Oblomov is a man cut off from society. Essay by Goncharov I.A. An approximate list of literary works and carriers of problems in the direction of "Man and Society"

I. A. Goncharov in his novel “Oblomov” showed the society of the mid-19th century, then
Russia was at the end of serfdom. Trade and industry developed in our country, there were many educated and smart people. These include the main characters of the novel: Stolz and Oblomov. They are connected by old friendship, they are educated, thinking and feeling people. But, despite their friendship, Oblomov and Stolz are two completely different people in character and worldview, and let’s look at their differences. Oblomov is a meek, soft, dreamy, trusting and gentle nature, in short, a “dove soul.” Oblomov cannot stand up for himself when Tarantiev and Mukhoyarov are pumping money out of him. He also likes to dream about how he will arrange life on his estate, but for several years he has not been able to get together and do this. Stolz is distinguished by energy and willpower. For him, what he said means he did it. Andrei Ivanovich made his way to high society from commoners, and this requires considerable will. Oblomov is devoid of complacency and ambition, in him the heart prevails over the mind. Ilya Ilyich understands that he leads a miserable lifestyle, but he can’t do anything about it. Stolz is a rational, calculating nature. He is an entrepreneur, and without rationality and prudence in business you will never make money. Oblomov is very skeptical about the life of business people: “Look where the center around which all this revolves,” he says in a conversation with Stolz. Oblomov is prone to philosophical reflections about the high purpose of man. And that's why it doesn't rotate in secular society, Where
everything, in his opinion, is boring and mundane. Stolz is distinguished by his practical mind. He does not indulge in meaningless reasoning and daydreaming. Oblomov and Stolz lead completely different lifestyles. Oblomov is distinguished by idleness and passivity. He sleeps for a long time and does not get up from the sofa, does not go anywhere, is too lazy to even read. Stolz, on the contrary, does not sit still: “He came for a week on business, then to the village, then to Kyiv, then God knows where.” Nature showed Oblomov the only goal of life: life as it lived in Oblomovka, where they were afraid of news, traditions were strictly observed; books and newspapers were not recognized at all. Stolz, on the contrary, says that work is the main thing
in a person’s life: “Work is the image, content and purpose of life,” Stolz says to Oblomov. Oblomov grew up in the village of Oblomovka, where traditions were respected sacredly, where Ilya Ilyich was protected from everything and they tried to make sure he didn’t think about anything. Stolz grew up in a family where he was forced to work and study hard. His parents took little care of him, and he grew up in a constant and difficult struggle with life. The meeting with Olga Ilyinskaya changed Oblomov for a while. Under the influence of a feeling of love, incredible transformations occur to him: a greasy robe is abandoned, Oblomov gets out of bed as soon as he wakes up, reads books, looks through newspapers, he is energetic and active. But love, which carries within itself the need for action and self-improvement, is doomed in Oblomov’s case. Olga demands too much from Oblomov, and Ilya Ilyich cannot stand such a stressful life and gradually breaks up with her. When Stolz finds out this, he allows his own feelings to manifest themselves, and at the end of the novel we find Andrei Ivanovich and Olga Sergeevna husband and wife. Goncharov treats the two main characters of his work differently. The author has a kind attitude towards Oblomov - while denying the foundations of his life. The writer has an impartial attitude towards Stolz; he does not condemn, but also does not approve of the lifestyle that Andrei Ivanovich leads.
So, we have traced how the main characters of the novel differ, and now we can draw a conclusion. Stolz is a man of the new capitalist era, which began in Russia in the mid-19th century. Oblomov is a product and consequence of Oblomovism, a historical type, a bearer of noble culture. Goncharov depicted the tragedy of a typical
Russian character, devoid of romantic features and not colored by gloom, but nevertheless found himself on the sidelines of life through his own fault and through the fault of society. Roman I.A. Goncharov was written more than one hundred and forty years ago, but the types he created still remain modern, and now there are many Stolts and Oblomovs in Russia.
Each of us can recognize the traits of Oblomov or Stolz in ourselves. If they ask me which type of people is better, I will answer this way: “For all that Oblomov is pleasant to me as a person, I like Stolz more, because it is precisely such people who lead a more vibrant, interesting and eventful life.”

Sections: Literature

As long as there is at least one Russian left - until then
Oblomov will be remembered.
I.S. Turgenev.

The history of the human soul is perhaps more curious
and no more useful than the history of an entire people.
M.Yu. Lermontov.

Among the works of I.A. Goncharov: “Frigate “Pallada”, “Cliff”, “Ordinary History” - novel “Oblomov” occupies a special place, he is the most famous. The work was written in 1859, several years before the abolition of serfdom, so the hero’s story reflects the conflict caused by the fact that the nobility ceased to be an advanced class and lost its significant place in social development. A special feature of the novel is that I. Goncharov, for the first time in Russian literature, examined a person’s life “from cradle to grave.” His life, he himself, is the main theme of the work, which is why it is called “Oblomov,” although in the history of Russian literature there are not many works named by the name of the main character. His surname belongs to the category of “speakers”, because he “ childbirth decrepit fragment”, the name Ilya reminds us of the epic hero who lay on the stove until he was 33 years old, but we know that then Ilya Muromets did so many good deeds that he is still alive in people’s memory. And our hero never got up from the couch (when we meet Oblomov, he is 32–33 years old, but nothing changes in his life). In addition, the author used the technique of repeating the name and patronymic: Ilya Ilyich. This emphasizes that the son repeats the fate of his father, life goes on as usual.

As soon as I. A. Goncharov’s novel was published, Russian critics wrote its hero into the category of “superfluous” people, where Chatsky, Onegin, and Pechorin were already “listed.” Literature XIX centuries described mainly the fates of losers, obviously, there were not many of them among the nobles, it was surprising, and they wrote about it. Russian writers of the 19th century tried to understand how, despite everything being ready (at a time when the heroes of Western literature build their lives as a struggle for survival, for material well-being), Russian noble heroes turned out to be losers and at the same time were very rich people, for example, Onegin – “ heir to all his relatives" Or, in fact, “ money doesn't buy happiness"? Russian heroes and Russian works still arouse interest; foreign readers, including schoolchildren, are trying to understand them. What is interesting to our tenth graders? At the end of the year, a survey was conducted to determine which work of the books we had read seemed the most interesting. Most tenth graders named Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov,” and according to the program it is studied in overview, over the course of several lessons.

What could be interesting about a couch potato? When the name Ilya Oblomov is pronounced, significant additions appear in the imagination: a sofa and a robe, which, like a slave, obeyed the movement of the body. Let's follow the author and take a closer look at the facial features of his hero. “ It was a man ... of pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes that wandered carelessly along the walls, along the ceiling, with that vague thoughtfulness that shows that nothing occupies him, nothing worries him. The carelessness passed from the face into the poses of the whole body, even into the folds of the dressing gown.…Color Ilya Ilyich’s face was neither ruddy, nor dark, nor positively pale, but indifferent... If a cloud of concern came over his face from the soul, his gaze became foggy..." But in Oblomov’s entire appearance, “the soul shone openly and clearly.” This bright soul conquers the hearts of two women: Olga Ilyinskaya and Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna. The light of his soul also attracts Andrei Stolts, who, having traveled around Europe, specially comes to sit on Oblomov’s wide sofa and calm his soul in conversation with him. There has never yet been a hero in Russian literature who does not leave the couch for eleven chapters. Only the arrival of Stolz brings him to his feet.

In the first chapters, the author introduces us to Oblomov’s visitors; we see that our hero has many guests. Volkov ran in to show off his new tailcoat and his new love, he was happy about both, and it’s hard to say what more, he had a whole day full of visits, and among the visits was a visit to Oblomov. Sudbinsky, a former colleague, comes to boast about his promotion (“ I'm having lunch at the lieutenant governor's”, a quick profitable marriage. Penkin asks to go on a walk with him, because... he needs to write an article about the party, “ together We will observe, if I didn’t notice, you would tell me" Alekseev and Tarantiev – “ two the most diligent visitor Oblomov" - went to see him " drink, eat, smoke good cigars" It is no coincidence that the author describes Oblomov’s guests in the second chapter, immediately after introducing the reader to the main character and his servant. He compares the hero with his acquaintances, and it seems that the author’s sympathies are on the side of Ilya Oblomov: in his human qualities he is better than the guests, he is generous, condescending, and sincere. And the fact that he does not serve in a government agency, I.A. Goncharov explains that his hero does not need to earn his daily bread: “ he has Zakhar and three hundred more Zakharovs”.

The author finds a lot of strange and repulsive things in his hero, but for some reason it is difficult to agree with the opinion of critics that Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a “superfluous” person. How can someone who is loved by everyone around him be “superfluous”? After Oblomov’s death, Olga Ilyinskaya will plant lilacs on his grave as a sign that she remembers him. The inconsolable Agafya Matveevna often comes to his grave. His son Andrei and Stolz remember him. Why did they all love Oblomov? And was there anything to love him for? The author calls the hero's soul bright. This epithet occurs again in the novel in the description of Oblomovka, where the bright river flowed. Maybe the bright river of childhood endowed his soul with warmth and radiance? What love the lines dedicated to childhood memories breathe. We see, “ how the sky presses closer to the earth, hugging it with love”, “the rain is like the tears of a suddenly joyful person.” For Oblomov himself, tears are evoked by memories of his mother. He is sensitive, kind, smart, but completely unsuited to life, he cannot manage his estate, he can easily be deceived. “Why am I like this?” – the hero himself suffers. And he finds the answer that it’s all to blame “ Oblomovism.” With this word Ilya Ilyich calls passivity, inability to manage men, inability to calculate income from the estate. The sofa and robe are also symbols “ Oblomovism" A. Stolz speaks about this very clearly: “ Started with inability to put on stockings, but ended in inability to live.” Why did he change so much, because as a child he was just waiting for that hour when the whole village fell asleep in the afternoon sleep, and he “ was as if alone in the whole world”, “he was impatiently waiting for this moment from which his independent life began" How does the hero himself explain his reluctance? take an active part in life? “Life: life is good! What to look for there? These are all dead people, sleeping people, these members of the world and society are worse than me. What drives them in life? So they don’t lie down, but scurry about every day like flies, back and forth, but what’s the point? Don't they sleep sitting all their lives? Why am I more to blame than them, lying at home? What about our youth? Isn’t he asleep, walking, driving along Nevsky, dancing?”

A very interesting statement by M.M. Prishvin regarding Oblomov: “...his peace conceals within itself a request for the highest value, for such activity, because of which it would be worth losing peace.”

Chatsky, Onegin, Pechorin, Oblomov are images of talented, bright, intelligent people, but their fate is tragic, and this brings them together. For some reason in turning points In life, it is precisely such people who turn out to be unnecessary to society, it seems to “squeeze” them out, does not need their intelligence, talent, there is no place for them in society.

Modern life confirms what A. Griboyedov, A. Pushkin, M. Lermontov, I. Goncharov once noticed. And it’s not their fault that critics called the heroes they invented “superfluous” people.

Studying the novel by I.A. Goncharov in the 10th grade is natural, because At this time, the teenager is faced with the problem of choosing a life path.

Summary of a literature lesson in 10th grade

Characteristics of the main character and definition of techniques for creating an image

(exposure analysis)

Lesson objectives:

Cognitive: compose a characterization of the hero; trace the techniques for creating an image; means of expression, with the help of which the image is created; highlight plot elements using the example of the first chapter of a novel.
Developmental: compare the descriptions in the first chapter of the novel with paintings by Flemish artists of the early 17th century (development of imaginative thinking).
Educational: emphasize national traits in the image of the main character, paying attention to their typicality and relevance.

Lesson progress

1. Repetition.

Remember what the characteristics of a hero include (indirect and direct).

2. Reading and analysis of the first chapter of the novel “Oblomov”.

Extracts, their systematization.

– What can be noted in the first chapter?

- The author's skill. We read the first sentence of the first chapter: “ In Gorokhovaya Street, in one of the large houses, the population of which would increase by a whole county town, lay in bed in the morning, in his apartment, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov.”

The first sentence contains seven pieces of information:

In Gorokhovaya street
in one of the big houses
a population that would be enough for an entire county town
in the morning
in bed
at your apartment
lying I.I. Oblomov

In the second sentence, the author indicates Oblomov’s age: “a man about thirty-two or three years old.” Is this a coincidence or not? At thirty-three years old, Jesus began to serve people, sacrificed himself, “thirty years and three years” Ilya Muromets sat on the stove, but then he did so many good deeds and accomplished feats that he is still remembered. What about Oblomov?

Portrait of a hero.

The author himself gives a description of the portrait of his hero; he does not trust anyone's eyes. The portrait uses many expressive means. These are unexpected epithets: complexion indifferent, uncertain thoughtfulness, cold Human. These are personifications: with eyes, walking carelessly along the walls; from the face carelessness passed into whole body poses; neither tiredness nor boredom couldn't not for a minute drive away softness from the face. The author used metaphors for the portrait of his hero: running onto his face cloud of worries, began game of doubt. The transfer of natural phenomena to humans was also used: the look was foggy.

What stands out in the description of appearance? “How Oblomov’s home suit went to to the calm features of his face and to his pampered body! He was wearing a robe, a real oriental robe...which, like an obedient slave, obeys the slightest movement of the body...Shoes on they were long, soft and wide; when he, without looking, lowered his legs from the bed to the floor, then he certainly got into them right away" Ilya Ilyich Oblomov “ loved the space and freedom”.

Let's look at the interior. The question immediately arises: why did the same room serve as a bedroom, an office, and a reception room?

So as not to clean up.
The hero practically does not move.
We can calmly examine it.

What was in the room?

Mahogany Bureau.
Two sofas, the back of one sofa sank down.
Beautiful screens with embroidered birds and fruits unprecedented in nature.
Silk curtains, carpets, several paintings, bronze, porcelain and many beautiful little things.
Ungraceful mahogany chairs, rickety bookcases.

“The owner himself, however, looked at the decoration of his office so coldly and absent-mindedly, as if he was asking with his eyes: “Who brought all this here?”

One feature that stands out about the interior is that it is very... detailed description, there are a lot of details here. Goncharov called himself a draftsman. V.G. Belinsky noted: “He is carried away by his ability to draw.” A.V. Druzhinin writes: “Like the Flemings, Goncharov is national, poetic in the smallest details, like them, he puts before our eyes the whole life of a given era and a given society.”

What do the descriptions of Goncharov and the still lifes of Dutch artists have in common? – Even small details are drawn.
Why can you compare them? – Each piece is masterfully executed.

Confirmation of this can be found in the text of the first chapter - “ silk curtains”, pattern on fabric “with embroidered with birds and fruits unprecedented in nature”; “on the table... a plate with a salt shaker and a gnawed bone and bread crumbs.”

I.A. Goncharov uses many details when describing, achieving the verisimilitude of the picture.

The hero's actions.

If he wants to get up and wash, he will have time after tea, you can drink tea in bed, nothing prevents you from thinking while lying down.
He rose and almost stood up, and even began to lower one leg from the bed, but he immediately picked it up.
About a quarter of an hour passed - well, it’s enough to lie down, it’s time to get up.
“I’ll read the letter, then I’ll get up.”
“It’s already eleven o’clock and I haven’t gotten up yet.”
He turned on his back.
Call. He lies down and looks curiously at the doors.

What is special about Oblomov’s behavior?– Thought is extinction, desire is extinction.

Attitude to life.

If you think that Oblomov does not know how you can radically change your life, then you are deeply mistaken. Here is his reasoning: “ Where to start?...outline a detailed instructions to the attorney and send him to the village, mortgage Oblomovka, buy land, send a development plan, rent out an apartment, take a passport and go abroad for six months, sell off excess fat, lose weight, refresh your soul with the air that you once dreamed of with a friend, live without a robe, without Zakhar, put on stockings yourself and take off your boots, sleep only at night, go where everyone else is going, then... then settle in Oblomovka, know what sowing and threshing is, why a man is poor and rich, go to the field , go to elections...And so all my life! Farewell, poetic ideal of life! This is some kind of forge, not life; there is always flames, chatter, heat, noise... when to live?”

What can you say about the author’s attitude towards his hero? In what ways is this revealed? Here he wakes up in the morning, “ and the mind has not yet come to the rescue”. “However, it is necessary to give justice to Ilya Ilyich’s care for his affairs. Based on the first unpleasant letter from the headman, received several years ago, he had already begun to create in his mind a plan for various changes" The author makes fun of his hero using irony.

Description (portrait, appearance, interior).
Focus on details.
Irony.
Complementing one image with another (Zakhar looks like his owner).
Reception of extinction.
Identification of typical features (Goncharov’s hero is immediately similar to both Manilov and someone very familiar from our lives).

3. Homework.

“...a cold beauty who maintains her character.” (Page 96)

“What should he do now? Go forward or stay? This Oblomov question was deeper for him than Hamlet’s.”(Page 168)

“This is some kind of forge, not life; there is always flames, chatter, heat, noise, ... when"

I.I. Oblomov is a hero of his time, but also of our time. “As long as there is at least one Russian left, Oblomov will be remembered” (V.G. Belinsky). Your thoughts on this matter.
Oblomov is “worth boundless love,” his creator himself is devoted to Oblomov, all the characters in the novel adore him (Stolz, Olga Ilyinskaya, Agafya Matveevna, Zakhar). For what?
Read the second chapter. Compare Oblomov with his visitors.
Read Oblomov’s letter to Olga Ilyinskaya (second part, chapter IX, pp. 221–223). What can be added to Oblomov’s characterization, judging by this letter?
As you read, make notes of phrases you like.

Tenth graders wrote down the following phrases from I.A. Goncharova:

“Cunning is like a small coin that can't buy you much.” (Page 231)
“Where can you get enough for every moment of looking around?(Page 221)
“Self-love is the salt of life.”(Page 166)
“Winter, how impregnable it is to live? (Page 168)
“I pulled a book out of the corner and in one hour I wanted to read, write, change my mind everything that I had not read, written or changed my mind in ten years.”(Page 168)

Literature:

I.A. Goncharov. Selected works. – M.: Fiction, 1990 – 575 pp. (Teacher’s book).

I. A. Goncharov entered Russian literature as a progressive writer, an outstanding representative of that school of realist artists of the 40s who continued the traditions of Pushkin and Gogol and were brought up under the direct influence of Belinsky’s criticism. Goncharov is one of the creators of the great Russian realistic novel. Contemporary Herzen and Turgenev, Ostrovsky and Saltykov-Shchedrin, Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy, Goncharov along with them for decades attracted the attention of advanced democratic criticism and wide circles readers. The novel “Oblomov” was published in the first four books of the journal “Otechestvennye zapiski” for 1859. The writer's impressions of his childhood provided abundant material for the novel. Remembering your

childhood, Goncharov wrote: “It seems to me that I, a very sharp-eyed and impressionable boy, even then, at the sight of all these figures, this carefree life-being, idleness and lying, and a vague idea of “Oblomovism” arose. Subsequently, this performance was enriched with impressions of Simbirsk and capital life.” Goncharov's novel was a great and noisy success. One of his contemporaries, critic A. M. Skabichevsky, wrote: “You had to live at that time to understand what a sensation this novel aroused in the public and what a stunning impression it made on the whole society. He fell like a bomb into the intelligentsia just at the time of the strongest public excitement, three years before the liberation of the peasants, when all literature preached crusade against sleep, inertia and stagnation."

"Oblomov" appeared in the context of the rise of the democratic movement and had great value in the struggle of advanced circles of Russian society against serfdom. Goncharov himself saw in his new work a continuation of the criticism with which he spoke in “ Ordinary history“against the backward, inert and stagnant morals inherent in the feudal-serf system, which gave rise to Oblomovism. “I tried to show in Oblomov how and why our people turn into... jelly before their time,” wrote Goncharov. Oblomov turned into jelly, into a “lump of dough” by the serf environment.

Goncharov showed that Oblomovism arose on the basis of the ownership of “baptized property”, “three hundred Zakharovs”, that Oblomov was raised by a noble estate with its stagnant life and landowner morals. Ilyusha himself, like most of the inhabitants of Oblomovka, is a gentle and good-natured person. But, according to Dobrolyubov, “the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery. This slavery is so intertwined with Oblomov’s lordship, so they mutually penetrate each other and are determined by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any boundary between them.”

Apathy and immobility are reflected by Goncharov even in the appearance of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - a pampered, flabby man beyond his years who has “slept his ailments.” All life Oblomov is depicted as a terrible, depressing process of gradual spiritual and moral impoverishment of the human personality, as the transformation of a living person into a dead soul. Adhering to the ideology of natural life, the hero exists according to his own principles and his own understanding of a whole and harmonious person. He is devoid of vanity, he is not seduced by careerism, the pursuit of a profitable marriage and wealth. “No,” he exclaims, “this is not life, but a distortion of the norm, the ideal of life, which nature has indicated as the goal of man.” But, picturing for himself the ideal of undisturbed and noble idleness, a carefree and free landowner life, secured by the labor of serfs, Oblomov did not see anything strange in receiving quitrent from serfs and even, despite his complacency, “came up with a new measure against the laziness and vagrancy of the peasants "

Ilya Ilyich rejoices in his immobility and independence, not realizing that he himself is part of a world he hates. Only sometimes does he think about his life with oppressive anxiety and come to the conclusion that “... some secret enemy laid a heavy hand on him at the beginning of his journey and threw him far away from his direct human destination...”. In fact, this enemy, who destroyed everything good in Ilya Ilyich, was his very way of life, everything that later acquired a persistent definition - Oblomovism. In character Oblomov, critic N.A. Dobrolyubov saw a reflection of the Russian national character, called it the “indigenous type” of Russian life, and literary critic D.

N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky characterized Oblomov’s properties as “a trait of the national make-up.” One of the responses to the novel said that Zakhar and Oblomov “grew up on the same soil, were saturated with the same juices,” and the author himself emphasized that his first hero embodies “ elementary properties Russian person." It is no coincidence that the servant Zakhar, who is distinguished by constant grumbling and obstinacy, stubbornness, clumsiness, inertia and sloppiness, admiration for the nobility and, above all, laziness, is depicted in the novel as a double of the main character. But Oblomov’s principle lives not only in his servant. We easily notice similar features both in the hero’s visits and in the life of the widow Pshenitsyna.

A similar way of life took root throughout the villages and hamlets of feudal Russia and in its capital. It manifests itself not only in the behavior of the bar, but also in the inertia of officials, serfs, and people of intelligent professions. Thus, we can conclude that Oblomov embodied character traits generated by the entire Russian patriarchal landowner life.

This image is the largest generalization. However, contemporaries Goncharova understood the bourgeois-exploitative nature of Stolz’s activities. Critic A.P. Milyukov wrote: “In this apathetic nature, under the guise of education and humanity, the desire for reforms and progress, everything that is so contrary to the Russian character and outlook on life is hidden... From these gentlemen come those honest businessmen who , seeking a profitable career, they crush everything that comes their way...

all the founders of supposedly beneficent enterprises, exploiting workers in the factory, shareholders in the company, with loud cries of movement and progress, all the generous emancipators of peasants without land...” Under Stolz’s sober understanding of life, there was a dry business calculation, subordination human traits entrepreneurial practicality.

In character Stolz Oblomov sought to reveal bourgeois limitations: “We are not titans... we will not go... into a daring fight against rebellious issues, we will not accept their challenge, we will bow our heads and humbly endure the difficult moment, and then life and happiness will smile again.”

The bourgeoisie itself, which grew up on the soil of serfdom, was characterized by Oblomovism, which, even after the fall of serfdom, was nourished by numerous remnants of serfdom. Goncharov was absolutely right in pointing out the inevitable death of Oblomovism.

But this could not happen very quickly: Oblomovism continued to interfere with all further progressive development of Russian public life. Real positive hero novel by N.A. Dobrolyubov saw Oblomov’s bride, Olga Ilyinskaya. In it the critic saw “a hint of a new Russian life”: “... one can expect from her words that will burn and dispel Oblomovism.”

Another critic, D.I.

Pisarev, in Olga’s personality rightly found “naturalness and the presence of consciousness... truthfulness in words and deeds, absence of coquetry, desire for development, the ability to love simply and seriously, without tricks and tricks...” Olga is not capable of obediently submitting to her fate .

She dreams of saving Oblomov, making him “live, act, bless life,” saving his dying mind and soul. But when Olga becomes convinced of the futility of her efforts and sees that her loved one does not correspond to her high idea of the ideal, she breaks up with Oblomov. Emphasizing in Olga, the desire to fight in the name of noble, and not selfish goals, Dobrolyubov, who saw in the heroine of the novel a progressive Russian woman, writes: “She will leave Stolz too if she stops believing in him. And this will happen if questions and doubts do not cease to torment her, and he continues to give her advice - to accept them as a new element of life and bow her head.

Plan.

Gallery extra people

Attributes of “superfluous people” The origins of “Oblomovism”

Real-fairy-tale life

Possible happiness and Olga Ilyinskaya

Conclusion. Who is to blame for “Oblomovism”?

Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” continues the gallery of works that describe heroes who are superfluous to the whole world and to themselves, but not superfluous to the passions boiling in their souls. Oblomov, main character The novel, following Onegin and Pechorin, goes through the same thorny path of life's disappointments, tries to change something in the world, tries to love, make friends, maintain relationships with acquaintances, but all this does not work out well for him. Just like life didn’t work out for Lermontovsky and Pushkin's heroes. And the main heroines of all these three works, “Eugene Onegin”, “Hero of Our Time” and “Oblomov”, are also similar - pure and bright creatures who were never able to stay with their lovers. Perhaps a certain type of man attracts a certain type of woman? But why then do such worthless men attract such beautiful women? And, in general, what are the reasons for their worthlessness, were they really born this way, or is it a noble upbringing, or is time to blame? Using Oblomov’s example, we will try to understand the essence of the “extra people” problem and try to answer the questions posed.

With the development of the history of “extra people” in literature, a kind of paraphernalia, or things, objects, which must be present for each such “extra” character, was developed. Oblomov has all these accessories: a dressing gown, a dusty sofa and an old servant, without whose help it seemed he would die. Maybe that’s why Oblomov doesn’t go abroad, because there are only “girls” as servants who don’t know how to properly take off a master’s boots. But where did all this come from? It seems that the reason must first of all be sought in the childhood of Ilya Ilyich, in the pampered life that the landowners of that time led and in the inertia that was instilled from childhood: “the mother, after petting him, let him walk in the garden, around the yard, in the meadow , with strict confirmation to the nanny not to leave the child alone, not to allow him near horses, dogs, goats, not to go far from home, and most importantly, not to let him into the ravine, as the most scary place in the neighborhood, which had a bad reputation.” And, having become an adult, Oblomov also does not allow himself to be near horses, or to people, or to the whole world. Why it is in childhood that it is necessary to look for the roots of such a phenomenon as “Oblomovism” is clearly visible when comparing Oblomov with his childhood friend, Andrei Stolts. They are the same age and the same social status, but like two different planets colliding in space. Of course, all this can only be explained by Stolz’s German origin, however, what then to do with Olga Ilyinskaya, a Russian young lady who, at twenty years old, was much more purposeful than Oblomov. And it’s not even about age (Oblomov was about 30 years old at the time of the events), but again about upbringing. Olga grew up in her aunt’s house, unrestrained by the strict orders of her elders or constant affection, and learned everything herself. That's why she has such an inquisitive mind and desire to live and act. After all, in childhood there was no one who would take care of her, hence the sense of responsibility and the inner core that does not allow her to deviate from her principles and way of life. Oblomov was raised by the women of his family, and this is not his fault, but somewhere the fault of his mother, her so-called selfishness towards her child, a life filled with illusions, goblins and brownies, and maybe that was all society in these pre-Moscow times. “Although the adult Ilya Ilyich later learns that there are no honey and milk rivers, no good sorceresses, although he jokes with a smile at his nanny’s stories, this smile is not sincere, it is accompanied by a secret sigh: his fairy tale is mixed with life, and he sometimes unconsciously sad, why is a fairy tale not life, and why is life not a fairy tale?

Oblomov remained living in fairy tales told by his nanny, and was never able to plunge into real life, because real life, for the most part it is black and vulgar, and people living in fairy tales have no place in it, because in real life everything happens not by the wave of a magic wand, but only thanks to human will. Stolz says the same thing to Oblomov, but he is so blind and deaf, so captured by the petty passions raging in his soul, that sometimes he does not even understand his best friend: “Well, brother Andrey, the same for you! There was one smart man, and he went crazy. Who goes to America and Egypt! The English: that’s how God made them; and they have nowhere to live at home. Who will go with us? Is it some desperate person who doesn’t care about life?” But Oblomov himself doesn’t care about life. And he’s too lazy to live. And it seems that only love, a big and bright feeling, can revive him. But we know that this did not happen, although Oblomov tried very hard.

At the beginning of the emergence of the relationship between Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya, the hope that “happiness is possible” also arises in us, and, indeed, Ilya Ilyich is simply transformed. We see him in the lap of nature, in the country, far from the dusty bustle of the capital, and from the dusty sofa. He is almost like a child, and this village reminds us so much of Oblomovka, when Ilya Ilyich’s mind was still childish and inquisitive, and when the infection of Russian spleen had not yet had time to take root in his body and soul. Probably, in Olga he found his early deceased mother and just as unquestioningly he began to obey her, and was also happy that she took patronage over him, because he never learned to manage his life himself. But love for Olga is another fairy tale, a truth invented this time by himself, although he wholeheartedly believes in it. The “superfluous person” is not able to grow this feeling, because it is also superfluous for him, just as he is superfluous for the whole world. However, Oblomov does not lie when he confesses his love to Olga, for Olga is indeed a “fairy-tale” character, because only a fairy from a fairy tale can fall in love with a person like him. How many wrong things Oblomov does - this is the letter he invented at night, this is the constant fear that people will gossip about them, this is the endlessly drawn-out matter with arranging the wedding. Circumstances are always higher than Oblomov, and a person who is unable to control them will certainly slide into the abyss of misunderstanding, despondency and blues. But Olga patiently waits for him, one can only envy her patience, and, finally, Oblomov himself decides to break off the relationship. The reason is very stupid and not worthwhile, but that’s Oblomov. And this is probably the only action in his life that he could decide to do, but the action is stupid and absurd: “Who cursed you, Ilya? What have you done? You are kind, smart, gentle, noble... and... you are dying! What ruined you? There is no name for this evil... “There is,” he said barely audibly. She looked at him questioningly, her eyes full of tears. - Oblomovism!” This is how one phenomenon ruined a person’s entire life! However, we should not forget that it was he, this man, who gave birth to this phenomenon. It did not grow out of nowhere, it was not brought in like a disease, it was carefully nurtured, nurtured and cherished in the soul of our hero, and took such strong roots that it is no longer possible to pull it out. And when, instead of a person, we see only this phenomenon, wrapped in an outer shell, then such a person really becomes “superfluous” or ceases to exist altogether. This is how Oblomov dies quietly in the house of the widow Pshenitsyna, the same phenomenon instead of a person.

I would like to think that society is still to blame for such a weak-willed existence of Oblomov, because he lives in a quiet and calm time, free from shocks, uprisings and wars. Maybe his soul is simply at peace, because he doesn’t have to fight, worry about the fate of the people, his safety, the safety of his family. At such a time, many people are simply born, live and die, just like in Oblomovka, because time does not require heroic deeds from them. But we can say with confidence that even if danger arose, Oblomov would not, under any circumstances, go to the barricades. This is his tragedy. And what then to do with Stolz, he is also a contemporary of Oblomov and lives with him in the same country and in the same city, however, his whole life is like a small feat. No, Oblomov himself is to blame, and this makes it even worse, because in essence he is a good person.

But such is the fate of all “extra” people. Unfortunately, it's not enough just to be good person, you also need to fight and prove it, which Oblomov, unfortunately, was unable to do. But he became an example for people then and today, an example of what you can become if you are not able not only to control the events of life, but also yourself. They are “superfluous”, these people, they have no place in life, because it is cruel and merciless, first of all, to the weak and infirm, and because one must always fight for a place in this life!

Oblomov, best creation our brilliant novelist, does not belong to the type “to which it is impossible to add a single extra feature” - you involuntarily think about this type, you involuntarily yearn for additions to it, but these additions themselves come to mind, and the author, for his part, has done almost everything necessary for them to come. The German writer Riehl said somewhere: woe to him political society, where there are no and cannot be honest conservatives; imitating this aphorism, we will say: it is not good for that land where there are no good eccentrics like Oblomov who are not capable of evil!
Oblomovism, so fully outlined by Mr. Goncharov, captivates huge amount aspects of Russian life, but from the fact that it has developed and lives with us with extraordinary strength, one should not yet think that Oblomovism belongs to Russia alone. When the novel we are reviewing is translated into foreign languages, its success will show to what extent the types that fill it are general and universal. Scattered all over the world are the numerous brothers of Ilya Ilyich, that is, people who are not prepared for practical life, who have peacefully taken refuge from clashes with it and who do not throw their moral slumber into the world of unrest for which they are not capable.
Oblomovism is disgusting if it stems from rottenness, hopelessness, corruption and evil stubbornness, but if its root lies simply in the immaturity of society and the skeptical hesitation of pure-hearted people in the face of practical disorder, which happens in all young countries, then being angry with it means the same thing, Why be angry with a child whose eyes are stuck together in the middle of an evening noisy conversation between adults.
Russian Oblomovism, as captured by Mr. Goncharov, in many ways arouses our indignation, but we do not recognize it as the fruit of rottenness or corruption. This is the merit of the novelist, that he firmly linked all the roots of Oblomovism to the soil folk life and poetry - showed us its peaceful and gentle sides, without hiding any of its shortcomings. Oblomov is a child, and not a trashy libertine, he is a sleepyhead, and not an immoral egoist or an epicurean from the times of collapse.
He is powerless to do good, but he is positively incapable of doing evil, is pure in spirit, not perverted by everyday sophisms - and, despite all his uselessness in life, he legitimately captures the sympathy of all the people around him, apparently separated from him by an entire abyss.
Sleepy Oblomov, a native of sleepy and yet poetic Oblomovka, is free from moral diseases, which suffer from more than one of the practical people who throw stones at him. He has nothing in common with the countless mass of sinners of our time, arrogantly taking on a task to which they have no calling. He is not infected with everyday depravity and looks at every thing straight, not considering it necessary to be embarrassed in front of anyone or anything in life. He himself is incapable of any activity, the efforts of Andrei and Olga to awaken his apathy remained unsuccessful, so that other people under different conditions could not motivate Oblomov to think and do good deeds. A child by nature and according to the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich in many ways left behind him the purity and simplicity of a child, qualities that are precious in an adult, qualities that in themselves, in the midst of the greatest practical confusion, often open to us the realm of truth and at times put the inexperienced, a dreamy eccentric and above the prejudices of his age, and above the whole crowd of businessmen surrounding him.
In practicality, in willpower, in knowledge of life, he is far below his Olga and Stolz, good and modern people; By his instinct for truth and the warmth of his nature, he is undoubtedly superior to them. IN recent years In his life, the Stolz spouses visited Ilya Ilyich, Olga remained in the carriage, Andrei entered the house known to us with a chained dog at the gate. Leaving his friend, he only told his wife: it’s all over or something like that and left, and Olga left, although, no doubt, with grief and tears. What was the meaning of this hopeless, desperate sentence? Ilya Ilyich married Pshenitsyna (and had a child with this uneducated woman.)
And this is the reason why the blood connection was broken, Oblomovism was recognized as having crossed all limits! We don’t blame either Olga or her husband for this: they obeyed the law of light and left their friend not without tears. But let’s turn the medal around and, based on what the poet has given us, ask ourselves: would Oblomov have acted this way if he had been told that Olga had made an unhappy misalliance,” that his Andrei had married a cook and that both of them, as a result, were hiding from people close to them? We will say a thousand times and with full confidence that this is not so.
He would not have said the words of eternal separation, and, hobbling, would have gone to good people, and would cleave to them, and would bring his Agafya Matveevna to them. And Andreeva’s cook would have become no stranger to him, and he would have given Tarantiev a new slap in the face if he began to mock Olga’s husband. The backward and clumsy Ilya Ilyich in this simple matter, of course, would have acted more in accordance with the eternal law of love and truth than two people from among the most developed in our society.
Both Stolz and Olga, without any doubt, are humane in their ideas, without any doubt, they know the power of good and their heads are tied to the fate of the smaller brothers, but as soon as their friend connected his existence with the fate of a woman from the breed of these smaller brothers, they both enlightened people hastened to say with tears: it’s all over, everything is lost - Oblomovism, Oblomovism! Let's continue our parallel. Oblomov died, Andryusha, together with Oblomovka, came under the care of Stolz and Olga.

Essay on literature on the topic: Modern society shown in the novel “Oblomov”

Other writings:

One of outstanding works literature of the 19th century century is the novel by I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov”. The work was a kind of mirror of its era. “Oblomov” became a “book of results” for Russian society. That is why Dobrolyubov welcomed Goncharov’s work. The novel revealed the terrible power of tradition, showed such an existence, Read More......
Eternal images - characters literary works, which went beyond the scope of the work. They are found in other works: novels, plays, stories. Their names have become common nouns, often used as epithets, indicating some qualities of a person or literary character. Eternal images four: Faust, Read More......
In the novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov, the complex relationship between slavery and lordship is exposed; there is a story about two opposite types of people, differing in their concepts of the world: for one the world is abstract, ideal, for the other it is material and practical. The author described these two types Read More......
Lying down for Ilya Ilyich was neither a necessity, like that of a sick person or like a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like that of someone who is tired, nor a pleasure, like that of a lazy person: it was his normal state. I. A. Goncharov. Oblomov Roman Read More ......
Oblomov is a backwardness that interferes with historical progress. Oblomov is sincere, gentle, and has not lost his conscience; subjectively he is not capable of doing evil. Storyline depicts the spiritual desolation of the hero, there is lordship and slavery in him - he is a slave to his sofa, laziness. Read More......
I believe that the meaning of the opposition in this novel is to characterize the main character in the most clear, open, and deep way. I think the author succeeded. We see not so much the appearance, wallpaper, but the soul of Ilya Ilyich. With every line we understand that he is not the same, Read More......
“Oblomov” met with unanimous acclaim, but opinions about the meaning of the novel were sharply divided. N. A. Dobrolyubov in the article “What is Oblomovism?” I saw in “Oblomov” the crisis and collapse of old feudal Rus'. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is “our indigenous folk type,” symbolizing laziness, inaction and Read More ......
According to N.A. Dobrolyubov, the author of the novel sought to “raise the random image that flashed before him into a type, to give it a generic and permanent meaning.” Goncharov himself wrote about it this way: “...If the images are typical, they certainly reflect on themselves - larger or Read More ......