Want to Read
Buy on Kobo
Rate this book
What Is to Be Done?
Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Michael R. Katz (Translator)
3.56
3,341 ratings278 reviews
"No work in modern literature, with the possible exception of Uncle Tom's Cabin, can compete with What Is to Be Done? in its effect on human lives and its power to make history. For Chernyshevsky's novel, far more than Marx's Capital, supplied the emotional dynamic that eventually went to make the Russian Revolution."--Joseph Frank, The Southern Review
Almost from the moment of its publication in 1863, Nikolai Chernyshevsky's novel, What Is to Be Done?, had a profound impact on the course of Russian literature and politics. The idealized image it offered of dedicated and self-sacrificing intellectuals transforming society by means of scientific knowledge served as a model of inspiration for Russia's revolutionary intelligentsia. On the one hand, the novel's condemnation of moderate reform helped to bring about the irrevocable break between radical intellectuals and liberal reformers; on the other, Chernyshevsky's socialist vision polarized conservatives' opposition to institutional reform. Lenin himself called Chernyshevsky "the greatest and most talented representative of socialism before Marx"; and the controversy surrounding What Is to Be Done? exacerbated the conflicts that eventually led to the Russian Revolution.
Michael R. Katz's readable and compelling translation is now the definitive unabridged English-language version, brilliantly capturing the extraordinary qualities of the original. William G. Wagner has provided full annotations to Chernyshevsky's allusions and references and to the, sources of his ideas, and has appended a critical bibliography. An introduction by Katz and Wagner places the novel in the context of nineteenth-century Russian social, political, and intellectual history and literature, and explores its importance for several generations of Russian radicals.
GenresFictionClassicsRussian LiteratureRussiaPhilosophyPoliticsLiterature
...more
===
What Is to Be Done?
by Nikolai Chernyshevsky (Author), & 2 more Format: Paperback
4.2 4.2 out of 5 stars (124)
See all formats and editions
Or $12.07 /payment at 0% (Pay in 4). View 2 plans
"No work in modern literature, with the possible exception of Uncle Tom's Cabin, can compete with What Is to Be Done? in its effect on human lives and its power to make history. For Chernyshevsky's novel, far more than Marx's Capital, supplied the emotional dynamic that eventually went to make the Russian Revolution."-Joseph Frank, The Southern Review Almost from the moment of its publication in 1863, Nikolai Chernyshevsky's novel, What Is to Be Done?, had a profound impact on the course of Russian literature and politics. The idealized image it offered of dedicated and self-sacrificing intellectuals transforming society by means of scientific knowledge served as a model of inspiration for Russia's revolutionary intelligentsia. On the one hand, the novel's condemnation of moderate reform helped to bring about the irrevocable break between radical intellectuals and liberal reformers; on the other, Chernyshevsky's socialist vision polarized conservatives' opposition to institutional reform. Lenin himself called Chernyshevsky "the greatest and most talented representative of socialism before Marx"; and the controversy surrounding What Is to Be Done? exacerbated the conflicts that eventually led to the Russian Revolution. Michael R. Katz's readable and compelling translation is now the definitive unabridged English-language version, brilliantly capturing the extraordinary qualities of the original. William G. Wagner has provided full annotations to Chernyshevsky's allusions and references and to the, sources of his ideas, and has appended a critical bibliography. An introduction by Katz and Wagner places the novel in the context of nineteenth-century Russian social, political, and intellectual history and literature, and explores its importance for several generations of Russian radi
===
445 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1863
Book details & editions
335 people are currently reading
9331 people want to read
About the author
Nikolai Chernyshevsky117 books108 followers
Follow
Nikolaj Gavrilovič Černyševskij (Russian: Николай Гаврилович Чернышевский, Николай Чернышевский) was a Russian revolutionary democrat, materialist philosopher, lexicographer, journalist and socialist (seen by some as a utopian socialist). He was the leader of the revolutionary democratic movement of the 1860s, and an influence on Vladimir Lenin, Emma Goldman, and Serbian political writer and socialist Svetozar Marković.
The son of a priest, Chernyshevsky was born in Saratov in 1828, and stayed there till 1846. After graduating from Saint Petersburg University in 1850, he taught literature at a gymnasium in Saratov. From 1853 to 1862, he lived in Saint Petersburg, and became the chief editor of Sovremennik ("Contemporary"), in which he published his main literary reviews and his essays on philosophy.
He was the spiritual guidance of the progressive intellectuals. Because of his radical ideas he was arrested in July 1862 in St. Petersburg, he was released after seven years of prison in Siberia and eighteen in exile and confined in the Fortress of St. Peter and Paul, where he wrote his only finished novel Что делать? What Is to Be Done?, written during his imprisonment. The novel was written in a only apparent innocuous style and with a romantic plot in the fashion style of the era foreshadowing its real messages and its deeply critical political and social themes to avoid censorship. The novel was published in the Sovremennik review in 1863 and later, when it was banned, the novel began to circulate in clandestine copies becoming a cult novel for generations of Russian revolutionaries, who sought to emulate the novel's hero, who was wholly dedicated to the revolution, ascetic in his habits and ruthlessly disciplined, to the point of sleeping on a bed of nails and eating only meat in order to build strength for the Revolution. Among those who took inspiration from the character was Lenin, who wrote a work of political theory of the same name, and who was ascetic in his personal life.
In 1862, Chernyshevsky was sentenced to civil execution (mock execution), followed by penal servitude (1864-72), and by exile to Vilyuisk, Siberia (1872-83). He died at the age of 61, only four months after his release and his return to his hometown Saratov.
Show more
Community Reviews
3.56
3,341 ratings278 reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 275 reviews
The Narrator
44 reviews39 followers
Follow
July 24, 2008
Dear Reader, the criticism of this novel is that it is poorly written. I can assure you this is not the case. Chernyshevsky - indeed once a dear friend of mine (we spent some time together in the Fortress of Peter and Paul) - with a few initial "striking scenes" comes right out and admits he's not trying to win you over with plot. Plot is grossly overrated anyhow; most modern "authors" would be well served to learn that lesson (and why must a plot have this silly, redundant arc to it? You've seen it once, you've seen it a million times! So for the love of God, try another shape!). In any case, he's very funny, and this translation, including carefully researched footnotes, is quite excellent. I might go so far as to describe it as a brilliant work; in it you will be introduced to my world, a world of "swindlers and fools" - where your choice is to be but one or the other (and one questions whether or not this remains the case today). Now of course there is a great deal more to say about the impact of this novel on certain figures, characters you might call them, who loomed rather large in Russian politics - indeed who cast their shadow, as it were, on the course of modern history, in particular one who suffered from painful migraines, who adored chess and mushroom hunting, among other things... Oh, but Dear Reader, I am not an historian! My duty is merely to recommend this work, which, in all candor, is one of my favorites and should be mandatory reading to any poor soul seeking to understand the origins of certain... ideas, shall we say. And oh, but ideas are marvelous things, aren't they? Do read this.
russian-literature
62 likes
3 comments
Like
Comment
Kushagri
234 reviews12 followers
Follow
April 4, 2023
3.5 stars
I have rounded down the rating, since I was debating between 3 and 3.5 stars.
I didn’t dislike the book; on the contrary, I quite liked it. But the points I raise in this review, are exactly what I said they are, a review! But it may seem like a roast at some points. A preemptory apology for that.
I don’t much know how to review this book. So I will not get into the plot but writer’s intentions. There is a continuous switch between narrative and meta narrative. I felt the novel to be like a pamphlet on the author’s world vision. It has to be judged separately as a work of fiction and as a treatise of socio-political importance. It represents his ideal for a socialist utopia. It was at times good to be true and the three main characters were like Ideal people. But in calling these people Ideal, I basically lower my estimation in Chernyshevsky’s eyes because in that case the reader is some underworld character.
The author was quite condescending to the reader. But as a work of literature the flow of ideas seemed preachy and forced. It didn’t seem natural and free flowing.
The characters live their life according to the philosophy of rational egoism. The following lines from the introduction give an idea of this principle.
The resulting theory of rational egoism enabled him to reconcile the individual’s need for personal self-fulfillment with the collective interests of the community. Put simply, Chernyshevsky argued that all human behavior was motivated by the desire to maximize personal pleasure and to avoid pain. Since human motivation thus was both constant and universal, differences in the behavior of people could be explained only by the different ways in which their socioeconomic environment led them to act in pursuit of their self-interest. Crime and courage, avarice and charity, all emanated from the same egoistical impulse.
The central theme is the liberation, development and independence of a woman, Vera Pavlovna. I liked the following quote from the book where Vera answers to her friend Julie about her reasons for denying a socially and monetarily advantageous marriage.
“You call me a dreamer and ask what I want out of life. I prefer neither to dominate nor to submit. I wish neither to deceive nor to dissemble. I don’t want to be concerned about other people’s opinions, or strive for what others advise, when I really have no need for it. I have not become accustomed to wealth, and have no need for it myself. Why should I seek it only because others consider that it’s good to have and therefore that it would be good for me? I’ve not been in society and have never experienced what it means to be dazzling; it still doesn’t attract me. Why should I make sacrifices for a brilliant position only because other people think it’s valuable? I’m unwilling to sacrifice not only myself but even my slightest whim for something I really don’t need. I want to be independent and live in my own way. I am eager to acquire only what I really need; what I don’t need, I don’t want and won’t want. I don’t know yet what I’ll need later. You say that I’m young and inexperienced and that in time I’ll change. So what? When I change, then I will; but for now, I don’t want a thing, nothing that I myself don’t desire. And you ask me what I want now: welt I don’t even know myself. Do I want to love a man? I don’t know. When I awoke yesterday morning, I didn’t even know that I would want to love you; for several hours before I did, I didn’t know that I would, nor did I know how I would feel when I did. So now I don’t know how I would feel if I loved a man; I know only that I don’t want to submit to anyone. I want to be free; I don’t want to be obligated to anyone for anything. I don’t want anyone ever to say, ‘You’re obligated to do this for me!’ I want to do only what I desire and want others to do likewise. I don’t want to demand anything from anyone. I don’t want to impinge on anyone’s freedom and I want to be free myself.”
But the book was ahead of its time … at times too far ahead that it escapes the scope of vision! Many narratives seem superfluous until later we realize their importance to the overall building of characters.
It took almost 40% of the book for me to going from slight perturbation to (“ohh! It makes sense”) satisfaction. It was at times tedious and the novel was treading on a thin line between being a work of fiction and a social reform treatise.
The author’s patriarchy, and feminism were having a tug of war. The novel was their middle ground. Some moment I am reflecting that wow that’s ahead of times feminist thinking, then he goes and utters something misogynistic and offensive (perhaps it meant as a dig at the social scenario, and not his own opinions! But who knows?)
Also it’s unjust to expect that written in prison, while being falsely persecuted, the focus will naturally lie in conveying revolutionary ideas and not enhancing aesthetic beauty of the novel.
I will share some quotes from the introduction of the book to give an idea of how to perceive this work and a glimpse into Chernyshevsky’s beliefs and principles.
Chernyshevsky claimed that body, mind, and spirit represented merely different aspects of a single, unitary human organism that was an integral part of nature. Action, thought, and emotion thus were nothing more than sensual responses to external stimuli and therefore were governed by natural laws. Chernyshevsky argued that these laws could be discovered by rigorous application to human society of the methodology and concepts developed in the natural sciences by such pioneers as the French physiologist Claude Bernard. Human beings would then be able to reshape their social as well as natural environment in accordance with their needs.
His priorities relating to the novel while writing it, were described in the following lines.
For him, art represented a medium for revealing, vicariously experiencing, and thereby better understanding reality. Reality itself could not be transcended, only comprehended. Idealist notions of pure art or beauty therefore were not simply false but dangerous, because they obscured reality and subordinated it to an unrealizable ideal. Chernyshevsky concluded that art should therefore be judged on the basis of its fidelity to reality and its ability to expand human knowledge. Hence his theory of aesthetics essentially endeavored to transform art into an instrument of education. Taking this principle a step further in What Is to Be Done?, Chernyshevsky sought not only to explain reality but also to change it by providing radical youth with guidelines for social behavior and political action.
This book was written as a response to Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. Some lines from the introduction give an idea of this.
In his own novel he sought to refute Turgenev’s portrayal of the “new men” (and women) and to present a more “accurate” image that would demonstrate the possibility of reconciling “rational egoism” and romantic love in a single ideology that allowed for effective action.
he transformed Bazarov’s negative, ill-conceived, and easily abandoned nihilism into “rational egoism,” Bazarov’s “abyss of romanticism” into mature, “rational” love, and his self-destructive urge into a revolutionary movement. Even Turgenev’s caricature of a “liberated woman” (Kukshina) was replaced by the genuinely emancipated Vera Pavlovna.
Further a response to Chernyshevsky’s book was Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky.
I would like to thank my friend Cleo for recommending me this book!
30 likes
7 comments
Like
Comment
Mir
5,001 reviews5,356 followers
Follow
ReadOctober 16, 2017
(I don't recall at this point which translation I read.)
Written in in the few months the author spent in prison on false charges of instigating civil unrest, this political tract in novel form presents Chernyshevsky's views on materialism, communalism, and feminism.
Chernyshevsky shows that only the respectful marriage of equal individuals can be successful. Both parties should be free to pursue happiness, even if it involves ending the marriage because they are no longer in love. Women ought to be free to work outside the home, and spouses ought support one another's careers as they are able.
In the workplace, employees should share in business decisions and profits. If it isn't clear who is best at which jobs, everyone should try the different tasks and see who is best suited to them. Experts should be brought it to teach new skills or simply provide continuing education for workers.
Workers should live near the place of work, creating a local community and also saving transit time so that they can get more sleep or have more time to spend on other activities. Everyone should, collectively, think of and plan for the future rather than putting individual interests first.
Justice begins in material conditions.
Show more
29 likes
7 comments
Like
Comment
Michael Steger
100 reviews10 followers
Follow
July 5, 2010
This is a rather peculiar book, which I enjoyed quite a lot. It was
written in 1863, while its author, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, was in prison for opposing serfdom. Chernyshevsky, who spent a number of years in prison and died in forced exile in Siberia, was considered one of the
most radical men of his time, one of the 'new men' of the 1860s, who opposed themselves to the 'men of the '40s' such as Dostoevsky and
Turgenyev. 'What Is to Be Done?' was for a long time considered the
exemplary radical Russian novel, depicting women and men whose approach to life is essentially one of rational egoism and utilitarianism (Chernyshevsky was greatly impressed by Mill), and who occasionally say things like, 'chemistry is infinitely more needed by society than is
poetry.' The characters engage in intellectual debates; there are
stories within stories (reminiscent of Dostoevsky); the heroine, Vera
Pavlovna, starts a cooperative employee-owned workshop for
seamstresses; and there is a love triangle reminiscent of 'Jules et
Jim' (and here the rationalism breaks down strangely and darkly, but I won't say more). Chernyshevsky was a great admirer of 'Vanity Fair,' and in this, his only novel, he often addresses his characters and his
readers in a manner not unlike Thackeray. Indeed, he often wittily
mocks his reader: "How perceptive you are! As soon as you are told
something, you note it instantly and glory in your penetration. Accept my admiration, reader with the penetrating eye!" Dostoevsky, who was enraged by Chernyshevsky's materialism, rationalism, socialism, feminism and optimism, wrote 'Notes from Underground' and a good bit of 'The Demons' as a response (there are also references in 'Brothers Karamazov'). Chernyshevsky's novel also was a favorite of Lenin and his revolutionary comrades, and it has been said that 'What Is to Be Done?' was more influential in laying the foundations for the Russian revolution than anything written by Marx.
25 likes
Like
Comment
Amirsaman
536 reviews275 followers
Follow
May 16, 2020
کمتر پیش آمده که برای ریت دادن به کتابی، یعنی اصلا مشخص کردن اینکه از کتابی خوشم آمده یا نه اینقدر مردد باشم. چرا؟
کتاب بنا به توضیح مترجم (پرتو آذر) در مقدمهاش، خیلی مهم بوده برای آنان که در قرن نوزدهم میخواستند انقلاب کنند تا که بعد رسید به لنین و آن ماجراها. البته اهمیت اسطورهای دادن به نویسنده و کتاب جای تعجب ندارد، وقتی که میبینیم در همان مقدمه، شوروی سابق مهد آزادی جهان تلقی میشود و استالینْ رفیق. (کتاب چاپ موسسهی انتشاراتی ارانی است.)
خب پس با کتابی سروکار داریم که ادعا میشود راه انقلاب را به جوانانی که میپرسند «چه باید کرد؟» نشان میدهد. اما غالبیت صفحات کتاب به وصال عشاق میپردازد. اتفاقا این اصلا بد نیست و نکتهی قوت کتاب است؛ نگاه نسبتا پیشرویی که به زنان و ازدواج و روابط اجتماعی به طور کلی دارد. ولیکن از نظر مفسران این داستانهای عشقی در اولویت دوم هستند و اصل همان انقلاب وعده داده شده در کتاب است، همان آدمهای نو و دنیای نو، چیزی که بنظر بنده کتاب اصلا از عهدهی توصیفش برنمیآید.
بنظرم از قضا شخصیتهای معروف و اساسی کتاب هیچ خوب پرداخته نشده بودند و سراسر متناقض بودند، دقیقا چون میخواستند حرفهای نویسنده را از دهان خود بزنند. و البته این ضعف اساسی کتاب مربوط است به بخش ادبیاتی آن. برعکس، شخصیتی حاشیهای مثل ماریا آلکسیونا از نظر من بهترین کارکترِ از آب درآمدهی کتاب است، چرا که واقعا کارکرد رمان را به دویست صفحهی ابتدایی کتاب میدهد، با همهی چموخمهایی که نویسنده در او شناسایی میکند.
همچنین دیدگاههای اقتصادی/مدیریتی نویسنده هم با توجه به زمانهاش باید بررسی شود. آن به اصلاح دنیای نویی که ساخته میشود، با معیارهای امروز ما اصلا شبیه آرمانشهر نیست، ولی همینکه نویسنده متوجه شده که ساعت کار باید کم شود و کارگران باید آموزش ببینند و در سود کارخانه شریک باشند، خوب است. اما باز هم پرداخت ادبی درستدرمانی ندارد.
حتا از نظر علم اقتصاد هم پر از باگ است تئوریهای رفیقمان آقای چرنیشفسکی. معلوم نیست چطور ممکن است که تمام سود را تقسیم کنیم بین کارگران یا وام بدهیم به کسی که دارد عروس میشود برای جهیزیهاش، و آنوقت همزمان کارخانه را هم گسترش دهیم. سرمایه باید همواره در جریان باشد!
و از این بحث به نقد اساسیترم به کتاب میرسم. اینکه قهرمانان چرنیشفسکی، یا مثل رحمت اف، خانوادتا بسیار ثروتمند بودند و حالا با تفکر پیشرویشان میآیند ثروتشان را تقسیم میکنند، یا مثل لاپاخوف و همسرش، مخهای اقتصادی هستند که به سبب تجارت و تولید، پولی به هم میزنند و پیشرفت میکنند و چون بااخلاق و باشرفاند دست بقیه را هم میگیرند. یعنی درست مثل حالا که تبلیغ میشود که استیو جابز هم هیچی نداشت و با نبوغ به اینجا (!) رسید و نوش جانش. خب در این دنیای به اصطلاح سوسیالیستیِ چرنیشفسکی هم که همهاش بحث بر سر پول است. بحث اتفاقا این است که نبوغ رفیقمان آقای جابز فقط به این درد خورد که پول روی پول تلنبار کند و استثمار کند.
خب حالا اگر بخواهیم کارخانههای منصفانه بزنیم باید چکار کنیم؟ مسلما پاسخِ این چه باید کرد در رمان آقای چرنیشفسکی نیست؛ چون با تقسیم سود و بستنی خریدن با آن، دیگر نمیتوان ادامه دادن به اشتغالزایی و شعبه زدن. پس آخر ناموسا چه باید کرد؟
23 likes
9 comments
Like
Comment
Vladys Kovsky
229 reviews58 followers
Follow
January 12, 2021
Almost the only memory I retain of this book is the author's obsession with aluminium.
It was an important book from the historical perspective but amounts to very little these days. The author was an early proponent of gender and social equality. The book has influenced socialist thought in Russia in XIX century probably more than anything else written at the time. Having said that, the literary value of this oeuvre is close to zero.
19 likes
10 comments
Like
Comment
Cleo
168 reviews255 followers
Follow
September 24, 2019
What do Chernyshevsky, Nietzsche and Star Trek all have in common? They all believe in socialist Utopias, in that if we all just could see the higher purpose of man and allow our characters to be developed beyond the animalistic tendencies of greed and selfishness and jealousy, we would all be able to lead this idealistic life with money, freedom, happiness and, in Nietzsche’s case, right-thinking for all. Everyone would get exactly what they wanted in all things, and gratification and joy would abound everywhere. And this would all come in an erupting revolution that would change the world as we know it. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Except that there’s one catch. In all of history, men have never been able to shed all strife and avarice and enmity towards each other. We have never been able to only do good, love mercy and walk humbly. So how these people can expect this to happen in the rumblings of revolution, yet also in an easily perceived development of social change, is quite beyond me. “Delusional”is the word that springs first to mind.
In Chernyshevsky’s, What Is To Be Done?, Véra Pálovna is a sheltered young woman with a strident, lower class, controlling mother. Her mother tries to manipulate her with her machinations, but Véra, with stern self command unusual for her age and sex, manages to best her mother and ends up marrying a medical student and tutor, Dmítry Sergéich Lopukhóv, to escape her mother’s nagging domination. While married to Lopukhóv, she starts her own sewing business, employing unusual business acumen to make it a success. Likewise, her marriage is run in an unusual business-like way, to the apparent delight of both. Yet when their close friend, another medical student, Alexánder Matvéich Kirsánov, begins to form an attraction to Véra, an impending tragedy culminates, and finalizes in a most unexpected way.
Although What Is To Be Done? is almost unknown in classic fiction, among Russians it was considered one of the most influential books of nineteenth-century Russia for the ramification it had on human thought, and the effect it had on the history of the country.
Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky was a staunch proponent of materialist philosophy, socialist political economy, and women’s liberation. In his novel, he attempted to provide a remedy for all the social ills and the dilemmas that faced Russian society, believing that the controlling patriarchal hierarchy of the family, social inequality, and political and social problems were the main causes of the tyrannical, unbalanced, economic backwardness of the society. He disliked modern reform, advocating more radical steps. Offering a blend of Russian traditional values, and ideas from Western Europe, he called for a social education that would bring sexual freedom, self-awareness, and prosperity. However, his self-righteousness and intolerance of criticism eventually caused him to be barred from academia, and Chernyshevsky was forced to turn to journalism for an outlet. His views eventually occasioned his arrest and he spent eighteen months in prison, which no doubt helped to advance him to the status of a martyr and enhanced the popularity of this book. He became a symbol of the ultimate revolutionary Utopian socialist.
This book served not only as a platform for Chernyshevsky’s ideas, but it was also a response to Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. In Turgenev’s novel, Turgenev explores the relationship between reason and emotion, or perhaps how emotion can undermine one’s ideology. In Fathers and Sons, both the nihilist Bazarov’s ideology and his underdeveloped grasp of emotion appear to cancel each other out, leaving him in a morass of ineffectuality in either. In contrast, the nobleman Kirsanov reaches a level of contentment using a combination of idealism and reason, mirrored in his recognition of family values, the importance of nature and the land on which he lives. Chernyshevsky despised the novel and Turgenev’s portrayal of “new men”; with his novel, he strove to counter the portrayal, borrowing character names from Turgenev and metamorphosing Bazarov’s nihilism into rational egoism for what he thought allowed for more efficient action. The ongoing debate continued with Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s response to What is To Be Done?, in his Notes from the Underground.
Perhaps I was suffering with extreme impatience with naive “genius” philosophers and writers, but the impatience only increased with Chernyshevsky. Not only were his ideas born of some unrealistic fantasy, but the structure of his book was tedious. The book wasn’t really a story, it was merely Chernyshevsky’s ideas. Everyone is subordinate to his ideas, from his plot, to his characters, even his reader cannot escape. While I know that authors control their stories, I like to feel their stories control them to some degree; that the story is born inside of them with not only the passionate ideas that they breed, but perhaps with an insight that is not quite explored or realized. Then, voilà! A “conversation” is begun between reader and writer. Yet, with Chernyshevsky, this certainly wasn’t the case. Instead of speaking with you, he speaks at you. In fact, he goes so far as to address his readers with an intentional condescension, not only confessing what he is doing to you with his prose, but leading you down garden paths of supposition, professing your own ideas and putting words in your mouth, then calling you an idiot because you followed what he was offering you. I don’t understand it. Often these people profess to know all the ills of society and all the solutions, but they have absolutely no social skills or even an appearance of love for humanity at all; or at least it doesn’t come out in their work.
As a novel, it's valuable to read because of its place in Russian history but its political ideology is idealistic to say the least.
2015-52-books-in-52-weeks 2015-books-in-translation classics-minor
...more
15 likes
Like
Comment
Sergio
1,430 reviews171 followers
Follow
March 16, 2023
Lo scrittore russo Nikolaj Gavrilovic Cernysevskij [1828-1889] scrisse il romanzo "Che Fare?" durante la sua detenzione nella fortezza di "Pietro e Paolo" a seguito della sua condanna per attività sovversiva.
"Che fare?" è un romanzo didascalico che vuole raccontare e insegnare come evitare che un matrimonio nel tempo perda freschezza, si infiacchisca e generi monotonia e infine allontanamento tra i coniugi fino a una convivenza di facciata o peggio a un disamore che può portare a "distrazioni" fatali. Protagonisti principali di questo romanzo la giovane Vera Rozalskij, promessa sposa dai genitori, suo malgrado, al Consigliere di Stato Ivan Storeznikov, lo studente medico Dimitrji Lopuchov e il suo grande amico, anch'egli studente medico, Aleksandr Kirsakov.
Il romanzo, dalla trama avvincente, è raccontato benissimo con uno stile sciolto e fluido, dialoghi brillanti, tesi e ipotesi condivisibili e non manca dunque di nessuna qualità che lo renda una lettura piacevolissima oltreché intrigante e lo pone, a mio modesto parere, tra i migliori romanzi russi dell'ottocento.
letteratura-ottocento scrittori-russi
15 likes
4 comments
Like
Comment
Μαρία Γεωργιάδου
183 reviews61 followers
Follow
August 2, 2014
Απόσπασμα από τη σελ. 387:
«Ό,τι σου δείξαμε, δεν θα έχει σύντομα την πλήρη ανάπτυξή που διαπίστωσες τώρα. Θα περάσουν πολλές γενιές μέχρι να πραγματοποιηθεί αυτό απ’ το οποίο τώρα παίρνεις μια πρώτη γεύση. Όχι, το «πολλές γενιές» δεν είναι ακριβές: η δουλειά μου τώρα προχωράει γρήγορα, κάθε χρόνο και γρηγορότερα, μα, παρ’ όλα αυτά, δεν θα εισέλθεις ακόμα σ’ αυτό το βασίλειο της τελειότητας που κυβερνάει η αδερφή μου. Τουλάχιστον το είδες, ξέρεις πώς θα είναι το μέλλον. Φωτεινό, εκπληκτικό. Πες το σε όλους: να τι θα είναι το μέλλον, φωτεινό, εκπληκτικό. Αγαπήστε το, ποθείστε το, δουλέψτε γι’ αυτό, φέρτε το πιο κοντά, δανειστείτε απ’ αυτό όσα μπορείτε να εφαρμόσετε σήμερα: η ζωή σας θα γίνει πιο φωτεινή και όμορφη, γόνιμη σε χαρές και απολαύσεις, αν μπορέσετε να την πλουτίσετε με δάνεια από το μέλλον. Ποθείστε το, δουλέψτε γι’ αυτό, φέρτε το πιο κοντά, δανειστείτε ό,τι απ’ αυτό μπορείτε να βάλετε σήμερα σε πράξη.»
15 likes
Like
Comment
===
===
445 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1863
Book details & editions
335 people are currently reading
9331 people want to read
About the author
Nikolai Chernyshevsky117 books108 followers
Follow
Nikolaj Gavrilovič Černyševskij (Russian: Николай Гаврилович Чернышевский, Николай Чернышевский) was a Russian revolutionary democrat, materialist philosopher, lexicographer, journalist and socialist (seen by some as a utopian socialist). He was the leader of the revolutionary democratic movement of the 1860s, and an influence on Vladimir Lenin, Emma Goldman, and Serbian political writer and socialist Svetozar Marković.
The son of a priest, Chernyshevsky was born in Saratov in 1828, and stayed there till 1846. After graduating from Saint Petersburg University in 1850, he taught literature at a gymnasium in Saratov. From 1853 to 1862, he lived in Saint Petersburg, and became the chief editor of Sovremennik ("Contemporary"), in which he published his main literary reviews and his essays on philosophy.
He was the spiritual guidance of the progressive intellectuals. Because of his radical ideas he was arrested in July 1862 in St. Petersburg, he was released after seven years of prison in Siberia and eighteen in exile and confined in the Fortress of St. Peter and Paul, where he wrote his only finished novel Что делать? What Is to Be Done?, written during his imprisonment. The novel was written in a only apparent innocuous style and with a romantic plot in the fashion style of the era foreshadowing its real messages and its deeply critical political and social themes to avoid censorship. The novel was published in the Sovremennik review in 1863 and later, when it was banned, the novel began to circulate in clandestine copies becoming a cult novel for generations of Russian revolutionaries, who sought to emulate the novel's hero, who was wholly dedicated to the revolution, ascetic in his habits and ruthlessly disciplined, to the point of sleeping on a bed of nails and eating only meat in order to build strength for the Revolution. Among those who took inspiration from the character was Lenin, who wrote a work of political theory of the same name, and who was ascetic in his personal life.
In 1862, Chernyshevsky was sentenced to civil execution (mock execution), followed by penal servitude (1864-72), and by exile to Vilyuisk, Siberia (1872-83). He died at the age of 61, only four months after his release and his return to his hometown Saratov.
Show more
Community Reviews
3.56
3,341 ratings278 reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 275 reviews
The Narrator
44 reviews39 followers
Follow
July 24, 2008
Dear Reader, the criticism of this novel is that it is poorly written. I can assure you this is not the case. Chernyshevsky - indeed once a dear friend of mine (we spent some time together in the Fortress of Peter and Paul) - with a few initial "striking scenes" comes right out and admits he's not trying to win you over with plot. Plot is grossly overrated anyhow; most modern "authors" would be well served to learn that lesson (and why must a plot have this silly, redundant arc to it? You've seen it once, you've seen it a million times! So for the love of God, try another shape!). In any case, he's very funny, and this translation, including carefully researched footnotes, is quite excellent. I might go so far as to describe it as a brilliant work; in it you will be introduced to my world, a world of "swindlers and fools" - where your choice is to be but one or the other (and one questions whether or not this remains the case today). Now of course there is a great deal more to say about the impact of this novel on certain figures, characters you might call them, who loomed rather large in Russian politics - indeed who cast their shadow, as it were, on the course of modern history, in particular one who suffered from painful migraines, who adored chess and mushroom hunting, among other things... Oh, but Dear Reader, I am not an historian! My duty is merely to recommend this work, which, in all candor, is one of my favorites and should be mandatory reading to any poor soul seeking to understand the origins of certain... ideas, shall we say. And oh, but ideas are marvelous things, aren't they? Do read this.
russian-literature
62 likes
3 comments
Like
Comment
Kushagri
234 reviews12 followers
Follow
April 4, 2023
3.5 stars
I have rounded down the rating, since I was debating between 3 and 3.5 stars.
I didn’t dislike the book; on the contrary, I quite liked it. But the points I raise in this review, are exactly what I said they are, a review! But it may seem like a roast at some points. A preemptory apology for that.
I don’t much know how to review this book. So I will not get into the plot but writer’s intentions. There is a continuous switch between narrative and meta narrative. I felt the novel to be like a pamphlet on the author’s world vision. It has to be judged separately as a work of fiction and as a treatise of socio-political importance. It represents his ideal for a socialist utopia. It was at times good to be true and the three main characters were like Ideal people. But in calling these people Ideal, I basically lower my estimation in Chernyshevsky’s eyes because in that case the reader is some underworld character.
The author was quite condescending to the reader. But as a work of literature the flow of ideas seemed preachy and forced. It didn’t seem natural and free flowing.
The characters live their life according to the philosophy of rational egoism. The following lines from the introduction give an idea of this principle.
The resulting theory of rational egoism enabled him to reconcile the individual’s need for personal self-fulfillment with the collective interests of the community. Put simply, Chernyshevsky argued that all human behavior was motivated by the desire to maximize personal pleasure and to avoid pain. Since human motivation thus was both constant and universal, differences in the behavior of people could be explained only by the different ways in which their socioeconomic environment led them to act in pursuit of their self-interest. Crime and courage, avarice and charity, all emanated from the same egoistical impulse.
The central theme is the liberation, development and independence of a woman, Vera Pavlovna. I liked the following quote from the book where Vera answers to her friend Julie about her reasons for denying a socially and monetarily advantageous marriage.
“You call me a dreamer and ask what I want out of life. I prefer neither to dominate nor to submit. I wish neither to deceive nor to dissemble. I don’t want to be concerned about other people’s opinions, or strive for what others advise, when I really have no need for it. I have not become accustomed to wealth, and have no need for it myself. Why should I seek it only because others consider that it’s good to have and therefore that it would be good for me? I’ve not been in society and have never experienced what it means to be dazzling; it still doesn’t attract me. Why should I make sacrifices for a brilliant position only because other people think it’s valuable? I’m unwilling to sacrifice not only myself but even my slightest whim for something I really don’t need. I want to be independent and live in my own way. I am eager to acquire only what I really need; what I don’t need, I don’t want and won’t want. I don’t know yet what I’ll need later. You say that I’m young and inexperienced and that in time I’ll change. So what? When I change, then I will; but for now, I don’t want a thing, nothing that I myself don’t desire. And you ask me what I want now: welt I don’t even know myself. Do I want to love a man? I don’t know. When I awoke yesterday morning, I didn’t even know that I would want to love you; for several hours before I did, I didn’t know that I would, nor did I know how I would feel when I did. So now I don’t know how I would feel if I loved a man; I know only that I don’t want to submit to anyone. I want to be free; I don’t want to be obligated to anyone for anything. I don’t want anyone ever to say, ‘You’re obligated to do this for me!’ I want to do only what I desire and want others to do likewise. I don’t want to demand anything from anyone. I don’t want to impinge on anyone’s freedom and I want to be free myself.”
But the book was ahead of its time … at times too far ahead that it escapes the scope of vision! Many narratives seem superfluous until later we realize their importance to the overall building of characters.
It took almost 40% of the book for me to going from slight perturbation to (“ohh! It makes sense”) satisfaction. It was at times tedious and the novel was treading on a thin line between being a work of fiction and a social reform treatise.
The author’s patriarchy, and feminism were having a tug of war. The novel was their middle ground. Some moment I am reflecting that wow that’s ahead of times feminist thinking, then he goes and utters something misogynistic and offensive (perhaps it meant as a dig at the social scenario, and not his own opinions! But who knows?)
Also it’s unjust to expect that written in prison, while being falsely persecuted, the focus will naturally lie in conveying revolutionary ideas and not enhancing aesthetic beauty of the novel.
I will share some quotes from the introduction of the book to give an idea of how to perceive this work and a glimpse into Chernyshevsky’s beliefs and principles.
Chernyshevsky claimed that body, mind, and spirit represented merely different aspects of a single, unitary human organism that was an integral part of nature. Action, thought, and emotion thus were nothing more than sensual responses to external stimuli and therefore were governed by natural laws. Chernyshevsky argued that these laws could be discovered by rigorous application to human society of the methodology and concepts developed in the natural sciences by such pioneers as the French physiologist Claude Bernard. Human beings would then be able to reshape their social as well as natural environment in accordance with their needs.
His priorities relating to the novel while writing it, were described in the following lines.
For him, art represented a medium for revealing, vicariously experiencing, and thereby better understanding reality. Reality itself could not be transcended, only comprehended. Idealist notions of pure art or beauty therefore were not simply false but dangerous, because they obscured reality and subordinated it to an unrealizable ideal. Chernyshevsky concluded that art should therefore be judged on the basis of its fidelity to reality and its ability to expand human knowledge. Hence his theory of aesthetics essentially endeavored to transform art into an instrument of education. Taking this principle a step further in What Is to Be Done?, Chernyshevsky sought not only to explain reality but also to change it by providing radical youth with guidelines for social behavior and political action.
This book was written as a response to Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. Some lines from the introduction give an idea of this.
In his own novel he sought to refute Turgenev’s portrayal of the “new men” (and women) and to present a more “accurate” image that would demonstrate the possibility of reconciling “rational egoism” and romantic love in a single ideology that allowed for effective action.
he transformed Bazarov’s negative, ill-conceived, and easily abandoned nihilism into “rational egoism,” Bazarov’s “abyss of romanticism” into mature, “rational” love, and his self-destructive urge into a revolutionary movement. Even Turgenev’s caricature of a “liberated woman” (Kukshina) was replaced by the genuinely emancipated Vera Pavlovna.
Further a response to Chernyshevsky’s book was Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky.
I would like to thank my friend Cleo for recommending me this book!
30 likes
7 comments
Like
Comment
Mir
5,001 reviews5,356 followers
Follow
ReadOctober 16, 2017
(I don't recall at this point which translation I read.)
Written in in the few months the author spent in prison on false charges of instigating civil unrest, this political tract in novel form presents Chernyshevsky's views on materialism, communalism, and feminism.
Chernyshevsky shows that only the respectful marriage of equal individuals can be successful. Both parties should be free to pursue happiness, even if it involves ending the marriage because they are no longer in love. Women ought to be free to work outside the home, and spouses ought support one another's careers as they are able.
In the workplace, employees should share in business decisions and profits. If it isn't clear who is best at which jobs, everyone should try the different tasks and see who is best suited to them. Experts should be brought it to teach new skills or simply provide continuing education for workers.
Workers should live near the place of work, creating a local community and also saving transit time so that they can get more sleep or have more time to spend on other activities. Everyone should, collectively, think of and plan for the future rather than putting individual interests first.
Justice begins in material conditions.
Show more
29 likes
7 comments
Like
Comment
Michael Steger
100 reviews10 followers
Follow
July 5, 2010
This is a rather peculiar book, which I enjoyed quite a lot. It was
written in 1863, while its author, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, was in prison for opposing serfdom. Chernyshevsky, who spent a number of years in prison and died in forced exile in Siberia, was considered one of the
most radical men of his time, one of the 'new men' of the 1860s, who opposed themselves to the 'men of the '40s' such as Dostoevsky and
Turgenyev. 'What Is to Be Done?' was for a long time considered the
exemplary radical Russian novel, depicting women and men whose approach to life is essentially one of rational egoism and utilitarianism (Chernyshevsky was greatly impressed by Mill), and who occasionally say things like, 'chemistry is infinitely more needed by society than is
poetry.' The characters engage in intellectual debates; there are
stories within stories (reminiscent of Dostoevsky); the heroine, Vera
Pavlovna, starts a cooperative employee-owned workshop for
seamstresses; and there is a love triangle reminiscent of 'Jules et
Jim' (and here the rationalism breaks down strangely and darkly, but I won't say more). Chernyshevsky was a great admirer of 'Vanity Fair,' and in this, his only novel, he often addresses his characters and his
readers in a manner not unlike Thackeray. Indeed, he often wittily
mocks his reader: "How perceptive you are! As soon as you are told
something, you note it instantly and glory in your penetration. Accept my admiration, reader with the penetrating eye!" Dostoevsky, who was enraged by Chernyshevsky's materialism, rationalism, socialism, feminism and optimism, wrote 'Notes from Underground' and a good bit of 'The Demons' as a response (there are also references in 'Brothers Karamazov'). Chernyshevsky's novel also was a favorite of Lenin and his revolutionary comrades, and it has been said that 'What Is to Be Done?' was more influential in laying the foundations for the Russian revolution than anything written by Marx.
25 likes
Like
Comment
Amirsaman
536 reviews275 followers
Follow
May 16, 2020
کمتر پیش آمده که برای ریت دادن به کتابی، یعنی اصلا مشخص کردن اینکه از کتابی خوشم آمده یا نه اینقدر مردد باشم. چرا؟
کتاب بنا به توضیح مترجم (پرتو آذر) در مقدمهاش، خیلی مهم بوده برای آنان که در قرن نوزدهم میخواستند انقلاب کنند تا که بعد رسید به لنین و آن ماجراها. البته اهمیت اسطورهای دادن به نویسنده و کتاب جای تعجب ندارد، وقتی که میبینیم در همان مقدمه، شوروی سابق مهد آزادی جهان تلقی میشود و استالینْ رفیق. (کتاب چاپ موسسهی انتشاراتی ارانی است.)
خب پس با کتابی سروکار داریم که ادعا میشود راه انقلاب را به جوانانی که میپرسند «چه باید کرد؟» نشان میدهد. اما غالبیت صفحات کتاب به وصال عشاق میپردازد. اتفاقا این اصلا بد نیست و نکتهی قوت کتاب است؛ نگاه نسبتا پیشرویی که به زنان و ازدواج و روابط اجتماعی به طور کلی دارد. ولیکن از نظر مفسران این داستانهای عشقی در اولویت دوم هستند و اصل همان انقلاب وعده داده شده در کتاب است، همان آدمهای نو و دنیای نو، چیزی که بنظر بنده کتاب اصلا از عهدهی توصیفش برنمیآید.
بنظرم از قضا شخصیتهای معروف و اساسی کتاب هیچ خوب پرداخته نشده بودند و سراسر متناقض بودند، دقیقا چون میخواستند حرفهای نویسنده را از دهان خود بزنند. و البته این ضعف اساسی کتاب مربوط است به بخش ادبیاتی آن. برعکس، شخصیتی حاشیهای مثل ماریا آلکسیونا از نظر من بهترین کارکترِ از آب درآمدهی کتاب است، چرا که واقعا کارکرد رمان را به دویست صفحهی ابتدایی کتاب میدهد، با همهی چموخمهایی که نویسنده در او شناسایی میکند.
همچنین دیدگاههای اقتصادی/مدیریتی نویسنده هم با توجه به زمانهاش باید بررسی شود. آن به اصلاح دنیای نویی که ساخته میشود، با معیارهای امروز ما اصلا شبیه آرمانشهر نیست، ولی همینکه نویسنده متوجه شده که ساعت کار باید کم شود و کارگران باید آموزش ببینند و در سود کارخانه شریک باشند، خوب است. اما باز هم پرداخت ادبی درستدرمانی ندارد.
حتا از نظر علم اقتصاد هم پر از باگ است تئوریهای رفیقمان آقای چرنیشفسکی. معلوم نیست چطور ممکن است که تمام سود را تقسیم کنیم بین کارگران یا وام بدهیم به کسی که دارد عروس میشود برای جهیزیهاش، و آنوقت همزمان کارخانه را هم گسترش دهیم. سرمایه باید همواره در جریان باشد!
و از این بحث به نقد اساسیترم به کتاب میرسم. اینکه قهرمانان چرنیشفسکی، یا مثل رحمت اف، خانوادتا بسیار ثروتمند بودند و حالا با تفکر پیشرویشان میآیند ثروتشان را تقسیم میکنند، یا مثل لاپاخوف و همسرش، مخهای اقتصادی هستند که به سبب تجارت و تولید، پولی به هم میزنند و پیشرفت میکنند و چون بااخلاق و باشرفاند دست بقیه را هم میگیرند. یعنی درست مثل حالا که تبلیغ میشود که استیو جابز هم هیچی نداشت و با نبوغ به اینجا (!) رسید و نوش جانش. خب در این دنیای به اصطلاح سوسیالیستیِ چرنیشفسکی هم که همهاش بحث بر سر پول است. بحث اتفاقا این است که نبوغ رفیقمان آقای جابز فقط به این درد خورد که پول روی پول تلنبار کند و استثمار کند.
خب حالا اگر بخواهیم کارخانههای منصفانه بزنیم باید چکار کنیم؟ مسلما پاسخِ این چه باید کرد در رمان آقای چرنیشفسکی نیست؛ چون با تقسیم سود و بستنی خریدن با آن، دیگر نمیتوان ادامه دادن به اشتغالزایی و شعبه زدن. پس آخر ناموسا چه باید کرد؟
23 likes
9 comments
Like
Comment
Vladys Kovsky
229 reviews58 followers
Follow
January 12, 2021
Almost the only memory I retain of this book is the author's obsession with aluminium.
It was an important book from the historical perspective but amounts to very little these days. The author was an early proponent of gender and social equality. The book has influenced socialist thought in Russia in XIX century probably more than anything else written at the time. Having said that, the literary value of this oeuvre is close to zero.
19 likes
10 comments
Like
Comment
Cleo
168 reviews255 followers
Follow
September 24, 2019
What do Chernyshevsky, Nietzsche and Star Trek all have in common? They all believe in socialist Utopias, in that if we all just could see the higher purpose of man and allow our characters to be developed beyond the animalistic tendencies of greed and selfishness and jealousy, we would all be able to lead this idealistic life with money, freedom, happiness and, in Nietzsche’s case, right-thinking for all. Everyone would get exactly what they wanted in all things, and gratification and joy would abound everywhere. And this would all come in an erupting revolution that would change the world as we know it. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Except that there’s one catch. In all of history, men have never been able to shed all strife and avarice and enmity towards each other. We have never been able to only do good, love mercy and walk humbly. So how these people can expect this to happen in the rumblings of revolution, yet also in an easily perceived development of social change, is quite beyond me. “Delusional”is the word that springs first to mind.
In Chernyshevsky’s, What Is To Be Done?, Véra Pálovna is a sheltered young woman with a strident, lower class, controlling mother. Her mother tries to manipulate her with her machinations, but Véra, with stern self command unusual for her age and sex, manages to best her mother and ends up marrying a medical student and tutor, Dmítry Sergéich Lopukhóv, to escape her mother’s nagging domination. While married to Lopukhóv, she starts her own sewing business, employing unusual business acumen to make it a success. Likewise, her marriage is run in an unusual business-like way, to the apparent delight of both. Yet when their close friend, another medical student, Alexánder Matvéich Kirsánov, begins to form an attraction to Véra, an impending tragedy culminates, and finalizes in a most unexpected way.
Although What Is To Be Done? is almost unknown in classic fiction, among Russians it was considered one of the most influential books of nineteenth-century Russia for the ramification it had on human thought, and the effect it had on the history of the country.
Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky was a staunch proponent of materialist philosophy, socialist political economy, and women’s liberation. In his novel, he attempted to provide a remedy for all the social ills and the dilemmas that faced Russian society, believing that the controlling patriarchal hierarchy of the family, social inequality, and political and social problems were the main causes of the tyrannical, unbalanced, economic backwardness of the society. He disliked modern reform, advocating more radical steps. Offering a blend of Russian traditional values, and ideas from Western Europe, he called for a social education that would bring sexual freedom, self-awareness, and prosperity. However, his self-righteousness and intolerance of criticism eventually caused him to be barred from academia, and Chernyshevsky was forced to turn to journalism for an outlet. His views eventually occasioned his arrest and he spent eighteen months in prison, which no doubt helped to advance him to the status of a martyr and enhanced the popularity of this book. He became a symbol of the ultimate revolutionary Utopian socialist.
This book served not only as a platform for Chernyshevsky’s ideas, but it was also a response to Ivan Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. In Turgenev’s novel, Turgenev explores the relationship between reason and emotion, or perhaps how emotion can undermine one’s ideology. In Fathers and Sons, both the nihilist Bazarov’s ideology and his underdeveloped grasp of emotion appear to cancel each other out, leaving him in a morass of ineffectuality in either. In contrast, the nobleman Kirsanov reaches a level of contentment using a combination of idealism and reason, mirrored in his recognition of family values, the importance of nature and the land on which he lives. Chernyshevsky despised the novel and Turgenev’s portrayal of “new men”; with his novel, he strove to counter the portrayal, borrowing character names from Turgenev and metamorphosing Bazarov’s nihilism into rational egoism for what he thought allowed for more efficient action. The ongoing debate continued with Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s response to What is To Be Done?, in his Notes from the Underground.
Perhaps I was suffering with extreme impatience with naive “genius” philosophers and writers, but the impatience only increased with Chernyshevsky. Not only were his ideas born of some unrealistic fantasy, but the structure of his book was tedious. The book wasn’t really a story, it was merely Chernyshevsky’s ideas. Everyone is subordinate to his ideas, from his plot, to his characters, even his reader cannot escape. While I know that authors control their stories, I like to feel their stories control them to some degree; that the story is born inside of them with not only the passionate ideas that they breed, but perhaps with an insight that is not quite explored or realized. Then, voilà! A “conversation” is begun between reader and writer. Yet, with Chernyshevsky, this certainly wasn’t the case. Instead of speaking with you, he speaks at you. In fact, he goes so far as to address his readers with an intentional condescension, not only confessing what he is doing to you with his prose, but leading you down garden paths of supposition, professing your own ideas and putting words in your mouth, then calling you an idiot because you followed what he was offering you. I don’t understand it. Often these people profess to know all the ills of society and all the solutions, but they have absolutely no social skills or even an appearance of love for humanity at all; or at least it doesn’t come out in their work.
As a novel, it's valuable to read because of its place in Russian history but its political ideology is idealistic to say the least.
2015-52-books-in-52-weeks 2015-books-in-translation classics-minor
...more
15 likes
Like
Comment
Sergio
1,430 reviews171 followers
Follow
March 16, 2023
Lo scrittore russo Nikolaj Gavrilovic Cernysevskij [1828-1889] scrisse il romanzo "Che Fare?" durante la sua detenzione nella fortezza di "Pietro e Paolo" a seguito della sua condanna per attività sovversiva.
"Che fare?" è un romanzo didascalico che vuole raccontare e insegnare come evitare che un matrimonio nel tempo perda freschezza, si infiacchisca e generi monotonia e infine allontanamento tra i coniugi fino a una convivenza di facciata o peggio a un disamore che può portare a "distrazioni" fatali. Protagonisti principali di questo romanzo la giovane Vera Rozalskij, promessa sposa dai genitori, suo malgrado, al Consigliere di Stato Ivan Storeznikov, lo studente medico Dimitrji Lopuchov e il suo grande amico, anch'egli studente medico, Aleksandr Kirsakov.
Il romanzo, dalla trama avvincente, è raccontato benissimo con uno stile sciolto e fluido, dialoghi brillanti, tesi e ipotesi condivisibili e non manca dunque di nessuna qualità che lo renda una lettura piacevolissima oltreché intrigante e lo pone, a mio modesto parere, tra i migliori romanzi russi dell'ottocento.
letteratura-ottocento scrittori-russi
15 likes
4 comments
Like
Comment
Μαρία Γεωργιάδου
183 reviews61 followers
Follow
August 2, 2014
Απόσπασμα από τη σελ. 387:
«Ό,τι σου δείξαμε, δεν θα έχει σύντομα την πλήρη ανάπτυξή που διαπίστωσες τώρα. Θα περάσουν πολλές γενιές μέχρι να πραγματοποιηθεί αυτό απ’ το οποίο τώρα παίρνεις μια πρώτη γεύση. Όχι, το «πολλές γενιές» δεν είναι ακριβές: η δουλειά μου τώρα προχωράει γρήγορα, κάθε χρόνο και γρηγορότερα, μα, παρ’ όλα αυτά, δεν θα εισέλθεις ακόμα σ’ αυτό το βασίλειο της τελειότητας που κυβερνάει η αδερφή μου. Τουλάχιστον το είδες, ξέρεις πώς θα είναι το μέλλον. Φωτεινό, εκπληκτικό. Πες το σε όλους: να τι θα είναι το μέλλον, φωτεινό, εκπληκτικό. Αγαπήστε το, ποθείστε το, δουλέψτε γι’ αυτό, φέρτε το πιο κοντά, δανειστείτε απ’ αυτό όσα μπορείτε να εφαρμόσετε σήμερα: η ζωή σας θα γίνει πιο φωτεινή και όμορφη, γόνιμη σε χαρές και απολαύσεις, αν μπορέσετε να την πλουτίσετε με δάνεια από το μέλλον. Ποθείστε το, δουλέψτε γι’ αυτό, φέρτε το πιο κοντά, δανειστείτε ό,τι απ’ αυτό μπορείτε να βάλετε σήμερα σε πράξη.»
15 likes
Like
Comment
===
What Is to Be Done?
by Nikolai Chernyshevsky (Author), & 2 more Format: Paperback
4.2 4.2 out of 5 stars (124)
See all formats and editions
Or $12.07 /payment at 0% (Pay in 4). View 2 plans
"No work in modern literature, with the possible exception of Uncle Tom's Cabin, can compete with What Is to Be Done? in its effect on human lives and its power to make history. For Chernyshevsky's novel, far more than Marx's Capital, supplied the emotional dynamic that eventually went to make the Russian Revolution."-Joseph Frank, The Southern Review Almost from the moment of its publication in 1863, Nikolai Chernyshevsky's novel, What Is to Be Done?, had a profound impact on the course of Russian literature and politics. The idealized image it offered of dedicated and self-sacrificing intellectuals transforming society by means of scientific knowledge served as a model of inspiration for Russia's revolutionary intelligentsia. On the one hand, the novel's condemnation of moderate reform helped to bring about the irrevocable break between radical intellectuals and liberal reformers; on the other, Chernyshevsky's socialist vision polarized conservatives' opposition to institutional reform. Lenin himself called Chernyshevsky "the greatest and most talented representative of socialism before Marx"; and the controversy surrounding What Is to Be Done? exacerbated the conflicts that eventually led to the Russian Revolution. Michael R. Katz's readable and compelling translation is now the definitive unabridged English-language version, brilliantly capturing the extraordinary qualities of the original. William G. Wagner has provided full annotations to Chernyshevsky's allusions and references and to the, sources of his ideas, and has appended a critical bibliography. An introduction by Katz and Wagner places the novel in the context of nineteenth-century Russian social, political, and intellectual history and literature, and explores its importance for several generations of Russian radi
===
From Australia
Vasiliki Mazis
5.0 out of 5 stars Insightful
Reviewed in Australia on 14 June 2023
Format: KindleVerified Purchase
This book really put into context the revolutionary tradition of Russia, its rich history, and the influence this book would have had on someone like Lenin. Sometimes, it was a bit difficult to follow, but it was really interesting to read, so radical for the times it was written in, very secular, very contemporary, a must-read!!
Helpful
Report
From other countries
jordialg
5.0 out of 5 stars Very good quality
Reviewed in Spain on 20 February 2021
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Good translation!
Report
Translated from Spanish by Amazon
See original ·Report translation
Robert Peate
5.0 out of 5 stars Amazing
Reviewed in the United States on 15 July 2015
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Between the wit of the opening scenes, the most amazing preface ever written, and the depth and beauty of the characters Vera Pavlovna and Julie le Tellier, this is one of the most amazing books I have ever read. I cannot understand the negative reviews at all. I can only assume the reviewers do not understand or have patience for the fact this is a translation. Despite its being a translation, the work's genius shines through. My biggest regret is that when I finish reading it, there will be no more left to read, but I will find and read his 1877 novel *Prologue*.
Report
Gillian Taylor
5.0 out of 5 stars Surprisingly relevant!
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 19 December 2024
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Apart from being a bit preachy, the themes are quite modern.
Report
Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars A great book for changing thought.
Reviewed in Canada on 4 December 2017
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
This book is excellent and impacted me a lot.
Report
Marina
5.0 out of 5 stars one of my faves
Reviewed in the United States on 5 January 2023
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
I read it in high school and remember liking it back then...twenty years later I decided to reread it and didn't regret it: engaging, deep and thought provoking. Although not sure about this particular translation, I read it in Russian
Report
Brian hurlow
4.0 out of 5 stars Four Stars
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 9 January 2015
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Bought as a present.
Report
TG
4.0 out of 5 stars Very interesting!
Reviewed in the United States on 18 July 2019
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
I bought this book to learn the back story to Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground. It was very interesting and valuable in order to help understand this time period in Russia.
Report
Dama2
5.0 out of 5 stars Book
Reviewed in the United States on 21 April 2024
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Great book
Report
H. Grubb
3.0 out of 5 stars What is to be Done
Reviewed in the United States on 16 August 2011
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
An interesting novel, so it's the author's imagination. The book is claimed to have been quite popular when it became available, a part of which probably was that there wasn't much else available. The author envisioned the ideal communal society through Co-Operative Living, which included sharing in the work of the economic enterprise and the purchasing power of buying in bulk for the Co-op. However, as time has proven, such organizations have not been successful, as Robert Owen and others have demonstrated with failed attempts. Even the people who believe enough in such approaches to join them, seem to be looking for all they can get, while expecting the others to do the work.
Report
marc
4.0 out of 5 stars Early feminist literature makes great reading
Reviewed in the United States on 6 May 2013
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Chernyshevsky writes in an interesting, readable, style. He develops his characters very well and effectively weaves in the issues of the time it was written. In my opinion he is one of the great classic Russian writers.
Report
Cosmo Crawley
1.0 out of 5 stars Read something else instead
Reviewed in the United States on 30 October 2015
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Nikolai Chernyshevsky's 1863 novel What is to be Done? was one of the most famous and influential books in nineteenth century Russia. Three of Dostoevsky's masterpieces – Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment and The Devils – were, in large part, extended responses to Chernyshevsky's ideas. At the other end of the political spectrum Lenin read the book several times and paid homage to it by borrowing its title for one of his own political tracts. So why isn't such an important work in one of the world's great literary cultures better known in the English-speaking world? The simple answer is that What is to be Done? is a very bad novel. The prose style is flat and didactic without any of the literary flourishes which the author believed merely distracted from the main purpose of art: to propagate progressive political, social and moral ideas. The main characters do little else but calmly and politely lecture their inferiors and each other at great length about the way society and private lives ought to be organised. There are exhaustive descriptions of the organisational details of a co-operative dress-making factory, longs discussions of issues such as whether progressive married couples should knock before entering each other's private bedroom and extended dream sequences where the future agrarian utopia is revealed, replete with electric lighting and aluminium furniture and kitchenware. The narrator frequently interrupts the lofty, improving discourses of the leading characters in order to explain things directly to the reader, just in case he has missed the significance of the scenes that have just been presented.
But for all the author's calm rationalism and humanitarian ideals the novel has its sinister side. The characters who represent the enlightened minority spend most of their time trying to improve the "mean, base, pitiful" majority but their attitude towards them is ambiguous at best. As the progressive Lopukhov says to the very unenlightened Marya Aleksevna: "I'd be glad to wipe you off the face of the earth, but I respect you." One can imagine Vladimir Ilyich Lenin nodding his approval as he underlined this passage.
There is a cast of thousands, but the only interesting one is the fanatical Rakhmetov who is so devoted to the cause that he attempts to eliminate every daily activity that will not be useful in furthering the revolution. He engages in gymnastics and strenuous physical labour because he observes that the common people respect a strong physique and even sleeps on a bed of nails in order to teach himself to withstand pain. Unfortunately for the reader, however, he only appears in about thirty of the novel's four hundred pages. That leaves about 370 pages given over to the worthy deeds and improving discourses of the less colourful characters and the preaching of the omniscient narrator. As one of the characters reflects:
"No matter how fixed the ideas of a man in the wrong, if another man, more developed, more knowledgeable, and more understanding constantly works to lead him into the light, his errors can't hold out for long."
Chernyshevsky obviously thought that four hundred pages of leading his less developed readers into the light would just about do. Personally, I was prepared to invoke the mercy rule after about fifty.
The excellent introductory essay by Michael Katz and William Wagner tells you everything you need to know about Chernyshevsky and his novel. I'm sure Rakhmetov would agree that it would be a waste of valuable time to read any further.
Report
defendant k.
1.0 out of 5 stars what is to be done with this horrible novel?
Reviewed in the United States on 26 March 2007
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
the only good thing about this book is that it exposes the crackpot logic of the russian radicals. chernyshevsky is an abysmally bad writer. and even though he admits it in the preface, he still somehow thinks that his sheer intellectual brilliance will redeem him. it doesn't. this book is important only in that it was extraordinarily influential (a source of inspiration for both stalin and lenin - the latter which deemed chernyshevsky his favorite writer, while calling dostoevsky a "superlatively bad" one - ha!).
anyhow, his analysis of cooperative unions is not entirely without merit, nor are his reflections on women's rights. but insisting your best friend take your wife as a lover? rakhmetov as the "extraordinary man," who eats 5 lbs of beef in one sitting and sleeps on a bed of nails? unconvincing and stupid. his narrative technique is so obnoxious (oh, my perspicacious reader!) and he interjects too often to "add" insight to the story that he himself is creating. also, no matter how much of a hard determinist you are, becoming an apologist for "wickedness" by ascribing it to one's environment is simply absurd.
Report
kenneth r johnston
4.0 out of 5 stars very unusual
Reviewed in the United States on 7 October 2018
Format: KindleVerified Purchase
Stay with it. It goes on and on, but many interesting things along the way.
Report
ma
4.0 out of 5 stars A challenge to read.
Reviewed in the United States on 14 December 2014
Verified Purchase
A challenge to read.
Report
To see more, sea
===세진님, 요청하신 니콜라이 체르니셰프스키의 소설 <무엇을할 것인가?>에 대한 요약과 평론입니다. 본문은 작성 지침에 맞추어 <해라>체로 작성하였습니다.
1. 작품 개요 및 시대적 배경
1863년 발표된 니콜라이 체르니셰프스키의 <무엇을 할 것인가?>는 19세기 러시아 사회사상사에서 가장 강력한 파급력을 발휘한 정치적·이념적 소설이다. 당시 감옥에 투옥되어 있던 작가는 검열 당국의 허점을 틈타 연애 소설의 형식을 빌려 자신의 급진적 유물론과 사회주의적 유토피아 구상을 담아냈다.
이 작품은 이반 투르게네프의 <아버지와 아들>에서 제시된 니힐리스트 세대의 인물상에 대한 응답이자, 당시 정체되어 있던 러시아 사회가 나아가야 할 방향을 제시한 행동 지침서였다. 단순한 문학 작품을 넘어 19세기 후반 러시아 혁명가들의 교과서로 자리 잡았으며, 후일 레닌을 비롯한 수많은 급진주의자에게 결정적인 영감을 주었다.
2. 핵심 줄거리 요약
소설의 중심 인물은 전형적인 지주 가문에서 태어났으나 독립적인 삶을 갈망하는 여성 베라 파블로브나이다.
베라는 강요된 정략결혼을 피하기 위해 의학도인 로푸호프와 위장 결혼을 감행한다. 가부장적 가정에서 벗어난 베라는 여성 노동자들을 모아 봉제 협동조합을 설립한다. 이 협동조합은 이윤을 평등하게 나누고 자유롭게 운영되는 집단적 공동체로, 체르니셰프스키가 꿈꾼 공상적 사회주의의 실천 모델이다.
시간이 흐르며 베라는 로푸호프의 친구인 기르사노프와 사랑에 빠진다. 이를 알게 된 로푸호프는 이성적 판단에 따라 가짜 자살을 연출하고 해외로 떠남으로써 두 사람의 결합을 축복한다. 이들은 질투나 소유욕이라는 구시대적 감정을 배제하고, 합리적 판단과 상호 존중에 기반한 새로운 인간관계를 보여준다.
이야기의 후반부에는 특이한 인물인 라흐메토프가 등장한다. 그는 금욕주의적 혁명가로, 자신의 몸을 시험하기 위해 못이 박힌 침대에서 잠을 자고 개인적인 행복을 완전히 포기한 채 오직 민중의 해방만을 위해 살아간다.
소설은 베라의 '네 번째 꿈'을 통해 미래 사회의 유토피아적 비전을 보여주며 마무리된다. 거대한 유리와 알루미늄으로 지어진 궁전에서 사람들은 기계화된 농업과 산업을 통해 풍요를 누리고, 남녀가 평등하게 협력하며 완전한 자유를 누린다.
3. 사상적 분석: 합리적 이기주의와 유토피아
<무엇을 할 것인가?>를 관통하는 핵심 철학은 '합리적 이기주의(Rational Egoism)'이다. 작가는 인간이 이성적으로 자신의 참된 이익을 깨달을 때, 타인의 이익과 사회 전체의 행복이 곧 나의 이익과 일치한다는 점을 깨닫게 된다고 주장한다.
<합리적 이기주의>: 이기심을 악덕으로 보지 않고, 이성적으로 계산된 이기심이 곧 타인을 돕는 알트루이즘(리타주의)과 일치함을 입증하고자 한다.
<여성 해방론>: 가부장적 억압에서 벗어난 베라의 경제적·정신적 독립은 19세기 러시아 여성 운동의 선구적 비전을 제시한다.
<협동조합 운동>: 봉제 공장을 통해 보여주는 자발적 협동체 모델은 자본주의적 착취 구조를 극복하려는 공상적 사회주의의 실천이다.
이러한 이념은 '신인류(New People)'로 불리는 주인공들을 통해 구현된다. 이들은 도덕적 의무감 때문이 아니라, 그것이 가장 합리적이고 행복한 길이기 때문에 선을 행하고 사회를 개혁하고자 한다.
4. 문학적 및 역사적 평가
<무엇을 할 것인가?>는 문학적 예술성 측면과 역사적 영향력 측면에서 극단적으로 엇갈린 평가를 받는 작품이다.
문학적 한계
문학 비평가들은 이 소설이 지나치게 선전적이고 인물들이 관념의 대변자에 불과하다고 지적한다. 등장인물들은 현실적인 인간이라기보다는 작가의 사상을 전달하기 위해 설계된 기계적 상징에 가깝다. 서사 구조 역시 급진적 사상을 전파하기 위한 웅변과 설교로 가득 차 있어 미학적 완성도는 떨어진다는 평가를 받는다.
역사적 사회적 영향력
그러나 미학적 한계에도 불구하고 이 책의 역사적 파급력은 독보적이었다. 표도르 도스토옙스키는 이 소설에 담긴 합리적 이기주의와 이성적 유토피아주의를 강력히 비판하며 <지하로부터의 수기>를 썼다. 반면, 블라디미르 레닌은 이 소설을 읽고 완전히 매료되어 자신의 핵심 혁명 이론서 제목을 동일하게 <무엇을 할 것인가?>로 지었다.
이 작품은 19세기 후반 러시아 청년들에게 도덕적 실천의 지침서가 되었으며, 당대의 정치적 지형을 바꾼 가장 영향력 있는 텍스트 중 하나로 남아 있다.
===
니콜라이 체르니솁스키(Nikolai Chernyshevsky, 1828~1889)의 장편소설 『무엇을 할 것인가?』(What Is to Be Done?, 1863)는 문학적 완성도보다 역사적 영향력으로 기억되는 작품이다. 체르니솁스키는 유물론 철학, 사회주의 정치경제학, 여성해방을 주장한 러시아 급진주의 지식인이었으며, 반정부 활동 혐의로 수감된 상태에서 이 소설을 집필했다. 작품은 검열을 통과하여 잡지에 연재되었지만, 출간 직후 러시아의 청년 지식인들에게 하나의 생활 지침서이자 혁명적 복음서처럼 받아들여졌다.
소설의 중심인물은 젊은 여성 베라 파블로브나다이다. 베라는 가난하고 억압적인 가정에서 성장한다. 그녀의 어머니는 딸을 부유한 남자와 결혼시켜 가족의 지위를 높이려 하며, 베라의 감정과 의사는 중요하게 여기지 않는다. 베라는 이러한 가부장적 환경에서 벗어나기 위해 의대생 로푸호프와 위장에 가까운 결혼을 한다. 그러나 이 결혼은 단순한 도피 수단에 머물지 않는다. 두 사람은 서로의 자유와 독립을 존중하며, 소유와 복종이 아닌 평등한 동반자 관계를 만들려고 한다.
로푸호프는 베라에게 아내나 가사노동자의 역할을 강요하지 않는다. 두 사람은 각자의 방을 사용하고, 상대방의 사생활과 선택을 존중한다. 당시 러시아 사회의 결혼이 여성에 대한 경제적·법적 지배를 전제로 했다는 점을 생각하면, 이들의 관계는 매우 급진적이었다. 체르니솁스키에게 새로운 사회는 국가제도를 바꾸는 것만으로 만들어지지 않는다. 사랑, 결혼, 가족, 노동과 같은 일상생활의 관계가 먼저 변해야 한다.
베라는 경제적으로 독립하기 위해 재봉 협동조합을 설립한다. 이 작업장은 일반적인 자본주의 공장과 다르게 운영된다. 여성 노동자들은 임금을 받을 뿐 아니라 이익을 나누고, 교육과 문화생활에 참여하며, 공동체적 연대를 형성한다. 협동조합은 단순한 사업체가 아니라 미래 사회를 미리 실험하는 작은 사회이다. 체르니솁스키는 추상적인 혁명 구호보다 사람들이 현재의 삶 속에서 새로운 생산관계와 인간관계를 실천해야 한다고 본다.
그러나 베라는 시간이 지나면서 로푸호프의 친구인 의사 키르사노프를 사랑하게 된다. 로푸호프는 베라와 키르사노프의 감정을 알아차리고 자신이 장애물이 되었다고 판단한다. 그는 베라에게 죄책감이나 의무감을 강요하지 않고, 자살을 가장하여 두 사람의 삶에서 사라진다. 이후 베라와 키르사노프는 결혼한다. 로푸호프는 보몬트라는 이름으로 다시 나타나 다른 여성과 결혼하며, 네 사람은 새로운 형태의 우정과 공동생활을 이어간다.
이 줄거리는 멜로드라마처럼 보이지만, 체르니솁스키가 말하려는 핵심은 사랑의 삼각관계가 아니다. 그는 인간관계에서 희생, 질투, 소유욕, 도덕적 의무가 반드시 불가피한 것은 아니라고 주장한다. 사람들이 자신의 ‘합리적 이익’을 올바르게 이해한다면, 타인의 행복을 존중하는 것이 결국 자신의 행복에도 도움이 된다는 것이다.
이 사상은 흔히 ‘합리적 이기주의’라고 불린다. 인간은 기본적으로 행복을 추구하지만, 제대로 교육받고 합리적으로 사고하는 인간은 자신의 이익과 공동체의 이익이 서로 충돌하지 않는다는 사실을 이해하게 된다는 주장이다. 선행은 자기희생이 아니라 장기적이고 합리적인 자기이익의 표현이다. 로푸호프가 베라를 놓아주는 행동도 종교적 순교나 감상적 희생이 아니라, 모두의 자유와 행복을 위한 합리적 선택으로 제시된다.
작품에서 가장 유명한 인물은 라흐메토프이다. 그는 줄거리의 중심인물은 아니지만, 이후 러시아 혁명가의 전형이 된다. 귀족 출신인 라흐메토프는 자신의 재산과 안락한 생활을 포기하고 혁명운동에 헌신한다. 그는 육체를 단련하고, 노동자들과 생활하며, 자신의 의지를 시험하기 위해 못이 박힌 침대에서 잠을 자기도 한다. 사랑과 결혼도 혁명 활동을 방해할 수 있다는 이유로 거부한다.
라흐메토프는 체르니솁스키가 말하는 ‘특별한 인간’이다. 베라와 로푸호프가 새로운 일상생활을 만드는 보통의 새로운 인간이라면, 라흐메토프는 역사적 변혁을 준비하는 소수의 직업적 혁명가이다. 그는 규율, 절제, 자기통제, 목적의식으로 무장한 인물이다. 이후 러시아의 혁명운동은 라흐메토프에게서 혁명가의 윤리적 모범을 발견했다.
소설에는 베라가 꾸는 네 번의 꿈이 등장한다. 이 꿈들은 작품의 사상을 압축해서 보여주는 우화이다. 특히 네 번째 꿈에서는 수정과 금속으로 지어진 건물, 기계화된 농업, 공동노동과 풍요로운 생활, 자유로운 사랑이 실현된 미래 사회가 묘사된다. 사람들은 노동과 여가를 조화시키며, 여성은 남성에게 종속되지 않는다. 이 장면은 프랑스의 공상적 사회주의자 샤를 푸리에의 공동체 사상에서 영향을 받은 것으로 평가된다.
네 번째 꿈의 미래사회는 오늘날의 관점에서 보면 지나치게 낙관적이고 기계적이다. 경제구조와 생활환경만 합리적으로 재편하면 인간의 갈등과 소외가 거의 사라질 것처럼 그려진다. 그러나 이 꿈이 당시 독자들에게 준 힘은 컸다. 체르니솁스키는 혁명을 파괴와 복수의 사건으로만 제시하지 않고, 더 아름답고 자유로운 생활을 창조하는 과정으로 묘사했다. 바로 이 긍정적 미래상이 많은 젊은이들을 급진주의로 끌어들였다.
『무엇을 할 것인가?』는 이반 투르게네프의 『아버지와 아들』에 대한 일종의 응답으로도 읽힌다. 투르게네프의 바자로프는 기존 질서를 부정하지만 무엇을 건설해야 하는지는 명확히 제시하지 못한다. 반면 체르니솁스키는 ‘새로운 인간’이 어떻게 사랑하고, 결혼하고, 일하며, 조직해야 하는지를 구체적으로 보여주려 했다. 『아버지와 아들』의 허무주의가 파괴의 언어라면, 『무엇을 할 것인가?』는 건설의 설계도이다.
이 소설의 가장 선구적인 측면은 여성해방이다. 베라는 남성 혁명가를 돕는 조력자가 아니라 자신의 삶과 노동을 스스로 조직하는 중심인물이다. 결혼은 여성을 보호하는 제도가 아니라 여성을 소유하는 제도가 될 수 있으며, 경제적 독립 없이는 여성의 자유도 불가능하다는 통찰은 당시로서는 매우 급진적이었다. 베라의 협동조합은 사회주의적 생산공동체이면서 동시에 여성해방의 공간이다.
그러나 작품에는 뚜렷한 한계도 있다. 첫째, 소설이라기보다 사상교육을 위한 논문이나 교본에 가깝다. 인물들은 복잡하고 모순된 인간이라기보다 특정한 사상을 설명하는 모형처럼 행동한다. 베라, 로푸호프, 키르사노프는 지나치게 합리적이며, 감정적 갈등도 이론에 따라 정리된다. 도스토옙스키는 바로 이러한 인간관을 비판하기 위해 『지하로부터의 수기』를 썼다. 인간은 자신의 이익을 알면서도 고의로 불합리하게 행동할 수 있으며, 자유는 합리적 계산으로 환원되지 않는다는 반론이었다.
둘째, 합리적 이기주의는 인간의 욕망과 무의식, 질투, 권력욕, 자기기만을 과소평가한다. 로푸호프가 아무런 원한 없이 물러나고, 네 사람이 새로운 우정을 이루는 결말은 윤리적 이상으로서는 매력적이지만 인간 심리에 대한 설득력은 약하다. 체르니솁스키의 인물들은 현실의 인간이라기보다 미래사회를 위해 재교육된 인간처럼 보인다.
셋째, 작품은 자유와 평등을 강조하면서도 라흐메토프식 혁명가에게 지나친 권위를 부여한다. 라흐메토프의 자기희생과 철저한 규율은 감동적이지만, 이것이 혁명운동의 표준이 될 때 개인의 다양성은 억압될 수 있다. 인간의 행복을 위해 출발한 운동이 헌신과 규율을 절대화하면서 새로운 도덕적 권위주의로 변할 가능성이 있다.
이러한 위험은 이 작품이 레닌과 러시아 혁명가들에게 끼친 영향에서 더욱 분명해진다. 레닌은 체르니솁스키를 마르크스 이전 러시아 사회주의의 가장 위대한 인물 가운데 하나로 평가했으며, 1902년에 발표한 자신의 정치 팸플릿에도 『무엇을 할 것인가?』라는 제목을 사용했다. 체르니솁스키의 소설이 마르크스의 『자본론』보다 러시아 혁명의 감정적 에너지를 형성하는 데 더 큰 영향을 주었다는 평가도 존재한다.
그렇다고 이 작품을 단순히 볼셰비즘의 예고편으로 읽는 것은 부당하다. 체르니솁스키의 관심은 당의 중앙집권적 조직보다 자유로운 결혼, 여성의 경제적 독립, 협동노동, 교육, 생활양식의 변화에 더 많이 향해 있다. 그의 사회주의에는 국가권력 장악의 논리뿐 아니라 일상생활을 해방하려는 유토피아적이고 공동체적인 충동이 강하게 들어 있다.
『무엇을 할 것인가?』는 위대한 소설이라고 말하기 어렵다. 도스토옙스키나 톨스토이처럼 인간의 모순과 비극을 깊이 탐구하지 못하며, 예술적 모호성보다 정답을 제시하려 한다. 그러나 바로 그 단순함과 확신 때문에 이 작품은 역사를 움직였다. 체르니솁스키는 독자에게 세계를 해석하는 데 그치지 말고 자신의 사랑, 가족, 노동과 소비생활을 바꾸라고 요구했다.
이 작품의 가장 중요한 질문은 제목 그대로 남는다. 부당한 사회를 비판한 뒤 우리는 무엇을 해야 하는가. 체르니솁스키의 대답은 분명하다. 새로운 인간이 되어야 하며, 새로운 관계를 지금부터 만들어야 한다는 것이다. 오늘날 우리는 그의 과도한 합리주의와 혁명적 엘리트주의를 비판해야 한다. 그러나 사회변혁을 거대한 정치적 사건으로만 보지 않고, 성평등·협동노동·생활윤리·인간관계의 변화로 확장한 통찰은 여전히 유효하다.
따라서 『무엇을 할 것인가?』는 완성된 해답이라기보다 근대 혁명사상이 품었던 위대한 희망과 위험을 동시에 보여주는 문헌이다. 그것은 인간이 합리성과 연대를 통해 자신과 사회를 새롭게 만들 수 있다는 믿음의 기록이며, 동시에 인간의 복잡성을 하나의 이론으로 단순화할 때 해방의 이상이 새로운 강제가 될 수 있음을 경고하는 작품이다.
===
체르니셰프스키의 소설 <무엇을 할 것인가?>가 레닌의 정치 사상과 1902년 동명 논문에 미친 영향에 대한 분석 및 평론입니다. 요청하신 대로 본문은 <해라>체로 작성하였다.
1. 레닌과 체르니셰프스키의 개인적 인연
블라디미르 레닌에게 니콜라이 체르니셰프스키의 소설 <무엇을 할 것인가?>는 단순한 문학 작품이 아니라 생애 전체를 지배한 정서적·사상적 원천이었다.
1887년 레닌의 형 알렉산드르 울리야노프가 황제 알렉산드르 3세 암살 시도 사건으로 처형당했을 때, 형의 유품 중 가장 중요한 책이 바로 이 소설이었다. 레닌은 1888년 여름 이 책을 집중적으로 재독하며 심대한 정신적 충격을 받았다. 훗날 레닌은 회고에서 다음과 같이 증언하였다.
<이 책은 나를 뿌리째 뒤흔들었다. 이 책은 평생 동안 나에게 영감을 준 사상적 자양분이었다.>
레닌은 이 소설을 한 여름 동안 다섯 번 이상 정독하였으며, 마르크스주의를 본격적으로 접하기 이전 이미 체르니셰프스키를 통해 Revolutionary Temperament(혁명적 기질)와 의지주의를 형성하였다.
2. 혁명적 인물상: 라흐메토프와 '직업 혁명가'론
소설 속 등장인물 라흐메토프(Rakhmetov)는 레닌의 핵심 정치 이론인 <전위당(Vanguard Party)>과 <직업 혁명가(Professional Revolutionary)> 개념의 직접적인 모태가 되었다.
라흐메토프의 특성
소설에서 라흐메토프는 개인적인 행복, 연애, 편안한 삶을 완전히 포기하고 오직 민중의 해방이라는 단 하나의 목표에 모든 에너지와 시간을 바친다. 그는 몸을 단련하기 위해 못 박힌 침대에서 잠을 자는 등 철저한 금욕과 규율을 실천한다.
레닌의 직업 혁명가 조직론
레닌은 1902년 발표한 동명 팜플렛 <무엇을 할 것인가?>에서 노동자 계급이 자발적으로 도달할 수 있는 의식은 조합주의적(Trade-unionist) 수준에 불과하다고 보았다. 따라서 대중에게 외부로부터 사회주의 의식을 주입하고 혁명을 이끌 정예 전위 조직이 필요하다고 주장하였다.
레닌이 구상한 '직업 혁명가'는 라흐메토프의 세속화된 버전이었다. 철저한 기밀 유지, 엄격한 규율, 자신의 온 삶을 혁명에 바치는 직업적 헌신성은 라흐메토프라는 문학적 인물이 레닌주의 정치 조직론으로 구체화된 결과이다.
3. 동명 논문 <무엇을 할 것인가?> (1902) 분석
1902년 레닌이 쓴 <무엇을 할 것인가? (Что делать?)>는 오마주를 넘어 체르니셰프스키의 질문을 20세기 러시아 마르크스주의 정국에서 재정의한 정론서이다.
| 구분 | 체르니셰프스키의 소설 (1863) | 레닌의 논문 (1902) |
| 중심 질문 | 봉건적 억압 속에서 새로운 인간은 어떻게 살아야 하는가? | 멘셰비키·경제주의에 맞서 어떠한 혁명 정당을 만들 것인가? |
| 핵심 대안 | 합리적 이기주의, 봉제 협동조합, 금욕적 혁명가 | 중앙집권적 직업 혁명가 정당, 전러시아 기관지(<이스크라>) |
| 역사적 결과 | 19세기 나로드니키(인민주의) 운동의 영감 | 볼셰비키 파벌 형성과 1917년 혁명의 조직적 기반 |
레닌은 당대 경제주의자(노동자의 경제적 투쟁만을 강조하던 파벌)들의 자발성(Spontaneity) 찬양을 비판하며, 철저하게 계획되고 조직화된 의식성(Consciousness)의 우위를 주장하였다. 이러한 의식성과 주체적 의지의 강조는 서구 마르크스주의의 교조적 구조주의와 구분되는 볼셰비키 특유의 자코뱅적 결의주의를 형성하였다.
4. 사상사적 평가 및 총평
체르니셰프스키가 레닌에게 미친 영향은 마르크스주의라는 사상적 틀 이전에 <혁명적 의지>를 주입했다는 점에서 결정적이다.
Karl Marx가 역사의 객관적 발전 법칙과 경제적 하부구조를 분석하는 지적 틀을 제공했다면, Chernyshevsky는 그 법칙을 현실에서 집행할 혁명가의 도덕적·심리적 무장을 제공하였다. 레닌 정치 사상의 독창성은 바로 서구의 유물사관(마르크스주의)과 러시아의 유토피아적 혁명 의지주의(체르니셰프스키)를 결합한 점에 존재한다.
결국 체르니셰프스키의 문학적 환상은 레닌이라는 인물을 거쳐 20세기 세계사를 뒤흔든 볼셰비키 정당이라는 현실적 정치 기구로 재탄생하였다.
===
니콜라이 체르니셰프스키의 <무엇을 할 것인가?>와 표도르 도스토옙스키의 <지하로부터의 수기>가 충돌하는 핵심 지점인 인간관의 차이에 대한 평론입니다. 본문은 작성 지침에 따라 <해라>체로 작성하였다.
1. 사상적 대립의 역사적 배경
1864년에 발표된 도스토옙스키의 <지하로부터의 수기>는 1863년 발표된 체르니셰프스키의 <무엇을 할 것인가?>에 대한 정면 논박이자 철학적 반론이다.
체르니셰프스키가 계몽주의와 과학적 유물론에 기반하여 <합리적 이기주의>와 완벽한 사회적 유토피아를 제시하자, 도스토옙스키는 그러한 합리주의적 인간관이 인간 본성의 본질을 심각하게 왜곡하고 있다고 판단하였다. 따라서 <지하로부터의 수기>의 주인공인 '지하 생활자'는 체르니셰프스키가 제시한 '신인류'의 이성적 정당성을 해체하기 위해 만들어진 반영웅(Anti-hero)이다.
2. 두 작품의 핵심 인간관 비교
두 작가는 인간을 이성적·합리적 존재로 볼 것인가, 아니면 모순되고 자유의지적인 존재로 볼 것인가를 두고 근본적으로 대립한다.
| 비교 항목 | 체르니셰프스키 <무엇을 할 것인가?> | 도스토옙스키 <지하로부터의 수기> |
| 인간의 본성 | 합리적, 이성적, 계몽 가능한 존재 | 모순적, 비이성적, 파괴적인 자유를 갈망하는 존재 |
| 행동 동기 | 합리적 이기주의 (자신의 참된 이익 계산) | 자유의지, 자율성 증명 (손해를 보더라도 자기 뜻대로 행동) |
| 이성의 역할 | 인간을 행복으로 이끄는 절대적 도구 | 인간 본성의 일부분일 뿐, 욕망 전체를 지배하지 못함 |
| 사회적 비전 | 수정궁(Crystal Palace)으로 상징되는 유토피아 | 수정궁은 인간의 자유를 박탈하는 개미집·닭장 |
| 수학적 공식 | <2 x 2 = 4> (이성적 법칙과 과학적 계산) | <2 x 2 = 5> 도 때로는 매력적이라는 비합리성 주장 |
3. 핵심 논쟁 지점 분석
이성적 결정론 vs 비합리적 자유의지
체르니셰프스키는 인간이 자신의 진정한 이익이 무엇인지 올바르게 교육받고 깨닫는다면 자연스럽게 선을 행하고 사회 전체의 이익과 조화를 이룰 것이라고 보았다. 이성에 따른 행동이 곧 인간의 행복을 보장한다는 결정론적 관점이다.
반면 도스토옙스키는 인간이 언제나 이성적으로만 행동하는 존재가 아니라고 반박한다. 도스토옙스키의 '지하 생활자'는 자신이 손해를 보고 고통을 받더라도, 자신이 이성에 종속된 기계나 피아노 건반이 아님을 증명하기 위해 일부러 비합리적이고 파괴적인 선택을 감행한다. 인간에게 가장 중요한 것은 '이성적인 행복'이 아니라 '자기 뜻대로 할 수 있는 자유의지'라는 것이다.
수정궁(Crystal Palace)의 의미
체르니셰프스키에게 유리와 알루미늄으로 만들어진 '수정궁'은 과학기술과 합리적 협동을 통해 모든 사람이 풍요롭고 행복하게 살아가는 유토피아의 상징이다.
그러나 도스토옙스키에게 수정궁은 인간의 자유로운 영혼과 비합리성을 통제하고 규격화하는 '거대한 닭장'이자 '개미집'에 불과하다. 인간은 완벽하게 설계된 유토피아 안에서 모든 것이 계산되고 결정되는 순간, 그 완벽함에 반기를 들고 유토피아를 파괴하고 싶어 하는 존재라는 것이 도스토옙스키의 통찰이다.
4. 사상사적 의의 및 총평
체르니셰프스키와 도스토옙스키의 대립은 19세기 러시아 사상사를 넘어 modernism(근대성)의 본질을 둘러싼 거대한 논쟁이다.
체르니셰프스키의 인간관은 20세기 볼셰비키 혁명과 사회주의 체제의 사회공학적 시도로 이어졌으며, 인간을 개조하고 계획된 사회를 건설할 수 있다는 신념의 바탕이 되었다. 반면 도스토옙스키의 인간관은 인간의 내면적 심연과 모순, 그리고 신학적·실존적 자유의 중요성을 파헤침으로써 현대 실존주의 문학과 깊은 심리학의 기초를 놓았다.
결국 두 작품의 인간관 대립은 <계획된 행복>과 <고통스러운 자유> 중 인간이 무엇을 더 원하고 필요로 하는가에 대한 인류 근대사의 영원한 질문으로 남아 있다.
===