Venue: Jamie and Katie’s
When a show of hands was called to see who had read the book and only two
arms were raised, it seemed the discussion would be done and dusted in 5
minutes. Surprisingly though there was a very interesting and well contributed
to discussion.
To recap, Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev written in the mid-19th century
uses generational conflict to explore the changing demographics and social
structure within Russian society post the Crimean War. A relatively short book,
Turgenev nevertheless manages to create some complex yet believable characters
which give the reader a valuable insight into an important period of Russian
history.
GT opened up the discussion with a vivid description of him turning the
final pages whilst lying resplendent in his silk bed robe listening to the rain
tap dancing on his veranda. His succinct view was that Turgenev’s novel was as
relevant today as it was 150 years ago. To be honest most of us were still
digesting the big man in his silk robe but Sarah managed to step in kick off the
discussion on the meat of the book; the characters. Bazarov, understandably got
the most air time. Despicable, dull, superficial, loathsome, crass, insincere
were words thrown up to describe his supposedly unflinching commitment to
nihilism, or was that about Marshall? It was widely agreed that conviction to
nihilism was sorely tested and broken by his unrequited love for Madame
whatsherface. The rationale being, how can you be truly nihilistic if you felt
an emotion as strong and irrational as love? Ergo great idea, bad execution pal.
The suggestion was that Turgenev was trying to subtly mock the boldness and
uncompromising nature of youth which mellows and faces compromise over time.
Frances posed the question, after the savaging of young Bazzy, who was the
most likeable character? Arkady seemed to get the nod for his more conciliatory
and reasoned approach to life. He was a nihilist but realised the limitations of
the movement in its absolute form. Madame whatsherface got an honourable
mention, brought to the fore by James S, but I think that was more recognition
for the depth and complexity of her character at a time when woman in literature
were painted as stereotypical figures. A certain sympathy was felt for Vasily,
Bazarov’s father, who has a realistic perspective on his position in society and
whilst is keen for change, understands the need for a link to the past. In
contrast Pavel, was felt to be a bit of a pompous plonker.
What came out in the discussion was the impact on the reader of the
different translations. Depending on which publication the respective members of
the group had read, there was a subtle difference in how the language was
handled. Marshall reckoned there was too much use of the word “mate” and felt
that was more appropriate for a south Queensland mining tavern than common speak
of mid-19th Century Russians.
The “where are they now” technique was met with mixed reviews. Frances felt
it was a little crude but pulled the story together whilst GT thought it worked
well in this instance.
Katie treated us to a couple of lines in Russian which contrasted somewhat
to GT’s silk robe imagery and helped us contextualise the novel. I think the
general consensus was that Fathers and Sons was a good choice and an interesting
read, which gave contemporary readers a realistic landscape from which to
explore the changing dynamic of Russian society.
Honourable mention must go to the bringers of food which went down a treat.
Thank you.
Next month’s book club is The Finkler Question. Let’s not do a
Figures…..
No comments:
Post a Comment