The novel “Oblomov” appeared in print when new social relations began to replace the old, serfdom era, when a new layer, the so-called “third estate,” the bourgeois class, began to emerge in full swing in Russia. Industrial development required a different pace of life, the expansion of cities,
Communication improvements; but the old, not yet dead semi-feudal relations, “lordship”
They slowed down this development, affecting it at every step.
It was these problems that worried Goncharov when he wrote his novel. Moreover, he was worried about “lordship” not only from a social, but also psychological point of view - a kind of “lordship of the soul.”
A summary of the novel can fit in just a few lines. However, the events here are not so important - on the contrary, their absence is important. The novel, essentially, is a story about how nothing: neither friendship, nor love, nor work can awaken the main character, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, to life.
The entire first part of the novel is devoted to a detailed description of the house, habits, behavior - in other words, the lifestyle of the protagonist. Goncharov paints the image of a sluggish man, apathetic to everything that happens around him. Friends cannot take Oblomov out for a walk: he makes every excuse to stay at home and lie on the sofa. Oblomov's house is extremely neglected, the corners are overgrown with cobwebs, things are scattered in disarray.
Ilya Ilyich’s affairs are extremely complicated, the village manager is stealing, there is no money; but Oblomov has neither the strength nor the desire to deal with these troublesome things. Although he knows that the manager is a thief, driving him out means looking for a new one; that is, the solution to one
Problems inevitably entail the need to solve others. Oblomov hopes that everything will be resolved by itself, “suddenly,” and is also looking forward to his friend Andrei Stolts, who will certainly help sort everything out.
In the second part of the novel, Goncharov tries to understand the origins of the characters of such different people, like Oblomov and Stolz. He talks about their childhood, about how and under the influence of what their consciousness was formed, establishes a genetic relationship between the past and the present, between the mores of patriarchal Oblomovka and the habits of Oblomov. Between the practical education through labor, which the Russified German Stolz gave his son, and Andrei’s constant thirst for activity. The relationship here is the most direct. Accustomed since childhood to instant execution of everything
Of his desires, to the constant close attention to his own person on the part of numerous servants, mothers and nannies, Oblomov “with his mother’s milk” learns the idea that it is better and much more honorable not to work, but to receive something at the expense of others, in a ready-made form. As Dobrolyubov rightly notes, from childhood Ilyusha sees that neither mummy nor daddy do anything, only “three hundred Zakharovs” work. This one with
The laziness of the soul that was ingrained in Oblomov from childhood accompanies him all his life, it is she
Guides all his actions. Arriving in the city, Oblomov delays as much as possible
The moment he takes up a position, then he copes extremely carelessly with his
Responsibilities, after which he “gets sick” and does not show up for work, shamefully hiding at home from responsibility for a poorly done job. In the same way, Stolz’s attempts to stir up Oblomov end in nothing. Even the sudden love that flared up in him for Olga Ilyinskaya cannot bring Ilya Ilyich out of a state of constant sleep.
Goncharov saw the social danger of this phenomenon, so characteristic of Russia, with all clarity, especially since “Oblomovism” has its roots in penetrating to this day.
The day penetrates deeply into Russian life. The literature clearly demonstrates this. As Dobrolyubov rightly notes in his article, “it has long been noticed that all the heroes of the most remarkable Russian stories and novels suffer from the fact that they do not see a goal in life and do not find decent activity for themselves. As a result, they feel boredom and disgust from every activity, in which they present a striking resemblance to Oblomov.”
For example, both “Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time” present in their heroes traits that are almost literally similar to Oblomov’s traits. For both Onegin and Pechorin, service is an unnecessary and meaningless burden. They do not know how to love and do not know what to look for in love, just like in life in general. The difference between all these Rudins, Pechorins, Onegins and Oblomovs is only that Goncharov deprived
This character of romance brought him from the sky-high heights to a soft sofa, provided him with a robe and
Portly body.
In his novel, Goncharov, in the image of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, showed not only the original
The Russian human type, but also the image, style of Russian life, one of its characteristic
Parties accompanying the entire move Russian history. Goncharov raises the image of Oblomov to the level of a symbol, a large-scale generalization, bringing out not so much an image as an almost eternal social phenomenon- Oblomovism, ruining not only any undertakings, but also nullifying the efforts of individuals who from time to time, despite everything, appear in Russian history to try to speed up the development process
Countries, introduce something new, give meaning to the eternally slack Russian reality.
The problem raised more than a hundred years ago by Goncharov could not be more relevant today. Dobrolyubov noted that Goncharov was in a hurry to bury Oblomovism,
Tell her a commendable funeral word through the lips of Stolz: “Farewell, old
Oblomovka, you have outlived your time.” “All of Russia, which has read or will read Oblomov, will not agree with this,” writes Dobrolyubov, and his words sound no less significant for our contemporaries than for the contemporaries of Dobrolyubov himself and
Goncharova. No, Russia has not become impoverished by the Oblomovs, who mediocrely and apathetically live their worthless lives, and it still has a catastrophic lack of Stolts,
Those who are able and willing to work, to create benefits not only for themselves, but also for
The people around them.
Why can’t Oblomov be called a negative character?
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - main character novel by I.A. Goncharov - is a collective image of Russian landowners. It presents all the vices of noble society during the times of serfdom: not just laziness and idleness, but taking it for granted.
Ilya Ilyich spends whole days in inactivity: he doesn’t even have civil service, doesn’t go to the theater, doesn’t go to visit. It would seem that a person living such a useless life, otherwise negative hero and you can’t name it. But even at the beginning of the novel, Goncharov makes it clear to us that this is not so: Oblomov mentions Andrei Stolts, his childhood friend, who more than once helped out Ilya Ilyich and settled his affairs. If Oblomov had represented nothing of himself as a person, then with such a lifestyle he would hardly have maintained such a close friendship with Stolz.
What made the German take care of Oblomov and try to “save” him from “Oblomovism” even after so many years of futile attempts? The first part of the novel, the scene of Oblomov’s meeting with his “friends,” will help you figure this out. They all continue to visit Ilya Ilyich, but each for their own needs. They come, talk about their lives, and leave without listening to the owner of the hospitable house; So Volkov leaves, and Sudbinsky leaves. The writer Penkin leaves, trying to advertise his article, which undoubtedly caused success among society, but did not interest Oblomov at all. Alekseev leaves; he seems to be a grateful listener, but a listener without an opinion; a listener who cares not about Oblomov himself, not about the personality of the speaker, but about his presence. Tarantiev also leaves - he generally came to benefit from the kindness of Ilya Ilyich.
But at the same time, one can notice one feature of Oblomov - he not only receives guests, but also notices their shortcomings. Life in inaction made Oblomov reasonable and calm; he looks at everything from the outside and notices all the vices of his generation, which young people usually take for granted. Oblomov does not see the point in haste, he does not care about ranks and money; he knows how to reason and realistically assess the situation. Ilya Ilyich did not have a passion for reading, so he did not know how to talk beautifully and intelligently about politics or literature, but at the same time he subtly noticed the current state of affairs in society. Lying on the sofa became not only Oblomov’s vice, but also his salvation from the “rottenness” of society - having renounced the bustle of the world around him, Ilya Ilyich reached in his thoughts true values.
But, alas, no matter how Oblomov talked about how to live, no matter how much he reproached himself for lying on the couch, he still could not motivate himself to take any action, and Oblomov’s ideas remained inside him. Therefore, Ilya Ilyich cannot be called a positive hero, just as he cannot be called a negative one.
Stolz, in contrast to Oblomov, is a man of action. He thinks narrowly and cynically, not allowing himself free thoughts and dreams. Stolz clearly thinks through the plan, evaluates his capabilities, and only then makes a decision and follows it. But he cannot be called a positive or negative hero. Both Stolz and Oblomov are two different types of people, a driving and thinking force who can support humanity only together. I believe that the essence of the novel “Oblomov” is not to eradicate “Oblomovism”, but to direct it strengths into actual hands. During serfdom, “Oblomovism” was strong: the inaction and laziness of landowners who left work to the peasants and knew only fun in life. But now, I think, the big problem is the “Stolts”, people who are active, but are not able to think as deeply as Oblomov.
In society, both the “Oblomovs”, who are able to make the right decisions, and the “Stolts”, who implement these decisions, are important. And only with the equal presence of both is possible the improvement of society.
Collection of essays: Why did the gentle, honest Ilya Ilyich become Oblomov?
All his life, Goncharov dreamed of people finding harmony of feeling and reason. He reflected on the strength and poverty of the “man of the mind,” and on the charm and weakness of the “man of the heart.” In “Oblomov” this idea became one of the leading ones. In this novel, two types of male characters are contrasted: the passive and weak Oblomov, with his golden heart and pure soul, and the energetic Stolz, who overcomes any circumstances with the power of his mind and will. However, Goncharov’s human ideal Stolz does not seem to the writer to be a more complete personality than Oblomov, whom he also looks at with “sober eyes.” Impartially exposing the “extremes” of the nature of both, Goncharov advocated the completeness and integrity of the spiritual world of man with all the diversity of its manifestations.
Each of the main characters of the novel had his own understanding of the meaning of life, his own life ideals that they dreamed of realizing.
At the beginning of the story, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a little over thirty years old, he is a pillar nobleman, the owner of three hundred and fifty souls of serfs, which he inherited. Having served for three years in one of the capital's departments after graduating from Moscow University, he retired with the rank of collegiate secretary. Since then he lived in St. Petersburg without a break. begins with a description of one of his days, his habits and character. Oblomov’s life by that time had turned into a lazy “crawling from day to day.” Having withdrawn from active activity, he lay on the sofa and irritably argued with Zakhar, his serf servant, who was caring for him. Revealing the social roots of Oblomovism, Goncharov shows that “everything It began with the inability to put on stockings, and ended with the inability to live.”
Raised in a patriarchal noble family, Ilya Ilyich perceived life in Oblomovka, his family estate, with its peace and inaction, as the ideal of human existence. The standard of life was prepared and taught to the Oblomovites by their parents, and they adopted it from their parents. Three main acts of life constantly played out before the eyes of little Ilyusha in childhood: homeland, weddings, funerals. Then followed their divisions: christenings, name days, family holidays. The whole pathos of life is focused on this. This was the “wide expanse of lordly life” with its idleness, which forever became the ideal of life for Oblomov.
All Oblomovites treated work as a punishment and did not like it, considering it something humiliating. Therefore, life in the eyes of Ilya Ilyich was divided into two halves. One consisted of work and boredom, and these were synonymous for him. The other is from peace and peaceful fun. In Oblomovka, Ilya Ilyich was also instilled with a sense of superiority over other people. The “other” cleans his own boots, dresses himself, runs out to get what he needs. This “other” has to work tirelessly. Ilyusha, on the other hand, “was brought up tenderly, he did not endure cold or hunger, he did not know need, he did not earn bread for himself, he did not do dirty work.” And he considered his studies a punishment sent by heaven for his sins, and avoided school at every opportunity. After graduating university, he was no longer involved in his education, was not interested in science, art, or politics.
When Oblomov was young, he expected a lot both from fate and from himself. He was preparing to serve his fatherland, to play a prominent role in public life, and dreamed of a family life. But days passed after days, and he was still getting ready to start life, he was still picturing his future in his mind. However, “the flower of life blossomed and did not bear fruit.”
He imagined his future service not as a harsh activity, but as some kind of “family activity.” It seemed to him that officials serving together constituted a friendly and close family, all members of which tirelessly cared for mutual pleasure. However, his youthful ideas turned out to be deceived, unable to withstand the difficulties, he resigned, having served only three years and without having accomplished anything significant.
Only the youthful heat of his friend Stolz could still infect Oblomov, and in his dreams he sometimes burned with a thirst for work and a distant but attractive goal. It happened that, lying on the sofa, he would be inflamed with the desire to point out to humanity his vices. He will quickly change two or three positions, stand up on the bed with sparkling eyes and look around with inspiration. It seems that his high effort is about to turn into and bring good results to humanity. Sometimes he imagines himself as an invincible commander: he will invent a war, organize new crusades, and perform feats of kindness and generosity. Or, imagining himself as a thinker, an artist, in his imagination he reaps laurels, everyone worships him, the crowd chases after him. However, in reality, he was not able to understand the management of his own estate and easily became the prey of such scammers as Tarantyev and the “brother” of his landlady.
Over time, he developed remorse that did not give him peace. He felt pain for his lack of development, for the burden that prevented him from living. He was torn by envy that others lived so fully and widely, but something was stopping him from boldly moving through life. He painfully felt that the good and bright beginning was buried in him, as in a grave. He tried to find the culprit outside himself and did not find it. However, apathy and indifference quickly replaced anxiety in his soul, and he again slept peacefully on his sofa.
Even his love for Olga did not revive him to practical life. Faced with the need to act, overcoming the difficulties that stood in his way, he became afraid and retreated. Having settled on the Vyborg side, he left himself entirely to the care of Agafya Pshenitsyna, finally withdrawing from active life.
In addition to this inability brought up by the lordship, many other things prevent Oblomov from being active. He really feels the objectively existing separation between the “poetic” and the “practical” in life, and this is the reason for his bitter disappointment. He is outraged that the highest meaning of human existence in society is often replaced by false, imaginary content. Although Oblomov has nothing to object to Stolz’s reproaches, there is some kind of spiritual truth contained in Ilya Ilyich’s confession that he failed to understand this life.
If at the beginning of the novel Goncharov talks more about Oblomov’s laziness, then at the end the theme of Oblomov’s “golden heart”, which he carried unharmed through life, sounds more and more insistently. Oblomov’s misfortune is connected not only with the social environment, the influence of which he could not resist. in the “destructive excess of the heart.” The hero's gentleness, delicacy, and vulnerability disarm his will and make him powerless in front of people and circumstances.
In contrast to the passive and inactive Oblomov, Stolz was conceived by the author as a completely unusual figure. Goncharov sought to make him attractive to the reader with his “efficiency,” rational, skillful practicality. These qualities have not yet been characteristic of the heroes of Russian literature.
The son of a German burgher and a Russian noblewoman, Andrei Stolz received a hard-working, practical education from childhood thanks to his father. This, combined with the poetic influence of his mother, made him a special person. Unlike the round Oblomov, he was thin, all muscle and nerves. He exuded some kind of freshness and strength. “Just as there was nothing superfluous in his body, so in the moral aspects of his life he sought a balance of practical aspects with the subtle needs of the spirit.” “He walked through life firmly, cheerfully, lived on a budget, trying to spend every day, like every ruble.” . He attributed the reason for any failure to himself, “and did not hang it, like a caftan, on someone else’s nail.” He strove to develop a simple and direct view of life. Most of all he was afraid of the imagination, “this two-faced companion,” and of every dream, and therefore of everything mysterious and the mysterious had no place in his soul. He considered everything that is not subject to analysis of experience and does not correspond to practical truth to be a deception. Labor was the image, content, element and purpose of his life. Above all, he placed persistence in achieving goals: this was a sign of character in his eyes.
Emphasizing the rationalism and strong-willed qualities of his hero, Goncharov, however, was aware of Stolz’s callous heart. Apparently, a man of a “budget”, emotionally contained within strict and tight limits, is not Goncharov’s hero. One mercantile comparison: Stolz spends “every day” of his life like “every ruble,” removes him from the author’s ideal. Goncharov also talks about “ moral functions of the personality" of his hero as about the physiological work of the body or about the "discharge of official duties." Friendly feelings cannot be "sent". But in Stolz’s attitude towards Oblomov this shade is present.
School essay Based on the novel by I. A. Goncharov "bummer".
Lying down for Ilya Ilyich was neither a necessity, like that of a sick person or a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like that of those who are tired, nor a pleasure, like that of a lazy person: it was his normal state.
I. A. Goncharov. Oblomov
Roman by I. A. Goncharova "bummer" was written in pre-reform times. In it, the author depicted with objective accuracy and completeness Russian life first half of the 19th century century. The plot of the novel is the life path of Ilya Ilyich Oblom, from childhood until his death. The main theme of the novel is Oblomovism - a way of life, a life ideology; this is apathy, passivity, isolation from reality, contemplation of life around oneself; but the main thing is the lack of work, practical inactivity. The concept of “Oblomovism” is not applied to only Oblom and its inhabitants; it is a “reflection of Russian life”, the key to unraveling many of its phenomena. In the 19th century, the life of “many Russian landowners was similar to the life of Oblomovism, and therefore Oblomovism can be called the “dominant disease” of that time. The essence of Oblomovism is revealed by Goncharov through the depiction of the life of Oblomov, most of which the hero spends lying on the sofa, dreaming and making all kinds of plans. What prevents him from getting up from this sofa?
In my opinion, the main reason for Oblomov’s inaction- it is his social status. He is a landowner, and this frees him from many activities. He is the master, he does not need to do anything - the servants will do everything for him. Ilya Ilyich never even had the desire to do something himself, although one should not blame him for this, because this is a consequence of his upbringing. And his upbringing, the atmosphere in which the little bummer grew up, played a huge role in the formation of his character and worldview. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov was born in Oblom - this “blessed corner of the earth”, where “there is nothing grandiose, wild and gloomy”, nor “there are no terrible storms, no destruction”, where deep silence, peace and indestructible calm reign. Life in the bummer was monotonous, here they were terribly afraid of any changes. In the estate of the wreckage, the traditional was the midday “all-consuming, nothing sleep, sincere likeness of death.” And little Ilyusha grew up in this atmosphere, he was surrounded by care and attention from all sides: his mother, nanny and the entire numerous retinue of the house of rubble showered the boy with affection and praise. The slightest attempt by Ilyusha to do something on his own was immediately suppressed: he was often forbidden to run, and at the age of fourteen he was not even able to dress himself. And Ilyusha’s studies at Stolz can hardly be called such. The parents found all sorts of reasons for the boy not to go to school, including senseless and ridiculous ones.
AND In this way, living in such a house and in such an environment, Ilya Ilyich “seeped” Oblomovism more and more, and an ideal of life gradually formed in his mind. Already as an adult, Oblom was characterized, in my opinion, by a bit of childish daydreaming. Life in his dreams seemed to him calm, measured, stable, and his beloved woman - in her qualities more reminiscent of a mother - loving, caring, sympathetic. Oblomov was so immersed in the world of his dreams, completely divorced from reality that he was unable to accept. ("Where is the man here? Where is his integrity? Where did he disappear, as if he had lost his mind for every little thing?")
So, the reality of the bummer scares him. Does Ilya Ilyich have a specific goal in life, apart from that idyll? No. Does he have any business to which he would devote himself completely? Also no. This means there is no need to get up from the couch. Oblomovism completely absorbed Ilya Ilyich, which surrounded him in childhood; it did not leave him until his death. But it’s a bummer - a person with a “pure, true heart”, with a harmonious, integral, sublime, poetic soul, in which “it will always be clean, light, honest,” there are few such people; they are "gems in the crowd." But Oblomov did not find use for his enormous moral and spiritual potential; he ended up " extra person", he was corrupted by the very possibility of doing nothing. It seems to me that if not for the upbringing that gave rise to Oblom’s inability to work, this man could have become a poet or writer, maybe a teacher or a revolutionary. But, in any case, he would have been useful to those around him, he would not have lived his life in emptiness. But, as Ilya Ilyich himself says, Oblomovism ruined him, it was she who did not allow him to get off the couch and start a new, full life.
I. Goncharov wrote three novels, which, being neither canvases nor examples of complex psychologism, however, became a kind of encyclopedia national character, way of life, life philosophy. Oblomov is a persistent, purely Russian type, a type of master, brought up by centuries of slavery. Inertia, apathy, aversion to serious activity, confidence that all desires will be fulfilled. Bummer did not know personal work that required mental and emotional costs. Their whole life from the seventh generation went according to routine, and now their descendants lost their personal initiative. Oblomov considers himself free and protected from life, but in reality he is a slave to his whims, a slave to anyone who subjugates him to his desire. Oblomov is not evil, but he is not good either. He is a man without actions, a man who always gives in to routine and habits. For Oblom, the question “Now or never” always has an evasive answer: “Not now.” Childlike spontaneity, purity, sincerity The bummer comes not from mental labor and expense, but from the underdevelopment of the soul. “Pureness is not a wild flower,” it requires tireless work on oneself, studying and understanding life, experience and relationships with people. This is not a bummer, he becomes a victim of anyone who claims to own his life.
Fraudster or friend
at, but from the underdevelopment of the soul. “Pureness is not a wild flower,” it requires tireless work on oneself, studying and understanding life, experience and relationships with people. This is not a bummer, he becomes a victim of anyone who claims to own his life.
Fraudster or friend a smart woman or a kind woman - he limply passes from one hand to another. The swindler and the simple woman win. They don't demand anything. There are problems with a friend, problems with Olga, what they want, where they are calling. And in a cozy house on the Petrograd side there are liqueurs and jams, feather beds, care and unburdened love.
Oblomov is a hero who has become that piece of the mosaic, without which it is impossible to understand a unique historical type - the Russian nobleman. Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin - they rush around in search of a goal, they are taller and better than those around them. Oblomov not only does not search, he avoids purposeful activity. The world around is vain and vulgar, Oblomov does not want to play his games, and is not able to impose his game on the world. The problem of individual responsibility for one’s destiny in I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Bummer”
Goncharov Ivan Aleksandrovich was born on June 6, 1812 into a wealthy merchant family. Father Alexander Ivanovich was repeatedly elected mayor of Simbirsk. He died when Ivan was 7 years old. The upbringing was carried out by the mother, Avdotya Matveevna, as well as by the former naval officer Nikolai Nikolaevich Tregubov, a man of progressive views, familiar with the Decembrists.
TO literary creativity Goncharov turned during his university years. His outstanding works are the novels "The Cliff", "An Ordinary Story", and "Bummer". In 1859, Goncharov’s novel “Bummer” was published in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski. "Bummer" was extremely important in the development of the Russian realistic novel. The novel shows the detrimental influence of the feudal-serf system on the development of human personality and these two large typical generalizations, which represent the pinnacle of Goncharov’s creativity: Oblomov and Oblomovism.
Before answering this question, we need to figure out who Oblomov is, why did his name become a household name? The main features of the hero of Goncharov’s novel are laziness and apathy. But why did he become like this? There is an opinion that Oblomov turned into Oblomov because of his upbringing. He grew up in Oblomovka among the same lazy and apathetic people as he would later become. A quiet, measured life without any incidents or accidents, boredom and the prohibition for Ilyusha to have fun and play with other guys - isn’t this what shaped his character? Maybe.
Ilya Ilyich asks himself the question: “Why am I like this?” The answer to this is contained in the famous “Oblomov’s dream.” It reveals the circumstances that influenced the character of Ilya Ilyich in childhood and youth. Oblomovka’s living, poetic picture is part of the soul of the hero himself. Oblomov is also like this because his mother was kind, spoiled, caressed Ilyusha and protected him from all adversity.
Or maybe he doesn’t lead an active lifestyle for another reason? Why doesn’t Oblomov make a career like Sudbinsky, write articles like Penkin, lead a social lifestyle like Wolves, and not a business person like Stolz? Ilya Ilyich rejoices that “He doesn’t have such empty desires and thoughts that he doesn’t poke around, but lies here, keeping his human dignity and peace."
Oblomov has not yet found his purpose in life. He lies on the sofa, and his idleness is also perceived in the novel as a denial of bureaucracy, secular vanity and bourgeois businessmanship. Ilya Ilyich does what everyone strives for without knowing it: after all, while earning money and receiving ranks, many want, in the end, to get peace and be as lazy as Oblomov.
All this gradually makes Oblomov an Oblomov.
But he's not always like that. Ilya Ilyich awakens and banishes his laziness when he meets Olga. He sees the meaning of life in love, but returns to his old life, because Olga’s goal is to make Oblomov a person who would read newspapers, travel abroad and draw up management plans for his estate, that is, he would be like her and Stolz would like to see Ilya Ilyich. But Oblomov, in his conversation with Andrei, explains to him that there are other Oblomovs and he is not the only one. And this leads us to the conclusion that the hero of the novel became Oblomov because of the society in which he lives. After all, this concept includes not only his present position, but also the upbringing of Ilya Ilyich, who, in turn, was raised by people who had already become Oblomovs.
Thus, Oblomov does not see a high goal in his life to which he could devote himself, and therefore believes that it is better to do nothing than to do empty things and fuss, like many other people.