Turgenev’s Symphony

Sir: Anthony Daniels, writing on Turgenev’s novel Fathers and Sons (April 2021), does much justice to the great Russian author, but goes over the top when claiming that “all his novels, short stories and essays were excellent”. Rudin and Virgin Soil, for example, are clearly less than that; and there is some even weaker material in the whole oeuvre.

More importantly, arguing that “it is the conflict between Bazarov’s rationalistic philosophy and the inevitable exigencies of human life that is the theme” and that “the heart of the novel, as far as its ideas are concerned” is his debate with Pavel Kirsanov in Chapter 11, is to lift part of the novel into excessive prominence to the detriment of other aspects and insights.

Turgenev was certainly ideologically-free (almost!); but he was also an extraordinarily proficient observer, a brilliant plot manager, a shrewd analyst of character, an ardent lover and a person of wonderful balance, though, like all writers, limited in various ways.  

Is there any character in Fathers and Sons that is not perfectly realised? Any scene? None. The work is like a symphony on the overall theme of what are, and are not, the best ways of living; and for once the vacillating author came down for a moment on the side of tradition, with his final glorious paragraph in which the flowers at Bazarov’s grave “tell us, too, of everlasting reconciliation and of life which has no end”.

Nigel Jackson

Empathy Training

Sir: We are told that some people who work in federal Parliament House have been behaving sexually inappropriately to other workers. This behaviour is on a spectrum stretching from bad manners to criminal acts.

There are two possible mitigating factors—perpetrators could be so intellectually challenged that they are unaware such behaviour is unacceptable, or they could be completely lacking in the ability to inhibit their impulses. Neither applies, as these offenders perform their acts in private, not on the Parliament steps during lunchtime or while delivering campaign speeches. If they were unable to comply with accepted social norms they would not have been elected or appointed.

There is some serious humbug afoot. We are told that some of these perpetrators have been placed on sick leave and directed into “empathy training” courses. The unspoken ploy is to have bad or criminal behaviour re-badged as a health problem.

Empathy is the ability to sense and respond to the feelings of others. The plan seems to be to claim that these offenders do not recognise the emotions of others and that what they are doing could distress their target. Thus, the offender is also a victim and needs “therapy”, not the slammer.

All those working at Parliament House are aware of what constitutes unacceptable behaviour and can suppress their impulses—otherwise they would be unemployed or in jail. Highly successful social operatives are responsible for their actions and should be held accountable. We should not be complicit with the nonsense that they need to be helped to learn that other people have feelings.

Saxby Pridmore

Undetectable Genocide

Sir: Keith Windschuttle writes (March 2021) that the term “Stolen Generation” was first defined by Peter Read at the ANU in 1981. He list a number of Aboriginal organisations and activists who had made no mention of the stolen children nor their purported “genocide”. These included any discussions in the lead-up to the 1967 constitutional referendum, the National Tribal Council, and the five-point policy of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy at Parliament House in Canberra.

For the record, even Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his first appointed Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Gordon Bryant, as well as Dr H.C. (“Nugget”) Coombs, Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, seem to have been totally unaware of the “stolen generation” and the fact that “genocide” was being perpetrated under their watch.

Ian Bernadt