Group Read, May 2017: Spring Torrents

Our May read is Spring Torrents by Ivan Turgenev. A few of us have already read this recently; I loved it but others have been less enthusiastic. What do you think of this short novel? Please put any contributions on this thread.

"it’s a slap in the face to people like Austen whose characters display about as much depth in their expression and understanding of love as a four year old" : a quote from my review back in 2010.

Why it is included in the 1001 list: "The tone of Spring Torrents is perfectly poised between bitter regret for youth's lost passions and ironic awareness of their largely illusory quality.... Turgenev's theatrical treatment brings to the foreground the affair's predictable and almost absurd aspect."

Anyone able to point out the ironic awareness? I missed it entirely.

An important function of literature has traditionally been to widen the reader's experience. Spring Torrents illustrates the consequences of failing to appreciate the full value of what we have relative to a superficially attractive alternative. I'd like to think there have been some young people who read this and were led to pause when on the verge of making a similar mis-valuation.

I enjoyed the characters in Gemma's family. They came to life for me. Maria Nikolaevna serves a key function in the story, but I didn't find her realistic given her age, era, and degree of calculated predation. Similarly, Sanin's flip-flop seemed unrealistic. Young love may not endure but it ought to last out the first week, even among the weak willed.

Thanks to those who nominated this.

flip-flop? Sanin's apparent response at the end of the novel implies otherwise, no?

Hard to discuss this without giving the game away for those who haven't read it though!

"it’s a slap in the face to people like Austen whose characters display about as much depth in their expression and understanding of love as a four year old"

See I'd say that it's totally the opposite. Although I wouldn't compare the two writers as they are so very different, but so far as characters go I find Jane Austen to be an absolute master at drawing 'real' people and mercilessly skewering human conceits and hypocrisies at the same time.

In this book though I thought all the reactions unbelievable (with the possible exception of the cuckolded husband) and the people to be wooden and dull. There was absolutely nothing here which I thought distinguished this novel in any way - not through action, humour, interesting characters or unique insights into 'the human condition'. It wasn't even particularly well written; at least I thought it quite pedestrian in tone. (although it must be remembered that I was reading a translation so it is conceivable that the rather plodding prose was a result of this)

This got a very ordinary 2 stars from me.

Turgenev's theatrical treatment brings to the foreground the affair's predictable and almost absurd aspect."

Now that I agree with! It was theatrical and entirely predictable and absurd. I could see the characters as overdrawn, projecting their emotions so the people sitting at the back can see everything, but for those sitting at the front everything looks over acted and they wear far too much makeup. 'Is this supposed to be emotional pathos you're conveying here? Give me a break!'

>5 arukiyomi: Yes it is difficult to discuss without revealing the ending. And yes in old age he changes again, leaving a door at least slightly ajar for some redemption, or at least some relief from his despair.

>6 M1nks: I read your review earlier, and annamorphic also gave an unimpressed 2 stars. My response was very different. I really enjoyed the story - the characters, the writing, the mood all seemed perfect for me at the time. Normally I find myself agreeing with your views on books, so I must have been mentally somewhere up in the back stalls of the theatre when I read this one!

That is one of the beauties of this list, and this group. While we are all reading the same books our reactions can be very different (from "how on earth..?" to "give me more of this") and it gives us pause for thought about our tastes and preferences compared with other avid readers.

Keep the reactions coming...

That is one of the beauties of this list, and this group. While we are all reading the same books our reactions can be very different (from "how on earth..?" to "give me more of this") and it gives us pause for thought about our tastes and preferences compared with other avid readers.

Oh definitely!

>4 bkinetic: I thought that Maria was pretty plausible considering her age, era, and background. Maybe it's because I'd just read Liaisons Dangereuses, but she'd have fit right in there! (Turgenev had probably read it too). The reference to Allori's Judith (illustrated at my review) gave that aspect a way a bit for me but I liked it.

I liked the ending (trying to say this without a spoiler) because it made me think about who is able to move beyond emotional disasters and who is not, and why. I found Turgenev's resolution there very satisfying.

so I must have been mentally somewhere up in the back stalls of the theatre
well, alternatively, you could have been front row with me and them at the back!

There's no doubt that Austen's characters are phenomenally well-crafted. But, without exception if my memory serves me right, all her novels END in marriage and convey the implication that all is well beyond it. This mistake is responsible for a great deal of misery in the reality we have to live in and interpret.

Turgenev reflects this reality. In On the Eve, for example, a relationship develops against the forces of politics, class and physical barriers and ends painfully and enigmatically. In Torrents, we've got a young man who, typical of many, is swayed here and there by what he considers to be "love". There's no fairytale ending to this one either and the ending leaves the reader to make their own interpretation of whether Sanin truly does love Gemma or is still only infatuated with her. There's a lot more grey here.

Interestingly, neither author was ever married.

(not having read this Turgenev, but commenting on the subject raised)

I'd point out that Austen nevertheless did bring up the topic of marriages being, well, for life, the suitability of the prospective partners to each other is brought up especially in Emma and Persuasion (beside character, also social class, upbringing etc) but is there in other books too. And several of her books do include older married couples who did not heed to it and were not too happy...
Austen definitely did not argue that "love conquers all", quite the opposite, one should be careful who to fall in love with (and just got all her main characters to choose well).

I thought this was a very satisfying read. The novel kept me on my toes and I really think Turgenjev brings something new to a very well-defined genre. It is a story of young love, that doesn't end with married-and-happy-ever-after but doesn't end in tragedy either. There is such a thing as falling in love, falling out of it again and living on. (This might be more true for Gemma than for Dmitri.)

Was Dmitri really in love with Gemma or was he just in love with being in love? There is something deliberate about his actions. Missing his coach, approaching a girl who was already engaged, dueling, declaring his love and getting ready to give up everything within a week. I had a feeling, that he was in a sense playing the role of a young nobleman travelling Europe - and this role should entail falling desperately in love with a sensual Italian woman and perhaps also being distracted by an even more sensual femme fatale.

I connected more with this as I got further into the novella. At first I had flashbacks to English GCSE and Romeo and Juliet, a play whose premise always annoyed my own particular brand of romanticism / cynicism. As the story moved on, I felt more forgiving of Dmitri's changing affections. I wouldn't say I liked this as much as Fathers and Sons, but I am glad to have read it nonetheless.

What a good discussion above. I finally read the book and was not as impressed with is as I was with Fathers and Sons and Virgin Soil. I do agree with >12 arukiyomi: that life and love are not a fairy tale (I do however love Jane Austen) and it is interesting that Turgenev points that out in a, in my opinion, rather ironic way. All happens in less than a week if I am right and then the consequences of this week do last for a lifetime.

It is a bit over the top and besides the untrustworthiness of all that happens in such a short time, I also thought the characters of the novel not very trustworthy. Dimitri and Maria are 22? Really...!
Especially Maria is more a caricature than a real person.

Still, I enjoyed reading the book and the image Turgenev pictures of life in his time.

I actually finished a group read in the correct month, hoorah!

I don't have a lot to contribute to the really interesting discussion you've been having.

Overall, I thought the book was okay... the characters were interesting to me, so it wasn't a bad read, but the story felt predictable and familiar. (It was perhaps considered more inventive when it was written, but I feel like I've read this story a zillion times before.) I'm not sure it was special enough to merit a place on the 1,001 list.

I actually finished a group read in the correct month, hoorah!

Woot!