Oblomov, the best creation of our brilliant novelist, does not belong to the number of types “to which it is impossible to add a single extra feature” - you involuntarily think about this type, you involuntarily crave additions to it, but these additions themselves come to mind, and the author, for his part did almost everything necessary for them to come. The German writer Riehl said somewhere: woe to that political society where there are not and cannot be honest conservatives; imitating this aphorism, we will say: it is not good for that land where there are no good eccentrics like Oblomov who are not capable of evil!
Oblomovism, so fully outlined by Mr. Goncharov, covers a huge number of aspects of Russian life, but from the fact that it has developed and lives with us with extraordinary force, one should not yet think that Oblomovism belongs to Russia alone. When the novel we are examining is translated into foreign languages, its success will show to what extent the types that fill it are general and universal. Scattered all over the world are the numerous brothers of Ilya Ilyich, that is, people who are not prepared for practical life, who have peacefully taken refuge from clashes with it and do not throw their moral slumber into the world of unrest for which they are not capable.
Oblomovism is disgusting if it stems from rottenness, hopelessness, corruption and evil stubbornness, but if its root lies simply in the immaturity of society and the skeptical hesitation of pure-hearted people in the face of practical disorder, which happens in all young countries, then being angry with it means the same thing, Why be angry with a child whose eyes are stuck together in the middle of an evening noisy conversation between adults.
Russian Oblomovism, as captured by Mr. Goncharov, in many ways arouses our indignation, but we do not recognize it as the fruit of rottenness or corruption. This is the merit of the novelist, that he firmly linked all the roots of Oblomovism with the soil of folk life and poetry - he showed us its peaceful and gentle sides, without hiding any of its shortcomings. Oblomov is a child, and not a trashy libertine, he is a sleepyhead, and not an immoral egoist or an epicurean from the times of collapse.
He is powerless to do good, but he is positively incapable of doing evil, is pure in spirit, not perverted by everyday sophisms - and, despite all his uselessness in life, he legitimately captures the sympathy of all those around him, apparently separated from him by an entire abyss.
Sleepy Oblomov, a native of sleepy and yet poetic Oblomovka, is free from moral diseases, which suffer from more than one of the practical people who throw stones at him. He has nothing in common with the countless mass of sinners of our time, arrogantly taking on a task to which they have no calling. He is not infected with everyday depravity and looks at every thing straight, not considering it necessary to be embarrassed in front of anyone or anything in life. He himself is incapable of any activity, the efforts of Andrei and Olga to awaken his apathy remained unsuccessful, so that other people under different conditions could not inspire Oblomov to think and do good deeds. A child by nature and according to the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich in many ways left behind him the purity and simplicity of a child, qualities that are precious in an adult, qualities that in themselves, in the midst of the greatest practical confusion, often reveal to us the realm of truth and at times put the inexperienced, a dreamy eccentric and above the prejudices of his age, and above the whole crowd of businessmen surrounding him.
In practicality, in willpower, in knowledge of life, he is far below his Olga and Stolz, good and modern people; By his instinct for truth and the warmth of his nature, he is undoubtedly superior to them. In the last years of his life, the Stolz spouses visited Ilya Ilyich, Olga remained in the carriage, Andrei entered the house known to us with a chained dog at the gate. Leaving his friend, he only told his wife: it’s all over or something like that and left, and Olga left, although, no doubt, with grief and tears. What was the meaning of this hopeless, desperate sentence? Ilya Ilyich married Pshenitsyna (and had a child with this uneducated woman.)
And this is the reason why the blood connection was broken, Oblomovism was recognized as having crossed all limits! We don’t blame either Olga or her husband for this: they obeyed the law of light and left their friend not without tears. But let’s turn the medal around and, based on what the poet has given us, ask ourselves: would Oblomov have acted this way if he had been told that Olga had made an unhappy misalliance,” that his Andrei had married a cook and that both of them, as a result, were hiding from people close to them? We will say a thousand times and with full confidence that this is not so.
He would not have said the words of eternal separation, and, hobbling, would have gone to good people, and would have clung to them, and would have brought his Agafya Matveevna to them. And Andreeva’s cook would have become no stranger to him, and he would have given Tarantiev a new slap in the face if he began to mock Olga’s husband. The backward and clumsy Ilya Ilyich, in this simple matter, would, of course, act more in accordance with the eternal law of love and truth than two people from among the most developed in our society.
Both Stolz and Olga, without any doubt, are humane in their ideas, without any doubt, they know the power of good and their heads are tied to the fate of the smaller brothers, but as soon as their friend connected his existence with the fate of a woman from the breed of these smaller brothers, they both enlightened people hastened to say with tears: it’s all over, everything is lost - Oblomovism, Oblomovism! Let's continue our parallel. Oblomov died, Andryusha, together with Oblomovka, came under the care of Stolz and Olga.
Essay on literature on the topic: Modern society shown in the novel “Oblomov”
Other writings:
- One of the outstanding works of literature of the 19th century is I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”. The work was a kind of mirror of its era. “Oblomov” became a “book of results” for Russian society. That is why Dobrolyubov welcomed Goncharov’s work. The novel revealed the terrible power of tradition, showed such an existence, Read More......
- Eternal images are characters from literary works that have gone beyond the scope of the work. They are found in other works: novels, plays, stories. Their names have become household names, often used as epithets, indicating some qualities of a person or literary character. There are four eternal images: Faust, Read More......
- In the novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov, the complex relationship between slavery and lordship is exposed; there is a story about two opposite types of people, differing in their concepts of the world: for one the world is abstract, ideal, for the other it is material and practical. The author described these two types Read More......
- Lying down for Ilya Ilyich was neither a necessity, like that of a sick person or like a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like that of someone who is tired, nor a pleasure, like that of a lazy person: it was his normal state. I. A. Goncharov. Oblomov Roman Read More ......
- Oblomov is a backwardness that interferes with historical progress. Oblomov is sincere, gentle, and has not lost his conscience; subjectively he is incapable of doing evil. The storyline depicts the spiritual desolation of the hero, there is lordship and slavery in him - he is a slave to his sofa, laziness. Read More......
- I believe that the meaning of the opposition in this novel is to characterize the main character in the most clear, open, and deep way. I think the author succeeded. We see not so much the appearance, wallpaper, but the soul of Ilya Ilyich. With every line we understand that he is not the same, Read More......
- “Oblomov” met with unanimous acclaim, but opinions about the meaning of the novel were sharply divided. N. A. Dobrolyubov in the article “What is Oblomovism?” I saw in “Oblomov” the crisis and collapse of old feudal Rus'. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is “our indigenous folk type,” symbolizing laziness, inaction and Read More ......
- According to N.A. Dobrolyubov, the author of the novel sought to “raise the random image that flashed before him into a type, to give it a generic and permanent meaning.” Goncharov himself wrote about it this way: “...If the images are typical, they certainly reflect on themselves - larger or Read More ......
Fedulov Alexey 11th grade
Research project on the topic: “Russian society of the 19th century between West and East. Understanding the path of development in I.A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”.
I chose this topic due to the need to study the problems of interaction between Western and Eastern civilizations, which has not become less relevant in the 21st century.
Disputes about the paths of development of Russia have been going on since pre-Petrine times and became especially acute in the post-Petrine era, resulting in two socio-political movements called “Westerners and Slavophiles.” The historical dispute between adherents of the traditional and Western paths of development was reflected in various works of art of the 19th century. The writers of the “Golden Age of Literature” could not stay away from the important social problems of the time: these are the novels by I.S. Turgenev “Rudin”, the stories by N.S. Leskov “On Knives”, “Soborians”, F.M. Dostoevsky’s Tale “Demons”. Cha I.A. Goncharov symbolically and at the same time with great realism described the representatives of these trends in the novel “Oblomov”.
Download:
Preview:
Moscow Education Committee
Southern District Administration
GBOU Gymnasium No. 1526
Research project on the topic:
“Russian society of the 19th century between West and East.
Understanding the path of development in the novel by I.A. Goncharov
"Oblomov."
I've done the work
Fedulov Alexey,
student of 11"A" class
Supervisor
Literature teacher
Ptushkina L.N.
Moscow 2016
Work plan:
Introduction:
1) The concept of Western and Eastern civilizations, features of Western European
and traditional society.
Main part:
1)Novel by I.A. Goncharov “Oblomov”
2) Images of heroes: Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Andrei Stolts as embodiment
3) Comparative characteristics of the heroes and the meaning of their comparison for study
cultural and social development of Russia in the mid-19th century.
Conclusion:
1) Relevance of the chosen topic
Disputes about the paths of development of Russia have been going on since pre-Petrine times and became especially acute in the post-Petrine era, resulting in two socio-political movements called “Westerners and Slavophiles.” The historical dispute between adherents of the traditional and Western paths of development was reflected in various works of art of the 19th century. The writers of the “Golden Age of Literature” could not stay away from the important social problems of the time: these are the novels by I.S. Turgenev “Rudin”, the stories by N.S. Leskov “On Knives”, “Soborians”, F.M. Dostoevsky’s Tale “Demons”. cha I.A. Goncharov symbolically and at the same time with great realism
Project objectives:
1). Study historical sources on the topic “Russian society of the 19th century between West and East.
Reflection of the path of development in I.A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”.
3). Compare historical and artistic sources that reflect the problem 4). Draw conclusions on the topic “Russian society of the 19th century between the West and the East.”
Object of study: Reflection in the novel by I.A. Goncharov of the historical reality associated with the dispute about the paths of development of Russia between the West and the East.
Subject of research: Artistic personalities of Andrei Stolts and Ilya Ilyich Oblomov as symbols of historical reality, as well as the author’s position on the problem of the dispute about the paths of Russia in the mid-19th century.
Methods:
1). Method of comparative historical description;
2). Method of interpreting facts;
3). Method of analysis of theoretical sources and historical documents;
4). Comparison method for identifying the general and the special;
5). Method of analogy.
Hypothesis:
Using the example of I. A. Goncharov’s novel, using the method of analogy, one can identify the peculiarities of the worldview of people who lived in Russia in the mid-19th century, see the difference in their views, habits, and way of life, and understand the culture and socio-political features of Russian life.
In the image of I.I. Oblomov one can discern the habits and national character of a Russian gentleman and any Russian, and in the image of A. Stolz one can discern the character of a man of Western civilization.
Oblomov symbolizes the eastern path of development of Russia, calm, slow, conservative. Stolz is a symbol of the Western direction in the development of a business, fast, progressive.
Introduction.
I chose this topic due to the need to study the problems of interaction between Western and Eastern civilizations, which has not become less relevant in the 21st century.
Disputes about the paths of development of Russia have been going on since pre-Petrine times and became especially acute in the post-Petrine era, resulting in two socio-political movements called “Westerners and Slavophiles”. The historical dispute between adherents of the traditional and Western paths of development was reflected in various works of art of the 19th century. The writers of the “Golden Age of Literature” could not stay away from the important social problems of the time: they wrote novels by I.S. Turgenev, for example, “Rudin”, stories by N.S. Leskov “On Knives”, “Soborians”, F.M. Dostoevsky’s story “Demons”.
I.A. Goncharov symbolically and at the same time with great realism
described representatives of these trends in the novel “Oblomov”.
I am considering the topic of the essay “Russian society of the 19th century between the West and the East”, analyzing the lifestyle and views of the main characters of the novel
I. A. Goncharova “Oblomov”.
East and West
I chose this topic due to the need to study the problems of interaction between Western and Eastern civilizations, which has not become less relevant in the 21st century.
Disputes about the paths of development of Russia have been going on since pre-Petrine times and became especially acute in the post-Petrine era, resulting in two socio-political movements called “Westerners and Slavophiles.” The historical dispute between adherents of the traditional and Western paths of development was reflected in various works of art of the 19th century. The writers of the “Golden Age of Literature” could not stay away from the important social problems of the time: these are the novels by I.S. Turgenev “Rudin”, the stories by N.S. Leskov “On Knives”, “Soborians”, F.M. Dostoevsky’s Tale “Demons”. I.A. Goncharov symbolically and at the same time with great realism
described representatives of these trends in the novel “Oblomov”.
"West is West, East is East,
They will never meet.
Only at the foot of the throne of God
On the day of the Last Judgment."
This is an excerpt from “The Ballad of East and West” by R. Kipling.
What are the differences between East and West? And do they really not understand each other?
According to the ancient Eastern picture of the world, there is a single world that unites all things. Man, like all things, must follow its laws, the natural course of things. This is the only way to achieve harmony with the world around you. Thus, man is not the center of the universe and has no right to consider himself the “king of nature.”
One person is generally not a very significant quantity. His powers are multiplied when he acts as an integral part of any collective - family, tribe, caste, class, religious community. Such views mean that the personal element is muted and subordinated to the principle of collectivism.
A person’s attitudes towards collective solidarity and the inevitability of a hierarchical structure of society influence the attitude towards work and wealth. Labor was treated as a means of acquiring necessary goods that satisfy basic human needs. But work in the name of savings, which can be used for the subsequent expansion of one’s business, so valued by Western society, was not encouraged, and often condemned, in the East. This was influenced not only by religious values, but also by the idea of wealth as a constant value. This means that if one strives to get more, the other will inevitably get a smaller share.
Eastern civilizations are classified as traditional societies. Indeed, traditions and customs were and are given special importance here. For example, in China, ancient texts are still considered today as a source of knowledge and wisdom. The older generation is the keeper of traditions, and it is they who are surrounded by honor and respect.
The state played a special role in the East. In ancient times and the Middle Ages, eastern states were predominantly despotism. At its head was the supreme ruler - the king, emperor, shah, sultan, who was considered the supreme owner of all the land - the main wealth of agrarian societies.
The eastern state often became theocratic, when the supreme ruler was also the religious head. Such a state sought to bring the spiritual sphere of society under its control and force the population to be guided by religious norms in everyday life. The principle of unity of religious and state power was most fully embodied in the countries of the Muslim world.
And with the concept of “Western society” we associate such features as a market economy, private property protected by law, civil society, democracy, the rule of law, class stratification, mass production, mass culture.
The original “great one” did not frighten the ancient Chinese or Japanese. On the contrary, they sought to merge with him, to become like him. The ancient Greeks had a different attitude towards primordial chaos.
In the minds of people, a desire inevitably arose to overcome chaos, opposing it to an ordered world - space. And this organized world cannot arise without efforts on the part of man and society. On the basis of this idea, some defining features of the Western mentality gradually emerged. Firstly, it is a focus on change and reconstruction. Secondly, the beginning of the break between man and nature was laid. Thirdly, from the idea of \u200b\u200bthe initial imperfection of the world, it followed what the ancient Greeks called “arche” - will, dominion, and not only over nature.
The focus on transformation gradually led to a break with tradition. In Western society this happened in modern times. The past no longer has the same value as in traditional society. People are interested in the present and the future.
How does this relate to the characters in the novel?
Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” was first published in 1859.
The main character of the novelOblomov Ilya Ilyich is a nobleman, 32-33 years old, of pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, any concentration in his facial features, gentleness was the dominant and main expression of his entire soul. Oblomov spends all day at home on the couch, unable to do anything. He is unable to manage his Oblomovka estate and cannot solve the problem of moving to a new apartment. Oblomov's soul is not devoid of dreaminess. He is a lyricist who knows how to feel deeply, a philosopher who talks about the meaning of life. But his apathy muted this spiritual feature of the hero.
The robe becomes a symbol of Oblomov’s laziness; it covers his corpulent body. Another indispensable attribute of Oblomov’s laziness is the sofa on which Oblomov spends all his days from dawn to dusk in daydreaming, half-asleep and sleep. The furnishings of Oblomov’s apartment are evidence of decline, neglect of surrounding things, apathy and lack of will.
“The robe had in Oblomov’s eyes a darkness of invaluable merits: it is soft, flexible... like an obedient slave submits to its owner...”
He reflected on life like this:
“Life in his eyes was divided into two halves: one consisted of work and boredom - these were synonyms for him; the other is from peace and peaceful fun. Because of this, the main field - service, at first, puzzled him in the most unpleasant way,” writes the author in the fifth chapter.
“Raised in the depths of the province, among the gentle and warm morals and customs of his homeland, passing from the embraces of his relatives, friends and acquaintances for twenty years, he was so imbued with family principles that his future service seemed to him in the form of some kind of family activities, like, for example, lazily writing down income and expenses in a notebook, as his father did.”
“He believed that the officials of one place formed a friendly, close family among themselves, vigilantly concerned about mutual peace and pleasure, that visiting a public place is by no means an obligatory habit that must be adhered to every day, and that slush, heat, or simply indisposition will always serve sufficient and legitimate excuses for not holding office.”
Only Oblomov’s old friend is able to wake her up for a short time - Stolz.
Stolz is a positive type of practical figure. In the image of Stolz, according to Goncharov’s plan, such opposing qualities as, on the one hand, sobriety, prudence, efficiency, knowledge of people as a materialist-practitioner should have been harmoniously combined; on the other hand, spiritual subtlety, aesthetic sensitivity, high spiritual aspirations, poetry. The image of Sh. is thus created by these two mutually exclusive elements: the first comes from his father, a pedantic, stern, rude German (“his father put him on a spring cart, gave him the reins and ordered him to be taken to the factory, then to the fields, then to the city , to merchants, to public places"); the second - from her mother, a Russian, poetic and sentimental nature (“she rushed to cut Andryusha’s nails, curl his curls, sew graceful collars and shirtfronts, sang to him about flowers, dreamed of a high role with him about the poetry of life...”). The mother was afraid that Sh., under the influence of his father, would become a rude burgher, but Stolz’s Russian entourage, as well as the princely castle in Verkhlev with portraits of pampered and proud nobles “in brocade, velvet and lace,” prevented him. “On the one hand, Oblomovka, on the other, the princely castle, with a wide expanse of lordly life, met the German element, and neither a good bursh nor even a philistine came out of Andrei.”
Stolz, in contrast to Oblomov, makes his own way in life. He comes from the middle class (his father left Germany, traveled around Switzerland and settled in Russia, becoming the manager of an estate). Sh. graduates from the university with flying colors, successfully serves, retires to take care of his own business; makes a house and money. He is a member of a trading company that ships goods abroad; as an agent of the company, Sh. travels to Belgium, England, and throughout Russia. Sh.'s image is built on the basis of the idea of balance, harmonious correspondence between the physical and spiritual, mind and feeling, suffering and pleasure. Stolz's ideal is measure and harmony in work, life, rest, love. Stolz’s portrait contrasts with Oblomov’s portrait: “He is all made up of bones, muscles and nerves, like a blooded English horse. He is thin, he has almost no cheeks at all, that is, bone and muscle, but no sign of fatty roundness...” Sh.’s ideal of life is constant and meaningful work, this is “the image, content, element and purpose of life.” Stolz defends this ideal in a dispute with Oblomov, calling the latter’s utopian ideal “Oblomovism” and considering it harmful in all spheres of life.
“One day my father asked: is he ready to translate Cornelius Nepos into German?”
“No,” he answered. His father took him by the collar with one hand, led him out the gate, put a cap on his head and kicked him from behind so that he knocked him off his feet.”
“Go where you came from,” he added, “and come again with a translation, instead of one, two chapters, and teach your mother the role from the French comedy that she asked: don’t show up without it!” Andrey came back a week later and brought the translation and learned the role.”
“At the age of fourteen or fifteen, the boy often went alone, in a cart or on horseback, with a bag at the saddle, on errands from his father to the city, and it never happened that he forgot something, changed it, didn’t pay attention, or made a mistake.”
Stolz received a peculiar upbringing. The Russian mother wanted to see him as a well-mannered, noble, romantic young man. The father raised his son as a strong man, capable of standing up for himself and coping with all difficulties.
Oblomov’s portrait emphasizes the details of the oriental lifestyle: a wide robe, a comfortable sofa, in his dreams “one side of the house faces east,”
He wants to live with his family in nature: “I got up in the morning and went to the garden,”
“picked flowers for the wife.” And Stolz’s appearance is a Western model; it’s not for nothing that his father is German.
Chapter 4 of Part 2 is very significant, in which the author presents the dialogue of the main characters. Oblomov is indignant after daily trips with Stolz
affairs: “I don’t like this life of yours in St. Petersburg... the eternal running around in starts... the eternal game of crappy passions... Where is the man here? Where is his integrity? Where did he hide, how did he exchange for every little thing?... All these are dead people,
sleeping people are worse than me..."
His ideal of life is patriarchal life in the lap of nature among kind, hardworking peasants and a large, caring family: “Ears of ears
they are worried about the breeze, the river is splashing a little... get into the boat. The wife rules..."
In Oblomov’s words there is a declaration of Russian traditional thinking,
And we see a person who is smart, thoughtful, gentle and deep. His condemnation comes from the lips of Stolz, but not from Goncharov; the author himself seems to agree with the hero.
After all, Stolz never dreams about this and therefore cannot understand his friend and
cannot give him a detailed answer to his philosophical tirades.
He just says: “Yes, you are a poet, Ilya... you are a philosopher!” and adds:
“And it’s been like this the whole century?” “No, this is not life!” “This is Oblomovism.”
“Why live?” asks Oblomov.
“For the work itself, nothing else. Work is the image, content and purpose of life,” -
says Stolz, as if quoting M. Weber, speaking about the values of European man, for whom work is equated with prayer.
“Isn’t the goal of all your running around, passions, wars, trade and politics the pursuit of peace, the desire for this ideal of a lost paradise?” objects Ilya Ilyich.
Love for one woman, Olga Ilyinskaya, unites them, but her choice is not in favor of Oblomov. Having fallen in love with his kind soul, she does not stay with him.
“You are a dove, Ilya, but what ruined you?” Olga asks.
“Oblomovism!!” answers Ilya Ilyich.
What is this “Oblomovism”? Russian laziness and blues or a special way of life?
Observing and analyzing the actions of the heroes, I compared the appearance, character, lifestyle, habits, ideals and dreams of Oblomov and Stolz and came to the conclusion that before me the heroes are antipodes.
Man and society.. What is their relationship? How does society influence a person? Is it possible to resist society? Of course, the truth is known. that it is impossible to live in society and be free from it. People united by social ties must observe certain rules of behavior, following historically established canons. And if this is violated, then conflicts, unrest, and chaos arise. Society, in a certain sense, subjugates a person and keeps him within limits. Society shapes the worldview and gives some important guidelines. And if someone challenges society, he becomes an outcast, an outcast. But society can be different: conservative, progressive, democratic, and bourgeois. Undoubtedly, living in a society, one must comply with its laws, but at the same time preserving one’s own “I”, one’s individuality.
In I. Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" we see how the hero of the work, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, becomes a victim of Oblomov's upbringing. The society in which he grew up, formed, crippled his ideas about life. Parents protected little Ilyusha from all everyday worries and adversities and did not allow him to be independent. Since childhood, Ilya saw how the Oblomovites lived: they were afraid of the world surrounding Oblomovka, they were afraid of any changes and transformations, they believed in monsters with dog heads. And Oblomov also became like this. Having matured, he closed himself off from the world within four walls and lay down on the sofa. But he is not at all attracted to the St. Petersburg world. Goncharov shows that the metropolitan society, to which Stolz so persistently calls Oblomov, is devoid of moral ideals. Oblomov, with his subtle soul, feels this well. It turns out that the society that raised Oblomov, despite all the conservatism and ignorance, is no worse than the one in which careerism, hypocrisy, idleness, and envy flourish. And the hero finds himself seemingly on the sidelines of life. Oblomovka remained in dreams, and secular society was alien to Oblomov. Oblomov finds his semblance of happiness in the house of Agafya Pshenitsyna, who, having fallen in love with Ilya Ilyich, protects him from the storms of life. The author of the novel makes you think about what role society played in the life of the main character, how it happened that an intelligent, kind, noble person became absolutely unnecessary, unclaimed in life. If we consider this problem from a historical point of view, we can come to the conclusion that the noble class is disappearing from the stage of history, and its place is being taken by enterprising figures like Stolz, the future bourgeois. In this renewal is the eternal breath of life and its eternal tragedy.
A person can adapt to the society in which he lives, but he must, under any circumstances, take care of his human dignity, his honor, his principles.
In the novel “Oblomov,” Goncharov depicted the tragic life story of the main character, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, who lived his entire life in dreams, and was never able to step over himself and go beyond his own illusions. Ilya Ilyich evokes mixed emotions in the reader - on the one hand, his fate was clear almost from the first chapters of the novel - the hero was too far from the real world, and his laziness and apathy are more likely to irritate than attract, on the other hand, the reader is somewhat then this image is close, incorporating all the signs of a bourgeois and truly Russian mentality. To understand what the tragedy of Oblomov’s life is, and why the hero remains interesting to modern readers, a detailed examination of the image of Ilya Ilyich as a character who bears the traits of “Oblomovism” is required.
The origins of "Oblomovism"
Goncharov for the first time in Russian literature introduces such a socio-philosophical concept as “Oblomovism”. In socio-historical terms, the phenomenon manifests itself as the character’s commitment to old, outdated values, a bourgeois way of life, an unwillingness to work and move forward while others decide the fate of the world for you.
In the philosophical aspect, “Oblomovism” is a deeper and more capacious concept. It is the embodiment of all Russian culture and history, the Russian mentality - it is not surprising that Oblomovka in the mind of Ilya Ilyich is associated with rituals, fairy tales and legends, that is, with the age-old wisdom of ancestors, not so much material as spiritual inheritance.
The central character of Russian fairy tales is Ivan the Fool - the character is supposedly neither stupid nor lazy, but is perceived by people as such, since he constantly lies on the stove and waits for a miracle, which itself will find him and capture him in the whirlpool of events. Oblomov is a projection of Ivan the Fool from a fairy-tale narrative into the world of the 19th century. Like the fairy-tale image, Ilya Ilyich is an extra character, however, unlike Ivan, the miracle never appears to Oblomov, because he lives in a real, not a fictional world. That is why “Oblomovism” is not only the excessive cherishing of outdated and irrelevant values and living life in another, past tense, when the past is many times more important than the present, but also the replacement of reality with illusions, escapism leading to degradation and stagnation of the individual, which consists of Oblomov’s internal tragedy.
Oblomov and society
For Oblomov, society and the people around him act like decoration in his half-dream, half-existence. This can be clearly seen in the first part of the work, when Volkov, Sudbinsky and Penkin come to Oblomov in turn - Ilya Ilyich actually has little interest in their lives, he is even too lazy to get out of bed to greet the guests. Even more “important” for Oblomov, Alekseev and Tarantyev, in fact also mean little to Oblomov - the first acts as a background for his thoughts and allows him to speak out, Oblomov needs the second as a kind of second Zakhara, but more active and ready to act, even though that Tarantiev is deceiving Oblomov in every possible way.
This attitude towards people was apparently formed on the basis of the first failure - Oblomov’s service, where it was difficult, difficult, and uninteresting for him. Ilya Ilyich thought that a “second family” was waiting for him at work, similar to the Oblomov family, however, when it turned out that here it was every man for himself, the hero faced complete disappointment in this area of life. Oblomov’s social tragedy lies in his infantility, inability to live a real life and adapt to circumstances - the slightest failure or obstacle becomes a disaster for Ilya Ilyich and leads to the hero’s departure from true existence to an illusory existence.
Oblomov and love
The same escapism can be traced in Oblomov’s question of love - their separation was destined at the moment of their meeting. Olga, who fell in love not so much with the real Ilya Ilyich, but with the image inspired by Stolz, cherished precisely this idea of Oblomov as a kind, gentle, sensitive person, while not taking into account his excessive immersion in his inner world, where he was ready to let him in somebody else.
Oblomov's love was also rather a poetic love, the most important thing in which was the unattainability of the happiness he dreamed of - that is why Ilya Ilyich unknowingly pushed back the confession of his relationship to Aunt Olga and the wedding date - if the marriage had happened, his dream would have become a reality. The tragedy of Oblomov’s life is that for Ilya Ilyich the meaning of existence was precisely dreams, and not their achievement - such a realization of what was desired would lead to disaster, the internal devastation of the hero, his loss of purpose and the essence of life.
At the moment Oblomov once again postponed the day of marriage, Olga realized that what is important to a man is not so much real love and family, but rather longing for a beautiful and unattainable lady of his heart, distant and inaccessible. For a girl who represents practical views on the world, this is not acceptable, so she is the first to initiate a breakup with Oblomov.
conclusions
Oblomov is a composite character, depicting a person who lives entirely in the past, unwilling and unable to adapt to new circumstances. As Dobrolyubov spoke about Goncharov’s novel, the author “buried” “Oblomovism” early; moreover, it remains a tendentious manifestation of society even in our time, representing people who are seekers, trying to know their place in the world, but apathetic, quickly becoming disillusioned with their own lives and leaving into the world of illusions. Oblomov’s tragedy is the tragedy of unrealized human potential, the gradual and complete withering away of a thinking but inert personality.
A description of the elements of the tragedy in Oblomov’s life and the disclosure of the causes of these problems will be useful for study by 10th grade students when preparing an essay on the topic “What is the tragedy of Oblomov’s life.”
Work test
The final essay on the topic “Man and Society” with arguments from the literature is presented below.
“Is one person capable of standing up to society?”
Introduction
Society is a whole system with its own way of life, laws and standards of assessment. Each of us is a part of this large whole, which can either absorb us entirely or provide us with opportunities for successful coexistence.
Problem
Is a person able to resist society, public opinion, or is this an obviously lost battle?
Thesis No. 1
“There is no warrior alone in the field,” says the ancient proverb. It is difficult to resist the opinion of the majority; for this you need to have a special gift of persuasion and charisma.
Argumentation
In M. Gorky’s story “Old Woman Izergil” we see a hero capable of leading the people around him. On the one hand, Danko subjugated people to his will, leading them to salvation, convincing them of a better future at the cost of his own life. But on the other hand, what did he get in response? As soon as he led them out of the thicket, the crowd immediately forgot him, trampling on the last sparks reminiscent of his burning heart torn from his chest.
Conclusion
It is very difficult for one person to confront an entire society. But it is possible, and such people exist and will exist. They have a unique gift of persuasion and a special character.
Thesis No. 2
People who can change the world include many heads of state, military leaders and religious leaders. But there are such people among ordinary people.
Argumentation
“And there is only one warrior in the field, if he is Chatsky,” said I.A. Goncharov. Indeed, in his play “Woe from Wit” A.S. Griboyedov portrayed a man capable of exposing the vices of an entire generation in which he himself existed. Chatsky came to people living according to already established rules and turned everything upside down. Then he left, no one understood and no one needed.
Conclusion
Having fearlessness and a special character, you can influence the social system, at least in your immediate environment. However, this can lead to loneliness.
Thesis No. 3
There are people who, having given up trying to change the world, continue their lonely existence, moving away from everyone. Society does not accept such people, and they do not have the strength to fight it.
Argumentation
Such people include Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, the main character of the novel by A.I. Goncharov "Oblomov". Ilya Ilyich has a number of positive qualities, he is highly spiritually developed, but cannot find application for his talents. The people around him live according to laws that are alien to him - they are deceitful, they are capable of going over their heads in order to achieve their goals. Oblomov does not accept such rules, but is not able to cope with himself and somehow adapt to the laws of life. Therefore, he withdraws from himself and lives practically as a hermit, spending his days on the sofa in a greasy robe.
Conclusion
Society is a fairly strong system. She can easily absorb an individual who is different from the rest if she is unable to resist him.
General conclusion (conclusion)
The laws of society are such that we are all, each of us, part of one big whole. We are forced to live by the same laws for everyone, even if something doesn’t suit us. There are courageous people who dare to go against the norm or lead a new direction in development. But only the strongest can swim against the current. The rest are broken by society and doomed to loneliness.
