Comparative table of Oblomov and Stolz social status. Essay on the topic: “Comparison of Oblomov and Stolz. The secret subtext of Goncharov's images

The brilliant novel by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov introduces us to two diametrically opposed images: their characterization can take pages and pages. After all, they are completely different: in their temperament, in their attitude to life and worldview. It took Goncharov ten years to write it! What do you think, dear readers, would an academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Literature “steam” for an entire decade, writing a novel in the form of a “single-layer” pie? What's easier for a corresponding member - to write a story about two friends! One is extremely lazy. The other one is amazingly efficient. But no. A novel has been written about all of us! And we will try to prove this. Oblomov and Stolz will help us in this study.

Image of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov

The landowner Oblomov is outwardly a plump, doughy man with dark gray eyes, who prefers a passive lifestyle, lying on the sofa, doing nothing. Carelessness is visible in his entire appearance, but his face is spiritual. And the thought is constantly present in him, it shines in the eyes, hides in the wrinkles of the forehead, bends along with the lips. However, this idea is “toothless”; it has no practical application. Comparative and Stolz are clearly not in favor of Ilya Ilyich. He is a hereditary landowner. He has 350 serf souls. A nice, solid mansion in St. Petersburg, a dacha, a village house. Oblomov has no idea how to take care of all this property that he owns. He is like a child, first he is robbed by his clerk, and then he is driven to ruin by the swindlers Mikhei Andreevich Tarantyev and Ivan Matveevich Mukhoyarov.

He is educated, but has no practical work experience. Under the influence of his first failures in the service, he developed a psychological “lazy complex”, which Ilya Ilyich was unable to overcome.

Image of Andrey Stolts

According to the plot of the novel, they have known each other and been friends since school: Oblomov and Stolz. The comparative characteristics indicate the proximity of their caste origin. Andrei Stolts was born into the family of a German clerk, Ivan Bogdanovich, and a simple but educated Russian woman. The relationship between his status and the status of a friend-landowner is similar to the relationship between a business owner and a top manager. Since childhood, father regular exercise in sciences, as well as accounting, instilled in him hard work. Andrey is a lean man with sunken cheeks, dark skin and greenish expressive eyes. He is hyperactive: constantly, like a shark, on the move. The writer speaks of his hero as if he consists of nothing but muscles and tendons. He knows languages ​​and is smart, which is why the trading company-employer sends him as an agent to Belgium. In addition, Stolz is able to creatively use his knowledge. Therefore, colleagues prefer to invite him to develop projects. Oblomov and Stolz have different attitudes towards money. The comparative characteristic indicates the thriftiness of the latter.

The secret subtext of Goncharov's images?

The fact that, by and large, the images of Stolz and Oblomov are not independent, but allegorical, the author of the novel shows in their relationship with Olga Ilyinskaya. On the one hand, she can neither win nor keep her, but she is invariably attracted by the spineless Ilya Ilyich with his romanticism and pure childish soul. On the other hand, Stolz, who became her husband, pathologically does not feel the difference between business cooperation and sincerity. On a romantic honeymoon trip to Paris, he is, to put it mildly, unconvincing.

Why did Goncharov create these two images: Oblomov and Stolz? Is the comparative description of these images simply an instructive conclusion? Contrasting characters? Or maybe we need to look at this more broadly? After all, each of us, of course, knows how much “Stolz” is in him and how much “Oblomov” is in him. What is a dream without your feet touching the ground? A global dream, devoid of any desire to realize it. What is Stolz? This is down to earth, business acumen, a sense of partnership. So let’s ask ourselves the question: “If you create something global, is it possible to discount the dream in principle?” (As you know, Stolz avoided dreaming.) Unlikely.

And you, dear readers, will you agree with the following conclusion? To create a truly successful personality promoting fantastic projects, you need to mix 30% of the dreamer Oblomov and 70% of the fanatic of Stolz’s work in one glass. Is this what Goncharov wanted to tell us? After all, an adopted son appeared in the Stolts family. Of course, proper education will instill in him business acumen. But what about the ability to dream? Genes after all, you know...

Introduction

Goncharov’s work “Oblomov” is a socio-psychological novel built on the literary method of antithesis. The principle of opposition can be traced both when comparing the characters of the main characters, as well as their basic values ​​and life path. A comparison of the lifestyles of Oblomov and Stolz in the novel “Oblomov” allows us to better understand ideological plan works, to understand the reasons for the tragedy of the destinies of both heroes.

Features of the heroes' lifestyle

The central character of the novel is Oblomov. Ilya Ilyich is afraid life difficulties, does not want to do or decide anything. Any difficulty and the need to act causes sadness in the hero and plunges him even deeper into an apathetic state. That is why Oblomov, after his first failure in the service, no longer wanted to try his hand at a career and took refuge from the outside world on his favorite sofa, trying not only not to leave the house, but not even to get out of bed unless absolutely necessary. Ilya Ilyich’s way of life is similar to slow dying - both spiritual and physical. The hero's personality gradually degrades, and he himself is completely immersed in illusions and dreams that are not destined to come true.

For Stolz, difficulties, on the contrary, spur him on; any mistake for him is only a reason to move on, achieving more. Andrei Ivanovich stays in constant movement– business trips, meetings with friends and social evenings are an integral part of his life. Stolz looks at the world soberly and rationally; there are no surprises, illusions or strong shocks in his life, because he has calculated everything in advance and understands what to expect in each specific situation.

The characters' lifestyle and their childhood

The development and formation of the images of Oblomov and Stolz is shown by the author from the very early years heroes. Their childhood, adolescence and adulthood proceed differently, they are instilled with different values ​​and life guidelines, which only emphasizes the dissimilarity of the characters.

Oblomov grew up like a greenhouse plant, fenced off from the possible influences of the surrounding world. The parents spoiled little Ilya in every possible way, indulged his desires, and were ready to do everything to make their son happy and contented. The very atmosphere of Oblomovka, the hero’s native estate, requires special attention. Slow, lazy and poorly educated villagers considered labor to be something similar to punishment. Therefore, they tried to avoid it in every possible way, and if they had to work, they worked reluctantly, without any inspiration or desire. Naturally, this could not help but influence Oblomov, who from an early age absorbed the love of an idle life, absolute idleness, when Zakhar, as lazy and slow as his master, can always do everything for you. Even when Ilya Ilyich finds himself in a new, urban environment, he does not want to change his lifestyle and start working intensively. Oblomov simply closes himself off from the outside world and creates in his imagination some idealized prototype of Oblomovka, in which he continues to “live.”

Stolz's childhood is different, which is due, first of all, to the roots of the hero - a strict German father tried to raise his son as a worthy bourgeois, who could achieve everything in life on his own, without fear of any work. Andrei Ivanovich’s sophisticated mother, on the contrary, wanted her son to achieve a brilliant secular reputation in society, so from an early age she instilled in him a love of books and the arts. All this, as well as the evenings and receptions regularly held at the Stoltsev estate, influenced little Andrei, forming an extroverted, educated and purposeful personality. The hero was interested in everything new, he knew how to confidently move forward, so after graduating from university he easily took his place in society, becoming an irreplaceable person for many. Unlike Oblomov, who perceived any activity as an aggravating necessity (even university studies or reading a long book), for Stolz his activity was an impulse for further personal, social and career development.

Similarities and differences in the characters' lifestyles

If the differences in the lifestyles of Ilya Oblomov and Andrei Stolts are noticeable and obvious almost immediately, correlating respectively as a passive lifestyle leading to degradation and an active one aimed at comprehensive development, then their similarities are visible only after detailed analysis characters. Both heroes are “superfluous” people for their era; they both do not live in the present time, and therefore are in constant search for themselves and their true happiness. The introverted, slow Oblomov holds on with all his might to his past, to the “heavenly”, idealized Oblomovka - a place where he will always feel good and calm.

Stolz strives exclusively for the future. He perceives his past as a valuable experience and does not try to cling to it. Even their friendship with Oblomov is full of unrealizable plans for the future - about how Ilya Ilyich’s life can be transformed, made more vivid and real. Stolz is always one step ahead, so it is difficult for him to be an ideal husband for Olga (however, Oblomov’s “extra” nature in the novel also becomes an obstacle to the development of relations with Olga).

Such isolation from others and internal loneliness, which Oblomov fills with illusions, and Stolz fills with thoughts about work and self-improvement, become the basis of their friendship. The characters unconsciously see in each other the ideal of their own existence, while completely denying their friend’s lifestyle, considering it either too active and eventful (Oblomov was even upset by the fact that he had to walk for a long time in boots, and not in the soft slippers he was accustomed to), or excessively lazy and inactive (at the end of the novel, Stolz says that it was “Oblomovism” that ruined Ilya Ilyich).

Conclusion

Using the example of the lifestyle of Oblomov and Stolz, Goncharov showed how the fates of people who come from the same social class but who received different upbringings can differ. Depicting the tragedy of both characters, the author shows that a person cannot live, hiding from the whole world in illusion or giving himself overly to others, to the point of mental exhaustion - in order to be happy, it is important to find harmony between these two directions.

Work test

IN fiction The authors often use the antithesis technique. It consists of contrasting characters as carriers of certain ideas and life philosophies. Most often, a writer or poet denotes his own worldview in this way, subtly hinting to the reader about his sympathy for a particular character.

Antagonists and protagonists

Modern writers most often adhere to the generally accepted format, according to which everyone positive hero(protagonist) is a mirror negative reflection in the face of the antagonist. This simplification makes the work more accessible to understanding. mass reader, but schematization also has a significant flaw: people who are completely nasty or pleasant in all respects are extremely rare in life, and if you look closely, never. The situation is much more complicated, and therefore more interesting, in I. A. Goncharov’s novel. A comparison of Oblomov and Stolz at first glance leads to a clear rejection of useless contemplative laziness, but as the images unfold, it increasingly forces the reader to think about the fates and personal qualities of the two characters. And it turns out that everything is not so simple.

Stolz as a representative of progressive capitalism

As is clear from his last name, Andryusha Stolz was born into the family of a Russified German. Pointing to this, Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov expresses the generally accepted opinion (which, by the way, persists to this day) that the role of bearers of technical, philosophical and other progress in our country is played by foreigners, and from Europe.

Previously, in Russia, everyone, regardless of nationality, who came from the West was called Germans. But it is clear that Andrei’s ancestors come from German lands. Almost nothing is known about his mother, except that she is a Russian noblewoman. From childhood, boys' lives differ. Oblomov and Stolz are brought up differently. The German father strives to raise a worthy replacement for himself. He wants his son to be like him. This is a normal desire of almost all fathers, there is nothing surprising about it. He suggests that success is achieved through work. This important one (known, by the way, not only to the Germans) forces one to be strict and demanding. The father not only loves his son, he teaches him everything he knows and can do. This is commendable, such a parent could serve as a universal example, but the whole point is that there are subjects for which textbooks are not written. And here two antipodes meet, Oblomov and Stolz. Comparing an active German and a lazy Russian is a favorite topic for jokes, in both countries. We like to be ironic about our own stupidity, but in Germany they are happy to focus on positive features

Oblomov

A comparison of Stolz and Oblomov will not be objective if one does not take into account the peculiarities of the childhood upbringing of two boys. If Andryusha’s father constantly kept him in suspense and taught him everything he could, then Ilyusha, on the contrary, kept early years in blissful relaxation. This fact alone deals a serious blow to the theory of special German efficiency, so respected by our “Westerners” of all eras. It is possible that genetic nature would have prevailed, but there is a high probability that, having received such an upbringing, Andrei would have grown up to be a quitter. The desire for activity is developed in problematic conditions; every psychologist knows this. Therefore, a wise teacher, even in conditions of cloudless childhood, creates “educational” conflict situations in order to develop strong character among representatives of the younger generation. If everything is fine, then there is no point in making efforts, and the will atrophies. Nevertheless, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov also has good character traits. He is kind and wise in his own way, vanity and pride are alien to him, he has a very clear understanding of his place in life, that is, correct self-esteem.

Friendship

There are many strange things in our life. An illustration of this idea in Goncharov’s novel can be the friendship of Stolz and Oblomov. Antipodes attract like physical phenomena, and in life circumstances Oh. Each of the heroes of the story is looking for in his comrade something that he himself lacks. Implicitly, Ilya Ilyich would like to be like Andrei Ivanovich in some ways, although not in everything. And Stolz is also attracted to the romantic sentimentality (by the way, one of the national German traits) of his comrade. A realist who is afraid to dream and thinks straightforwardly and specifically often lacks imagination to achieve true success. In addition, having succeeded in business, having achieved high social status, another person catches himself thinking that he has never found happiness. But this is precisely the meaning of everyone’s life. Is Oblomov happy? A comparison of Stolz and Oblomov suggests that each of the characters has big life problems that they themselves sometimes don’t even think about.

Behavior algorithms

A person is known when he has serious problems. Oblomov and Stolz react completely differently to changes in life circumstances. Comparison of the behavioral manners of the two comrades allows us to assess the degree of paternal care shown by the German Ivan (Johann?) towards his son during his upbringing. In his adolescence, the young man received a lot of useful knowledge about the world around him. But, for all their systematicity, they were more of a set of options for action, selected from an arsenal, just as a housekeeper finds the right key in a bunch. In the age of the events described, perhaps this approach justified itself, because Stolz managed to become a successful businessman and succeed. In addition, the nature of the relationship between Oblomov and Stolz is also interesting. Their friendship from childhood was built on the recognition of Andrei's primacy.

As for Oblomov, the algorithm of his behavior boiled down to minimizing anxiety and unrest. He didn’t want to teach anyone, but he didn’t want to learn anything himself. Being an educated man, he doubted the usefulness of the knowledge he had acquired, rightly believing that given his lifestyle, he had no use for it.

Women and heroes

Lying on the sofa, it is difficult to be successful with the ladies. This statement can hardly be doubted, but fate gave a chance to Ilya Ilyich, whose favorite pastime was this very activity. Olga Ilyinskaya, young and beautiful, despite the many absurdities of Oblomov’s behavior (and maybe thanks to them, who will understand female soul?) fell in love with the unlucky hero. Andrei Ivanovich also liked the young charmer, who at first did not attach any importance to this rivalry, but, sensing its reality, was able to turn the situation in his favor. A comparison of Oblomov and Stolz in terms of human decency will not be in favor of the latter, but in love, as in war, all means are good. At least that’s what Europeans, especially the French, think. Ivan Ilyich's indecisiveness, as usual, worked against him. Oblomov found his happiness with another woman, probably in to a greater extent suitable for him, Agafya Pshenitsyna, albeit not as bright as Olga, but calm and caring.

Difference and similarity

There is a strong opinion that in the person of Oblomov, I. A. Goncharov branded the laziness, inertia and inertia of the Russian nobility with a shameful brand. If you follow this logic, then the image of Stolz personifies the progressive aspirations of the nascent domestic capital (after all, in the end, he was also a Russian man). It seems, however, that Goncharov wanted to say something more with his novel, and he succeeded. Oblomov and Ilya Ilyich’s “social pastime” were not such antipodes, very caustic and apt. He doesn’t want to sit at the card table, talk about trifles, or be interested in what everyone is doing. He is inclined to have a contemplative attitude towards the world around him and is by no means stupid. The similarity between Oblomov and Stolz lies in the desire of both to sleep. Only the dream of the first of them is quite concrete, physical, while the dream of the second is moral. At the same time, Ilya Ilyich realizes the destructiveness of his vice, talks about this to his friend, admitting his own powerlessness in the fight against laziness. Andrei Ivanovich is not capable of self-criticism.

Where should Oblomov go?

And in what way do Oblomov and Stolz differ most? The comparison seems obvious. One lies down all the time, the other is in constant motion. Oblomov doesn’t even want to hear about the creditors’ claims; he wants to write some kind of plan for the reconstruction of his own estate, which is falling into disrepair, but every time he falls asleep without starting this task. Stolz is constantly traveling, mainly abroad. He invites his friend there too, hoping that the atmosphere distant countries will awaken vital activity in him. Ilya Ilyich is in no hurry to go somewhere; he is doing well in his native country, especially at a time when something in his personal life begins to change. By the way, both friends are no longer young, they are over thirty (for example, Tolstoy’s “old man” Karenin was less than 50 years old). Maybe Oblomov was right not to want to fuss in his old age...

Who is more useful?

If we consider Goncharov’s novel as a conceptual work, then it can really be reduced to the opposition of such types as Oblomov and Stolz. Comparing them in a political-economic sense will reveal the clear superiority of the active and enterprising principle over the passive-contemplative one. life position. One is always at work, making good by imitating the “yellow man” who gets up at six and exhausts himself with hygienic gymnastics. The second lies and languidly talks about philosophical problems without worrying about the future. Stolz is more useful for society. But can everyone become like him? And is this necessary?

About freedom

After reading it again immortal novel I. A. Goncharova and appreciating it from the standpoint of fashion in some layers modern society liberal idea, one can come to the paradoxical conclusion that it is Oblomov who is to a greater extent the exponent of “free values”. “Westerner” Stolz and his respected “ yellow man» work to strengthen the economy home country, but Oblomov lives on his own, not bothering anyone, and at the same time not wanting to care about the collective good. Well, he wasn’t born a fighter, what can you do... He doesn’t like it when people bother him, even if it’s done for friendly reasons. This is a matter of personal freedom, and everyone lives the way they want.

He dies young, judging by the text of the novel, before reaching his fortieth birthday. What ruined I. I. Oblomov was obviously an unhealthy lifestyle, which he deliberately chose after breaking up with Olga. This is also a personal choice, although humanly it is a pity.

Comparative characteristics of I. I. Oblomov and Stolz

Oblomov Ilya Ilyich - main character novel "Oblomov". Landowner, nobleman living in St. Petersburg. Leads a lazy lifestyle. He does nothing, just dreams and “decays” lying on the sofa. Bright representative Oblomovism.

Stolts Andrei Ivanovich is Oblomov’s childhood friend. Half German, practical and active. Antipode of I. I. Oblomov.

Let's compare the heroes according to the following criteria:

Memories of childhood (including memories of parents).

I. I. Oblomov. From the very early childhood They did everything for him: “The nanny is waiting for him to wake up. She puts on his stockings; he doesn’t give in, plays pranks, dangles his legs; the nanny catches him.” “.. She washes him, combs his head and takes him to his mother. Since childhood, he also bathed in parental affection and care: “The mother showered him with passionate kisses...” The nanny was everywhere, for days on end, like a shadow, following him, constant care did not end for a second: “... all the days and nights of the nanny were filled with turmoil, running around: sometimes trying, sometimes living joy for the child, sometimes fearing that he will fall and hurt his nose...”

Stolz. His childhood is spent in useful, but tedious study: “From the age of eight, he sat with his father for geographical map... and with my mother I read sacred history, taught Krylov’s fables ..." The mother was constantly worried about her son: "... she would keep him near her." But his father was completely indifferent and cold-blooded towards his son, often “putting his hand”: “... and pushed him from behind with his foot so that he knocked him off his feet.”

Attitude to study and work.

Oblomov. He went to school without much interest or desire, had difficulty sitting through his lessons, and mastering any book was a great success and joy for Oblomov. “Why all these notebooks... paper, time and ink? Why educational books? ... When should we live?” Instantly I became cold towards this or that type of activity, be it study, books, hobbies. The same attitude was towards work: “... you study, you read that a time of disaster has come, a person is unhappy; Now you gather your strength, you work, you fight, you endure and work terribly, everything is preparing for clear days.”

Stolz. He studied and worked since childhood - the main concern and task of his father. Stolz was fascinated by teaching and books throughout his life. Labor is the essence of human existence. “He served, retired, went about his business and actually made a house and money.”

Attitude to mental activity.

Oblomov. Despite the lack of love for study and work, Oblomov was far from a stupid person. Some thoughts and pictures were constantly spinning in his mind, he was constantly making plans, but for completely incomprehensible reasons, all this was put aside in the debt box. “As soon as he gets out of bed in the morning, after tea he will immediately lie down on the sofa, rest his head on his hand and think, sparing no effort, until his head is finally tired..”

Stolz. Realist to the core. Skeptic in life and in thought. “He was afraid of every dream, or if he entered its area, he entered as one enters a grotto with an inscription..., knowing the hour or minute when you will leave there.”

Choosing life goals and ways to achieve them. (Including lifestyle.)

Oblomov. Life is monotonous, devoid of colors, every day is similar to the previous one. His problems and concerns are breathtakingly funny and absurd, and he solves them even funnier by turning from side to side. The author does his best to justify Oblomov, saying that he has many ideas and goals in his head, but none of them materialize.

Stolz. Skepticism and realism are evident in everything. “He walked firmly, cheerfully; I lived on a budget, trying to spend every day, like every ruble.” “But he himself still walked stubbornly along his chosen path.”

The novel "Oblomov" is one of iconic works 19th century, covering many social and philosophical themes. An important role in disclosure ideological meaning the work is played by the analysis of the relationship in the book of the two main male characters. In the novel “Oblomov,” the characterization of Oblomov and Stolz reflects their completely different natures, contrasted by the author.
According to the plot of the work, the heroes are best friends from an early age, if possible, helping each other even in adulthood: Stolz to Oblomov - with a solution to many of his pressing problems, and Ilya Ilyich to Andrei Ivanovich - with pleasant conversations that allow Stolz to return his peace of mind.

Portrait characteristics of heroes

A comparative description of Oblomov and Stolz in Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” is given by the author himself and is most noteworthy when comparing them portrait characteristics, as well as characters. Ilya Ilyich is a soft, quiet, kind, dreamy, reflective fellow who makes any decision at the behest of his heart, even if his mind leads the hero to the opposite conclusion. The appearance of the introverted Oblomov fully corresponds to his character - his movements are soft, lazy, round, and his image is characterized by excessive effeminacy, which is not typical for a man.

Stolz, both internally and externally, is completely different from Oblomov. The main thing in Andrei Ivanovich’s life is the rational grain; in all matters he relies only on reason, while the dictates of the heart, intuition and the sphere of feelings for the hero not only represent something secondary, but are also inaccessible and incomprehensible to his rational thoughts. Unlike Oblomov, “flabby beyond his years,” Stolz seems to consist of “bones, muscles and nerves.” His life is a rapid race forward, the important attributes of which are constant personal development and continuous work. The images of Oblomov and Stolz seem to be a mirror image of each other: the active, extroverted, successful in society and in his career, Stolz is contrasted with the lazy, apathetic Oblomov, who does not want to communicate with anyone, much less go to work again.

Differences in the upbringing of heroes

When comparing Ilya Oblomov and Andrei Stolts, as well as for a better understanding of the images of the heroes, it is important to briefly describe the atmosphere in which each of the characters grew up. Despite the “addictive” Oblomovka environment, as if covering it with a veil of half-asleep and laziness, little Ilya was a cheerful, active and curious child, which at first was very similar to Stolz. He wanted to learn as much as possible about the world around him, but the excessive care of his parents, his “hothouse” upbringing, the instillation of outdated, obsolete and aimed at the ideals of the past, made the child a worthy successor to the traditions of “Oblomovism”, a bearer of the “Oblomovism” worldview - lazy, introverted, living in his own illusory world.

However, Stolz also did not grow up the way he could have grown up. At first glance, the combination in his upbringing of the strict approach of his German father and the tenderness of his mother, a noblewoman of Russian origin, would have allowed Andrei to become a harmonious, comprehensively developed personality. Nevertheless, as the author points out, Stolz grew up “like a cactus accustomed to drought.” The young man lacked love, warmth and gentleness, since he was mainly raised by his father, who did not believe that sensitivity should be instilled in a man. However, until the end of his life, Stolz’s Russian roots sought this spiritual warmth, finding it in Oblomov, and then in the idea of ​​​​Oblomovka, which he denied.

Education and career of heroes

The contradictory characters of Stolz and Oblomov are already evident in teenage years, when Andrei Ivanovich, trying to learn as much as possible about the world around him, tried to instill in Ilya Ilyich a love of books, to light a flame in him that would make him strive forward. And Stoltz succeeded, but for a very short time - as soon as Oblomov was left alone, the book became less important for him than, for example, a dream. Somehow, rather for his parents, Ilya Ilyich graduated from school and then university, where he was absolutely not interested, since the hero did not understand how mathematics and other sciences could be useful to him in life. Even a single failure in the service became the end of his career for him - it was too difficult for the sensitive, soft Oblomov to adapt to the strict rules of the capital's world, far from the norms of life in Oblomovka.

For Stolz, with his rational, active view of the world, it is much easier to move forward career ladder, because any failure was more like another incentive for him than a defeat. Andrei Ivanovich's continuous activity, high efficiency, and ability to please others made him useful person in any workplace and a pleasant guest in any society, and all thanks to the determination laid down by his father and the continuous thirst for knowledge, which in Stolz his parents developed in childhood.

Characteristics of Oblomov and Stolz as carriers of two opposite principles

IN critical literature when comparing Oblomov and Stolz, it is widely believed that the characters represent two opposites, two types of “extra” heroes who cannot be found in their “pure” form in real life, even despite the fact that “Oblomov” is a realistic novel, and, therefore, the images described should be typical images. However, when analyzing the upbringing and development of each of the characters, the reasons for Oblomov’s apathy, laziness and daydreaming become clear, as well as excessive dryness, rationality, and even similarities with a certain Stolz mechanism.

A comparison of Stolz and Oblomov makes it possible to understand that both heroes are not only typical personalities for their time, but are also images that are tendentious for any time. Oblomov is a typical son of rich parents, raised in an atmosphere of love and intense care, protected by his family from the need to work, decide something and actively act, because there will always be “Zakhar” who will do everything for him. Stolz, on the other hand, is a person who, from an early age, is taught the need to work and toil, while at the same time deprived of love and care, which leads to a certain internal callousness of such a person, to a misunderstanding of the nature of feelings and emotional deprivation.

Work test