Scan barcode
A review by margaret45678
What Is to Be Done? by Michael R. Katz, Nikolái Chernyshevsky
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.25
I really have to give this book credit for being a lot weirder than I thought it would be. Knowing nothing about the plot, but a little about its reputation, I expected it to be a bog-standard social realist political novel about people being radicalized by material privation. In fact, the book is primarily concerned with the status of women and the institution of marriage, although social class and political repression are also important elements. Despite this book's many, many flaws, I have to say I found the ideas it expressed quite interesting; it really drives home the wackiness of pre/non-Marxian socialism and early feminism (or at least, early feminism as expounded by a man). Although "nuanced" is not a word which springs to mind in relation to What Is to Be Done? there were moments when I felt like Chernyshevsky picked up on some interesting contradictions and tensions in his characters' (and presumably his own) beliefs: for instance, Vera Pavlovna's position as a more or less emancipated woman who is nevertheless somewhat dependant on her (equally enlightened) husband.
I also feel like I should give Chernyshevsky credit for the audacity of writing such a terrible book, admitting that he is a terrible author, and also insulting the "perspicacious reader" throughout the text. His sense of humor, as well as parts of the book which were probably meant to be serious, is a big part of what makes this book bearable. The fact that arguably the most significant character in the book (Rakhmetov) appears only very briefly and, by the author's own admission, does nothing to advance the plot is honestly hilarious to me.
The plot itself is ok, but again, it's really funny to me that a book, without which the Bolshevik Revolution would probably never have happened, is basically just about what happens when two people with slightly different personalities get married. The characters are for the most part totally unrealistic; it's hard to believe that Chernyshevsky ever interacted with a real human being. The only moment that really rang true for me is the passage from the "former medical student's" letter about idle comments which "grate against [one's] soul." While I'm definitely sympathetic to Chernyshevsky's more radical views, I found it a poor response to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons: Chernyshevsky's book is premised on the idea that principled people will always act according to their principles, while Turgenev's accepts that this is impossible, not to mention quite boring to read about. Still, for people interested in these ideas, or with time to spare on a pretty bizarre book, it's probably worth reading.
I also feel like I should give Chernyshevsky credit for the audacity of writing such a terrible book, admitting that he is a terrible author, and also insulting the "perspicacious reader" throughout the text. His sense of humor, as well as parts of the book which were probably meant to be serious, is a big part of what makes this book bearable. The fact that arguably the most significant character in the book (Rakhmetov) appears only very briefly and, by the author's own admission, does nothing to advance the plot is honestly hilarious to me.
The plot itself is ok, but again, it's really funny to me that a book, without which the Bolshevik Revolution would probably never have happened, is basically just about what happens when two people with slightly different personalities get married. The characters are for the most part totally unrealistic; it's hard to believe that Chernyshevsky ever interacted with a real human being. The only moment that really rang true for me is the passage from the "former medical student's" letter about idle comments which "grate against [one's] soul." While I'm definitely sympathetic to Chernyshevsky's more radical views, I found it a poor response to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons: Chernyshevsky's book is premised on the idea that principled people will always act according to their principles, while Turgenev's accepts that this is impossible, not to mention quite boring to read about. Still, for people interested in these ideas, or with time to spare on a pretty bizarre book, it's probably worth reading.