Questionnaire of the main characters of the novel by Oblomov and Stolz. Oblomov and Stolz (comparative characteristics)

In fiction, authors often use the technique of antithesis. It consists of contrasting characters as carriers of certain ideas and life philosophies. Most often, a writer or poet denotes his own worldview in this way, subtly hinting to the reader about his sympathy for a particular character.

Antagonists and protagonists

Modern writers most often adhere to the generally accepted format, according to which every positive hero (protagonist) has a mirror negative reflection in the face of the antagonist. Such simplification makes the work more accessible to the understanding of the general reader, but schematization also has a significant flaw: people who are completely nasty or pleasant in all respects are extremely rare in life, and if you look closely, never. The situation is much more complicated, and therefore more interesting, in I. A. Goncharov’s novel. A comparison of Oblomov and Stolz at first glance leads to a clear rejection of useless contemplative laziness, but as the images unfold, it increasingly forces the reader to think about the fates and personal qualities of the two characters. And it turns out that everything is not so simple.

Stolz as a representative of progressive capitalism

As is clear from his last name, Andryusha Stolz was born into the family of a Russified German. Pointing to this, Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov expresses the generally accepted opinion (which, by the way, persists to this day) that the role of bearers of technical, philosophical and other progress in our country is played by foreigners, and from Europe.

Previously, in Russia, everyone who came from the West, regardless of nationality, was called German. But it is clear that Andrei’s ancestors come from German lands. Almost nothing is known about his mother, except that she is a Russian noblewoman. From childhood, boys' lives differ. Oblomov and Stolz are brought up differently. The German father strives to raise a worthy replacement for himself. He wants his son to be like him. This is a normal desire of almost all fathers, there is nothing surprising about it. He suggests that success is achieved through work. This important one (known, by the way, not only to the Germans) forces one to be strict and demanding. The father not only loves his son, he teaches him everything he knows and can do. This is commendable, such a parent could serve as a universal example, but the whole point is that there are subjects for which textbooks are not written. And here two antipodes meet, Oblomov and Stolz. Comparing an active German and a lazy Russian is a favorite topic for jokes, in both countries. We like to be ironic about our own stupidity, but in Germany we are happy to focus on positive features

Oblomov

A comparison of Stolz and Oblomov will not be objective if one does not take into account the peculiarities of the childhood upbringing of two boys. If Andryusha’s father constantly kept him in suspense and taught him everything he could, then Ilyusha, on the contrary, spent his young years in blissful relaxation. This fact alone deals a serious blow to the theory of special German efficiency, so respected by our “Westerners” of all eras. It is possible that genetic nature would have prevailed, but there is a high probability that, having received such an upbringing, Andrei would have grown up to be a quitter. The desire for activity is developed in problematic conditions; every psychologist knows this. Therefore, a wise educator, even in the conditions of a cloudless childhood, creates “educational” conflict situations in order to develop a strong character in representatives of the younger generation. If everything is fine, then there is no point in making efforts, and the will atrophies. Nevertheless, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov also has good character traits. He is kind and wise in his own way, vanity and pride are alien to him, he has a very clear understanding of his place in life, that is, correct self-esteem.

Friendship

There are many strange things in our life. An illustration of this idea in Goncharov’s novel can be the friendship of Stolz and Oblomov. Antipodes attract both in physical phenomena and in life circumstances. Each of the characters in the story is looking for in his comrade something that he himself lacks. Implicitly, Ilya Ilyich would like to be like Andrei Ivanovich in some ways, although not in everything. And Stolz is also attracted to the romantic sentimentality (by the way, one of the national German traits) of his comrade. A realist who is afraid to dream and thinks straightforwardly and specifically often lacks imagination to achieve true success. In addition, having succeeded in business and achieved a high social status, some people catch themselves thinking that they have never found happiness. But this is precisely the meaning of everyone’s life. Is Oblomov happy? A comparison of Stolz and Oblomov suggests that each of the characters has big life problems that they themselves sometimes don’t even think about.

Behavior algorithms

A person is known when he has serious problems. Oblomov and Stolz react completely differently to changes in life circumstances. A comparison of the behavioral manners of the two comrades allows us to assess the degree of paternal care shown by the German Ivan (Johann?) towards his son during his upbringing. In his adolescence, the young man received a lot of useful knowledge about the world around him. But, for all their systematicity, they were more of a set of options for action, selected from an arsenal, just as a housekeeper finds the right key in a bunch. In the age of the events described, perhaps this approach justified itself, because Stolz managed to become a successful businessman and succeed. In addition, the nature of the relationship between Oblomov and Stolz is also interesting. Their friendship from childhood was built on the recognition of Andrei's primacy.

As for Oblomov, the algorithm of his behavior boiled down to minimizing anxiety and unrest. He didn’t want to teach anyone, but he didn’t want to learn anything himself. Being an educated man, he doubted the usefulness of the knowledge he had acquired, rightly believing that given his lifestyle, he had no use for it.

Women and heroes

Lying on the sofa, it is difficult to be successful with the ladies. This statement can hardly be doubted, but fate gave a chance to Ilya Ilyich, whose favorite pastime was this very activity. Olga Ilyinskaya, young and beautiful, despite many of the absurdities of Oblomov’s behavior (and maybe thanks to them, who will understand a woman’s soul?) fell in love with the unlucky hero. Andrei Ivanovich also liked the young charmer, who at first did not attach any importance to this rivalry, but, sensing its reality, was able to turn the situation in his favor. A comparison of Oblomov and Stolz in terms of human decency will not be in favor of the latter, but in love, as in war, all means are good. At least that’s what Europeans, especially the French, think. Ivan Ilyich's indecisiveness, as usual, worked against him. Oblomov found his happiness with another woman, probably more suitable for him, Agafya Pshenitsyna, although not as bright as Olga, but calm and caring.

Difference and similarity

There is a strong opinion that in the person of Oblomov, I. A. Goncharov branded with a shameful brand the laziness, inertia and inertia of the Russian nobility. If you follow this logic, then the image of Stolz personifies the progressive aspirations of the nascent domestic capital (after all, in the end, he was also a Russian man). It seems, however, that Goncharov wanted to say something more with his novel, and he succeeded. Oblomov and Ilya Ilyich’s “social pastime” were not such antipodes, very caustic and apt. He doesn’t want to sit at the card table, talk about trifles, or be interested in what everyone is doing. He is inclined to have a contemplative attitude towards the world around him and is by no means stupid. The similarity between Oblomov and Stolz lies in the desire of both to sleep. Only the dream of the first of them is quite concrete, physical, while the dream of the second is moral. At the same time, Ilya Ilyich realizes the destructiveness of his vice, talks about this to his friend, admitting his own powerlessness in the fight against laziness. Andrei Ivanovich is not capable of self-criticism.

Where should Oblomov go?

And in what way do Oblomov and Stolz differ most? The comparison seems obvious. One lies down all the time, the other is in constant motion. Oblomov doesn’t even want to hear about the creditors’ claims; he wants to write some kind of plan for the reconstruction of his own estate, which is falling into disrepair, but every time he falls asleep without starting this task. Stolz is constantly traveling, mainly abroad. He invites his friend there too, hoping that the atmosphere of distant countries will awaken vital activity in him. Ilya Ilyich is in no hurry to go somewhere; he is doing well in his native country, especially at a time when something in his personal life begins to change. By the way, both friends are no longer young, they are over thirty (for example, Tolstoy’s “old man” Karenin was less than 50 years old). Maybe Oblomov was right not to want to fuss in his old age...

Who is more useful?

If we consider Goncharov’s novel as a conceptual work, then it can really be reduced to the opposition of such types as Oblomov and Stolz. Comparing them in a political-economic sense will reveal the clear superiority of the active and enterprising principle over the passive-contemplative life position. One is always at work, making good by imitating the “yellow man” who gets up at six and exhausts himself with hygienic gymnastics. The second one lies and languidly discusses philosophical problems, not caring about the future. Stolz is more useful for society. But can everyone become like him? And is this necessary?

About freedom

Having once again re-read the immortal novel by I. A. Goncharov and assessed it from the standpoint of a liberal idea that is fashionable in some strata of modern society, one can come to the paradoxical conclusion that it is Oblomov who is to a greater extent the exponent of “free values.” The “Westerner” Stolz and the “yellow man” he respects work to strengthen the economy of their native country, but Oblomov lives on his own, not interfering with anyone, and at the same time not wanting to care about the collective good. Well, he wasn’t born a fighter, what can you do... He doesn’t like it when people bother him, even if it’s done for friendly reasons. This is a matter of personal freedom, and everyone lives the way they want.

He dies young, judging by the text of the novel, before reaching his fortieth birthday. What ruined I.I. Oblomov was obviously an unhealthy lifestyle, which he deliberately chose after breaking up with Olga. This is also a personal choice, although humanly it is a pity.

Comparative characteristics of Oblomov and Stolz

Lazy people are always going to do something.

Luc de Clapier Vauvenargues.

The novel “Oblomov” was written by I.A. Goncharov in 1859. When the work was published, it captured all the attention of society. Critics and writers called the novel “a sign of the times” (N.A. Dobrolyubov), “the most important thing that has not existed for a long time” (L.N. Tolstoy), a new word appeared in everyday life: “Oblomovism.” I.S. Turgenev once remarked: “As long as there is at least one Russian left, “Oblomov” will be remembered.”

When I started reading this book, to be honest, I was a little annoyed. From the first chapters, the image of Oblomov was incomprehensible to me, and even... I had a certain dislike for this character. Not to the work itself, but specifically to it. I can explain - I was greatly outraged by my namesake for his laziness and apathy. It was unbearable. And how glad I was to learn in the process of reading this novel that Oblomov has, as Dobrolyubov puts it, an “antidote” - his friend, Andrei Stolts. It’s strange, but for some reason I was very happy. I noticed that Goncharov used this antithesis for a reason - he shows two opposites, originally conceived as a opposition between the West and Russia. But I learned about this a little later, in literature class...

What about the comparison between these characters? Take, for example, the image of Oblomov in the novel. He is depicted not with satirical, but rather with soft, sad humor, although his laziness and inertia often appear grotesque, for example, in the first part of the novel Oblomov’s day is described, during which the hero for a long time and painfully cannot muster the strength to get up from the sofa . This is how the main character appears before us. Why be surprised? Everything comes from childhood! Let's remember Oblomovka, the village where Ilya lived as a child... Oblomovka is a village of peace, blessings, sleep, laziness, illiteracy, stupidity. Everyone lived in it for their own pleasure, without experiencing any mental, moral or spiritual needs. The Oblomovites had no goals, no troubles; no one thought about why man and the world were created. And it was in this atmosphere that Ilya Ilyich Oblomov grew up and, I’m not afraid of this word... “was brought up”... Further, in the process of reading, we learn about his studies at the boarding school, where he “... listened to what the teachers said, because there was nothing else to do it was impossible, and with difficulty, with sweat, with sighs, he learned the lessons given to him...” Later, he treated the service in approximately the same way. True, at the very beginning he dreamed of serving Russia “as long as he could.” But laziness and indifference to life were so deep that all his noble dreams remained unfulfilled. He turns into a sloth and a couch potato. People around me are used to this. But don’t think that Oblomov is completely hopeless. All his strengths and all his positive qualities are revealed in his romance with Olga Ilyinskaya, which, however, is torn apart due to Oblomov’s inability to radically change his lifestyle and take serious practical steps.

What about Stolz? Stolz is the complete opposite of Oblomov. Half German by nationality, he grew up in an atmosphere of mental and physical labor. Stolz has been accustomed to order since childhood and firmly knows that everything in life can only be achieved through hard work. He repeated this thought to Oblomov tirelessly. This is natural, because Ilya Ilyich was cultivated like “an exotic flower in a greenhouse.” Stolz grew up “like a cactus accustomed to drought.” And all this was also the basis for the further lifestyle of Ilya Ilyich’s friend. Andrey is energetic, not without charm, and creates the impression of a reliable person. As for me, I see in Stolz a strong and straightforward personality, I don’t understand why Chekhov said differently about him. Stolz is super-energetic, muscular, active, standing firmly on his feet, having amassed a lot of capital for himself, a scientist, and a lot of travellers. He has friends everywhere and is respected as a strong personality. He is one of the main representatives of the trading company. He is cheerful, cheerful, hardworking... This is the difference from Oblomov, which is obvious.

Behind the antithesis of Stolz and Oblomov, one can see the opposition between the West and Russia. Stolz is portrayed by Goncharov as a harmonious, comprehensively developed personality, combining German pragmatism and Russian spirituality. He is clearly idealized by the author, who sees Stolz and others like him as the future of Russia, the possibility of its progressive development; this is emphasized in the plot by the fact that Olga Ilyinskaya gives her hand to Stolz. This, in my opinion, is the main comparison between Andrei Stolts and Ilya Oblomov.

The brilliant novel by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov introduces us to two diametrically opposed images: their characterization can take pages and pages. After all, they are completely different: in their temperament, in their attitude to life and worldview. It took Goncharov ten years to write it! What do you think, dear readers, would an academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Literature “steam” for an entire decade, writing a novel in the form of a “single-layer” pie? What's easier for a corresponding member - to write a story about two friends! One is extremely lazy. The other one is amazingly efficient. But no. A novel has been written about all of us! And we will try to prove this. Oblomov and Stolz will help us in this study.

Image of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov

The landowner Oblomov is outwardly a plump, doughy man with dark gray eyes, who prefers a passive lifestyle, lying on the sofa, doing nothing. Carelessness is visible in his entire appearance, but his face is spiritual. And the thought is constantly present in him, it shines in the eyes, hides in the wrinkles of the forehead, bends along with the lips. However, this idea is “toothless”; it has no practical application. Comparative and Stolz are clearly not in favor of Ilya Ilyich. He is a hereditary landowner. He has 350 serf souls. A nice, solid mansion in St. Petersburg, a dacha, a village house. Oblomov has no idea how to take care of all this property that he owns. He is like a child, first he is robbed by his clerk, and then he is driven to ruin by the swindlers Mikhei Andreevich Tarantyev and Ivan Matveevich Mukhoyarov.

He is educated, but has no practical work experience. Under the influence of his first failures in the service, he developed a psychological “lazy complex”, which Ilya Ilyich was unable to overcome.

Image of Andrey Stolts

According to the plot of the novel, they have known each other and been friends since school: Oblomov and Stolz. The comparative characteristics indicate the proximity of their caste origin. Andrei Stolts was born into the family of a German clerk, Ivan Bogdanovich, and a simple but educated Russian woman. The relationship between his status and the status of a friend-landowner is similar to the relationship between a business owner and a top manager. From childhood, his father, through regular studies in science and accounting, instilled in him a hard work ethic. Andrey is a lean man with sunken cheeks, dark skin and greenish expressive eyes. He is hyperactive: constantly, like a shark, on the move. The writer speaks of his hero as if he consists of nothing but muscles and tendons. He knows languages ​​and is smart, which is why the trading company-employer sends him as an agent to Belgium. In addition, Stolz is able to creatively use his knowledge. Therefore, colleagues prefer to invite him to develop projects. Oblomov and Stolz have different attitudes towards money. The comparative characteristic indicates the thriftiness of the latter.

The secret subtext of Goncharov's images?

The fact that, by and large, the images of Stolz and Oblomov are not independent, but allegorical, the author of the novel shows in their relationship with Olga Ilyinskaya. On the one hand, she can neither win nor keep her, but she is invariably attracted by the spineless Ilya Ilyich with his romanticism and pure childish soul. On the other hand, Stolz, who became her husband, pathologically does not feel the difference between business cooperation and sincerity. On a romantic honeymoon trip to Paris, he is, to put it mildly, unconvincing.

Why did Goncharov create these two images: Oblomov and Stolz? Is the comparative description of these images simply an instructive conclusion? Contrasting characters? Or maybe we need to look at this more broadly? After all, each of us, of course, knows how much “Stolz” is in him and how much “Oblomov” is in him. What is a dream without your feet touching the ground? A global dream, devoid of any desire to realize it. What is Stolz? This is down to earth, business acumen, a sense of partnership. So let’s ask ourselves the question: “If you create something global, is it possible to discount the dream in principle?” (As you know, Stolz avoided dreaming.) Unlikely.

And you, dear readers, will you agree with the following conclusion? To create a truly successful personality promoting fantastic projects, you need to mix 30% of the dreamer Oblomov and 70% of the fanatic of Stolz’s work in one glass. Is this what Goncharov wanted to tell us? After all, an adopted son appeared in the Stolts family. Of course, proper education will instill in him business acumen. But what about the ability to dream? Genes after all, you know...

Comparative characteristics of I. I. Oblomov and Stolz

Oblomov Ilya Ilyich is the main character of the novel “Oblomov”. Landowner, nobleman living in St. Petersburg. Leads a lazy lifestyle. He doesn’t do anything, he just dreams and “decays” lying on the sofa. A bright representative of Oblomovism.
Stolts Andrei Ivanovich is Oblomov’s childhood friend. Half German, practical and active. Antipode of I. I. Oblomov.
Let's compare the heroes according to the following criteria:
Memories of childhood (including memories of parents).
I. I. Oblomov. From early childhood, everything was done for him: “The nanny is waiting for him to wake up. She puts on his stockings; he doesn’t give in, plays pranks, dangles his legs; the nanny catches him.” “... She washes him, combs his head and takes him to his mother. Since childhood, he also bathed in parental affection and care: “The mother showered him with passionate kisses...” The nanny was everywhere, for days on end, like a shadow, following him, constant care did not end for a second: “... all the days and nights of the nanny were filled with turmoil, running around: sometimes trying, sometimes living joy for the child, sometimes fearing that he will fall and hurt his nose...”
Stolz. His childhood is spent in useful, but tedious study: “From the age of eight, he sat with his father at the geographical map... and with his mother he read sacred history, taught Krylov’s fables...” The mother was constantly worried about her son: “... she would keep him near her.” But his father was completely indifferent and cold-blooded towards his son, often “putting his hand”: “... and pushed him from behind with his foot so that he knocked him off his feet.”
Attitude to study and work.
Oblomov. He went to school without much interest or desire, had difficulty sitting through his lessons, and mastering any book was a great success and joy for Oblomov. “Why all these notebooks... paper, time and ink? Why educational books?... When to live?” Instantly I became cold towards this or that type of activity, be it study, books, hobbies. The same attitude was towards work: “... you study, you read that a time of disaster has come, a person is unhappy; Now you gather your strength, you work, you fight, you endure and work terribly, everything is preparing for clear days.”
Stolz. He studied and worked since childhood - the main concern and task of his father. Stolz was fascinated by teaching and books throughout his life. Labor is the essence of human existence. “He served, retired, went about his business and actually made a house and money.”
Attitude to mental activity.
Oblomov. Despite the lack of love for study and work, Oblomov was far from a stupid person. Some thoughts and pictures were constantly spinning in his mind, he was constantly making plans, but for completely incomprehensible reasons, all this was put aside in the debt box. “As soon as he gets out of bed in the morning, after tea, he will immediately lie down on the sofa, rest his head on his hand and think, sparing no effort, until his head is finally tired...”
Stolz. Realist to the core. Skeptic in life and in thought. “He was afraid of every dream, or if he entered its area, he entered as one enters a grotto with an inscription..., knowing the hour or minute when you will leave there.”
Choosing life goals and ways to achieve them. (Including lifestyle.)
Oblomov. Life is monotonous, devoid of colors, every day is similar to the previous one. His problems and concerns are breathtakingly funny and absurd, and he solves them even funnier by turning from side to side. The author does his best to justify Oblomov, saying that he has many ideas and goals in his head, but none of them materialize.
Stolz. Skepticism and realism are evident in everything. “He walked firmly, cheerfully; I lived on a budget, trying to spend every day, like every ruble.” “But he himself still walked stubbornly along his chosen path.”

So, we will start working with text.

In one of the lessons, you were asked to compose a quotation comparative description according to plan, using only material from the novel. Text of the novel.

Why is this necessary?

Text analysis, deep text analysis! In this case, it will allow you to understand what makes up the image of the hero, how the choice of lexical means allows the Master (writer!) to create the character of the character. We will see that the choice of one or another will allow us to convey to the reader a deep thought, an idea (which idea exactly - we will try to determine together with you)

You are on the wiki page, which means you can make changes. How to do this - see. Don't forget to indicate authorship - this way it will be clear to me who to evaluate.

I filled out the first column as a sample - here is everything we talked about in class. If you would like to add to the first column, please do so, this is encouraged.

Comparative characteristics of the image

Ilya Oblomov and Andrey Stolts