Essay on the topic Imaginary allies of Bazarov. Turgenev I.S.

(based on the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons")

But in the novel there are also completely different characters, who apparently share Bazarov’s views and are passionate about modern ideas. However, Turgenev shows a deep difference between the main character and his “students”.

Well, for example. Arkady Kirsanov. Unlike the commoner Bazarov, he is a young man from a noble family. From the very first pages of the novel we see friends nearby. And right away the author makes it clear how much Arkady depends on his friend, but is far from being like him in everything. Admiring nature in a conversation with his father, the son suddenly “casts an indirect glance back and falls silent.” Arkady is under the spell of his older comrade’s personality, feels in him a wonderful, perhaps great, person, and delights in developing his ideas, shocking his uncle, Pavel Petrovich. But deep down, Arkady is completely different, he is not a stranger to poetry, tender feelings, and loves to “speak beautifully.”

Nihilistic beliefs do not become his nature. Gradually, a conflict brews between the friends. Arkady increasingly disagrees with his friend, but at first he does not dare to speak about it directly; he more often remains silent (for example, when Bazarov laughs at his father’s musical preferences), and then begins to argue with his friend. Finally, Kirsanov Jr. takes his real path: he falls in love with Katya, Anna Sergeevna’s sister, an intelligent girl with a strong character, and proposes to her.

Saying goodbye to Arkady, Bazarov gives an accurate assessment of the personality of his friend, emphasizing the dissimilarity between them: “You are not created for our tart, bogly life. You have neither insolence nor anger, but you have youthful courage and youthful enthusiasm, this is not suitable for our business.” ...Your brother, a nobleman, cannot go further than a noble boiling point... But we want to fight..." In essence, Arkady is a "soft, liberal barich." Bazarov’s powerful negation of everything, dreams of changes in public life, and the desire to “clear the place” are alien to him. Evgeniy is consistent in his views, sometimes reaching the point of cynicism. The author emphasizes that Arkady is offended by his friend’s cynical statements. And Kirsanov’s character requires constant dependence on someone. Previously, he reported to Evgeniy, now to Katya. At the end of the novel, Arkady is shown to be a zealous owner, a good landowner with liberal inclinations.

But if this hero is shown by the author with sympathy, with gentle humor, then there are characters in the novel who are depicted sarcastically, with contemptuous mockery. This is, firstly, Evgeniy’s “student”, as he introduces himself. Sitnikov and “emancipe” Kukshin. These people also talk about natural sciences, talk about women's rights, about freedom of thought, about Slavophilism, that is, they are interested in “modern issues.” But Turgenev uses a variety of artistic means to reveal the main thing: they are just playing, and they themselves often do not understand what they are talking about; in their beliefs, everything is mixed without meaning or sense. It’s not for nothing that on Sitnikov’s business card his name is “written in French on one side, and in Slavic script on the other”; their language is also characteristic - pompous, full of fashionable words: “after all, it’s also practical”, “... no freedom of opinion”, “The entire system of education must be changed,” “down with the authorities!”, “I swore to defend the rights of women to the last drop of blood,” and next to them are the vulgar words “naughty, lovely.” Turgenev clearly shows that their denial exists only for the sake of denial: “the opportunity to despise and express one’s contempt was the most pleasant sensation for Sitnikov.” These heroes don't understand the simplest things. Sitnikov, for example, declares that the cheeky, stupid Kukshina is a “highly moral phenomenon.” What seems to be their beliefs is not at all connected with their actions: “Sitnikov attacked women in particular,” and then groveled before his wife “only because she was born Princess Durdolesova.” Turgenev does not spare satirical colors in the depiction of these heroes. Here is a portrait of Sitnikov: “an anxious and dull expression affected the features of his sleek face,” “his eyes looked intently and restlessly.” Kukshina also does everything “on purpose,” “unnaturally,” the expression on her face also suggests that she is not trying to be herself, but to portray something. She understands freedom as swagger and demonstrates it with all her might: Sitnikov “lounge back in his chair and lifted his leg up.” Even the description of their clothes sets off their characters: “not quite a neat dress” by the “disheveled” Kukshina, “overly elegant gloves” by Sitnikov. No wonder Bazarov treats them with undisguised contempt.

Kukshina and Sitnikov are related to Repetilov from Griboedov's comedy and Lebezyatnikov from Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. In the words of Dostoevsky, “they pester the most fashionable current idea in order to vulgarize it, to caricature everything that they most sincerely serve.” Against the background of these characters, the authenticity of Bazarov’s convictions, the depth of his nature and boundless loneliness are especially clearly visible.

Psychologism in descriptions of love relationships. Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, love in their destiny. The duel is a turning point in the lives of the heroes. Turgenev's psychologism, manifested in female images.

It seems to me that the problem of “father and children” in the novel is only a reason for conflict, and the reason is that fathers and children were representatives of different ideas.

The life of I. S. Turgenev, the famous Russian writer, took place during one of the most eventful eras in the life of Russia. It was during this period, in the early sixties of the 19th century, that a new type of fighter arose in Russia - a democrat commoner, a man of action.

Almost all major Russian writers were concerned about the fate of the leading man of his time. This theme is reflected in Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons" and in Chernyshevsky's novel "What is to be done?"

Throughout the entire novel, his friend Arkady is shown next to Bazarov. According to their beliefs and origins, they belong to different social classes.

Turgenev chose the conflict between the common and noble ideology as the main theme of his work.

The involuntary confrontation between the older and younger generations, due to the changing spirit of the times, can be viewed both in a tragic and satirical and humorous way.

The work of the great Russian writer Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev is a hymn to high, inspired, poetic love. Suffice it to recall the novels “Rudin” (1856), “The Noble Nest” (1859), “On the Eve” (1860), the stories “Asya” (1858), “First Love”.

As soon as it was published, the novel by I.S. Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" caused a real flurry of critical articles. None of the public camps accepted Turgenev’s new creation.

The novel “Fathers and Sons” was created at a time when the question of the abolition of serfdom was raised, when there were contradictions between liberals and democrats. After the release of the novel, a flurry of critical articles fell upon him.

The younger generation welcomed the abolition of serfdom and the reforms, but the old did not.

The struggle of two camps - revolutionary-democratic and liberal-serfdom, the struggle of “fathers and sons” - this is the theme of Turgenev’s novel.

I.S. Turgenev, as a master of words, possessing high skill in the field of artistic creativity, in the novel “Fathers and Sons” widely uses a variety of artistic techniques.

“Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev is a socio-psychological novel in which the main place is given to social conflicts. The work is built on the opposition of the main character, the commoner Bazarov, and the rest of the characters.

The image of Bazarov occupies a central place in the composition of the novel "Fathers and Sons".

After its publication in 1862, Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” caused a literal flurry of critical articles. None of the public camps accepted Turgenev’s new creation.

Essay text:

Not a single work of Turgenev caused such a violent reaction from Russian society after its release as the novel Otsy and Children. And completely opposite opinions were expressed about its main character Bazarov in the Sovremennik magazine. Kriik Antonovich wrote that he saw in the novel not a living person, but a caricature, a monster with a tiny head and gigantic growth... and, moreover, the most malicious caricature. Pisarev said in the Russian Word that Bazarov is a representative of our younger generation. In his personality, those properties are grouped that are scattered in small shares among the masses, and the image of this person clearly and clearly emerges before the reader’s imagination. Turgenev himself noted: Pisarev’s analysis is unusually smart, and I must admit that he almost completely understood everything that I wanted to say to Bazarov. So what did Turgenev want to tell the Bazarovs?
He wanted to show a new person, a representative of the progressive youth of all classes. Bazarov is my favorite child, on whom I spent all the paints at my disposal, wrote Turgenev. Bazarov is a very complex figure.
A physician by training, he sees his calling in correcting society. According to Turgenev himself, Bazarov is a revolutionary. He has a goal, to the fulfillment of which he devotes all his strength. Among the people who surround Bazarov, there is hardly a person who could compare with him in strength of character and firmness of conviction. Bazarov is contrasted with all the other heroes and differs sharply from them. At first glance, it may seem that Arkady Kirsanov is an ally, like-minded person, and friend of Bazarov. But this is not so, and Bazarov understands this perfectly. In fact, how can a soft, liberal barich be a friend of a purposeful Bazarov, convinced of his strength? Their relationship is based on the fact that Arkady became interested in nihilism, which was fashionable at that time, and Bazarov was undoubtedly a very prominent representative of it. In his denial of everything, he goes to extremes, calling Pushkin’s poems nonsense, and Raphael, in his opinion, is not worth a penny.
But Bazarov’s influence on Arkady is very strong, we notice this from the first pages of the work. At the first meeting with his father, Kirsanov, speaking about the feelings that his native place evoked in him, suddenly stopped, cast an indirect glance back and fell silent. Bazarov was riding behind, and Arkady’s behavior can be explained by the fact that he was afraid to seem funny to his teacher. In the dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, Arkady is first shown only as an outside observer. But when he begins to feel that Bazarov has the upper hand, he joins in the conversation: he repeats the words of his teacher just spoken with the confidence of an experienced chess player who foresaw the apparently dangerous move of his opponent and therefore was not at all embarrassed.
Reading the novel, we are convinced that Arkady, who came to his native place as a nihilist and student of Bazarov, turns into an ordinary, unremarkable landowner. In his last conversation with him, Bazarov says: Our dust will eat your eyes out, our dirt will stain you, and you are not as old as us, you freely admire yourself, you enjoy scolding yourself; but we’re bored, give us others! We need to break others! And in the article Realists, Pisarev compares Arkady to a piece of pure and soft wax: You can make whatever you want out of it, but after them, anyone else can do with them whatever that other person wants. These characteristics indicate that Arkady is not capable, no matter what, to fight for his ideals, to defend his opinion; and he has neither high ideals nor convictions. And such a person cannot be an ally, a continuer of Bazarov’s work.
In Chapter XII of the novel Fathers and Children we meet Viktor Sinikov. He calls himself Bazarov's student and claims that he owes his rebirth to him. This is how Turgenev describes Sinikova: An alarming and stupid expression was reflected in the small, however pleasant, features of his sleek face; his small, sunken eyes looked intently and restlessly, and he laughed restlessly: with a kind of short, wooden laugh. From this description alone we can conclude that Sinikov is unlikely to be Bazarov’s student. Sinikov invites Bazarov to visit a local lady, ... aimancipee in the true sense of the word. This is Evdokia Kukshina. There was nothing ugly in the small and immature figure of the emancipated woman; but the expression on her face had an unpleasant effect on the viewer.
Sinikov and Kukshina consider themselves advanced, progressive people. Sinikov, lounging in a chair, begins a conversation and even demands breakfast and a bottle of champagne, and then only occasionally enters into a conversation between Kukshina and Arkady and Bazarov. All his words, every phrase have one goal: to please Bazarov, to express himself sharply in the presence of the person to whom he was subservient.
Kukshina starts a learned conversation with Bazarov and says that she has come up with a recipe for a new mastic to make dolls so that the heads do not break. But all this is not ready yet. You still need to read Liebig.
She then states that she is interested in women's issues and has vowed to defend women's rights to the last drop of blood. George Sand, as Kukshina puts it, is a backward woman. In the end, Evdokia and Sinikov began to sing gypsy romances and Arkady could not stand it: Gentlemen, this has become something like bedlam, he remarked out loud. Bazarov and Arkady leave Kukshina, accompanied by Sinikov, who, obsequiously running from right to left, continued to praise Avdotya Nikishna. Bazarov understands very well what nonentities Kukshin and Sinikov are. And he treats them like people whom he doesn’t value at all: condescendingly, disdainfully. Leaving Kukshina’s apartment, he didn’t even say goodbye to the hostess.
Here is what Pisarev wrote: There is nothing in common between Kukshina and the emancipation of women; There is not the slightest similarity between Sinikov and the humane ideas of the 19th century. To call Sinikov and Kukshi-nu a creature of time would be extremely incorrect. They present a superbly executed caricature of a brainless progressive and a Russian-style emancipated woman. Thus, Bazarov has nothing in common with either Sinikov or Kukshina. So what kind of alliance between them can we talk about? And although Bazarov tells Arkady that he needs the Sinikovs, he is not talking about an alliance with them. It's not for the gods to burn pots! he notes, implying himself as a god, and Sinikov as the one who will burn the pots.
Bazarov is lonely. He has neither a friend nor an ally. Alone among the damned barchuks Kirsanovs, alone in the company of Sinikov and Kukshina. Neither his parents nor his beloved woman Odintsov understand him. Despite everything, Bazarov does not give up his business. But his life is cut short. And Evgeniy Vasilyevich dies alone, having never found himself either a student or a like-minded person. But his life was not in vain. His ideas found support in Russian society. As Pisarev put it, Bazarov’s followers... very soon gave up cutting frogs and took up politics.

The rights to the essay “Imaginary Allies of Bazarov” belong to its author. When quoting material, it is necessary to indicate a hyperlink to

The novel by I. S. Turgenev depicts an era when significant changes were brewing in Russian life. Disputes around the peasant question about ways to resolve social contradictions divided the intelligentsia into irreconcilably warring parties. At the center of the social struggle is the figure of the commoner, the democratic revolutionary. In the image of Bazarov, the writer reflected the features of this social and human type. This is a powerful, titanic personality. Without sharing the views of his hero, the author creates a tragic figure. Bazarov's soul is torn by contradictions. Life refutes his “nihilism.” Having fallen in love with Odintsova, Evgeny feels a lie in his beliefs, but Bazarov’s views are part of his being. Being a strong personality, he will never give up on them. The contradiction in the hero's life is resolved by a natural tragic ending - he dies. But in the novel there are also completely different characters, who apparently share Bazarov’s views and are passionate about modern ideas. However, Turgenev shows a deep difference between the main character and his “students”. Well, for example. Arkady Kirsanov. Unlike the commoner Bazarov, he is a young man from a noble family. From the very first pages of the novel we see friends nearby. And right away the author makes it clear how much Arkady depends on his friend, but is far from being like him in everything. Admiring nature in a conversation with his father, the son suddenly “casts an indirect glance back and falls silent.” Arkady is under the spell of his older comrade’s personality, feels in him a wonderful, perhaps great, person, and delights in developing his ideas, shocking his uncle, Pavel Petrovich. But deep down, Arkady is completely different, he is not a stranger to poetry, tender feelings, and loves to “speak beautifully.” Nihilistic beliefs do not become his nature. Gradually, a conflict brews between the friends. Arkady increasingly disagrees with his friend, but at first he does not dare to speak about it directly; he more often remains silent (for example, when Bazarov laughs at his father’s musical preferences), and then begins to argue with his friend. Finally, Kirsanov Jr. takes his real path: he falls in love with Katya, Anna Sergeevna’s sister, an intelligent girl with a strong character, and proposes to her. Saying goodbye to Arkady, Bazarov gives an accurate assessment of the personality of his friend, emphasizing the dissimilarity between them: “You are not created for our tart, bogly life. You have neither insolence nor anger, but you have youthful courage and youthful enthusiasm, this is not suitable for our business.” ... Your brother, a nobleman, cannot go further than a noble boiling point. . . And we want to fight. . . “In essence, Arkady is a “soft, liberal barich.” Bazarov’s powerful negation of everything, dreams of changes in public life, the desire to “clear the place” are alien to him. Evgeny is consistent in his views, sometimes rising to the point of cynicism. The author emphasizes that Arkady is offended by cynical statements of a friend. And Kirsanov’s character requires constant dependence on someone. Previously, he obeyed Evgeny, now - Katya. At the end of the novel, Arkady is shown as a zealous owner, a good landowner with liberal inclinations. But if this hero is shown by the author with sympathy, with gentle humor , that is, in the novel the characters are depicted sarcastically, with contemptuous mockery. This is, firstly, the “student” of Evgeniy, as he himself introduces himself. Sitnikov and the “emancipe” Kukshin. These people also talk about the natural sciences, talk about women’s rights, about freedom of thought, about Slavophilism, that is, they are interested in “modern issues.” But Turgenev uses a variety of artistic means to reveal the main thing: they are just playing, and they themselves often do not understand what they are talking about, in their beliefs everything is mixed without meaning or sense . It is not for nothing that on Sitnikov’s business card his name is “written in French on one side, and in Slavic script on the other”; their language is also characteristic - pompous, full of fashionable words: “after all, it is also practical”, “... no freedom of opinion”, “The entire system of education must be changed,” “down with the authorities!”, “I swore to defend the rights of women to the last drop of blood,” and next to them are the vulgar words “naughty, lovely.” Turgenev clearly shows that their denial exists only for the sake of denial: “the opportunity to despise and express one’s contempt was the most pleasant sensation for Sitnikov.” These heroes don't understand the simplest things. Sitnikov, for example, declares that the cheeky, stupid Kukshina is a “highly moral phenomenon.” What seems to be their beliefs is not at all connected with their actions: “Sitnikov attacked women in particular,” and then groveled before his wife “only because she was born Princess Durdolesova.” Turgenev does not spare satirical colors in the depiction of these heroes. Here is a portrait of Sitnikov: “an anxious and dull expression affected the features of his sleek face,” “his eyes looked intently and restlessly.” Kukshina also does everything “on purpose,” “unnaturally,” the expression on her face also suggests that she is not trying to be herself, but to portray something. She understands freedom as swagger and demonstrates it with all her might: Sitnikov “lounge back in his chair and lifted his leg up.” Even the description of their clothes sets off their characters: “not quite a neat dress” by the “disheveled” Kukshina, “overly elegant gloves” by Sitnikov. No wonder Bazarov treats them with undisguised contempt. Kukshina and Sitnikov are related to Repetilov from Griboedov's comedy and Lebezyatnikov from Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. In the words of Dostoevsky, “they pester the most fashionable current idea in order to vulgarize it, to caricature everything that they most sincerely serve.” Against the background of these characters, the authenticity of Bazarov’s convictions, the depth of his nature and boundless loneliness are especially clearly visible.
Not a single work of Turgenev caused such a violent reaction from Russian society after its release as the novel Fathers and Sons. And completely opposite opinions were expressed about its main character Bazarov in the Sovremennik magazine. The critic Antonovich wrote that he saw in the novel not a living person, but a caricature, a monster with a tiny head and gigantic growth... and, moreover, the most malicious caricature. Pisarev said in the Russian Word that Bazarov is a representative of our younger generation. In his personality, those properties are grouped that are scattered in small shares among the masses, and the image of this person clearly and clearly emerges before the reader’s imagination. Turgenev himself noted: Pisarev’s analysis is unusually smart, and I must admit that he almost completely understood everything that I wanted to say to the Bazarovs. So what did Turgenev want to tell the Bazarovs? He wanted to show a new person, a representative of progressive, heterogeneous youth. Bazarov is my favorite child, on whom I spent all the paints at my disposal, wrote Turgenev. Bazarov's figure is very complex. A physician by training, he sees his calling in correcting society. According to Turgenev himself, Bazarov is a revolutionary. He has a goal, to the fulfillment of which he devotes all his strength. Among the people who surround Bazarov, there is hardly a person who could compare with him in strength of character and firmness of conviction. Bazarov is contrasted with all the other heroes and differs sharply from them. At first glance, it may seem that Arkady Kirsanov is an ally, like-minded person, and friend of Bazarov. But this is not so, and Bazarov understands this perfectly. In fact, how can a soft, liberal baric be a friend of a purposeful Bazarov, convinced of his strength? Their relationship is based on the fact that Arkady became interested in nihilism, which was fashionable at that time, and Bazarov was, undoubtedly, a very prominent representative of it. In his denial of everything, he goes to extremes, calling Pushkin’s poems nonsense, and Raphael, in his opinion, is not worth a penny. But Bazarov’s influence on Arkady is very strong, we notice this from the first pages of the work. At the first meeting with his father, Kirsanov, speaking about the feelings that his native place evoked in him, suddenly stopped, cast an indirect glance back and fell silent. Bazarov was riding behind, and Arkady’s behavior can be explained by the fact that he was afraid to seem funny to his teacher. In the dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, Arkady is initially shown only as an outside observer. But when he begins to feel that Bazarov has the upper hand, he joins in the conversation: he repeats the words of his teacher just spoken with the confidence of an experienced chess player who foresaw the apparently dangerous move of his opponent and therefore was not at all embarrassed. Reading the novel, we are convinced that Arkady, who came to his native place as a nihilist and student of Bazarov, turns into an ordinary, unremarkable landowner. In his last conversation with him, Bazarov says: Our dust will eat your eyes, our dirt will stain you, and you have not grown up to us, you freely admire yourself, you enjoy scolding yourself; but we’re bored, give us others! We need to break others! And in the article Realists, Pisarev compares Arkady to a piece of pure and soft wax: You can make whatever you want out of it, but after them, anyone else can do whatever the other person wants with them in the same way. These characteristics indicate that Arkady is not capable, no matter what, to fight for his ideals, to defend his opinion; and he has neither high ideals nor convictions. And such a person cannot be a comrade-in-arms, a continuer of Bazarov’s work. In Chapter XII of the novel Fathers and Sons we meet Viktor Sitnikov. He calls himself a student of Bazarov and claims that he owes his rebirth to him. This is how Turgenev describes Sitnikov: An alarming and dull expression was reflected in the small, however pleasant, features of his sleek face; his small, sunken eyes looked intently and restlessly, and he laughed restlessly: with a kind of short, wooden laugh. From this description alone one can conclude that Sitnikov is hardly a student of Bazarov. Sitnikov invites Bazarov to go see a local lady, ... aimancipee in the true sense of the word. This is Evdokia Kukshina. There was nothing ugly in the small and immature figure of the emancipated woman; but the expression on her face had an unpleasant effect on the viewer. Sitnikov and Kukshina consider themselves advanced, progressive people. Sitnikov, lounging in a chair, begins a conversation and even demands breakfast and a bottle of champagne, and then only occasionally enters into Kukshina’s conversation with Arkady and Bazarov. All his words, every phrase have one goal: to please Bazarov, to express himself sharply in the presence of the person to whom he was subservient. Kukshina starts a learned conversation with Bazarov and says that she has come up with a recipe for a new mastic to make dolls so that their heads don’t break. But all this is not ready yet. You also need to read Liebig. She then states that she is interested in women's issues and has vowed to defend women's rights to the last drop of blood. George Sand, as Kukshina puts it, is a backward woman. In the end, Evdokia and Sitnikov began to sing gypsy romances and Arkady could not stand it: Gentlemen, this has become something like bedlam, he remarked out loud. Bazarov and Arkady leave Kukshina, accompanied by Sitnikov, who, obsequiously running from right to left, continued to praise Avdotya Nikitishna. Bazarov understands very well what insignificances Kukshin and Sitnikov are. And he treats them like people whom he doesn’t care for a penny: condescendingly, disdainfully. Leaving Kukshina’s apartment, he didn’t even say goodbye to the hostess. This is what Pisarev wrote: There is nothing in common between Kukshina and the emancipation of women; There is not the slightest similarity between Sitnikov and the humane ideas of the 19th century. To call Sitnikov and Kuksha a product of the times would be extremely incorrect. They present a superbly executed caricature of a brainless progressive and a Russian-style emancipated woman. Thus, Bazarov has nothing in common with either Sitnikov or Kukshina. So what kind of alliance can we talk about between them? And although Bazarov tells Arkady that he needs the Sitnikovs, he is not talking about an alliance with them. It's not for the gods to burn pots! he notes, implying that he is a god, and Sitnikov is the one who will burn the pots. Bazarov is lonely. He has neither a friend nor an ally. Lonely among the barchuks of the damned Kirsanovs, alone in the company of Sitnikov and Kukshina. Neither his parents nor his beloved woman Odintsov understand him. Despite everything, Bazarov does not give up his business. But his life is cut short. And Evgeny Vasilyevich dies alone, having never found himself either a student or a like-minded person. But his life was not in vain. His ideas found support in Russian society. As Pisarev put it, Bazarov's followers... very soon gave up cutting frogs and got involved in politics.

Temporary and imaginary allies of Bazarov
(based on the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons")

In the novel by I.S. Turgenev depicts an era when significant changes were brewing in Russian life. Disputes around the peasant question about ways to resolve social contradictions divided the intelligentsia into irreconcilably warring parties. At the center of the social struggle is the figure of the commoner, the revolutionary democrat. In the image of Bazarov, the writer reflected the features of this social and human type. This is a powerful, titanic personality. Without sharing the views of his hero, the author creates a tragic figure. Bazarov's soul is torn by contradictions. Life refutes his “nihilism.” Having fallen in love with Odintsova, Evgeny feels a lie in his beliefs, but Bazarov’s views are part of his being. Being a strong personality, he will never give up on them. The contradiction in the hero's life is resolved by a natural tragic ending - he dies.
But in the novel there are also completely different characters, who apparently share Bazarov’s views and are passionate about modern ideas. However, Turgenev shows a deep difference between the main character and his “students”.
Well, for example. Arkady Kirsanov. Unlike the commoner Bazarov, he is a young man from a noble family. From the very first pages of the novel we see friends nearby. And right away the author makes it clear how much Arkady depends on his friend, but is far from being like him in everything. Admiring nature in a conversation with his father, the son suddenly “casts an indirect glance back and falls silent.” Arkady is under the spell of his older comrade’s personality, feels in him a wonderful, perhaps great, person, and delights in developing his ideas, shocking his uncle, Pavel Petrovich. But deep down, Arkady is completely different, he is not a stranger to poetry, tender feelings, and loves to “speak beautifully.”
Nihilistic beliefs do not become his nature. Gradually, a conflict brews between the friends. Arkady increasingly disagrees with his friend, but at first he does not dare to speak about it directly; he more often remains silent (for example, when Bazarov laughs at his father’s musical preferences), and then begins to argue with his friend. Finally, Kirsanov Jr. takes his real path: he falls in love with Katya, Anna Sergeevna’s sister, an intelligent girl with a strong character, and proposes to her.
Saying goodbye to Arkady, Bazarov gives an accurate assessment of the personality of his friend, emphasizing the dissimilarity between them: “You are not created for our tart, bourgeois life. You have neither insolence nor anger, but you have youthful courage and youthful enthusiasm, this is not suitable for our business.” ...Your brother, a nobleman, cannot go further than a noble boiling point... But we want to fight..." In essence, Arkady is a "soft, liberal barich." Bazarov’s powerful negation of everything, dreams of changes in public life, and the desire to “clear the place” are alien to him. Evgeniy is consistent in his views, sometimes reaching the point of cynicism. The author emphasizes that Arkady is offended by his friend’s cynical statements. And Kirsanov’s character requires constant dependence on someone. Previously, he reported to Evgeniy, now to Katya. At the end of the novel, Arkady is shown to be a zealous owner, a good landowner with liberal inclinations.
But if this hero is shown by the author with sympathy, with gentle humor, then there are characters in the novel who are depicted sarcastically, with contemptuous mockery. This is, firstly, Evgeniy’s “student”, as he introduces himself. Sitnikov and “emancipe” Kukshin. These people also talk about natural sciences, talk about women's rights, about freedom of thought, about Slavophilism, that is, they are interested in “modern issues.” But Turgenev uses a variety of artistic means to reveal the main thing: they are just playing, and they themselves often do not understand what they are talking about; in their beliefs, everything is mixed without meaning or sense. It’s not for nothing that on Sitnikov’s business card his name is “written in French on one side, and in Slavic script on the other”; their language is also characteristic - pompous, full of fashionable words: “after all, it’s also practical”, “... no freedom of opinion”, “The entire system of education must be changed,” “down with the authorities!”, “I swore to defend the rights of women to the last drop of blood,” and next to them are the vulgar words “naughty, lovely.” Turgenev clearly shows that their denial exists only for the sake of denial: “the opportunity to despise and express one’s contempt was the most pleasant sensation for Sitnikov.” These heroes don't understand the simplest things. Sitnikov, for example, declares that the cheeky, stupid Kukshina is a “highly moral phenomenon.” What seems to be their beliefs is not at all connected with their actions: “Sitnikov attacked women in particular,” and then groveled before his wife “only because she was born Princess Durdolesova.” Turgenev does not spare satirical colors in the depiction of these heroes. Here is a portrait of Sitnikov: “an anxious and dull expression affected the features of his sleek face,” “his eyes looked intently and restlessly.” Kukshina also does everything “on purpose,” “unnaturally,” the expression on her face also suggests that she is not trying to be herself, but to portray something. She understands freedom as swagger and demonstrates it with all her might: Sitnikov “lounge back in his chair and lifted his leg up.” Even the description of their clothes sets off their characters: “not quite a neat dress” by the “disheveled” Kukshina, “overly elegant gloves” by Sitnikov. No wonder Bazarov treats them with undisguised contempt.
Kukshina and Sitnikov are related to Repetilov from Griboedov's comedy and Lebezyatnikov from Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. In the words of Dostoevsky, “they pester the most fashionable current idea in order to vulgarize it, to caricature everything that they most sincerely serve.” Against the background of these characters, the authenticity of Bazarov’s convictions, the depth of his nature and boundless loneliness are especially clearly visible.