Russian roulette

"...Interestingly enough, it's a bit harder to draw an immediate direct comparison between the more primary female characters in Dostoyevsky's work and those in Turgenev's. I think that's partly because Turgenev's main female characters are more of the 'genteel', 'upper class’, whose actions and words are restricted--constricted?--by the the impositions placed on them by those specific labels, so they may not be immediately visibly influential in their central role although they're sensed as such. In contrast,[most of] Dostoyevsky's main female characters are deemed a principal force in his novels by virtue of not being burdened by those same class constraints, being of a 'working' or 'lower' class, while noticeably making their mark. However, what is common to both sets of characters is the insistence they have, for the most part, to throw themselves into the those very definitions, even as they're aware of the ramification(s) it has for them, despite their actual lack of desire to succumb to those definitions. In a way, Turgenev's leading ladies are a fine Italian hand at being so, while Dostoyevsky's are all brass knuckles.

That's why it is entirely satisfying to compare the abandonment with which Nastassya Filipovna (The Idiot) pursues her self-proclaimed fate doggedly, just as Maria Nikolayevna (Spring Torrents) does hers, both with destruction in mind. However, in Nastassya's case self-destruction is the primary motivator (that of others only secondary to achieving hers); for Maria, it is completely the opposite. They are both, however, wholly aware of what the end result will be and have no illusions about themselves,their circumstances, or their own role in influencing the circumstances. Their introspection is based in reality, as is that of all the primary female characters in both authors' works.
 
And how different that introspection is from that of the main male characters, both in presentation and in definition. The male characters' internal rumination serves their strong narcissistic need that must be recognized outwardly in order for it to mean anything to them; these ruminations then manifest in various misguided forms from criminal undertakings (Raskolnikov in in Crime and Punishment) to deliberate malice (Gagin in Turgenev's Asya) to contradictory beliefs and behavior (Bazarov in Fathers and Sons) to cynicism (Ivan in The Brothers' Karamazov) to altruistic protection (Prince Myshkin in The Idiot) to... Whereas the women turn an inward eye to themselves, because of a lack of a presence of true love--including and especially self-love--leading up to (and often throughout) the events being depicted in the novels. The men, for the most part, continue to defy the circumstances thinking they can create better ones; the women ultimately assist the circumstances knowing the futility of changing them.

That's not to say the women are more fatalistic than the men are--though, certainly, characters like Nastassya or Nellie (The Insulted and the Humiliated) or even Liza (Home of the Gentry) or Natasha (The Insulted and The Humiliated) seem that way on the surface, especially when compared to the male counterparts (Raskolnikov, or Ivan or Dmitri (The Brothers' Karamazov)). Some are hard-pressed to characterize even superficially as fatalistic, though, especially if you consider the general negative connotation with that descriptor (once again, Maria Nikolayevna or, even better, Varvara Pavlovna (from A Home of the Gentry) come to mind. They both enjoy the pursuit of actions that can really only mean a specific path in life for them, probably because they are two of the characters who are the least blameless in their destiny. But for them there is none of the despair the succumbing to fate usually carries). No, the women are not more fatalistic, it's just that their acceptance of their fate seems more pronounced and less open to interpretation or change, because of their internal assessment and acknowledgement of it..."

***

Mama Was An Opium Smoker - Rasputina