Oblomov critical articles. Analysis of "Oblomov" Goncharov. Need help with a topic

Goncharov. Oblomov. Criticism.

Yu. M. Loshchits.
(From the article “Imperfect Man”). 1996

Oblomov's problem... Oblomov's phenomenon... We now see more and more clearly that these are not empty words, that behind them are certain masses of burning material, that we all have something to “think about”. Let's put it this way: there is for granted the most complicated artistic image. But what are his real life backgrounds? .. It would seem that the background is known - modern writer landlord, feudal Russia with its Oblomovism ...

In the image of Oblomov, we have an unusually high degree of increment to the personality of the writer who breathed life into this image ... Oblomov is not a self-portrait of the writer, much less a self-cartoon. But in Oblomov creatively refracted a lot of personality and life fate Goncharov - a fact from which we cannot escape ...

The fairy-tale-mythological background of the novel action in Oblomov is so significant, ideologically weighty, that one would like to call Goncharov's realistic method here somehow in a special way: to define it - albeit rough, conditionally, in working order - as a kind of mythological realism ... So , “Oblomov” - “a big fairy tale”. It is not difficult to guess that in this case, “Oblomov's Dream” should rightfully be considered its core. “Dream” is a figurative and semantic key to understanding the entire work, the ideological and artistic center of the novel. The reality depicted by Goncharov extends far beyond Oblomovka, but the true capital of the "sleepy kingdom" is, of course, the family estate of Ilya Ilyich...

The "sleepy kingdom" of Oblomovka can be graphically depicted as a vicious circle. By the way, the circle is directly related to the name of Ilya Ilyich and, consequently, to the name of the village where he spent his childhood. As you know, one of the archaic meanings of the word “oblo” is a circle, a circle (hence “cloud”, “area”) ...

But another meaning emerges even more clearly in the name of Ilya Ilyich, and, in our opinion, this is what the author had in mind in the first place. This is the value of the wreckage. Indeed, what is Oblomov's existence, if not a fragment of a once full and all-encompassing life? And what is Oblomovka, if not forgotten by everyone by a miracle, the surviving “blissful corner” - a piece of Eden? ..

The main folklore prototype of Oblomov in the novel Emelya the Fool is not the epic hero Ilya, but the wise fairy-tale one. In the bright fairy-tale illumination in front of us is not just a lazy person and a fool. This is a wise fool. He is the same lying stone, under which, contrary to the proverbial observation of natural science, water eventually still flows ...

The “sleepy kingdom” is collapsing not because Ilya Ilyich is too lazy, but because his friend is amazingly active. By the will of Stolz, the "sleepy kingdom" should turn into ... a railway station, and the Oblomov peasants will go "to work on the embankment."

So the not agile Emelin stove and the hot steam locomotive collided at full acceleration, a fairy tale and reality, ancient myth and the sober reality of the mid-nineteenth century...

Goncharovsky Stoltz... If we look for a corresponding prototype for him in Goethe, then Mephistopheles will be such a prototype... As you know, Goethe's Mephistopheles did not act at all in an original way, slipping the innocent Gretchen as a lover and mistress to Faust... woman...

Stolz ... after all, too - let's not be ashamed of this harsh word - literally slips Olga Oblomov. And he does this, having previously agreed with her about the condition of the “draw” ... The relationship between Oblomov and Olga develops in two plans: the beautiful poem of nascent and flourishing love turns out to be at the same time a trivial story of “temptation”, the instrument of which is destined to be the beloved of Ilya Ilyich ... Olga’s falling in love is clearly experimental character. This is an ideological, head, given love ... But since the experiment with Oblomov, as we know, failed, Stoltz has to attach Olga somehow differently, select some other pastime for her. It remains for him to fall in love with Olga ...

From the family happiness of Andrei and Olga, which is described at length on the pages of the novel, it breathes with such endless boredom, such cloying and falseness that their pink happiness looks like some kind of fair retribution for both of them for the voluntary or involuntary draw of Oblomov ... If Stoltz is the antipode of Oblomov, then Pshenitsyna is the opposite of Olga to the same extent... Unfortunately, Russian critical thought somehow overlooked Pshenitsyn, and most likely succumbed to the hypnosis of Stolz's opinion, from the point of view of which Pshenitsyna is a monster that killed Oblomov...

Agafya Matveevna's love, almost silent, awkward, unable to express itself in beautiful, tender words and impressive gestures, love, somehow forever sprinkled with rich flour, but when necessary, it is sacrificial, wholly directed at its object, and not at itself, This love imperceptibly transforms a simple, ordinary woman, becomes the content of her whole life...

Already the writer's contemporaries drew attention to the fact that in the text of Oblomov there is a deep echo of the images and problems of Don Quixote. In this creation of Cervantes, as is known, one of the root contradictions of human consciousness is extremely exposed - the contradiction between the ideal and the real, the imaginary and the real. The fanatical faith of Don Quixote in the immutable reality of his dreams is catastrophically opposed to the practicality of his human environment...

For all that, Oblomov’s “quixoticism”, of course, is of a purely Russian nature, there is no militant frenzy in him ... If the analogies with the heroes and problems of the works of Goethe and Cervantes are mostly latent in Oblomov, then the opposition of Ilya Ilyich with Hamlet is given, so to speak , plain text. In the fifth chapter of the second part of the novel we read: “What should he do now? Go ahead or stay? This Oblomov's question was deeper for him than Hamlet's. And a little lower - more: "To be or not to be?"...

Hamlet passed away without resolving his doubts. Not so with Oblomov ... Ilya Ilyich finally decides the issue in one of two possible directions. Albeit timidly, with fear, with caution, but he still gathers courage to say to himself, Olga, Stolz, the whole world: I don’t want to do ... Oblomov’s philosophy can be quite called utopian, it is not the consideration of being that is available that prevails, but - through repulsion from reality - a dream of a different being ...

Oblomov's everyday non-resistance will be bizarrely, but quite recognizable, reflected in Russian reality in the second half of the last century - we mean, first of all, Tolstoy's theory and practice of non-resistance to evil by violence ...

Oblomov is dying, but the “Oblomov problem” is surprisingly tenacious. Oblomov's dream of a "complete", "whole" person hurts, disturbs, demands an answer... "Oblomov's problem" is acutely modern. The incompleteness and imperfection of man in this problem is discouragingly evident...

If, nevertheless, the illusion of objective creativity arose in relation to Goncharov, this is due to the fact that his books are calm, that, judging by them, his inner world, which he did not try to obscure, is quiet and contemplative, shuns fire and passion, life bears lightly and paints it in light and peaceful colors. But this, of course, is not what is called artistic objectivity. Let's not let ourselves be lulled by Goncharov's imperturbable eloquence, from which he generously devotes to his heroes; let us dispel the charms of this flowing, too flowing style, which resembles a room with upholstered furniture and curtains, covered with fluffy carpets, where dear Ilya Ilyich lies on the sofa, where the unceremonious noise of life's steps hides, dissonances and excitements of passions moderate ...

When Goncharov approaches a more or less complex nature, the artist largely leaves him and an intelligent person stays with him; in such a nature, he subtly notices and vividly describes the simple and external that is in her, what brings her closer to Zakhar or Agafya Matveevna - but the higher manifestations of her spirit will not find artful illumination and purely artistic processing from him. Such people come out of him pale, sometimes without signs of life, like Stolz; the excitements of such a soul differ in his composition, and Goncharov tells us about them, but does not paint them. That is why, to depict his heroes, he steadily uses the method of direct contact and opposes one Aduev to another, reproaches Oblomov with Stoltz ...

Olga Ilyinskaya for the first time appears before us simply as a “beautiful woman”, and only then she is portrayed somewhat more clearly. And the appearance of his main character, Oblomov, Goncharov describes as follows: “He was a man of about thirty-two or three years old, of medium height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, any concentration in facial features”; Of course, this is not a description, but a common place, and again we do not see the physiognomy - we do not see that Oblomov, to whom the author devoted so much attention and pages! All these faces are somewhat reminiscent of that impersonal Alekseev or Andreev, who came to visit Oblomov ... Olga found that Oblomov's kindness, intelligence and nobility were not enough for happiness; she had the cruelty, in the scene of the break, to tell him: “And tenderness ... where there is none,” and when Oblomov, confident that she loves him and cannot bear separation from him, exclaimed in touching concern for her: “Take me, as I am, love what is good in me,” then to this cry of her heart she “shaked her head negatively” and reassured him so that he would not be afraid for her and for her grief. And indeed, her anguish soon subsided, and she told Stolz her whole affair with Ilya, all the details down to the kiss in which Stolz (and she loved him with rational love) generously gave her forgiveness. Olga also tells another about her love ...

It is typical for Goncharov in general that such secrets in his eyes have a special, external importance, and such troubles, in his opinion, always threaten a girl; he often speaks of them, and sometimes speaks like a philistine. An unconditional admirer of legal marriage, he too carefully protects the girl from “falling”. The fact, for example, that Olga visited Oblomov in his bachelor apartment is raised by both the author and the hero to the level of an emergency event, and special attention is paid to the fact that Olga left this apartment in the “proud consciousness of her innocence”.

She didn’t save, but only loved, ingenuously and passionately loved Oblomov another, ignorant and prosaic woman, Agafya Matveevna, and Goncharov spoke about her feeling so affectionately and cordially, told how she, during Oblomov’s illness, wrote in large letters on a piece of paper “ Ilya”, ran to the church, gave a piece of paper to the altar to remember for health; how she pawned her pearls in order to sweeter feed him, her well-groomed and gentle master. Goncharov portrayed the love of this uncomplicated nature in the same classical way, as he depicts everything simple, everything close to the elementary content of life.

And in Oblomov himself - the central figure of his work - he most vividly showed not what makes him related to people of higher spiritual demands, but what he comes into contact with the immediacy of life and its unsophisticated sons.

Oblomov most of all embodies the conservative, centripetal beginning of life, but at the same time he is full of deep idealism and glows with spiritual purity. What is dear and beautiful about him is that he is not a businessman, that he is a contemplative and, a meek dove, could not get along in such an environment where business is necessary and where even young and Casta diva singing girls, like Olga, are a prerequisite and proof of love persistently recognize an economic trip to the village or a visit to the Treasury. But the inner impulses of the hero remained aside; his epic namesake, Ilya Muromets, who is in Ilya Oblomov, is described more in the period when he sits in bed, when he lies down, than when he performs feats of the spirit, that is, he worries, trembles, loves; Goncharov gave the best strokes of his brush to the image of Oblomov's settled way of life. Here he presented it in hyperbolic and, however, elementary colors. That dead lake of life, which is characterized by the terrible word “Oblomovism” (after all, it is terrible, this mud that sucks living people), that evil of impotence, helplessness and indifference that puts people in the “simple and wide coffin” of sleepy vegetation - this evil Goncharov took in its most ordinary manifestation; he greatly simplified it, reduced it to physical laziness. In order to be Oblomov, you don’t have to lie all day long, not part with your dressing gown, have a tight dinner, read nothing and scold Zakhar: you can lead the most active lifestyle, you can wander around Europe, as Stolz does, and that’s it. still be Oblomov. Goncharov's Oblomovism is not subtle, it is too physiological in nature, and the author even secured a medical certificate of Oblomov's illness, of a thickening of his heart. In Onegin and Beltovo, even in Paradise, in the superfluous people of Turgenev and Chekhov, Oblomov's features are spiritualized, and there they are deeper, they live entirely in inner world or they do not show through as roughly as Ilya Ilyich's. There, the fear of life, which “touches, gets everywhere”, is much more ideal. In Goncharov, the physical Oblomov obscures Oblomov's soul, and those common features with which the author draws a gradual spiritual fading and stupor of his hero blur into a fog. If the environment into which Oblomov’s dream takes us explains a lot in his fate and character, then, besides the environment, the person himself exists, meanwhile, the personal drama of this intelligent person who refused not only from living activity, but even from books and newspapers, which does not live, but lies - Goncharov did not understand the drama of such a soul and showed it almost exclusively from its external side, and his Oblomov turned out to be the least interesting and deep of all the many varieties of the Oblomov type. What is sad and sad in the story of the deceased Oblomov refers to Ilya, a simple, pure and noble person, and not at all to a victim or a slain hero of some unbearable struggle, refers to that Oblomov, who, following Goncharov, found poetry in the very life and who, with his laziness and helplessness, is incomparably nicer and nicer than the active and businesslike Stolz. His death and his grave are depicted in soft colors, over which dormant lilac branches planted by the friendly hand of his wife. Every dead person has a living one who walks behind his grave or, according to at least, remembers him; but the participation of the living especially hovers over the ashes of Oblomov, because the remoteness of this person from the hustle and struggle preserved in him that “natural gold” of a pure heart, that “crystal, transparent soul” about which Stoltz spoke to Olga. And this meekness, tied to a serene and quiet life and untimely torn from it, this beauty and gentleness that was in Oblomov, Goncharov noticed with great love and wrote them irresistibly well, with sadness and warmth; it is precisely this, irrespective of the higher aspects of the spirit, this ordinary story human destiny, human life and death - that's what most attracts in the famous novel.

(From the article “What is Oblomovism?”). 1859

He (Goncharov) doesn't care about the reader and what conclusions you draw from the novel: that's your business. If you make a mistake - blame your myopia, and not the author. He presents you with a living image and vouches only for its resemblance to reality; and there it’s up to you to determine the degree of dignity of the depicted objects: he is completely indifferent to this ...

The story of how the good-natured man lies and sleeps - the sloth Oblomov, and no matter how friendship or love can awaken and raise him, God knows what important story. But Russian life is reflected in it, it presents us with a living, modern Russian type, minted with merciless severity and correctness, it reflects a new word in our social development, pronounced clearly and firmly, without despair and childish hopes, but with a full awareness of the truth. . This word is Oblomovism; it serves as a key to unraveling many phenomena of Russian life, and it gives Goncharov's novel a much more social significance than all our accusatory stories have. In the type of Oblomov and in all this Oblomovism we see something more than just the successful creation of a strong talent; we find in it a work of Russian life, a sign of the times...

What are the main features of Oblomov's character? In the complete inertia that comes from his apathy towards everything that is happening in the world. The reason for apathy lies partly in his external position, partly in the image of his mental and moral development ...

It is clear that Oblomov is not a dull, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person who is also looking for something in his life, thinking about something. But the vile habit of obtaining the satisfaction of his desires not from his own mental efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a miserable state of moral slavery. This slavery is so intertwined with the nobility of Oblomov, they mutually penetrate each other and are conditioned by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any kind of boundary between them. This moral slavery of Oblomov is perhaps the most curious side of his personality and his entire history.

It has long been noted that all the heroes of the most wonderful Russian stories and novels suffer from the fact that they do not see a goal in life and do not find a decent activity for themselves. As a result, they feel bored and disgusted with any business, in which they are strikingly similar to Oblomov. In fact - open, for example, “Onegin”, “Hero of our time”, “Who is to blame?”, “Rudin”, or “Superfluous person”, or “Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky district”, - in each of them you will find features, almost literally similar to Oblomov's features ...

Goncharov, who knew how to understand and show us our Oblomovism, could not, however, fail to pay tribute to the general delusion that is still so strong in our society: he decided to bury Oblomovism, to say a laudatory tombstone to it. “Farewell, old Oblomovka, you have outlived your life,” he says through Stolz, and is not telling the truth. All of Russia, which has read or will read Oblomov, will not agree with this. No, Oblomovka is our direct homeland, its owners are our educators, its three hundred Zakharovs are always ready to serve ...

Paying tribute to his time, Mr. Goncharov also brought out an antidote to Oblomov - Stolz. But with regard to this face, we must once again repeat our constant opinion - that literature cannot get too far ahead of life. Stoltsev, people with an integral, active character, in which every thought immediately becomes an aspiration and turns into deeds, are not yet in the life of our society ...

Olga, in her development, represents the highest ideal that a Russian artist can now evoke from present-day Russian life. That is why she, with the extraordinary clarity and simplicity of her logic and the amazing harmony of her heart and will, strikes us to the point that we are ready to doubt her even poetic truth and say: “There are no such girls.” But, following her throughout the novel, we find that she is constantly true to herself and her development, that she represents not the maxim of the author, but a living person, only such as we have not yet met. In it, more than in Stolz, one can see a hint of a new Russian life; one can expect a word from her that will burn and dispel Oblomovism ...

.
(From the article "Oblomov". Roman"). 1859

The author of Oblomov, together with other first-class representatives of his native art, is a pure and independent artist, an artist by vocation and by the whole integrity of what he has done. He is a realist, but his realism is constantly warmed by deep poetry...

Oblomov and Oblomovism: it was not for nothing that these words spread all over Russia and became words forever rooted in our speech. They explained to us a whole range of phenomena of contemporary society, they put before us a whole world of ideas, images and details that until recently we were not fully aware of, appearing to us as if in a fog ...

Oblomov is kind to all of us and worth boundless love - this is a fact, and it is impossible to argue against him. Its creator himself is infinitely devoted to Oblomov, and this is the whole reason for the depth of his creation ...

In all the first chapters of the novel, right up to The Dream itself, Mr. Goncharov frankly brings out before us the hero who had been mentioned to him before, that Ilya Ilyich, who appeared to him as an ugly manifestation of ugly Russian life...

"Oblomov's dream"! - this most magnificent episode, which will remain in our literature for all eternity, was the first, powerful step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism ...

Oblomov without his “Dream” would be an unfinished creation, not native to any of us, as now, - his “Dream” explains all our misunderstandings and, without giving us a single bare interpretation, commands us to understand and love Oblomov ...

Without Olga Ilyinskaya and without her drama with Oblomov, we would not have known Ilya Ilyich as we know him now, without Olga's look at the hero, we still would not look at him properly. In the convergence of these two main faces of the work, everything is extremely natural, every detail satisfies the most exacting requirements of art - and yet how much psychological depth and wisdom develops before us through it! ..

We have already said that Oblomov's tender, loving nature is all illuminated through love - and how could it be otherwise with a pure, childishly affectionate Russian soul, from which even her laziness drove away corruption with tempting thoughts. Ilya Ilyich expressed himself completely through his love, and Olga, a vigilant girl, did not remain blind to the treasures that were revealed to her. These are external facts, and from them there is only one step to the most essential truth of the novel. Olga understood Oblomov closer than Stoltz understood him, closer than all the faces devoted to him ...

Olga's consciousness is so complete - and the task she performed in the novel is so richly accomplished - that a further explanation of Oblomov's type through other characters becomes a luxury, sometimes unnecessary. One of the representatives of this excessive luxury is Stolz, with whom, it seems, many of Mr. Goncharov's admirers are dissatisfied. It is quite clear to us that this person was conceived and thought over before Olga, that the great work of explaining Oblomov and Oblomovism by way of an understandable opposition of two heroes fell to his lot, in the author’s former idea ...

... Take a close look at the whole novel, and you will see how many people in it are devoted to Ilya Ilyich and even adoring him, this meek dove, as Olga puts it. And Zakhar, and Anisya, and Stolz, and Olga, and the sluggish Alekseev - all are attracted by the charm of this pure and whole nature, in front of which only Tarantiev can stand without smiling and not feeling warmth in his soul, not making fun of her and not wanting her sip. But Tarantiev is a scoundrel, a mazurik; a clod of dirt, a nasty cobblestone sits in his chest instead of a heart, and we hate Tarantiev, so that if he appeared alive before us, we would consider it a pleasure to beat him with our own hands ...

But no one’s adoration (even counting here Olga’s feelings at the best time of her passion) touches us like Agafya Matveevna’s love for Oblomov, that same Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsina, who from her first appearance seemed to us the evil angel of Ilya Ilyich - and alas! really became his evil angel. Agafya Matveyevna, quiet, devoted, at any moment ready to die for our friend, really ruined him completely, heaped a coffin stone over all his aspirations, plunged him into a gaping abyss for a moment abandoned Oblomovism, but this woman will be forgiven everything because she loved...

... The sleepy Oblomov, a native of the sleepy, but still poetic Oblomovka, is free from moral illnesses, which not one of practical people throwing stones at him. He has nothing to do with the countless mass of sinners of our time, presumptuously taking up the works to which they are called. He is not infected with worldly debauchery and looks directly at every thing, considering it necessary to be embarrassed in front of someone or in front of something in life. He himself is not capable of any activity, the efforts of Andrei Olga to awaken this apathy were unsuccessful, but it still does not follow by far that other people under other conditions could not move Oblomov to thought and a good deed. A child by nature and by the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich left behind in many respects 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 reveal to us the realm of truth and at times put an inexperienced, dreamy eccentric and above the prejudices of his age, and above the whole crowd of businessmen who surround him ...

Oblomov, like a living person, is full enough so that we can judge him in different positions, not even noticed by his author. In practicality, in strength of will, in knowledge of life, he is far below his Olga and Stolz, good and modern people; by the instinct of truth and the warmth of his nature, he is undoubtedly superior to them ...

Not for the comic side, not for the pitiful life, not for the manifestation of weaknesses common to all of us, we love Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. He is dear to us as a man of his land and his time, as a gentle and gentle child, capable, under other circumstances of life and other development, of deeds true love and mercy...

And finally, he is kind to us as an eccentric who, in our era of selfishness, cunning and untruth, peacefully ended his life without offending a single person, without deceiving a single person and without teaching a single person anything bad.

.
(From the article “Long habit to sleep”). 1989

“Oblomov” is one of those Russian novels to which thought constantly turns: not only for literary studies, but above all in order to understand the principles and features of the development of national culture ...

Goncharov's novel was interpreted in a new way each time, and it was not the characterization of the image that changed - everything agreed that Oblomov depicted a sleepy sloth - the assessment changed, the attitude towards the hero changed ...

The hero of the novel, Ilya Oblomov, is far from one-dimensional: he appears tragic hero, depicted ironically, although with bitter irony, perhaps even with love ...

Goncharov (like Gogol, like Chaadaev) painted the reality around him from the position of a living person who was trying to overcome the falling asleep-dying of his culture...

In order to perform a heroic deed, the future hero would first of all have to endure the battle with Oblomovka, rooted in his soul ...

Goncharov is slightly ironic, but at the same time clearly reports that the nanny “put the memory and imagination of the Iliad of Russian life into the child’s soul”, in other words, we have reason for the parallel: Ilya Muromets - Ilya Oblomov. Let's point at least to the name - Ilya, quite rare for literary hero. Both sit in jail until the age of thirty-three, when certain events begin to happen to them. Kaliki “passers-fermentation” come to Ilya Muromets, heal him, endowing him with strength, and he, having appeared at the court of Grand Duke Vladimir, then sets off to wander, performing feats. To Ilya Oblomov, already stunned by his lying on the bed (as if on the stove), an old friend Andrey Stolz, who also travels around the world, appears, puts Ilya on his feet, takes him to the court (not the Grand Duke, of course) Olga Ilyinskaya, where, like here it’s more likely not a hero, but a knight, Ilya Ilyich performs “feats” in honor of the lady: he doesn’t lie down after dinner, goes to the theater with Olga, reads books and retells them to her ...

Oblomov is not to blame for social hibernation, he simply cannot overcome it, break out of the fetters of sleep. But, unlike representatives of other strata of society, it is the nobleman Oblomov who has this opportunity, the opportunity to choose. And his tragic fault, according to Goncharov, lies in the fact that he does not use this opportunity given to him by historical development. The fact is that Russian nobility, which grew up on the substrate of serf slavery, like the free population of ancient policies that used slave labor, had all the prerequisites for high leisure - the main condition creative activity. Through the activities of Pushkin, Chaadaev, the Decembrists, Herzen, Leo Tolstoy, there was a spiritual preparation for universal liberation. The idea of freedom was introduced into society ...

Is Ilya Ilyich able to realize himself, having overcome the archetype of “Oblomovism”? This was the problem solved by Goncharov. After all, the hero has strength; it is no accident that he is compared with Ilya Muromets. But any development means going beyond oneself, overcoming immobility, stability, which implies effort, because no one is born human...

The hero perishes in the struggle against the inert and hostile environment that wants to destroy his free-active personality. On the contrary, relatives try to support the active principle in the hero, because it is in him ... Before physical death comes spiritual death ...

The representative of the active civilizing principle in Goncharov's novel is Andrey Stoltz, who was so unlucky in Russian criticism ... Why is Stoltz so disliked? He has, perhaps, the most terrible sin: he, like a Russian capitalist, is taken from his ideal side. The word “capitalist” sounds almost like a curse to us… And the bourgeois pathos of Stolz was at that moment much more progressive for Russia than feudal stagnation… Stolze Goncharov was interested in the fusion, the synthesis of two cultures…

Goncharov argues that such a dual culture is the most promising for development human personality, and therefore, its activities for the benefit of people, the most productive for the spiritual enrichment of the country, the culture where this person exists ...

.
(From the article “Imperfect Man”). 1996

Oblomov's problem... Oblomov's phenomenon... We now see more and more clearly that these are not empty words, that behind them are certain masses of burning material, that we all have something to “think about”. Let's put it this way: the most complex artistic image exists as a given. But what are his real life backgrounds? .. It would seem that the background is known - modern landlord, feudal Russia with its Oblomovism to the writer ...

In the image of Oblomov, we have an unusually high degree of increment to the personality of the writer who breathed life into this image ... Oblomov is not a self-portrait of the writer, much less a self-cartoon. But in Oblomov, a lot of Goncharov's personality and life fate were creatively refracted - a fact from which we cannot escape ...

The main folklore prototype of Oblomov in the novel Emelya the Fool is not the epic hero Ilya, but the wise fairy-tale one. In the bright fairy-tale illumination in front of us - not just a lazy person and a fool. This is a wise fool. He is the same lying stone, under which, contrary to the proverbial natural science observation, water eventually still flows ...

So, at full acceleration, the unagile Emelin’s stove and the hot steam locomotive, a fairy tale and reality, an ancient myth and a sober reality of the middle of the 19th century, collided at full speed ...

From the family happiness of Andrei and Olga, which is described at length on the pages of the novel, it breathes with such endless boredom, such cloying and falsehood that their pink happiness looks like some kind of fair retribution for both of them for the voluntary or involuntary draw of Oblomov ... If Stoltz is the antipode of Oblomov, then Pshenitsyna is the opposite of Olga to the same extent ... Unfortunately, Russian critical thought somehow overlooked Pshenitsyn, and most likely succumbed to the hypnosis of Stolz's opinion, from the point of view of which Pshenitsyn is a monster that killed Oblomov ...

Agafya Matveevna's love, almost silent, awkward, unable to express itself in beautiful, tender words and impressive gestures, love, somehow forever sprinkled with rich flour, but when necessary, it is sacrificial, wholly directed at its object, and not at itself, - this love imperceptibly transforms a simple, ordinary woman, becomes the content of her whole life ...

.
(From the article "Character of the Russian people"). 1957

A person who strives for the ideal of an absolutely perfect being, lives in his dreams and vigilantly notices the imperfections of our life in general and the shortcomings of his own activity, is disappointed at every step in other people, and in their enterprises, and in his own attempts at creativity. He takes on one thing, then another, does not bring anything to the end, and finally stops fighting for life, plunges into laziness and apathy. Such is precisely Oblomov.

In his youth, Oblomov dreamed of "valor, activity"; “he had access to the pleasures of lofty thoughts”, he imagined himself a commander, a thinker, a great artist ... And these are not empty dreams, he is really talented and smart ... If hard work of processing details were added to this talent, he could become a poet, giving finished works of art. To achieve this goal, you need to develop the habit of systematic work. But the first steps of Oblomov's independent life did not contribute to the development of such a habit ...

Finally descending, Oblomov “sometimes cries with cold tears of hopelessness over the bright, forever lost ideal of life” ... But Stolz even at that time says that “his soul will always be pure, light, honest”, and after Oblomov’s death, Stolz, together with Olga, recalls “pure as crystal, the soul of the deceased” ...

What is "Oblomovism"? Dobrolyubov explained it by the influence of serfdom and extremely contemptuously evaluates the character of Oblomov; he denies the attractive features of his soul and thinks that introducing them into the novel is an incorrect depiction of reality ...

Certainly, serfdom contributed to the spread of Oblomovism among people who enjoy the fruits of serf labor, and among the peasants crushed by them, but only as a secondary condition. Goncharov, being a great artist, gave the image of Oblomov in such fullness that it reveals the underlying conditions leading to evasion from systematic work full of boring trifles and eventually giving rise to laziness ...

Oblomovism is in many cases the reverse side of the high qualities of a Russian person - the desire for complete perfection and sensitivity to the shortcomings of our reality ...

Partial Oblomovism is expressed by Russian people in negligence, inaccuracies, slovenliness, being late for meetings, the theater, and appointments. Richly gifted Russian people are often limited only to the original idea, only the plan of some work, without bringing it to implementation ...

.
(From the article “Eternal Companions. Goncharov”). 1890

For Goncharov on earth - everything, all his love, all his life. He is not torn from the earth, he is firmly attached to it, and, like the ancient poets, he sees his homeland in it; lovely, cozy human world he will not agree to give for the starry expanses of the sky, for other people's secrets of nature ...

The degree of the writer's optimism is best determined by his attitude to death ... Oblomov died instantly, from apoplexy; no one saw how he imperceptibly passed into another world ... Here is a calm look at death, as it was in ancient times, among simple and healthy people. Death is only the evening of life, when the light shadows of Elysium fall on the eyes and close them for eternal sleep...

The tragedy of vulgarity, calm, everyday tragedy - the main theme of "Oblomov" ... Vulgarity, triumphing over purity of heart, love, ideals - this is the main tragedy of life for Goncharov.

Homer in his descriptions dwelled for a long time with special love on the prosaic details of life ... The same ancient love for the everyday side of life, the same ability to transform the prose of reality into poetry and beauty with one touch, is feature Pushkin and Goncharov. Re-read "Oblomov's Dream". Food, tea drinking, ordering meals, chatter, the pastimes of the old-world landlords here take on Homeric ideal outlines ... It seems that the creator of Oblomov leaves his pen here and takes up the ancient lyre; he no longer describes - he sings of the morals of the Oblomovites, whom he equates with the “Olympic gods” for good reason ...

Goncharov shows us not only the influence of character on the environment, on all the little things in everyday life, but also vice versa - the influence of the environment on character.

He watches how the soft steppe outlines of the hills, how the hot “ruddy” sun of Oblomovka reflected on the dreamy, lazy and meek character of Ilya Ilyich ...

One of the main motives of Goncharov is a comparison with the idle, indecisive characters of active, sharp personalities, with a will that is firm to the point of cruelty ...

Everyone noticed, and the author himself admits, that the German Stolz is an unfortunate, fictional figure. You feel tired from his long and cold conversations with Olga. He loses all the more in our eyes that he stands next to Oblomov, like an automaton with a living person ...

.
(From the article "Oblomov"). 1859

The great idea of the author, in all the grandeur of its simplicity, lay down in a frame corresponding to it. The whole plan of the novel is based on this idea, built so deliberately that there is not a single accident, not a single introductory person, not a single superfluous detail; the main idea runs through all the individual scenes, and yet, in the name of this idea, the author does not make a single deviation from reality, does not sacrifice a single detail in the external decoration of persons, characters and situations. Everything is strictly natural and meanwhile quite meaningful, imbued with the idea ...

In Mr. Goncharov's novel, the inner life actors open before the eyes of the reader; there is no confusion of external events, no invented and calculated effects, and therefore the author's analysis does not for a moment lose its distinctness and calm insight. The idea is not fragmented in the interweaving of various incidents; it harmoniously and simply develops from itself, is carried out to the end and maintains all interest to the end, without the help of extraneous, secondary, introductory circumstances. This idea is so broad, it encompasses so many aspects of our life, that, embodying this one idea, without deviating from it by a single step, the author could, without the slightest exaggeration, touch on almost all the issues currently occupying society ...

The main idea of the author, as far as one can judge from the title and the course of action, was to depict a state of calm and submissive apathy ... meanwhile, after reading the reader, the question may arise: what did the author want to do? What was the main purpose behind it? Didn't he want to trace the development of the feeling of love, to analyze to the smallest detail those modifications that the soul of a woman experiences, excited by a strong and deep feeling? ..

In "Oblomov" we see two paintings, equally finished, placed side by side, penetrating and complementing one another. The main idea of the author is sustained to the end; but during the creative process, a new psychological task presented itself, which does not interfere with the development of the first thought, is itself resolved to such a degree completely as it has never been resolved, perhaps never. A rare novel revealed in its author such a power of analysis, such a complete and subtle knowledge of human nature in general and of women in particular; a rare novel has ever combined in itself two enormous psychological tasks to such an extent, a rare one has raised the combination of two such tasks to such a harmonious and apparently uncomplicated whole ...

P. Weil, A. Genis.
Oblomov and "Others". 1991

The distinct division of the Russian calendar into four seasons is a gift from the continental power of its literature. About how brilliantly Goncharov learned this lesson, says the composition of his Masterpiece - "Oblomov".

The annual cycle of nature, the measured and timely alternation of the seasons constitute the inner basis, the skeleton of the celebrated novel. The ideal Oblomovka, in which “the annual cycle is completed correctly and calmly” is the prototype of the entire construction of “Oblomov”. The plot obediently follows the seasons, finding the source of its existence in humility before the eternal order.

The novel is strictly subject to the calendar. It starts in the spring - May 1. All the stormy action - the love of Oblomov and Olga - falls on the summer. And the actual novel part of the book ends in winter - with the first snow.

The composition of the novel, inscribed in the annual circle, leads to a smooth completion of all storylines. It seems that such a construction was borrowed by Goncharov directly from his native nature. Oblomov's life - from his love to his lunch menu - is included in this organic order. It is reflected in the natural annual cycle, finding a scale for comparison in the calendar.

The sophisticated, peculiar structure of Goncharov's novel is characteristic of Russian poetics with its unusualness. Russian classics, not burdened by old traditions, often ignored ready-made genre forms, preferring to create them anew each time, for their own special purposes. Both novels in verse and poems in prose appeared from an overabundance of content that required an original system, presentation.

Oblomov is no exception. It could be called a special prose drama. Theatrical conventions (seven guests come to the couch potato Oblomov in one day) Goncharov combines with detailed everyday writing, a rhetorical sketch of morals is combined with a stage-driven, often absurd colloquial element. (By the way, speaking of language, we can assume that the image of Oblomov was born from a Russian predilection for indefinite particles. He is the living embodiment of all these “something, whatever”.)

From the point of view of the history of literature, Oblomov occupies a middle position. He is the link between the first and second half of the 19th century. Goncharov, taking an extra person from Pushkin and Lermontov, gave him purely national - Russian - features. At the same time, Oblomov lives in Gogol's universe, and yearns for the Tolstoy ideal of universal “nepotism”.

Goncharov's kinship with his contemporaries is especially evident in the first part of the novel - this exposition that has grown by a quarter of the book. To introduce readers to the hero, the author arranges a parade secondary characters, each of which is described according to the recipes of the then fashionable natural school. Secular man Volkov, careerist Sudbinsky, writer Penkin. Goncharov needs this gallery of types, popular in the middle of the last century, insofar as he needs to show that for the sake of their ridiculous activities, Oblomov should not get up from the sofa. (Indeed, is it worth it to get up to read the poem "The Love of a Briber for a Fallen Woman", which Penkin warmly recommends to him?)

All these insignificant figures, with their fuss, compromise the surrounding life in the eyes of Oblomov. He - the motionless center of the plot - immediately stands out with mysterious significance among these - not characters - types.

And in the future, Goncharov does not abandon the methods of typification, but he no longer proceeds from physiological essays, but from “ dead souls” - books closely related to Oblomov. So, the fanfaron and petty swindler Tarantiev grew out of Nozdrev, Oblomov himself is in some way close to Manilov, and Stolz is similar to Chichikov, as he could become by the third volume of Dead Souls.

The frontal, condensed, accelerated image of Oblomov in the first part of the novel essentially exhausts the theme of “Oblomovism”. The whole life of the hero - both external and internal, his past ("Oblomov's Dream") and future - seems to be already revealed in this part. However, the very fact of the existence of the other three parts suggests that a superficial reading of the book only allows one to detect Oblomovism in it, but not Oblomov - a type, not an image.

By provocatively suggesting conclusions about Oblomov at the beginning of the book, the author actually disguises his incomparably more complex point of view on the hero. Deep in. Goncharov implanted the fabric of the novel with the contradictory voice of the narrator, which destroys the unambiguous interpretation of the novel.

On the last page of the book, we learn that Stolz tells the whole story of Oblomov: “And he (Stolz - Auth.) told him (the narrator - Auth.) What is written here.” This story has been recorded. listener of Stolz, in whom it is easy to recognize Goncharov himself: “A writer, full, with an apathetic face, thoughtful, as if sleepy eyes.”

These two voices - the resonant, pedantic tone of Stolz and the mocking, but sympathetic of the author himself - accompany Oblomov along his entire path, preventing the novel from becoming a flat sketch of morals. Intricately intertwined intonations do not contrast, but complement each other: the first does not negate the second. Because of this construction of the author's speech, the multi-layeredness of the book arises. As is usually the case in a Russian novel, a metaphysical theme emerges behind the social plane.

In Oblomov, all words that do not belong to the characters should not be read directly, as a preliminary criticism of the novel, but as an artistically depicted word. Only then will the phenomenal duality of Oblomov, a hero who goes far beyond the contours of the plot, be revealed.

The feeling of monumentality of Oblomov’s figure is already generated by his first portrait: “The thought walked like a free bird across his face, fluttered in his eyes, sat on half-open lips, hid in the folds of his forehead, then completely disappeared, and then an even light of carelessness glowed all over his face. From the face, carelessness passed into the poses of the whole body, even into the folds of the dressing gown.

These frozen, petrified “folds” suggest an analogy with an ancient statue. The comparison is fundamentally important, which Goncharov consistently draws throughout the novel. In Oblomov's figure, golden ratio, which gives a feeling of lightness, harmony and completeness to antique sculpture. Oblomov's immobility is graceful in its monumentality, it is endowed with certain meaning. In any case, as long as he does nothing, but only represents himself.

Oblomov seems funny only in motion, for example, in the company of Stolz. But in the eyes of the widow Pshenitsyna, who is in love with him, Oblomov again turns into a statue: “He will sit down, cross his legs, prop his head with his hand - he does all this so freely, calmly and beautifully ... he is all so good, so clean, he can do nothing and doesn't."

And in the eyes of Oblomov himself, his then-beloved Olga freezes in beautiful immobility: “If she were turned into a statue, she would be a statue of grace and harmony.”

The tragic ending of Oblomov's love is explained precisely by the fact that he saw their union as a sculptural group, the union of two statues frozen in eternity.

But Olga is not a statue. For her, for Stolz, and for all the other heroes of the book, Goncharov finds another analogy - a car.

The conflict of the novel is the collision of the statue with the machine. The first is beautiful, the second is functional. One is standing, the other is moving. The transition from a static to a dynamic state - Oblomov's love for Olga - puts the main character in the position of a machine. Love is the winding key that powers romance. The plant ends and Oblomov freezes - and dies - at home, on the Vyborg side.

“You are the fire and strength of this machine,” Oblomov says to Olga, calling himself a machine and already guessing that in fact there is simply no place for an engine in it, that it is solid, like a marble statue.

Active Stolz and Olga live to do something. Oblomov lives just like that. From their point of view, Oblomov is dead. With him - death and life merge into one, there is no strict border between them - rather an intermediate state: a dream, a dream, Oblomovka.

At the same time, Oblomov is the only genuine person in the novel, the only one whose existence is not limited to the role he has assumed. In the upcoming wedding, what scares him the most is that he is. Oblomov, will turn into a "groom", will acquire a specific, definite status. (Olga, on the contrary, is pleased: “I am the bride,” she thinks with proud awe.)

Because Oblomov cannot be included in the surrounding life, because it is made by people - machines, people-roles. Each has its own goal, its own gear, with which they are linked for convenience with others. Smooth, "marble" Oblomov nothing to cling to others. He is not able to split his personality into the role of husband, landowner, official. He is just a man.

Oblomov is in the novel complete, perfect and therefore motionless. He has already taken place, fulfilling his destiny only by the fact that he was born. “His life was not only formed, but also created, then it was intended so simply, no wonder, to express the possibility of an ideally calm side of human existence,” Oblomov comes to this conclusion by the end of his days. Here, on the outskirts of St. Petersburg, in a modified Oblomovka, having finally come to terms with being, he finally finds himself. And only here, for the first time, did he manage to adequately reflect Stolz's pedagogical claims. In their last date“Oblomov calmly and resolutely looked” at his friend, who, in a patter, for himself, painted “the dawn of new happiness” - railways, marinas, schools ...

Goncharov constructs his novel in such a way that provokes the reader to compare Stolz with Oblomov. All the advantages seem to be on the side of Stolz. After all, he - a homunculus - was not created naturally, but according to the recipe of an ideal personality. This is an ethnographic German-Russian cocktail that should set in motion the clumsy Russian colossus.

However, the glorification of Stolz is similar to his self-justification. All journalistic pieces of the text, where the voice of the narrator addresses the reader directly, are built in the same rational key, with the same judicious intonation with which Stoltz himself speaks. In this voice, one can feel the foreign syntax of too correct Russian speech (“my incomparable, but clumsy Oblomov”).

Even more important is that Goncharov shows Oblomov, and talks about Stolz. Oblomov's love for Olga, which, by the way, takes place against the backdrop of a Russian, and not Swiss, landscape, like Stolz's, is transmitted directly. The story of Stolz's marriage is given in an inserted short story. When Oblomov acts in the second and third parts of the novel - he takes care of Olga - the narrator almost completely disappears from the text, but he appears whenever Stolz appears in the book.

This subtle compositional compensation deepens the image of Oblomov. What we know about him from the narrator contradicts what we see for ourselves. For Stolz, Oblomov is clear and simple (he is the author of the famous term - “Oblomovism”). For Goncharov and I, Oblomov is a mystery.

The emphasized intelligibility of Stolz's relations with the world, with people, is opposed to the mysterious understatement, the illogicality of Oblomov's connections. Roughly speaking, Stolz can be retold, Oblomov - in no case.

This is the basis of Oblomov's wonderful dialogue with Zakhar, a dialogue in which the master blames the servant who dared to confuse him with "another." This whole conversation, vividly reminiscent of both Gogol and Dostoyevsky, is absurd. So, Oblomov, explaining to Zakhar why he cannot move to a new apartment, gives completely absurd arguments: “When I get up and see something else instead of this turner’s sign, on the contrary, or if this shorn old woman does not look out of the window before dinner So I'm bored." The unknown Lyagachev already appears in the text, for whom it’s easy to move: “He will take the ruler under his armpit” - and he will move. Already "both of them ceased to understand each other, and finally each and himself." But the scene does not lose tension, it is all filled with a vague meaning.

This absurd scandal reveals the inner kinship between the master and his servant, their blood closeness - after all, they are brothers in Oblomovka. And without any logic, it is clear to Oblomov and Zakhar that the “others” are alien, strange creatures, strangers to their way of life.

It turns out that the worst thing for Oblomov is to lose this very uniqueness of his personality, to merge with “others”. Therefore, he comes to such horror, accidentally overhearing that he was called "some kind of Oblomov."

In the light of this mystical horror - to lose oneself in the crowd - Oblomov's supposedly empty exclamations sound completely different: “Where is the man here? Where is its wholeness? Where did he hide, how did he exchange for every little thing?

Whatever form of activity the surrounding world offers Oblomov, he always finds a way to see in it an empty fuss, exchanging the soul for trifles. The world requires a person to be not a full-fledged personality, but only a part of it - a husband, an official, a hero. And Stolz has nothing to object to Oblomov, except: “You are talking like an ancient one.”

Oblomov really talks like "ancient". And the narrator, describing his hero, constantly hints at the source of the novel, calling himself "another Homer." The archaic idyll, signs of the prehistoric Golden Age, which are especially noticeable in the description of Oblomovka, transfer the hero to another time - to the epic. Oblomov gradually plunges into eternity, where “the present and the past have merged and mixed up,” and the future does not exist at all. The true meaning of his life is not to chase after Stolz in a vain attempt to be modern, but on the contrary, to avoid the movement of time. Oblomov lives in his own, autonomous time, which is why he died, “as if a clock that had been forgotten to start had stopped.” He dissolved in his dream - to hold, to stop time, to freeze in the absolute being of the longed-for Oblomovka.

Oblomov's utopia is a world that came out of history, a world so beautiful that it cannot be improved. And that means a world devoid of purpose.

Goncharov draws Oblomov's ideal with vivid colors, but places it outside the limits of earthly life. Sleepy Oblomovka is an afterlife kingdom, it is an absolute hollow of a person turned into an ideal statue. Fragmentation is death.

So Goncharov leads his hero to a tragic paradox. Oblomov's incompatibility with the world comes from the fact that he is dead among the living. Its completeness, completeness, lonely self-sufficiency - this is the perfection of a corpse, a mummy. "Or - a beautiful, but motionless statue." At the same time, all the characters in the novel - just fragments of an integral Oblomov personality - are alive because of their imperfection, their incompleteness. Fulfilling their life program, their machine function, they exist today, in history. Oblomov, on the other hand, lives in eternity, endless, like death.

It would seem that this predetermines Oblomov's dispute with the "others": the dead have no hope of defeating the living.

However, Oblomov's perception of an ideal life as death is hopeless, but not tragic. The equal sign, which Oblomov puts between non-existence before birth and non-existence after death, only indicates the illusory nature of the gap between these two states, the gap called life. Oblomov's "equal" means only the identity of two zeros.

Goncharov does not undertake to challenge the correctness of this identity. He leaves the reader alone with zero - the symbol of Oblomov's round, whole world.

This zero, finding its correspondence in the composition of the book, reminds both of the ideal - in the continental climate - perfection of the annual circle, and of the letter "o", with which the titles of all Goncharov's novels begin.

In this novel, an extensive universal psychological problem is resolved; this task is resolved in the phenomena of purely Russian, national, possible only in our way of life, under those historical circumstances that shaped folk character under the conditions under the influence of which our younger generation has developed and is still developing to some extent. This novel also touches on vital, contemporary issues to the extent that these issues are of universal interest; the shortcomings of society are so exposed in it, but they are not exposed for a polemical purpose, but for the sake of fidelity and completeness of the picture, for artistic image life as it is, and man with his feelings, thoughts and passions. Complete objectivity, calm, dispassionate creativity, the absence of narrow temporal goals that profane art, the absence of lyrical impulses that violate the clarity and distinctness of the epic narrative - these are the hallmarks of the author's talent, as he expressed it in his last work. The thought of Mr. Goncharov, carried out in his novel, belongs to all ages and peoples, but is of particular importance in our time, for our Russian society. The author decided to trace the deadly, destructive influence that mental apathy has on a person, lulling to sleep, which gradually takes possession of all the forces of the soul, embracing and fettering all the best, human, rational movements and feelings. This apathy is a universal human phenomenon, it is expressed in the most diverse forms and is generated by the most diverse causes; but everywhere in it the terrible question plays the main role: “Why live? what to work for” is a question to which a person often cannot find a satisfactory answer. This unresolved question, this unsatisfied doubt, exhausts one's strength, destroys one's activity; a person drops his hands, and he gives up work, not seeing his goal. One with indignation and bile will throw away the work, the other will put it aside quietly and lazily; one will rush out of his inaction, be indignant at himself and at people, look for something with which to fill the spiritual emptiness; his apathy will take on a shade of gloomy despair, it will alternate with feverish impulses for disorderly activity and yet remain apathy, because it will deprive him of the strength to act, feel and live. In another, indifference to life is expressed in a softer, colorless form; animal instincts quietly, without struggle, will float to the surface of the soul; the highest aspirations will freeze without pain; a person will sink into an easy chair and fall asleep, enjoying his senseless peace; Vegetation will begin instead of life, and stagnant water will form in the soul of a person, to which no excitement will touch outside world which will not be disturbed by any internal upheaval. In the first case, we see some kind of forced apathy - apathy and, at the same time, a struggle against it, an excess of forces that begged for action and slowly died out in fruitless attempts; it's Byronism, a disease strong people. In the second case, apathy is submissive, peaceful, smiling, without the desire to get out of inactivity; this is Oblomovism, as Mr. Goncharov called it. The great idea of the author, in all its grandeur and simplicity, has settled into a frame appropriate to it. The whole plan of the novel is based on this idea, constructed in such a way that there is not a single accident, not a single introductory person, not a single superfluous detail; the main idea passes through all the individual scenes, and yet, in the name of this idea, the author does not make a single deviation from reality, does not sacrifice a single detail in the external decoration of persons, characters and positions ... (DI. Pisarev. Oblomov. Roman I.A. Goncharov")

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, the hero of the novel, personifies that mental apathy to which Goncharov named Oblomovism. Word Oblomovism will not die in our literature: it is composed so successfully, it so palpably characterizes one of the essential vices of our Russian life, that, in all probability, from literature it penetrates into the language and will enter into general use. Let's see what this Oblomovism. Ilya Ilyich stands at the turn of two mutually opposite directions: he was brought up under the influence of the atmosphere of old Russian life, he was accustomed to lordship, to inactivity and to the complete satisfaction of his physical needs and even whims; he spent his childhood under the loving but unintelligent supervision of completely undeveloped parents, who enjoyed complete mental slumber for several decades ... He is pampered and spoiled, physically and morally weakened ... Feeding for slaughter, plenty of sleep, indulgence to all the desires and whims of the child ... removal from everything that can catch a cold, burn, bruise or tire him - these are the main principles of Oblomov's education. The sleepy, routine atmosphere of a rural, provincial life complemented what the labors of parents and nannies did not have time to do ...

The vile habit of obtaining the satisfaction of his desires not from his own habits, but from others - developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a miserable state of moral slavery. This slavery is so intertwined with the nobility of Oblomov, they mutually penetrate each other and are conditioned by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any kind of boundary between them. This moral slavery of Oblomov is perhaps the most curious side of his personality ... He is the slave of every woman, everyone he meets ... (ON THE. Dobrolyubov. "What is Oblomovism?")

Oblomov is the only person in the novel, the only one whose existence is not limited to the role he has assumed. In the upcoming wedding, he is most afraid of the fact that he, Oblomov, will turn into a “groom”, acquire a certain, unambiguous status ... Smooth, “marble” Oblomov has nothing to cling to others. He is not able to split his personality into the role of husband, landowner, official. He is just a man (P. Weil, A. Genis. "Native speech")

The gentle, loving nature of Oblomov is all illuminated through love - and how could it be otherwise, with a pure, childishly affectionate Russian soul, from which even her laziness drove away corruption with tempting thoughts. Ilya Ilyich expressed himself completely through his love, and Olga, a sharp-sighted girl, did not remain blind in front of the treasures that were opened before her ... (A.V. Druzhinin. Oblomov. Roman I.A. Goncharov")

“Oblomov” is a capital thing that has not been for a long, long time ... But what is more pleasant ... is that “Oblomov” is not an accidental success, not with a bang, but a healthy, capital and timeless success in a real audience. (L.N. Tolstoy)

In this article, we will consider the main idea of the novel "Oblomov" by Ivan Goncharov and what questions the author raised in his brilliant work. It is worth saying that Goncharov introduced such a thing as "Oblomovism". In addition, he revealed and vividly showed how destructive and destructive this manifestation affects the new society. And we are even talking not only about a new society, but also about individual people, about individual personalities, about every person. All this was colorfully shown on the fate of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov.

Indeed, criticism of the novel "Oblomov" implies that the possibility of a radical change in the mentality of the Russian people of the 19th century is historical and deeply social theme, and you need to look at this process through the prism of "Oblomovism".

Is it possible to call someone right in more- Stolz or Oblomov (Goncharov contrasts these two main characters of the novel)? Which of them is doing the right thing? The author himself does not have a specific answer to this question, and if there is, he does not communicate his point of view to the reader. However, it is quite clear that when a person or a society accepts its past, analyzes it, takes spiritual foundations and strives to get out of stagnation, working on itself every hour, a worthy process takes place and the direction is chosen correctly.

Criticism of the novel "Oblomov"

We are now only doing general analysis, speaking about the main idea of the novel "Oblomov". Yes, Goncharov gave rise to "Oblomovism", which has already become a household word and is still used in relation to a person who is lazy, does not want to change anything, who is stuck in the past and his personality is in deep stagnation.

Goncharov raised important social and philosophical issues, relevant both for his era and for modern man who can, after reading the novel, from the other side and from a different angle, look at their life principles.

Roman I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" was written in 1859. Almost immediately, it caused a heated discussion and controversy both in literary circles and among the general public. The most famous critics of that time turned to the analysis of this work. But even centuries later, it is of great interest.
The famous article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovism?” (1859) appeared immediately after the novel and, in the minds of many readers, seemed to grow together with it. Ilya Ilyich, Dobrolyubov argued, was a victim of that general inability for noble intellectuals to be active, the unity of word and deed, which were generated by their "external position" of landowners who live off forced labor. “It is clear,” the critic wrote, “that Oblomov is not a dull, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person looking for something, thinking about something. But the vile habit of obtaining the satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a miserable state of moral slavery.
The main reason for the defeat of the hero of Oblomov, according to Dobrolyubov, was not in himself and not in the tragic laws of love, but in Oblomovism as a moral and psychological consequence of serfdom, dooming noble hero to laxity and apostasy when trying to put their ideals into practice. Together with N. G. Chernyshevsky’s article “A Russian Man on Rendez-Vous” (1858), published a year earlier, Dobrolyubov’s speech was intended to reveal the inconsistency of noble liberalism in the face of the task of a decisive, revolutionary transformation of Russian society. “No, Oblomovka is our direct homeland, its owners are our educators, its three hundred Zakharovs are always ready for our services,” concludes Dobrolyubov. “A significant part of Oblomov sits in each of us, and it’s too early to write a funeral word for us ... a landowner who talks about the rights of mankind and the need for the development of the individual - I already know from his first words that this is Oblomov. If I meet an official complaining about the complexity and burdensomeness of office work, he is Oblomov ... If I hear complaints from an officer about the tediousness of parades and bold arguments about the uselessness of a quiet step, etc., I have no doubt that he is Oblomov ... When I read in magazines liberal antics against abuses and the joy that finally what we have long hoped and desired has been done - I think that they all write from Oblomovka ... When I am in a circle of educated people who ardently sympathize with the needs of mankind and for many years with with unrelenting ardor telling all the same (and sometimes new) jokes about bribe-takers, about harassment, about lawlessness of all kinds - I involuntarily feel that I have been transferred to the old Oblomovka, ”dobrolyubov writes.
A.V. Druzhinin also believes that the character of Ilya Ilyich reflects the essential aspects of Russian life, that "Oblomov" was studied and recognized by a whole people, mostly rich in Oblomovism. But, according to Druzhinin, “in vain, many people with overly practical aspirations intensify to despise Oblomov and even call him a snail: all this strict trial of the hero shows one superficial and fleeting pickiness. Oblomov is kind to all of us and worth boundless love.
In addition, Druzhinin remarked: "... it is not good for the land where there are no good and incapable of evil eccentrics in the Oblomov family." What does Druzhinin see as the advantages of Oblomov and Oblomovism? “Oblomovism is disgusting if it comes 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 before practical disorder, which happens in all young countries, then being angry at it means the same what to be angry at a child whose eyes are stuck together in the middle of the evening noisy conversation of adults ... ".
Druzhinin's approach to understanding Oblomov and Oblomovism did not become popular in the 19th century. The Dobrolyubov interpretation of the novel was enthusiastically accepted by the majority. However, as the perception of "Oblomov" deepened, revealing to the reader more and more new facets of its content, the druzhina's article began to attract attention. Already in Soviet times, M. M. Prishvin wrote in his diary: "Oblomov." In this novel, Russian laziness is internally glorified and outwardly it is condemned by the depiction of deadly active people (Olga and Stolz). No "positive" activity in Russia can withstand Oblomov's criticism: his peace is fraught with a demand for the highest value, for such activity, because of which it would be worth losing peace. This is a kind of Tolstoy's "non-doing". It cannot be otherwise in a country where any activity aimed at improving one's existence is accompanied by a feeling of being wrong, and only activity in which the personal completely merges with the business for others can be opposed to Oblomov's peace.
Reading "Oblomov" from the standpoint of revolutionary democracy, however, brought only partial success. The deep originality of Goncharov's worldview, its difference from Dobrolyubov's, was not taken into account. Much of the novel became incomprehensible with this approach. Why does the inactive Ilya Ilyich arouse more sympathy than Sudbinsky, Volkov, and Penkin, busy from morning till night? How could Oblomov deserve the heartfelt affection of Pshenitsyna, the deep feeling of Olga Ilyinskaya? What caused Stolz's warm words at the end of the work about Oblomov's "honest, faithful heart", which he "carried unscathed ... through life", about his "crystal, transparent soul", which makes him a "pearl in the crowd"? How to explain the noticeable participation of the author in the fate of the hero?
Criticism of the 60s reacted negatively to the "Stoltsevshchina" as a whole. The revolutionary Dobrolyubov found that “Stoltz had not yet grown up to the ideal of a Russian public figure,” in speeches “ aesthetic criticism It was said about the rationality, dryness and selfishness of the hero.
provoked a heated controversy love theme in the novel. In particular, the writer, with his work, argued with the position of Chernyshevsky and Saltykov-Shchedrin. In his dissertation "The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality", Chernyshevsky spoke out against the habit of many authors "to put love in the foreground when it comes ... not at all about it, but about other aspects of life." “To tell the truth,” answered the author of Oblomov, “I don’t understand this tendency of the“ new people ”to deprive the novel and anything in general piece of art feelings of love and replace it with other feelings and passions, when in life itself this feeling occupies so much space that it serves either as a motive, or as content, or as the goal of almost any striving, any activity ... "
The form of Goncharov's novel is also determined by a love collision. It plays the role of a structural center in it, uniting and illuminating all other components.
In the "trilogy" Goncharov declared himself to be the most gifted and inspiring researcher and singer of love. His skill in this area is not inferior to Turgenev's and was already recognized by his contemporaries. At the same time, the thoroughness and scrupulousness of Goncharov's love stories and scenes, rare even for the prose of the 50s, were emphasized. “She,” critic N. D. Akhsharumov said about Olga Ilyinskaya, “goes through a whole school of love with him, according to all the rules and laws, with all the smallest phases of this feeling: anxieties, misunderstandings, confessions, doubts, explanations, letters, quarrels, reconciliation, kisses, etc. For a long time no one has written about this subject so clearly with us and has not introduced into such microscopic observations over the heart of a woman, with which this part of Oblomov is full ... "
Thus, the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" is an interesting work for both literary critics and public figures. This suggests that this work touched on many socially significant problems, and also made a significant contribution to the development of "eternal" problems: the problem of love, happiness, the meaning of life, the Russian soul. Oblomov by Goncharov is interesting and relevant even now.

(From the article “What is Oblomovism?”). 1859

.(From the article "Oblomov". Roman"). 1859

.(From the article “Long habit to sleep”). 1989

.(From the article “Imperfect Man”). 1996

.(From the article "Character of the Russian people"). 1957

.(From the article “Eternal Companions. Goncharov”). 1890

.(From the article "Oblomov"). 1859

P. Weil, A. Genis. Oblomov and "Others". 1991