Works on the works of Goncharov

Essays

Literature

Goncharov

Oblomov and Oblomovism
Oblomov's dream
Image and characteristics of Volkov
Comparison of Oblomov and Stolz
Oblomov's image
Test of love by Oblomov and Stolz
Characteristics of Oblomov
The meaning of life in Oblomov's novel
Andrey Stolts in the work Oblomov
Characteristics of Olga Ilyinskaya
Analysis of Oblomov's novel
Female images in Oblomov’s work
Oblomov's childhood
The relationship between Olga and Oblomov in the novel Oblomov
Characteristics of the main characters of the novel “Oblomov”
What is “Oblomovism”?
Characteristics of Sudbinsky in Oblomov’s novel

Ivan Goncharov is a master of artistic literature, an outstanding writer, literary critic and publicist. He became famous thanks to his great works such as “An Ordinary Story”, “Oblomov” and “The Cliff”.

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov was born in 1812 into an intelligent family. His father was a merchant, so his childhood passed without worries. When the boy was eight years old, his father died. Ivan was raised by his godfather Nikolai Tregurov, who also became his first teacher. The boy's further education took place first in a private boarding school, then at Moscow University. After graduation, the already adult Goncharov returned to his hometown of Simbirsk. It was then that Ivan began to think seriously about his future and life in general. After working as a secretary for a short time, he realized that this work was boring for him and decided to leave for St. Petersburg. There he got a job as a translator of foreign correspondence and for the first time decided to try himself as a writer.

Ivan Goncharov wrote his first works in the late 30s. Then he meets the famous Russian critic Belinsky in the house of their mutual friend. There he reads to him his first great novel, “An Ordinary Story.” Ivan receives a lot of good reviews and praise for his work. Belinsky played an important role in the writer’s work, giving him a lot of practical and useful advice.

Goncharov Ivan Alexandrovich

Ivan Aleksandrovich GONCHAROV

(1812-1891) - an outstanding Russian writer of the 19th century. In the difficult era of Nikolaev's timelessness, with his creativity he contributed to the rise of the spiritual forces of the nation and contributed to the development of Russian realism. Goncharov entered literature in the galaxy of such writers as Herzen, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Nekrasov, and took a worthy place among them, creating a unique artistic world.

Among his predecessors in literature, the writer especially singled out Pushkin, emphasizing his exceptional influence on him: “Pushkin was our teacher, and I was brought up, so to speak, by his poetry. Gogol influenced me much later and less.”

.
Goncharov always strived for objectivity of the image. N. Dobrolyubov o .
The writer was interested in everyday life, which he showed in its moral and everyday contradictions. He carefully selected reliable details of life, from which a fairly coherent picture was formed, and its main meaning became obvious by itself. The writer tried to avoid openly expressing the author's position, and even more so refused to pass judgment on the heroes. The reader of his works hardly feels the author’s intervention: life seems to speak for itself, its depiction is devoid of both satirical and elevated romantic pathos. Hence, the manner of narration lacks emotional coloring. The tone of the story is epically calm. While true to life and “unaccented” in style, Goncharov never fell into naturalism. Moreover, he considered naturalism wingless, devoid of true artistry. The work of a naturalist writer with a photographically accurate reproduction of reality, in his opinion, could not contain a truly artistic generalization. It is no coincidence that he wrote to Dostoevsky: “You know how, for the most part, reality is not enough for artistic truth - and how the significance of creativity is expressed precisely by the fact that it has to isolate certain features and signs from nature in order to create verisimilitude, i.e. achieve your artistic truth"

The features of Goncharov’s creative style and the nature of his realism are determined by his worldview, personal status, understanding of creativity, its nature and laws. Just like Turgenev, he adhered to liberal beliefs, but unlike Turgenev, he was much further from the socio-political conflicts of our time. The writer examined public life and its prospects through the evolution of the social and everyday structure. In other words, he was concerned not so much with socio-political problems as with existential problems. Goncharov himself quite transparently defined his ideological guidelines and in a peculiar way distanced himself from the revolutionary spirit so characteristic of his time: “I shared in many ways the way of thinking regarding, for example, the freedom of the peasants, the best measures to educate society and the people, the harm of all kinds of restrictions and restrictions for development, etc. But I was never carried away by youthful utopias in the social spirit of ideal equality, brotherhood, etc., which worried young minds.”

At the same time, significant aspects of contemporary reality were reflected in Goncharov’s work. The writer managed to show shifts in consciousness, in the value system of his era; he artistically conceptualized a new type of Russian life - the type of bourgeois entrepreneur.

Goncharov lived a long creative life, but he wrote little. The writer nurtured the ideas for his works for a long time, carefully considering the details before he began direct work on the text. He had his own concept of creativity. The writer was convinced that a true work of art is born only from the artist’s personal experience. “What has not grown and matured in me, what I have not seen, what I have not observed, what I have not lived, is inaccessible to my pen... I wrote only what I experienced, what I thought, what I felt, what I loved, what I saw up close and knew

", he admitted.

Goncharov’s first publications took place in handwritten magazines “Snowdrop” and “Moonlit Nights”, published in the house of the artist Nikolai Maykov. Goncharov was friends with his sons - the future poet Apollo Maykov and the critic Valerian. These were the stories “Dashing Illness” (1838) and “Happy Mistake” (1839). In a sense, these were sketches for his first novel, Ordinary History (published in Sovremennik magazine in 1847). The novel became an event and made Goncharov one of the most important figures in Russian literature. Many critics spoke flatteringly about the young writer.

In 1849, Goncharov published “Oblomov’s Dream,” an excerpt from his future novel. The novel “Oblomov” itself appeared only in 1859 on the pages of the magazine “Otechestvennye zapiski”. During this decade, the writer traveled on a warship around Europe, Africa and Asia, which resulted in the travel essays “Frigate Pallas” (1855-1857). “Oblomov” is Goncharov’s main novel. According to many critics, he created a real sensation. A.V. Druzhinin wrote: “Without any exaggeration, we can say that at the present moment throughout all of Russia there is not a single smallest, most humble city where they read “Oblomov”, did not praise “Oblomov”, did not argue about “Oblomov”

The writer's next novel was published ten years later, in 1869. During this decade, he published only small excerpts from the future novel. “The Cliff” did not receive as high a critical rating as “Oblomov.” Revolutionary-minded critics classified it as an anti-nihilistic novel. But readers greeted the novel with interest, and the circulation of the Vestnik Evropy magazine, on whose pages it was published, increased sharply.

After The Precipice, Goncharov practically retreated from broad literary activity. The only critical article, “A Million Torments,” written by him in 1872, reminded the reader of Goncharov’s name. “A Million Torments” is a talented and subtle analysis of Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”: Goncharov gave an accurate description of the images and showed the relevance of the comedy.

So, the only genre in which Goncharov worked was the novel. The writer considered the novel to be the main genre, capable of reflecting the patterns of life in all their depth. It is no coincidence that the hero of Goncharov’s novel “The Precipice”, Raisky, says: “I write life - a novel comes out, I write a novel - life comes out.”

Novel "Oblomov" (1859)

attracted the attention of critics and readers primarily for its central character. He evoked conflicting feelings and judgments. Dobrolyubov in the article “What is Oblomovism?” I saw a serious social phenomenon behind Oblomov’s image, and it is included in the title of the article.

Following Dobrolyubov, many began to see in Goncharov’s hero not just a realistic character, but a social and literary type, having a genetic relationship with Gogol’s Manilov, with the type of “superfluous man” in Russian literature.

Undoubtedly, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a product of his environment, a unique result of the social and moral development of the nobility. For the noble intelligentsia, the time of parasitic existence at the expense of the serfs did not pass without a trace. All this gave rise to laziness, apathy, an absolute inability to be active and typical class vices. Stolz calls this “Oblomovism.” Dobrolyubov not only picks up this definition, but also finds the origins of Oblomovism in the very basis of Russian life. He mercilessly and harshly judges the Russian nobility, assigning to them this word “Oblomovshchina,” which has become a common noun. According to the critic, in Oblomov the author shows the rapid fall “from the heights of Pechorin’s Byronism, through Rudin’s pathos... into the dung heap of Oblomovism”

hero-nobleman.

In the image of Oblomov, he saw, first of all, a social-typical content and therefore considered the chapter “Oblomov’s Dream” to be the key to this image. Indeed, the image of Oblomov from the hero’s dream provides rich material for understanding the social, moral and psychological essence of Oblomov as a type. The hero’s “dream” is not quite like a dream. This is a fairly harmonious, logical picture of Oblomovka’s life with an abundance of details. Most likely, this is not a dream itself, with its characteristic illogicality and emotional excitement, but a conditional dream. The task of this chapter of the novel, as noted by V.I. Kuleshov, to give “a preliminary story, an important message about the hero’s childhood... The reader receives important information, thanks to what upbringing the hero of the novel became a couch potato... gets the opportunity to realize where and in what way this life “broke off.” Everything is contained in the picture of childhood. Life for Oblomovites is “silence and imperturbable calm,” which, unfortunately, are sometimes disturbed by troubles. It is especially important to emphasize that among the troubles, on a par with “illnesses, losses, quarrels,” labor is for them: “They endured labor as a punishment imposed on our forefathers, but they could not love.”

From early childhood, the very way of life instilled in Ilyusha a sense of lordly superiority. He has Zakhars for all his needs, they told him. And very soon he “learned to shout: “Hey, Vaska, Vanka!” Give me this, give me that! I don't want this, I want that! Run and get it!”

In the depths of Oblomovka, Oblomov’s ideal of life was formed - life on an estate, “fullness of satisfied desires, meditation of pleasure”

.
Although Ilya is ready to make some changes to his idyll (he will stop eating old Testament noodles, his wife will not hit girls on the cheeks, and will take up reading and music), its fundamentals remain unchanged. Earning a living for a nobleman, in his opinion, is unworthy: “No!
Why make craftsmen out of nobles!” He confidently stands in the position of the serf-owner, resolutely rejecting Stolz’s advice to start a school in the village:
“Literacy is harmful to a peasant, teach him, so he probably won’t plow
. He has no doubt that the peasant should always work for the master. Thus, Oblomov’s inertia, lazy vegetation in a dressing gown on the sofa of his St. Petersburg apartment in Goncharov’s novel are fully generated and motivated by the social and everyday way of life of the patriarchal landowner.

But the image of Oblomov is still not exhausted by this interpretation. After all, Oblomov is endowed with an amazing heart, “pure”, “like a deep well.” Stolz feels the bright, good beginning in Oblomov so well. It was this “honest, faithful heart” that Olga Ilyinskaya fell in love with in him. He is selfless and sincere. And how deeply he experiences beauty! Olga's performance of Norma's aria from Bellini's opera turns his soul. Oblomov has his own idea of art. He appreciates the beauty and humanity in him. That is why, even at the beginning of the novel, he argues so heatedly with the “progressive” writer Penkin, who demands merciless denunciations and “the naked physiology of society” from art. Oblomov objects to him: “You want to write with your head... Do you think that a heart is not needed for thought? No, she is fertilized by love."

Ilya Ilyich doesn’t just lie on the couch, he constantly thinks about his life. The author, reflecting on the image of Oblomov, saw in him not only a social type of a certain era, but also an expression of national character traits: “I instinctively felt that little by little the elementary properties of a Russian person were being absorbed into this figure...”

The dual nature of Oblomov was emphasized in an article about the novel by the critic Druzhinin. He believes that in the hero there is a constant struggle between the principles of Oblomovka and the “true active life of the heart.” It was this feature of Oblomov’s image that determined the originality of the novel’s composition. The chapter “Oblomov’s Dream” plays a decisive role in it. The first eight chapters of the novel show Oblomov on his much-loved sofa in an apartment on Gorokhovaya. A series of visitors replacing each other creates a certain generalized and almost symbolic image of St. Petersburg, which repels the hero. Each of Ilya Ilyich’s guests lives in a bustle, constantly in a hurry ( “To ten places in one day - unhappy!”

), busy chasing a career, gossip, social entertainment. An image of emptiness, the appearance of life, appears. Oblomov cannot accept such a life: he rejects all invitations, preferring loneliness. This reveals not only his eternal laziness, but also his rejection of the very essence of St. Petersburg life, this crazy busyness with nothing to do. The dream, which stopped the “slow and lazy flow of his thoughts,” makes his ideals clear to us. They are directly opposite to the fundamentals of St. Petersburg life.

Oblomov dreams of childhood, an idyllic childhood in a land of peace, of stopped time, where a person remains himself. How can he accept this onslaught and the bustle of St. Petersburg, where life “gets him!” The chapter “Oblomov’s Dream” separates visitors from Stolz’s arrival. Will he be able to overcome Oblomovka's power over his friend?

Oblomov, at the core of his nature and worldview, is an idealist who lives his never-realized dream of lost harmony and peace. Goncharov, reflecting on his novel hero, directly defined him: “From the very minute when I started writing... I had an artistic ideal: this is an image of an honest, kind, sympathetic nature, a highly idealist, who has been struggling all his life, seeking the truth , encountering lies at every step, being deceived and, finally, completely cooling off and falling into apathy and powerlessness from the consciousness of his own and others’ weakness, i.e. universal human nature"

Oblomov did not succumb to the energy and heartfelt participation of his childhood friend Andrei Stolts in his fate. Even his love for the amazing Olga Ilyinskaya only temporarily brings him out of hibernation. He will escape from them, finding peace in the house of the widow Pshenitsyna on Vasilyevsky Island. For him, this house will become a kind of Oblomovka. Only there will be no poetry of childhood and nature in this Oblomovka, and the expectation of a miracle will completely disappear from his life. As was the case with the inhabitants of Oblomovka in his childhood, death will come unnoticed by Ilya Ilyich - his sleep will turn into eternal sleep.

The image of Oblomov in the novel is an expression of the outgoing old patriarchal-tribal way of life. He led him to inaction and apathy, but he also made him noble, gentle, and kind. Oblomov is a dreamer, unable to direct the strength of the soul, mind, and feelings to achieve practical goals. Goncharov, by creating the image of Stolz, showed that a new type of personality is emerging in Russia, a person free from idealism and daydreaming. A man of action and calculation, Andrei Stolts knows his goals well. Even in his youth, he clearly defined his main life goal - to achieve success, to stand firmly on his feet. A practical goal replaced an ideal for him. He went towards achieving it without doubts and emotional storms and achieved his goal. Apparently, such practical figures, according to Goncharov, should represent the new Russia, its future. But in the novel, only next to Oblomov is Stolz interesting as a human being. In his activities, which, however, are given only in passing, Stolz is one-dimensional and boring. Their marriage with Olga seems to be quite happy, but the smart Stolz sees that something is bothering and tormenting Olga. Olga, unlike her husband, cannot exchange the “rebellious issues” of existence for a lasting, prosperous existence. What did Goncharov show in Stoltz? The fundamental inferiority, the spiritual winglessness of the bourgeois man, and therefore his inability to become a true hero of the time, the hope of Russia? Or is this the author’s sympathy for the hero of old Russia, Oblomov, expressed (despite the fact that all the negative traits of his nature and behavior are not softened at all?) It is difficult to give an unambiguous and definite answer to these questions. Rather, these heroes of the novel revealed the objective contradictions of Russian reality of that time. True, the real bourgeois businessman of Russia was more similar to the scoundrels Tarantiev and Mukhoyarov than to the intelligent and noble Stolz.

Goncharov's real discovery was the creation of a new female type in the novel. Olga Ilyinskaya differs from all previous female characters in Russian literature. She is an active nature, not a contemplative one, and lives not only in the world of feelings, but is looking for a specific task. Her love for Oblomov was born from the desire to revive and save a fallen man. Olga is distinguished by her “beauty and natural freedom of look, word, and action.” Having fallen in love with Oblomov, she hopes to cure him of apathy, but, realizing the hopelessness of the disease, she breaks up with him. With all his love for Olga, Oblomov is afraid of the strength of her feelings, sees “not peace” in love and is ready to escape. The spring novel by Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya was written with such poetic force that the image of Olga turns out to be unusually attractive and contains the typical features of a new female character.

Goncharov is a realist artist. The “organic” movement of everyday life interests him much more than violent passions and political events. The novel recreates people's daily lives. The writer pays great attention to the background of the central characters, telling about their family and everyday upbringing. The origins of the characters lie precisely in him. In creating characters, he always strived to reveal the inner content through external details and portraits. For example, a portrait detail - “bare elbows” - plays an important role in creating the image of Pshenitsyna. Basically, portrait and object details indicate the social structure in which the hero was formed and whose features he carries. Olga’s “little glove”, forgotten by Oblomov, is expressive in this regard; "Oblomov's robe." The details of the portrait and the objective world in Goncharov are not so much psychological as epic.

The novel “Oblomov” demonstrated the skill of individualizing the characters’ speech. The dialogues are expressive. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” still attracts readers and researchers, giving rise to new interpretations of character images and the author’s position.