I. A. Goncharov entered Russian literature as a progressive writer, an outstanding representative of that school of realist artists of the 40s who continued the traditions of Pushkin and Gogol and were brought up under the direct influence of Belinsky’s criticism. Goncharov - one of the creators of the great Russian realistic novel. Contemporary Herzen and Turgenev, Ostrovsky and Saltykov-Shchedrin, Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy, Goncharov along with them for decades attracted the attention of advanced democratic criticism and wide circles readers. The novel “Oblomov” was published in the first four books of the journal “Otechestvennye zapiski” for 1859. The writer's impressions of his childhood provided abundant material for the novel. Remembering your
- childhood, Goncharov wrote: “It seems to me that I, a very sharp-eyed and impressionable boy, even then, at the sight of all these figures, this carefree life-being, idleness and lying, and a vague idea of “Oblomovism” arose. Subsequently, this performance was enriched with impressions from Simbirsk and metropolitan life" Goncharov's novel was a great and noisy success. One of his contemporaries, critic A. M. Skabichevsky, wrote: “You had to live at that time to understand what a sensation this novel aroused in the public and what a stunning impression it made on the whole society. He fell like a bomb into the intelligentsia just at the time of the strongest public excitement, three years before the liberation of the peasants, when all literature preached a crusade against sleep, inertia and stagnation.”
"Oblomov" appeared in the context of the rise of the democratic movement and had great value in the struggle of advanced circles of Russian society against serfdom. Goncharov himself saw in his new work a continuation of the criticism with which he spoke in “ Ordinary history“against the backward, inert and stagnant morals inherent in the feudal-serf system, which gave rise to Oblomovism. “I tried to show in Oblomov how and why our people turn into... jelly before their time,” wrote Goncharov. Oblomov turned into jelly, into a “lump of dough” by the serf environment.
Goncharov showed that Oblomovism arose on the basis of the ownership of “baptized property”, “three hundred Zakharovs”, that Oblomov was raised by a noble estate with its stagnant life and landowner morals. Ilyusha himself, like most of the inhabitants of Oblomovka, is a gentle and good-natured person. But, according to Dobrolyubov, “the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery. This slavery is so intertwined with Oblomov’s lordship, so they mutually penetrate each other and are determined by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any boundary between them.”
Apathy and immobility are reflected by Goncharov even in appearance Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - a pampered man, flabby beyond his years, who “slept his ailments.” All life Oblomov is depicted as a terrible, depressing process of gradual spiritual and moral impoverishment human personality, like the transformation of a living person into a dead soul. Adhering to the ideology of natural life, the hero exists according to his own principles and his own understanding of a whole and harmonious person. He is devoid of vanity, he is not seduced by careerism, the pursuit of a profitable marriage and wealth. “No,” he exclaims, “this is not life, but a distortion of the norm, the ideal of life, which nature has indicated as the goal of man.” But, picturing for himself the ideal of undisturbed and noble idleness, a carefree and free landowner life, secured by the labor of serfs, Oblomov did not see anything strange in receiving quitrent from serfs and even, despite his complacency, “came up with a new measure against the laziness and vagrancy of the peasants "
Ilya Ilyich rejoices in his immobility and independence, not realizing that he himself is part of a world he hates. Only sometimes does he think about his life with oppressive anxiety and come to the conclusion that “... some secret enemy laid a heavy hand on him at the beginning of his journey and threw him far away from his direct human destination...”. In fact, this enemy, who destroyed everything good in Ilya Ilyich, was his very way of life, everything that later acquired a persistent definition - Oblomovism. In character Oblomov, critic N.A. Dobrolyubov saw a reflection of the Russian national character, called it the “indigenous type” of Russian life, and the literary critic D.
N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky characterized Oblomov’s properties as “a trait of the national make-up.” One of the responses to the novel said that Zakhar and Oblomov “grew up on the same soil, were saturated with the same juices,” and the author himself emphasized that his first hero embodies “the elementary properties of the Russian person.” It is no coincidence that the servant Zakhar, who is distinguished by constant grumbling and obstinacy, stubbornness, clumsiness, inertia and sloppiness, admiration for the nobility and, above all, laziness, is depicted in the novel as a double of the main character. But Oblomov’s principle lives not only in his servant. We easily notice similar features both in the hero’s visits and in the life of the widow Pshenitsyna.
A similar way of life took root throughout the villages and hamlets of feudal Russia and in its capital. It manifests itself not only in the behavior of the bar, but also in the inertia of officials, serfs, and people of intelligent professions. Thus, we can conclude that Oblomov embodied character traits generated by the entire Russian patriarchal landowner life.
This image is the largest generalization. However, contemporaries Goncharova understood the bourgeois-exploitative nature of Stolz’s activities. Critic A.P. Milyukov wrote: “In this apathetic nature, under the guise of education and humanity, the desire for reforms and progress, everything that is so contrary to the Russian character and outlook on life is hidden... From these gentlemen come those honest businessmen who , seeking a profitable career, they crush everything that comes their way...
all the founders of supposedly beneficent enterprises, exploiting workers in the factory, shareholders in the company, with loud cries of movement and progress, all the generous emancipators of peasants without land...” Under Stolz’s sober understanding of life, there was hidden a dry business calculation, the subordination of human traits to entrepreneurial practicality .
In character Stolz Oblomov sought to reveal bourgeois limitations: “We are not titans... we will not go... into a daring fight against rebellious issues, we will not accept their challenge, we will bow our heads and humbly endure the difficult moment, and then life and happiness will smile again.”
The bourgeoisie itself, which grew up on the soil of serfdom, was characterized by Oblomovism, which, even after the fall of serfdom, was nourished by numerous remnants of serfdom. Goncharov was absolutely right in pointing out the inevitable death of Oblomovism.
But this could not happen very quickly: Oblomovism continued to interfere with all further progressive development of Russian public life. Real positive hero novel by N.A. Dobrolyubov saw Oblomov’s bride, Olga Ilyinskaya. In it the critic saw “a hint of a new Russian life”: “... one can expect from her words that will burn and dispel Oblomovism.”
Another critic, D.I.
Pisarev, in Olga’s personality rightly found “naturalness and the presence of consciousness... truthfulness in words and deeds, absence of coquetry, desire for development, the ability to love simply and seriously, without tricks and tricks...” Olga is not capable of obediently submitting to her fate .
She dreams of saving Oblomov, making him “live, act, bless life,” saving his dying mind and soul. But when Olga becomes convinced of the futility of her efforts and sees that her loved one does not correspond to her high idea of the ideal, she breaks up with Oblomov. Emphasizing in Olga, the desire to fight in the name of noble, and not selfish goals, Dobrolyubov, who saw in the heroine of the novel a progressive Russian woman, writes: “She will leave Stolz too if she stops believing in him. And this will happen if questions and doubts do not cease to torment her, and he continues to give her advice - to accept them as a new element of life and bow her head.
I. A. Goncharov entered Russian literature as a progressive writer, an outstanding representative of that school of realist artists of the 40s who continued the traditions of Pushkin and Gogol and were brought up under the direct influence of Belinsky’s criticism. Goncharov is one of the creators of the great Russian realistic novel.
A contemporary of Herzen and Turgenev, Ostrovsky and Saltykov-Shchedrin, Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy, Goncharov, along with them, attracted the attention of advanced democratic criticism and wide circles of readers for decades. The novel “Oblomov” was published in the first four books of the journal “Otechestvennye zapiski” for 1859. The writer's impressions of his childhood provided abundant material for the novel. Remembering your
* childhood, Goncharov wrote: “It seems to me that I, a very sharp-eyed and impressionable boy, even then, at the sight of all these figures, this carefree life-being, idleness and lying down, a vague idea of “Oblomovism” arose. Subsequently, this performance was enriched with impressions of Simbirsk and capital life.” Goncharov's novel was a great and noisy success. One of his contemporaries, critic A. M. Skabichevsky, wrote: “You had to live at that time to understand what a sensation this novel aroused in the public and what a stunning impression it made on the whole society. He fell like a bomb into the intelligentsia just at the time of the strongest public excitement, three years before the liberation of the peasants, when all literature preached a crusade against sleep, inertia and stagnation.”
“Oblomov” appeared in the context of the rise of the democratic movement and was of great importance in the struggle of the advanced circles of Russian society against serfdom. Goncharov himself saw in his new work a continuation of the criticism with which he spoke in Ordinary History against the backward, inert and stagnant morals inherent in the feudal-serf order, which gave rise to Oblomovism. “I tried to show in Oblomov how and why our people turn before their time into... jelly,” wrote Goncharov.
Oblomov was turned into jelly, into a “lump of dough” by the serf environment. Goncharov showed that Oblomovism arose on the basis of the ownership of “baptized property”, “three hundred Zakharovs”, that Oblomov was raised by a noble estate with its stagnant life and landowner morals. Ilyusha himself, like most of the inhabitants of Oblomovka, is a gentle and good-natured person. But, according to Dobrolyubov, “the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery. This slavery is so intertwined with Oblomov’s lordship, so they mutually penetrate each other and are determined by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any boundary between them.” Apathy and immobility are reflected by Goncharov even in the appearance of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - a pampered, flabby man beyond his years who has “slept his ailments.”
Oblomov’s whole life is depicted as a terrible, depressing process of gradual spiritual and moral impoverishment of the human personality, as the transformation of a living person into a dead soul. Adhering to the ideology of natural life, the hero exists according to his own principles and his own understanding of a whole and harmonious person. He is devoid of vanity, he is not seduced by careerism, the pursuit of a profitable marriage and wealth. “No,” he exclaims, “this is not life, but a distortion of the norm, the ideal of life, which nature has indicated as the goal of man.” But, picturing for himself the ideal of undisturbed and noble idleness, a carefree and free landowner life, secured by the labor of serfs, Oblomov did not see anything strange in receiving quitrent from serfs and even, despite his complacency, “came up with a new measure against the laziness and vagrancy of the peasants " Ilya Ilyich rejoices in his immobility and independence, not realizing that he himself is part of a world he hates. Only sometimes does he think about his life with oppressive anxiety and come to the conclusion that “... some secret enemy laid a heavy hand on him at the beginning of his journey and threw him far away from his direct human destination...”. In fact, this enemy, who destroyed everything good in Ilya Ilyich, was his very way of life, everything that later acquired a persistent definition - Oblomovism.
In the image of Oblomov, critic N. A. Dobrolyubov saw a reflection of the Russian national character, called him the “indigenous type” of Russian life, and literary critic D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky characterized Oblomov’s properties as “a trait of the national make-up.” One of the responses to the novel said that Zakhar and Oblomov “grew up on the same soil, were saturated with the same juices,” and the author himself emphasized that his first hero embodies “the elementary properties of the Russian person.” It is no coincidence that the servant Zakhar, who is distinguished by constant grumbling and obstinacy, stubbornness, clumsiness, inertia and sloppiness, admiration for the nobility and, above all, laziness, is depicted in the novel as a double of the main character. But Oblomov’s principle lives not only in his servant. We easily notice similar features both in the hero’s visits and in the life of the widow Pshenitsyna. A similar way of life took root throughout the villages and hamlets of feudal Russia and in its capital. It manifests itself not only in the behavior of the bar, but also in the inertia of officials, serfs, and people of intelligent professions. Thus, we can conclude that Oblomov embodied character traits generated by the entire Russian patriarchal landowner life. This image is the largest generalization.
However, Goncharov’s contemporaries understood the bourgeois exploitative nature of Stolz’s activities. The critic A.P. Milyukov wrote: “In this apathetic nature, under the guise of education and humanity, the desire for reforms and progress, everything that is so contrary to the Russian character and outlook on life is hidden... From these gentlemen come those honest businessmen who, in achieving profitable career, they crush everything that comes in their way... all the founders of supposedly beneficent enterprises, exploiting workers in the factory, shareholders in the company, with loud cries of movement and progress, all the generous emancipators of peasants without land...” Under Stolz’s sober understanding of life hidden were dry business calculations and the subordination of human traits to entrepreneurial practicality.
In the image of Stolz, Oblomov sought to reveal bourgeois limitations: “We are not titans... we will not go... into a daring struggle with rebellious issues, we will not accept their challenge, we will bow our heads and humbly go through a difficult moment, and again then life and happiness will smile.” The bourgeoisie itself, which grew up on the soil of serfdom, was characterized by Oblomovism, which, even after the fall of serfdom, was nourished by numerous remnants of serfdom. Goncharov was absolutely right in pointing out the inevitable death of Oblomovism. But this could not happen very quickly: Oblomovism continued to interfere with all further progressive development of Russian social life.
N.A. Dobrolyubov saw the real positive hero of the novel in Oblomov’s bride, Olga Ilyinskaya. In it the critic saw “a hint of a new Russian life”: “... one can expect from her words that will burn and dispel Oblomovism.” Another critic, D.I. Pisarev, rightly found in Olga’s personality “naturalness and the presence of consciousness... truthfulness in words and deeds, absence of coquetry, desire for development, the ability to love simply and seriously, without tricks and tricks...” Olga is not capable of submissiveness submit to your destiny. She dreams of saving Oblomov, making him “live, act, bless life,” saving his dying mind and soul. But when Olga becomes convinced of the futility of her efforts and sees that her loved one does not correspond to her high idea of the ideal, she breaks up with Oblomov.
Emphasizing in Olga the desire to fight in the name of noble, and not selfish goals, Dobrolyubov, who saw in the heroine of the novel a progressive Russian woman, writes: “She will leave Stolz if she stops believing in him. And this will happen if questions and doubts do not cease to torment her, and he continues to give her advice - to accept them as a new element of life and bow her head. Oblomovism is well known to her, she will be able to discern it in all forms, under all masks, and will always find within herself so much strength to pronounce merciless judgment on it...”
Not only Oblomov is critically depicted in the novel, but also other characters: the successful official-bureaucrat Sudbinsky (it is not for nothing that the author decided to give this character a “speaking” surname), the empty socialite Volkov, the rogue and extortionist Tarantiev, the bourgeois Pshenitsyna. In all these types, Goncharov showed the manifestation of the same Oblomovism as a terrible evil of Russian life.
IN early XIX centuries, works appear in Russian literature, central problem which is the conflict between the hero and society, the person and the environment that raised him. And how the result is created new image- the image of a “superfluous” person, a stranger among his own, rejected by his environment. The heroes of these works are people of inquisitive minds, gifted, talented, who had the opportunity to become writers, artists, scientists, and who became, in Belinsky’s words, “smart useless people,” “suffering egoists,” “reluctant egoists.” The image of the “superfluous person” changed as society developed, acquiring new qualities, until, finally, it reached full expression in the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov".
In Goncharov’s novel we have the story of a man who does not have the makings of a determined fighter, but has all the potential to be a good, decent person. “Oblomov” is a kind of “book of results” of the interaction between the individual and society, moral beliefs and social conditions, in which a person is placed. Goncharov’s novel traces a whole phenomenon of social life - Oblomovism, which collected the vices of one of the types of noble youth of the 50s of the 19th century. In his work, Goncharov “wanted to ensure that the random image that flashed before us was elevated to a type, giving it a generic and permanent meaning,” wrote N.A. Dobrolyubov. Oblomov is not a new face in Russian literature, “but before it was not presented to us as simply and naturally as in Goncharov’s novel.”
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a weak-willed, lethargic nature, divorced from real life. "Lying... was his normal state." Oblomov's life is a pink nirvana on a soft sofa: slippers and a robe are integral companions of Oblomov's existence. Living in a narrow world of his own creation, fenced off from the real vibrant life dusty curtains, the hero loved to make unrealistic plans. He never brought anything to completion; any of his undertakings suffered the fate of a book that Oblomov had been reading for several years on one page. However, Oblomov’s inaction was not elevated to the extreme and Dobrolyubov was right when he wrote that “... Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person also looking for something in his life, about something thinking..." Goncharov's hero in his youth was a romantic, thirsting for an ideal, burning with the desire for activity, but "the flower of life blossomed and did not bear fruit." Oblomov became disillusioned with life, lost interest in knowledge, realized the futility of his existence and lay down on the sofa, believing that in this way he could preserve his moral integrity. So he “laid through” his life, “slept through” love and, as his friend Stolz said, “his troubles began with the inability to put on stockings and ended with the inability to live.” The originality of Oblomov’s image is that he “protested” on the sofa, believing that this best image life, but not through the fault of society, but because of one’s own nature, one’s own inaction.
Based on the characteristics of life Russia XIX century, we can say that if “superfluous” people were found everywhere, regardless of the country and political system, then Oblomovism is a purely Russian phenomenon, generated by the Russian reality of that time. It is no coincidence that Dobrolyubov sees in Oblomov “our indigenous folk type.”
Many critics of that time, and even the author of the novel himself, saw in the image of Oblomov a “sign of the times,” arguing that the image of a “superfluous” person is typical only for feudal Russia of the 19th century. They saw the root of all evil in the country's state structure. But I cannot agree that the apathetic dreamer Oblomov is a product of the autocratic-serf system. Our time can serve as proof of this, where many find themselves out of place, do not find the meaning of life and, like Oblomov, kill best years life, lying on the sofa. So Oblomovism is a phenomenon not only of the 19th century, but also of the 21st century. Therefore, I believe that the tragedy of the “unnecessary” is not to blame serfdom, in particular, and that society in which true values, and vices often wear a mask of virtue, where the individual can be trampled underfoot by a gray, silent crowd.
Ilya Ilyich was not by nature an active and active person. Although, of course, he had all the prerequisites not to vegetate, lying on the couch, but to strive for at least something. Young Ilya Ilyich was smart and educated. It would seem that a brilliant future opens up before him. And how did he manage this future? Extremely unwise and short-sighted. He simply buried all his talents in the ground. It is no wonder that in the future they did not give any seedlings, since there were absolutely no conditions for the growth and further development of all good qualities and abilities.
Let us remember the childhood of Ilya Ilyich. Of course, his childhood can rightfully be called a very happy period. The boy was surrounded universal love and care. Usually happy and cheerful children grow up into very active people who do not want to turn their lives into a monotonous and gray existence. But with Oblomov everything turned out a little differently. Since childhood, the boy was deprived of the necessary freedom, which is very necessary for optimal personal development. Every person in childhood is a real pioneer, discovering everything new. And little Ilya was spoiled by overly obsessive care; he was not allowed to show any freedom.
The hero’s mother “let him go for a walk in the garden, around the yard, in the meadow, with strict confirmation to the nanny not to leave the child alone, not to let him near horses, dogs, goats, not to go far from the house, and most importantly, not to let him into the ravine, like the most terrible place in the area, which enjoyed a bad reputation." One can easily imagine how a child who was forbidden to express his will in childhood will grow up. Gradually, he begins to lose interest in learning new things. But human life is so short, so every moment is precious.
Ilya Ilyich was deprived of the need to take care of his food, so he did not strive for anything. He knew that he should not be afraid of starvation, and everything else worried him very little. If he had been born into a poor family, from childhood he would have seen the constant work of loved ones in front of him, then he might have had a different attitude towards life in general. Oblomov is very carefree and carefree. In youth, such qualities can be forgiven, but as a person grows up, responsibility for his own destiny must appear. Meanwhile, Ilya Ilyich himself does not strive for anything at all, therefore he bears absolutely no responsibility for his life. He acts like he doesn't care.
And gradually everything really becomes indifferent to him. As a child, Ilya loved to listen to his nanny’s fairy tales. And, obviously, fairy-tale fiction was so close and understandable to him that as he grew older, he could not get rid of his completely unnecessary and useless daydreaming. “Although the adult Ilya Ilyich later learns that there are no honey and milk rivers, no good sorceresses, although he jokes with a smile at his nanny’s stories, this smile is insincere, it is accompanied by a secret sigh: his fairy tale is mixed with life, and he is powerless sometimes it makes me sad, why is a fairy tale not life, and why is life not a fairy tale... "
Many people like to dream, but this quality can be both positive and negative. A dream can help a person move forward, achieve new things, and make amazing discoveries. In a word, a dream can push you to take active actions. But in another case, a dream may turn out to be the only achievement that a person is capable of. And that's the worst part. In this case, the dream turns out to be a destructive factor that prevents a person from moving forward and developing optimally. This is exactly what happened with Oblomov. He spends his days in fruitless dreams, thinking about nothing else. “Everything pulls him in that direction, where they only know that they are walking, where there are no worries and sorrows; he always has the disposition to lie on the stove, walk around in a ready-made, unearned dress and eat at the expense of the good sorceress.”
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 real world, and his laziness and apathy are more likely to irritate than to attract, on the other hand, this image, which has absorbed all the signs of a bourgeois and truly Russian mentality, is somehow close to the reader. To understand what the tragedy of Oblomov’s life is, and why the hero remains interesting and modern readers, required detailed consideration the image of Ilya Ilyich as a character who bears the traits of “Oblomovism”.
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. She is the embodiment of everything Russian culture and history, Russian mentality- it is not surprising that Oblomovka in the minds of Ilya Ilyich is associated with rituals, fairy tales and legends, that is, with age-old wisdom 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 fairy tale image, Ilya Ilyich is an extra character, however, unlike Ivan, a 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 is why 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 immaturity and inability to live 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 seen in Oblomov’s question of love - their separation was destined at the moment of their meeting. Olga, who fell in love with real Ilya Ilyich, much like the image inspired by Stolz, cherished precisely this idea of Oblomov as kind, gentle, sensitive person, without taking into account his excessive immersion in his inner world, where he is ready to let someone else go.
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 the 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 seeking, trying to know their place in the world, but are apathetic, quickly becoming disillusioned with own life and disappearing 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
