy wrote: "Ken wrote: "I agree with Kathleen that Lavretsky scores points for his empathy, something many other characters lacked. Lemm is a perfect example -- and yes, Plateresca, what a well-d..."I think we have two Cindy's on the discussion board. I didn't care for Lavretsky. While he showed some kindness toward his servants and Lemm, he wasn't much of a protagonist. What kind of empathetic man hates his wife so much that he shuts out his own daugher as though she does not exist?
Cindy wrote: "Ken wrote: "Cindy wrote: "Ken wrote: "I agree with Kathleen that Lavretsky scores points for his empathy, something many other characters lacked. Lemm is a perfect example -- and yes, Plateresca, w..."Maybe she wasn’t his daughter.
Mod
Sorry about that. The above reference to divorce was what I wanted to address. That was your note.
Mod
This is a distinct possibility. Can we assume the censors would prevent Turgenev from even making such a suggestion at the time of this novel's publication?
Also, wasn't there a reference to the child looking like Lavretsky in some respect? Maybe I'm imagining. It would have been made by another character, but if the character is Varvara herself, you've got the most unreliable of unreliable narrators (or speakers, in this case).
I wondered about that too, but not enough to search through the book for descriptions of the child. How could Lavretsky possibly trust that the child was his. I recall trying to do the math while reading and finding there wasn’t enough information.
Carol wrote: "Cindy wrote: "Ken wrote: "Cindy wrote: "Ken wrote: "I agree with Kathleen that Lavretsky scores points for his empathy, something many other characters lacked. Lemm is a perfect example -- and yes,..."Good point, Carol. There was a section where Marya states, "She's so like you, Fedor Ivanitch, it's amazing. The eyes, the forehead--well, it's you over again, precisely, you."
I took this to mean that the girl resembled Fedor more than Varvara. On the other hand, how reliable is Marya? Perhaps she exaggerated the resemblance to create more drama.
Regardless, the girl is not to blame for her mother's behavior. Fedor simply ignores the girl who calls him, "Papa," as if she were nothing to him.
Maybe it was common for fathers to ignore their daughters? Maybe they ignored their sons, too?
Marya isn't exactly the most attentive mother. She readily admits this as if it were a positive thing. If her children had been a deck of cards, they would have certainly gotten more attention.
Ken wrote: "Carol wrote: "Maybe she wasn’t his daughter..."Also, wasn't there a reference to the child looking like Lavretsky in some respect? ..."
When Marya Dmitrievna attempts a reconciliation, (before she reveals that Varvara is hiding behind the screen), she goes on and on about the likeness between the child and Lavretsky. The problem is her credibility - is she making a fuss to try and gaslight him, either intentionally or because she simply wants to believe it? She has made up her mind she likes Varvara best and takes her side for paternity. There's no knowing, but my feeling all along was the child's paternity was always questionable and maybe even Varvara isn't certain.
The character I'd like to focus on is Glafira Petrovna, that maiden aunt so deeply maligned. The way she's treated reflects on Russian society and its disabuse of women in a way differently than young or beautiful women were. Turgenev makes us dislike her immediately, introducing her with this description: "This Glafira was a strange creature, ugly, crooked, with severe wide-open eyes, compressed lips..."From the beginning to the end of her life, she was ill-treated. She wasn't pretty and of course she wasn't a boy, so her parents didn't care for her much. She was 12 years older than Ivan, Fedor's father. Her education is nil, but he gets sent to Princess Kubensky and educated according to some actual plan. In spite of this, she became the de facto manager of her father, Piotr's, properties. When Ivan dumps his wife and Piotr takes in Melanya and the baby Fedor, he assigns 2 maids and a page for their use without consulting Glafira. I could see how she'd get her hackles up and hold it against Melanya. After the young wife dies, Glafira is left in charge of Fedor, along with running the properties, and all, as ever, thanklessly.
Ivan strolls back eventually and decides that being a gentleman farmer is his calling. He announces his intention to radically change how Glafira been running the place all this years. No "thank yous" or "what do you thinks" to his sister. All Turgenev tells us is that Glafira "could only grind her teeth." Regardless, dilettante that Ivan is, her management comes back into force and so the family's livelihood is assured. The servants go back to calling her "old witch" behind her back, but things keep humming along.
At the end of his life, Piotr is completely dependent on Glafira and yet still did not appreciate her - everything passed to Ivan upon his death. What did Ivan do when he came into his inheritance? He left, with Glafira left to manage it all.
Okay, next generation. Ivan dies and Fedor comes into the inheritance. How does he thank his aunt? Without so much as a discussion, he puts Varvara's father in charge (some manipulation by Varvara brought this about).
Glafira gives up at this point and removes herself to the property she inherited from some other relative (not her father). She was the rock that kept the family running for two generations. It was her strength and discipline and fortitude that kept things going. She didn't give a lot of love or warmth, but then she never got any either.
We learn late in the story from the servant Anton that she had a suitor when she was young. Upon learning he was interested in her wealth, she got angry and kicked him out. I think this shows character. Unlike Lisa who ran away to a nunnery when her love stories didnt work out, Glafira kept her nose to the grindstone and kept to her duty. It's also Anton who gets angry that she was ever called a witch. (He's another good secondary character, like Lemm.)
It's Marfa Timofyevna who gave testimony to Fedor that most fairly sums up Glafira and her true value. The old lady gives Fedor a rouble to have a prayer or mass said for his aunt. "I had no love for her in her lifetime, but all the same there's no denying she was a girl of character. She was a clever creature; and a good friend to you."
This appears to be the most appreciation Glafira ever got in her long life of hard work, constancy, and devotion to duty and family, and she didn't even get to hear it. A man running the estates and managing so much for so many years would have gotten much more respect and appreciation, But as it was, Glafira was written off as an unlovable, unlikeable "creature". Did the author dislike her as much as the other characters? Was it a reflection of him or the society she was in?
Her story is the saddest of all.
Mod
Mod
That's an interesting take on Glafira, Cherisa. She was terribly misused. I didn't like her, but certainly not for the description given to her. I didn't like her because Marfa didn't like her, and I'd already decided I liked Marfa (who as you say did stick up for Glafira in the end). And I did feel sorry for Malanya, who didn't stand a chance in Glafira's home.
But Glafira and Varvara were fighters. Malanya was not. What about Liza? Was going to the convent giving in, or was she a fighter too in her own way?
Liza was obedient to her God. If love was denied, she didn’t want another. Didn’t she say it was penitence for loving a married man. Guess she thought there was no spiritual forgiveness . Which to me seems a bit overboard.
Ken wrote: "That's quite a tribute to Glafira, Cherisa. It's the final narrative of her last days at the estate that I remember best. With all this fodder to sing her praises, can we not credit Turgenev for readers showing sympathy toward her?..."Yes Ken, you're right, though my first read was that Turgenev was "anti-Glafira", he did in fact sprinkle in good things to say about her throughout, it just seems harder to find.
The women overall make for an interesting set to consider, probably better portraits among them than the men who, perhaps except for Lemm, seem all of a type (entitled/ privileged/ ineffective if not superfluous).
Cherisa wrote: "The women overall make for an interesting set to consider, probably better portraits among them than the men who, perhaps except for Lemm, seem all of a type (entitled/ privileged/ ineffective if not superfluous)."So true! And thank you for bringing up Glafira ~ I had forgotten her. She definitely adds yet another perspective to the variety of women.
Hi all,I have quite a load at home these days — caregiving for an 89 year old husband who was recently in the hospital for nearly a week, via the ER. Little time for reading other than at bedtime, and then I’m so exhausted that it’s only a few pages before I’m asleep. But am nearly done with our book and am enjoying lurking in your comments.
One thing I wanted to name that I don’t think anyone has touched on is the dramatic touches dropped here and there in the narrative. Mannerisms and facial expressions described in delightful detail, easy to envision, eg pursed lips, winking, Gedeonovsky’s rubbing his fingertips together…. Almost makes me wonder if anyone has ever tried writing it as a play for staging.
I also love the pastoral scenes. Might be fun to envision and paint one.
Of the characters, so far the one I really wish were drawn more fully is Lemm, the piano teacher. I too like Marfa and felt sorry for Glafira’s lot in life.
Mod
I have quite a load at home these days — caregiving for an 89 year old husband who was recently in the hospital for nearly a week, via the ER. Little time for reading other than at bedtime,..."
Sorry to hear what you're going through, Yvonne, and hope things ease up for you soon.
Great point about the dramatic touches. I think his ability to convey so much this way allowed Turgenev to cram a lot of characterization, over multiple lifetimes, in such a short novel.
What a lovely idea to paint some of these scenes. I can see getting lost in that. I wouldn't mind writing a new story too, expanding on the life of Lemm. :-)
Take care, Yvonne, and thanks for sharing your great ideas. I agree that this novel does present much like a play at times. Quite theatrical. I’m reminded of the scene when the priest was coming for the blessing…the description of the altar set up. And the descriptions of the old home when Lavretsky first returned. And definitely, people’s faces.
Carol wrote: "What if Turgenev wanted Liza and Varvara to intentionally be traditional and progressive? Too much good and too much evil . There was no balance . Maybe Home of the Gentry was a social experiment t..."What's interesting is that Varvara is the only "primary character" woman to get what she wants. Glafira worked like a dog running the family's estates, raising boys (brother and nephew), feeding old fathers, and didn't even get thank yous. Liza was sweet and passive and obedient for the most part and settled for the narrow cloistered existence of a nun because neither man she had feelings for lived up to her hopes. Varvara took what she could get and got a good long run of pleasure without really hurting anyone except maybe Fedor's feelings. I don't think it makes her "evil", just selfish, and not any more than Ivan and Fedor mooching off Glafira's labor their whole lives.
Cherisa wrote: "Carol wrote: "What if Turgenev wanted Liza and Varvara to intentionally be traditional and progressive? Too much good and too much evil . There was no balance . Maybe Home of the Gentry was a socia..."Cherisa, I was reading a brief bio on Turgenev. I wondered about the possibility of the opera singer, Pauline Viardot, as being the model for Varvara. Turgenev had a child with one of his servants and named her Paulinette, which seems to be a variant of Pauline, the singer with whom he had a lifelong affair. Turgenev gives Paulinette to Pauline to raise which I found similar to how Fedor lets Varvara raise their daughter without being involved beyond a monetary obligation. Not sure if Turgenev was close to his daughter or not. Anyway fiction is often drawn from one's own real-life experiences.
Cherisa wrote: "The character I'd like to focus on is Glafira Petrovna"Excellent point, Cherisa! I agree that Glafira is a very interesting character.
We are told that little Fedya was afraid of her, she told him to sit still and he was only allowed to play on Sundays (with the weird book).
And here's a quote from the description of the book here on GR:
'Lavretsky is brought up at his family's country estate home by a severe maiden aunt, often thought to be based on Turgenev's own mother who was known for her cruelty.'
This is why she is cast as a negative character, I think: she is supposedly too strict with her little nephew (although we are not shown many examples of this).
But she is indeed witchy, have you noticed that she effectively cursed Lavretsky? I loved this touch.
As for divorce, remember that Anna Karenina really thought she would get one at some point, but then her husband balked? So I think it was very difficult, but theoretically possible, but not really accepted by very religious people.
Kathleen wrote: "But Glafira and Varvara were fighters. Malanya was not. What about Liza? Was going to the convent giving in, or was she a fighter too in her own way?"It was very brave of her, of course. Remember how Marfa tried to talk her out of it; her mother would have hated this, so of course it took courage and determination just to defend this decision.
Speaking of this... Marfa told Liza she didn't know the horrors of monastery life. I wonder if Liza really understood them and thought she was strong enough for this, or if Marta was right and she was being overly romantic.
Carol wrote: "Liza was obedient to her God. If love was denied, she didn’t want another. Didn’t she say it was penitence for loving a married man. Guess she thought there was no spiritual forgiveness."She also assumed her father had got his wealth in a sinful way, so her becoming a nun was partly to atone for this. I think it really is a kind of religious fanaticism, something very compatible with a young person's maximalism.
Kathleen wrote: "Great point about the dramatic touches. I think his ability to convey so much this way allowed Turgenev to cram a lot of characterization, over multiple lifetimes, in such a short novel.Exactly! Which, for me, makes him more accessible than Tolstoy :)
Hello! I hope I am not too late ... I have finally finished HotG after a long stretch of time. I have been following the comments from the outside, a bit like Lavretsky looking in at the windows ... at only 200 pages, Turgenev packs a lot in. The middle section, say between pages 50-150 seemed slow going, but it picked up for me in the final 50 or so pages. I don’t think this is one of my favourite Turgenevs (that is A Sportman’s Notebook), but I think it has some lovely moments. As Matthew has pointed out, there are moments of beauty and sublimity. For me, Turgenev’s pastoral scenes are his strength, descriptions of Russia in the mid nineteenth century. Yvonne makes this point and I wholeheartedly agree. What is it about pastoral scenes that are so nice to read? As has been mentioned in previous comments, I’m also reminded of Anna Karenina throughout HotG. Not just Tolstoy’s pastoral scenes, but of course, the relationship of the protagonists. The strong character of Varvara (think Anna) and the distant Lavretsky (think Karenin). Into this comes Liza, who I thought was a strong willed character, perhaps the strongest (if there were a competition for this).
I think one of the main themes I may have picked up on concerns happiness and the elusiveness of finding permanent happiness in our lifetimes. The three main characters are each searching for happiness in their individual ways. Liza makes the point that our happiness depends not on us, but on God. Lavretsky wants to find a second relationship in Liza to fulfill his happiness. Varvara continues her lifestyle of going in and out of relationships. I don’t think any really find happiness ... but keep on trying anyway. Marfa gives the analogy of a fly in a spiders clutches ... neither Liza or Lavretsky get caught in the web, even though they both love each other. It’s complicated ... and happiness doesn’t come to anyone.
And some observations on characters ...Lavretsky: I couldn’t warm to him. What is it about a Russian aristocrat with lots of roubles and too much time on his hands? Ken’s reference to the “superfluous man” is exact. These men seem to want to work but are under no pressure to do so. Reading, touring the estate, chatting and socialising are all in a days work. Turgenev gives us some detail on Lavretskys upbringing, which was disturbing and a poor preparation for Russian upper class life ... or life at all, really.
Varvara: Varvara seems the most “modern”. She is smart, erudite, educated, an accomplished pianist and singer. She is talented and not suited to Lavretsky. Her reconciliation with Lavretsky is insincere.
Liza: Liza’s great influence is Agafya. Her behaviour and religious calling are due to her example. As Carol points out, as loving a married man was regarded as sinful, she is driven to penance (even though the man is separated from the wife and does not wish to be reconciled ... which may not have mattered in the nineteenth century Orthodox Russian Church).
Turgenev’s portraits of the minor characters are some of his most interesting and sometimes touching. These include Lemm, Panshin, Korobyn, Glafira, Agafya etc. These background portraits allow Turgenev to digress and go off tangent to include details unrelated to plot.
What I like about Russian literature, in novels like HotG, is the way authors can illuminate nineteenth century Russia in a way that history cannot. They are like eyewitness accounts, although fictional.
Mod
Then there's the simplicity thing. Ask Thoreau. Or shave with Occam's razor if you want. Simplicity is an appealing and affordable balm and if men can reach for it first and foremost, they will.
Finally there is the restorative aspect of nature. We don't need psychologists to tell us that we feel better is we take a long walk in the woods or along the shore, or that we renew our spirits when we unplug, stop following world news, and spend a few weeks in parts more remote.
If there is a heaven, it's here, right under our noses, ours to enjoy -- believer or atheist -- in this short microsecond of time we have between the two eternities that engulf our lifespan.
Which is why the character of Liza doesn't much speak to me. She seems invested in the long shot bet of an afterlife. I could say she gave up happiness here, but who am I to say? As was pointed out in this discussion, Liza's decision is a willful ACT and Turgenev leaves evidence that she may (or may not) be happy with her decision. Based on the reunion with Lavretsky at the convent, my impression was... mutual unhappiness.
There's that theme again, right, Nick?
It would be interesting (though probably too troublesome technically) to make a poll to know whether the majority of the readers in this group live in the city or in the country, whether their likes or dislikes for pastoral scenes are related to where they live and in what way, if yes, and also whether the appreciation of nature and the country depends on age. I suspect that very young people are less interested in descriptions of the beauty of nature, but then as one I personally love nature, I live in the country (sort of) and I very much enjoy pastoral scenes. But also I appreciate it when the atmosphere in a book is well-drawn, so I'm now reading a book about a city and there's poetry in the way the streets are described there, too. With Turgenev's book, I wouldn't say I was enchanted by the scenes themselves, - but I liked it that I was absorbed by them, I felt like I was there in the gloomy rooms of the old house or out fishing... Yet I appreciated that the descriptions themselves were concise. When I was reading Tolstoy, I had a feeling he was describing virtually everything that could get into a character's view, like somebody goes out of the door and the door is described, the path is described, the grass is described, and thus in every minor scene. Here everything was, for me, not less vivid, but much less wordy. This is not to say that I dislike long texts, but sometimes less is more.
Yes, Ken, your comments resonate and nicely said. I agree there is an “Edenic” quality to pastoral, going back to Virgil and beyond to Genesis. In this tradition, the countryside is often seen positively: heavenly, pure, innocent, providing, renewal, all the good things. I think Turgenev continues this tradition at times in HotG. The city, on the other hand, is where characters escape to in order to hide. For example, Varvara disappears to Paris where she lives with Panshin after her “reconciliation” with Lavretsky. Happiness in the city? No way!
By the way, I've just checked and 'The Home of the Gentry' was written earlier than 'Anna Karenina', so Lavretsky came before Levin (the publication dates are 1859 and 1875—1877, respectively).But maybe this gentleman farmer type was just what everybody aspired to be :)
Hi Plateresca, I think your poll would be interesting. I have lived half my life in the city and half my life in the country. I like both the city and the country, and seem to like reading pastoral descriptions when I come across them, maybe more so than when I was younger and a city dweller. More action in the city for the young; mostly quiet in the country for the maturing. (Well, not always, but usually.) I agree that Turgenev is not as wordy as some of his contemporaries.
He is more direct and gives enough detail without becoming verbose. He can write a very long paragraph when he wants to, though!
Ah, that’s interesting, Plateresca. Now, why did I think HotG was written after AK? Maybe because I read AK years ago? So, Tolstoy would have read HotG prior to writing AK. I’m sure the gentleman farmer/squire/lord was a type in not just Russian literature. (It looks like our dogs are talking to each other!)
Off: Haha, Eric would love it that you've noticed, he's a bit prone to attention seeking :)
Well, the country has its share of tragedies (at least, in literature), but there was a tradition (international, I think) of viewing the city as evil and the country as 'true'. Which literary gentlemen-farmers come to mind, them? :)
It’s a good question, and you have me on the spot! I’d have to think ... I’m reading Willa Cather now (farmers there); also I remember Earth by Zola (farmers there, too). But I know there’s a lot more...
I think that’s interesting too. I live in the suburbs, so betwixt and between. I do enjoy the pastoral descriptions but I also enjoy well done descriptions of city life. Both can be done so that the language is poetic but often the city is described in more utilitarian ways which don’t grab me. In this book, the city seems to be the center of unfaithfulness and negation where the country, or at least the towns was the place for (hoped for) rebirth, love, and the full country was true rebirth.
Mod
I also agree that the portrayal of the country as simplistic and pure versus the city as corrupt is a common trope. As Ken said, living a life more closely attuned to nature is seen as an attempt at spiritual reconnection and cleansing, becoming more aligned with the forces of nature. The city, with its teeming hordes and availability of vices, represents cynicism and hedonism. Interestingly enough for your poll, Plateresca, my husband and I live in the Houston metro area (very urban) and my son, moved to Flagstaff, Arizona on his 18th birthday to live an outdoor life. He now lives in Oregon and hikes, camps, and skis to his heart's content. Meanwhile, his old parents are still living in the evil big city! Chances are, we'll retire to Oregon--we'd love nothing more than being able to enjoy those gorgeous views!
I grew up in the country ~ farm land, hiking and camping in the Boundary Waters & the Rockies ~ but then moved to the city when I hit college-age and never left. I find the quality of the writing more important than whether it's urban or rural. A sense of place can be powerful when discussing architecture (J.B. Jackson, Jacob Riis) or a pond (Annie Dillard, David Rhodes), the talent and skill of the writer is what makes the difference for me. And I definitely found Turgenev very talented.
Mod
Would it matter if the chapter went missing, really?
The Obscure Reading Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Diary of a Superfluous Man and Other Stories (other topics)A Hero of Our Time (other topics)
The Idiot (other topics)
The Idiot (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jacob A. Riis (other topics)David Rhodes (other topics)
J.B. Jackson (other topics)
Annie Dillard (other topics)
Ken, I want to address the divorce in Russia question. According to various websites, a civil divorce in Russia was not permitted until 1917. Another website I found stated that divorce cases due to adultry were rarely granted by the Russian orthodox church because there had to be at least two eyewitnesses that were willing to testify. This risked damaging the reputations of the witnesses and the spouses involved. I'm not sure what the protocol was for remarriage in the Russian Orthodox Church but in the Catholic Church, marriage is considered a sacrament and if the divorce is granted, remarriage is not permitted because of the, "till death do us part," clause. It was that way when I was growing up and I'm guessing it's still that way.
http://pirate.shu.edu/~knightna/karen...