King Lear of the Steppes

At just seventy pages, King Lear of the Steppes sits firmly on the line between short story and novella.  The fact that Ivan Turgenev's tale is on the list at all feels a little bit like cheating, really.  In reading this, I get to cross a book off The List that took me no time at all to complete.

The book tells the story of Martin Petrovich Harlov, a thoroughly Russian landowner.  Believing that he will soon die he splits his estate between his two daughters (Anna and Yevlampiya), confident that they will look after him in his old age.  I think, even without the story's title, we can all see where this one is going. After being cast out by both Anna and Yevlampiya, Harlov becomes more despairing until his eventual death- crushed under a rafter while fighting the Tartars and Lithuanians.

There are a couple of bits that I liked about Turgenev's reworking of Lear.  First of all, the lack of a Cordelia.  Harlov's despair is more complete because he does not have the respite of Cordelia's love.  His entire family turns its back on him after his act of foolish love and he has nothing.  He has nowhere to go and no hope.  I always have issues with Cordelia as a character.  For all that I know she is goodness and the ideal child, I take issue with how little Lear knows her.  He banishes her for loving him most and then spends half the play assuming she hates him.  I’ve understood how the ideal child could come from such a terrible father.  But in removing Cordelia, Turgenev removes this issue.  Harlov is alone.   

I also liked the fact that there Anna and Yevlampiya end up doing okay out of screwing their father over.  Lear is typical tragedy in that it punishes people, guilty or not, but King Lear of the Steppes is more forgiving.  Or perhaps it is more accurate.  People do terrible things and they go on living.  Yes, the daughters are thought of poorly in their father's area, but they can just leave once he dies.

I feel the need to keep this short.  King Lear of the Steppes is enjoyable.  I'm not too sure why it's on the list.  I fee like I've read better books that aren't.  Admittedly, some of the historical context which drives the story was lost on me- my knowledge of Russian history only really kicking in around the 1917 mark- but even so; I have read better books.

I am now on to To Have and Have Not by Ernest Hemingway.