redstar2000
8th February 2004, 05:02
---------------------------------------------------------
What Is To Be Done? by Nickolai G. Chernyshevsky, originally published as Chto delat? in 1863; a facsimile edition of the English translation made and published in the United States in 1886; Ardis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, 1986, ISBN 0-87501-017-2
---------------------------------------------------------
If what you've "heard" about this "infamous" novel is anything like what I've heard over the years, then we've both been lied to.
By reputation, this is supposed to be the "great Russian nihilist novel".
Accordingly, I opened it expecting to be plunged into a Dostoevskian dungeon of gloom and murder and destruction.
And it's nothing like that at all!
And one can only be breathlessly amazed at the sheer audacity of Chernyeshvsky's critics (including Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Tolstoy, etc.) at portraying his novel in such a hideous light. How did they ever get away with it?
Although written entirely in prison, the novel is "light" and even "frothy". It is a "romance" in the most literal meaning of the word...a pair of love stories about the "new people" that were beginning to emerge in Russia--the "enlightened" middle class.
They freely and with untroubled consciences discard the traditions of old Russia--neither God nor the Czar even gets a mention in the novel. They resolve to live rational lives, to relate to one another freely and honestly, to do serious things.
One of the leading female characters organizes a dress-making cooperative in St. Petersburg...which is so successful that two more are created. The other leading female character becomes a doctor...absolutely unheard of in the Russia of that era.
Yes, this is definitely a feminist novel...and astounding for its time and place!
Perhaps that is what made it a "nihilist" novel. (!)
They have a kind of fuzzy vision of the future society that might be considered communist...at least there are no apparent bosses around to oppress people. Basic needs are freely available and, if you put in some extra work, even luxuries can be had. People live in their own apartments, but there are numerous small and large common areas in each structure that are always in use.
The structures, by the way, are "crystal palaces"--Chernyshevsky was apparently enthralled by reports of London's great "crystal palace" built in 1851.
And there's much use of aluminum...a rare and costly metal in the 19th century. It symbolizes real progress.
As I was reading along, I kept wondering to myself, where's the nihilism?
Well, about half-way through the novel, the character Rakhmetov appears. He is even more of a "new man" than the others and does even more "serious" things.
Although he has some wealth to his name, he lives a fairly spartan existence...spending his money carefully in order to "promote progress".
The thing that really sets him apart from the other "new people" is that he never does anything without a serious purpose. It's not that he's some "soul-less robot" who is immune to human emotions...but rather that he feels that he just doesn't have time for the enjoyable past-times of social existence. There is too much "to be done".
In no sense does Chernyshevsky suggest that his deeds are "dark ones"...no plots to kill the Czar, rouse the peasantry, etc. He does things like secretly arrange for a scholarship for a bright, poor kid; or arrange that an impoverished German philosopher (possibly Feuerbach) receive a sum of money to do with as he wishes; or, when he's "on-stage" in the novel, suggest an ingenious solution to a lover's problem and then helps implement it.
This ultra-serious "vanguard of the new people" is supposed to be the character that Lenin modeled himself after when he was a teen-ager and read the novel.
I suppose...though it seems quite a "stretch" to me. Lenin was a serious man in his maturity and he definitely had a puritanical streak in him. He didn't care for diversions...even those that appealed to him. But I don't think those features of his character came from Chernyshevsky...at the most, Rakhmetov appealed to Lenin because Rakhmetov was like Lenin.
I want to add one more point. Modern readers often find 19th century novels "tough going"...both the literary conventions and the actual times themselves are very different. Also, trying to keep the characters--with their long and unfamiliar Russian names--straight in your head is not easy.
But if you want to "try" a Russian novel...this would be a good one to start with. I found it surprisingly easy to read for such an "old" work.
I enjoyed it!
:redstar2000:
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
What Is To Be Done? by Nickolai G. Chernyshevsky, originally published as Chto delat? in 1863; a facsimile edition of the English translation made and published in the United States in 1886; Ardis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, 1986, ISBN 0-87501-017-2
---------------------------------------------------------
If what you've "heard" about this "infamous" novel is anything like what I've heard over the years, then we've both been lied to.
By reputation, this is supposed to be the "great Russian nihilist novel".
Accordingly, I opened it expecting to be plunged into a Dostoevskian dungeon of gloom and murder and destruction.
And it's nothing like that at all!
And one can only be breathlessly amazed at the sheer audacity of Chernyeshvsky's critics (including Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Tolstoy, etc.) at portraying his novel in such a hideous light. How did they ever get away with it?
Although written entirely in prison, the novel is "light" and even "frothy". It is a "romance" in the most literal meaning of the word...a pair of love stories about the "new people" that were beginning to emerge in Russia--the "enlightened" middle class.
They freely and with untroubled consciences discard the traditions of old Russia--neither God nor the Czar even gets a mention in the novel. They resolve to live rational lives, to relate to one another freely and honestly, to do serious things.
One of the leading female characters organizes a dress-making cooperative in St. Petersburg...which is so successful that two more are created. The other leading female character becomes a doctor...absolutely unheard of in the Russia of that era.
Yes, this is definitely a feminist novel...and astounding for its time and place!
Perhaps that is what made it a "nihilist" novel. (!)
They have a kind of fuzzy vision of the future society that might be considered communist...at least there are no apparent bosses around to oppress people. Basic needs are freely available and, if you put in some extra work, even luxuries can be had. People live in their own apartments, but there are numerous small and large common areas in each structure that are always in use.
The structures, by the way, are "crystal palaces"--Chernyshevsky was apparently enthralled by reports of London's great "crystal palace" built in 1851.
And there's much use of aluminum...a rare and costly metal in the 19th century. It symbolizes real progress.
As I was reading along, I kept wondering to myself, where's the nihilism?
Well, about half-way through the novel, the character Rakhmetov appears. He is even more of a "new man" than the others and does even more "serious" things.
Although he has some wealth to his name, he lives a fairly spartan existence...spending his money carefully in order to "promote progress".
The thing that really sets him apart from the other "new people" is that he never does anything without a serious purpose. It's not that he's some "soul-less robot" who is immune to human emotions...but rather that he feels that he just doesn't have time for the enjoyable past-times of social existence. There is too much "to be done".
In no sense does Chernyshevsky suggest that his deeds are "dark ones"...no plots to kill the Czar, rouse the peasantry, etc. He does things like secretly arrange for a scholarship for a bright, poor kid; or arrange that an impoverished German philosopher (possibly Feuerbach) receive a sum of money to do with as he wishes; or, when he's "on-stage" in the novel, suggest an ingenious solution to a lover's problem and then helps implement it.
This ultra-serious "vanguard of the new people" is supposed to be the character that Lenin modeled himself after when he was a teen-ager and read the novel.
I suppose...though it seems quite a "stretch" to me. Lenin was a serious man in his maturity and he definitely had a puritanical streak in him. He didn't care for diversions...even those that appealed to him. But I don't think those features of his character came from Chernyshevsky...at the most, Rakhmetov appealed to Lenin because Rakhmetov was like Lenin.
I want to add one more point. Modern readers often find 19th century novels "tough going"...both the literary conventions and the actual times themselves are very different. Also, trying to keep the characters--with their long and unfamiliar Russian names--straight in your head is not easy.
But if you want to "try" a Russian novel...this would be a good one to start with. I found it surprisingly easy to read for such an "old" work.
I enjoyed it!
:redstar2000:
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas