Fathers and Son, is Turgenov's novel too reductive?.. am I too logical?

Reading it (for the second time), and I think it's a masterpiece, but it's so condensed, and it's so.... efficient. Sometimes I fear its efficiency disregards nuance, but, yet, Turgenov captures the essence of the characters so well I don't care if they're nothing more than vehicles for the overarching contrast between old and new, aged and young, socialized and base.

For he includes genuine interactions. The rivalry between Arkady and Bazarov over Madame Odintsov, which is short-lived because only a strong-willed person (the latter) could ever win such a experienced and clever person; the (somewhat creepy) romanticist Nikolai Petrovich's inability to maintain his estate. Everything builds. Every sentence can be explained by what was given thus far.

But I also feel that Turgenov's representation of Sitnikov and Evdoksia were weak representations of the avant garde (nihilist) ideas. And, on the opposite side, Paul Petrovich is a meh representation of the worthless and educated, prim and proper, old gentlemen. They are extremes, I suppose.

Looking for a nay-sayer. Please tell me why you didn't like it, or just your opinion.