What does Goncharov want to say in Oblomov’s novel? How does Ilya Ilyich become an “Oblomov”? Social meaning of the novel

After much anticipation caused by the publication of one of the main episodes of the novel, Oblomov’s dream, readers and critics were finally able to read and appreciate it in its entirety. As unambiguous as there was universal admiration for the work as a whole, just as varied were the views on the meaning invested by I. A. Goncharov in “Oblomov”. And no wonder; who other than the author can know this for sure? It seems that Goncharov himself, over the long period of writing the novel, managed to change his attitude towards it. It is no coincidence that many of his contemporaries say that he had a negative attitude towards the first part of “Oblomov” and, on the contrary, advised reading the second and third, written much later. Let's try to figure out how Goncharov's views were reflected in this work and what his position was in relation to the main characters.

Initially, the plot of “Oblomov” was apparently conceived as a generalized biography of an inactive, apathetic, receding landowner class using a separate example. The author's position in relation to serfdom should have been reflected in a detailed story about the life of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, who thoughtlessly spent day after day in his country estate. In accordance with this idea, the first volume of “Oblomov” was written, which mostly tells about the childhood of Ilya Ilyich. When writing the next three parts of the work, Goncharov’s attitude towards it changes. Firstly, the author takes his hero to an urban setting and through him shows his attitude towards metropolitan society. Secondly, the storyline becomes more complicated. The latter should be discussed separately. This method of testing love, however, is found not only in Goncharov. By showing how this or that hero behaves when falling in love, the author will be able to discover many new facets in the soul of his characters that would not appear under any other circumstances. At the same time, the author is given the opportunity to teach his hero from one side or another, depending on his attitude towards the latter. Based on the outcome of the love plot, one can also judge the author’s position regarding the character.

The analysis of the work, of course, needs to start with the first part, despite the fact that the beginning and development of the main plot occurs in the next three. At first, through the conversations of the main character, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, the author characterizes him as a friendly and hospitable person and at the same time possessing extraordinary drowsiness and laziness. And then, to explain the origins of his character, Goncharov introduces the hero’s dream, where he shows his childhood. Thus, the composition of the work is not disrupted.

The story about the idyllic region where Oblomov was born and raised begins with one of the main and, in my opinion, the most interesting moments of this part of the novel. Here the nature of the Oblomovsky region is described. Its serenity and plainness, of course, are noticeably exaggerated and sometimes even border on something fabulous, in | the strength of the general atmosphere of the estate. However, interestingly, from Goncharov’s own remarks made here, one can judge that this landscape largely reflects his view of nature. From this passage we see that Lermontov’s descriptions of formidable elements are alien to the author. In his idyllic location, “there are no dense forests - there is nothing grandiose, wild and gloomy.” And it’s not surprising, because Goncharov’s position in relation to them is quite definite: the sea “brings only sadness” to him, and “mountains and abysses... are formidable, terrible, like the claws and teeth of a wild beast released and directed at him...” . But in the “peaceful corner” he outlined for Oblomov, even “the sky... is like a parent’s reliable roof.” “The sun there shines brightly and hotly around noon and then moves away... as if reluctantly...” And “the mountains... are just models of those terrible mountains,” And all the nature there “represents a series of... cheerful, smiling landscapes.. .”.

Next comes a description of landowner and peasant life, that is, what should initially become the basis of the work. The very idea conveyed here is not new: idle landowners, the basis of whose life is the question of what to choose for lunch, and peasants working day after day for the benefit of their masters. What is interesting is not this, but how Goncharov reflects his attitude towards this way of life. Here, as in everything in Oblomovka, the colors seem to be muted. This is how the life of the peasants is described here: “Happy people lived, thinking that it shouldn’t and couldn’t be otherwise, confident that everyone else lived exactly the same way and that living differently was a sin...” I think the author resorted to to this style, because, having reflected his position in relation to the problem of serfdom, he should not have disturbed the atmosphere of general drowsiness, so important for the main character. After all, whatever Goncharov’s attitude towards the landowners, it seems to me that deep down in his soul he sympathizes and sympathizes with Oblomov. The same general apathy that surrounded Ilya Ilyich in childhood could partly justify him.

Here for the first time Goncharov mentions Stolz. The author's position in relation to him in the future is clear. He will have to become a generalized image of an advanced person, including strength of character, a flexible mind, a constant thirst for action, in other words, reflect the complete opposite of Oblomov. Accordingly, the author makes the conditions of upbringing that shape his future character completely different than in Oblomovka.

Now, moving on to the three main parts of the novel, it must be said that the main storyline here is the relationship between Olga Ilyinskaya and Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. However, first we need to consider how the author’s position regarding Oblomov and Stolz was reflected in their comparison. In this case, considering the development of the love line between Olga, Oblomov and Stolz, we can once again emphasize one or another view of the author on the personalities of these two characters.

Endowed with only the most correct and necessary character traits, the author, like the reader, undoubtedly likes Stolz, but at the same time, like most of us, Goncharov feels a feeling of sympathy for Ilya Ilyich. This position of the author in relation to his heroes was reflected not only in their destinies, but even in their portraits. This is how he describes Oblomov: “He was a man of thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, but with the absence of any definite idea, any concentration in his facial features.” And here is Stolz’s description: “He is all made up of bones, muscles and nerves, like a blooded English horse... His complexion is dark and there is no blush; the eyes are at least a little greenish, but expressive.” One cannot but arouse sympathy with the softness and dreaminess of his nature, reflected on his face, while the other delights with his firmness and determination, readable in his entire appearance.

The author's attitude towards them was also expressed through the mutual characteristics of the heroes. And here we need to talk about the strange friendship between these two diametrically opposed people. It’s unlikely that it’s just a matter of childhood affection that once united them. But what then connects them? If Oblomov’s friendship can be explained by the need for a strong, business-like person who would always come to the aid of his indecisive and drowsy nature, then how can we explain Stolz’s attachment to Oblomov? I think that this question can be answered in the words of Andrei himself: “This is a crystal, transparent soul; there are few such people; they are rare; These are pearls in the crowd! ”

Now we can approach the love plot. But, before describing Olga’s relationship with Oblomov and Stolz, it is necessary to say about the author’s attitude towards her. Goncharov is undoubtedly friendly towards his heroine. She is endowed with such traits as insight, poise, and pride. Undoubtedly, the author admires the sense of duty that primarily guides the heroine, the sublimity of her soul, reflected in her beautiful voice. All this is felt in Olga’s appearance: “The nose formed a slightly noticeable graceful line; lips thin and mostly compressed; a sign of a thought constantly directed at something. The same presence of thought in the watchful, always cheerful... gaze of gray-blue eyes...” And the author describes her gait as “light, almost elusive.” I think it is no coincidence that Goncharov gives her this special spirituality. She is called upon to be, as it were, Oblomov’s guardian angel, to awaken his sleeping soul.

Of course, Olga's mission was doomed from the very beginning. A person cannot live only by love, without thinking about anything else. However, through her, the author discovered many positive traits in the hero, whom, in my opinion, he sympathizes with. For a while, Goncharov simply transforms Oblomov: “He gets up at seven o’clock, reads, carries books somewhere. There is no sleep, no fatigue, no boredom on his face. Even colors appeared on him, there was a sparkle in his eyes, something like courage or at least self-confidence.” Well, under what other circumstances could Ilya Ilyich’s “pure, faithful heart” be able to manifest itself like that?

In Olga’s relationship with Stolz, everything happens quite the opposite. Their union is natural and harmonious. They are similar and therefore understand each other well. Fate itself predetermines them a long, calm happiness. But here, however, implicitly, the author points out a hidden flaw in Stolz’s nature. Olga, who, it would seem, should be absolutely happy, experiences some strange anxiety, which even Andrei cannot explain. And the question naturally arises whether this is Olga’s vague longing for a passionate feeling that Stolz cannot give her. Perhaps here the author wanted to say that this correct and progressive hero lacks a little crazy impulses.

Be that as it may, the fates of both heroes turn out relatively well. Stolz finds his happiness with Olga, and Oblomov finds his Oblomovka on Verkhlevskaya Street and lives out his life there with the woman he always dreamed of. Such a denouement once again shows that the author’s position in relation to both of his heroes is positive.

Composition:

How is the author’s position manifested in the novel “Oblomov”?
I think it’s worth starting with the question: what is this novel about? Why was it written? Is it just so that, after reading it, we can clearly say that Oblomov is a lazy person, or did the author pursue another goal? Probably, everything is much more complicated than it seems at first glance. "Oblomov" is a novel about people. About their characters, thoughts, feelings, life values, experiences, relationships. But the main thing out of all this, in my opinion, is the problem of people’s misunderstanding of each other, and, most likely, human loneliness. This is a novel about a dream, about the eternal search for some unattainable ideal, the meaning of one’s existence and the meaning of human life in general.
When analyzing the author's position in this work, I think we need to turn to the beginning of the novel. At least to Goncharov’s description of Oblomov. It is impossible not to note the fluidity of the style, which resembles a room with upholstered furniture and curtains, covered with fluffy carpets, where dear Ilya Ilyich lies on the sofa, where it is impossible to hear human noise, where life, it would seem, does not “touch” anyone. The same “cozy” description of Oblomov, his life, his thoughts, this very process of lying down occupies almost the entire first part of the novel. On the one hand, this may tell us that the author treats the main character very warmly, but on the other hand, such a description of Oblomov and his lifestyle can hardly be called so pleasant. The author describes everything down to the smallest detail, every detail is drawn specially, like, for example, a long, drawn-out story about Oblomov reclining on the sofa. This rather produces a somewhat repulsive impression on the reader. So, considering the author’s position from this point of view, we can say that his main goal in the first part is to condemn the main character, expose his vices, and explain that Oblomov’s behavior is “wrong” and absolutely contrary to the laws of a normal society. The main character appears before us simply as a lazy person, incapable of any action. That is why the first part of the novel seems somewhat drawn out and uninteresting. This feeling persists until the chapter “Oblomov’s Dream,” where, it seems, the author himself changes his attitude towards the hero. He gives him a backstory, justifying Oblomov both to the readers and to himself. Here Goncharov gives the reader time to immerse himself in the atmosphere of the novel, to let him feel Oblomov’s nature more deeply. “Oblomov’s Dream” shows us the prerequisites for such a state, answers the main question: “why did Oblomov become like this.” Behind Oblomov’s inaction, Goncharov sees not only egoism brought up from childhood, fear of the external influences of life, but also apathy - as a result of the disappointment of an intelligent and honest person in the very possibility of real activity. The author wanted to show the drama of precisely such a “crystal soul”, both from the outside and from the inside, so Oblomov came out as a much deeper personality than other representatives of the Oblomov type. What is Goncharov’s real relationship to Oblomov? What feelings does the author have towards the hero he created? I think sympathy. And this sympathy becomes even deeper if we pay attention to the fact that Oblomov could achieve a lot. As a child, he was not much different from other people, and his mind was capable of bringing much more benefit to society, as well as his philosophical reflections on life and man’s place in this world. The author’s position is precisely regret about where Oblomov drove himself, what he did not have time to do, could not do. What is sad and sad in the story about the deceased Oblomov relates to Ilya, a simple, pure and noble man who tried to find the true meaning in life itself and who, with his laziness and helplessness, is incomparably nicer and nicer to Goncharov than the active and businesslike Stolz.
I believe that Goncharov did not want to show us just a single “strange” person who stands out from the crowd. Most likely, he pursued another goal, namely to show Oblomov’s character traits as a very common phenomenon, as a type of Russian character. Here, along with kindness, honesty, decency, coexist the reluctance to change anything in one’s life, laziness, weakness, disbelief in this life and fear of it, generated in childhood by the patriarchal way of life, which, in fact, leads the hero to tragedy. As for the relevance of the novel in our time, there is no doubt that it is relevant. Which of us can boast of the absence of some part of Oblomovism? I think, rather from the author’s attitude towards Oblomov, rather than from the work itself, we must take away this unique ability to see in anyone, even a “fallen person,” still, first of all, a person.

Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” is a landmark work of literature of the 19th century, touching on both acute social and many philosophical problems, remaining relevant and interesting to the modern reader. The ideological meaning of the novel “Oblomov” is based on the opposition of an active, new social and personal principle with an outdated, passive and degrading one. In the work, the author reveals these principles on several existential levels, therefore, to fully understand the meaning of the work, a detailed consideration of each of them is required.

Social meaning of the novel

In the novel “Oblomov,” Goncharov first introduced the concept of “Oblomovism” as a generalized name for outdated patriarchal-landlord foundations, personal degradation, and the vital stagnation of an entire social layer of Russian philistinism, unwilling to accept new social trends and norms. The author examined this phenomenon using the example of the main character of the novel, Oblomov, whose childhood was spent in distant Oblomovka, where everyone lived quietly, lazily, having little interest in anything and caring almost nothing. The hero's native village becomes the embodiment of the ideals of Russian old-time society - a kind of hedonistic idyll, a “preserved paradise” where there is no need to study, work or develop.

Portraying Oblomov as a “superfluous man,” Goncharov, unlike Griboyedov and Pushkin, whose characters of this type were ahead of society, introduces into the narrative a hero who lags behind society, living in the distant past. The active, active, educated environment oppresses Oblomov - the ideals of Stolz with his work for the sake of work are alien to him, even his beloved Olga is ahead of Ilya Ilyich, approaching everything from a practical side. Stolts, Olga, Tarantyev, Mukhoyarov, and other acquaintances of Oblomov are representatives of a new, “urban” personality type. They are more practitioners than theorists, they do not dream, but do, create new things - some by working honestly, others by deception.

Goncharov condemns “Oblomovism” with its gravitation towards the past, laziness, apathy and complete spiritual withering away of the individual, when a person essentially becomes a “plant” lying on the sofa around the clock. However, Goncharov also portrays the images of modern, new people as ambiguous - they do not have the peace of mind and inner poetry that Oblomov had (remember that Stolz only found this peace while relaxing with a friend, and the already married Olga is sad about something distant and is afraid to dream , making excuses to her husband).

At the end of the work, Goncharov does not make a definite conclusion about who is right - the practitioner Stolz or the dreamer Oblomov. However, the reader understands that it was precisely because of “Oblomovism,” as a phenomenon that is sharply negative and has long since become obsolete, that Ilya Ilyich “disappeared.” That is why the social meaning of Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” is the need for constant development and movement - both in the continuous construction and creation of the surrounding world, and in working on the development of one’s own personality.

The meaning of the title of the work

The meaning of the title of the novel “Oblomov” is closely related to the main theme of the work - it was named after the surname of the main character Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, and is also associated with the social phenomenon “Oblomovism” described in the novel. The etymology of the name is interpreted differently by researchers. Thus, the most common version is that the word “Oblomov” comes from the words “Oblomok”, “break off”, “break”, denoting the state of mental and social breakdown of the landowner nobility, when it found itself in a borderline state between the desire to preserve old traditions and foundations and the need to change according to the requirements of the era, from a creative person to a practical person.

In addition, there is a version about the connection of the title with the Old Slavonic root “oblo” - “round”, which corresponds to the description of the hero - his “rounded” appearance and his quiet, calm character “without sharp corners”. However, regardless of the interpretation of the title of the work, it points to the central storyline of the novel - the life of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov.

The meaning of Oblomovka in the novel

From the plot of the novel “Oblomov,” the reader from the very beginning learns many facts about Oblomovka, about what a wonderful place it is, how easy and good it was for the hero and how important it is for Oblomov to return there. However, throughout the entire narrative, events never take us to the village, which makes it a truly mythical, fairy-tale place. Picturesque nature, gentle hills, a calm river, a hut on the edge of a ravine, which the visitor needs to ask to stand “with his back to the forest, and his front to it” in order to enter - even in the newspapers there was never a mention of Oblomovka. The inhabitants of Oblomovka did not care about any passions - they were completely cut off from the world, they spent their lives in boredom and tranquility, based on constant rituals.

Oblomov's childhood was spent in love, his parents constantly spoiled Ilya, indulging all his desires. However, Oblomov was particularly impressed by the stories of his nanny, who read to him about mythical heroes and fairy-tale heroes, closely linking his native village with folklore in the hero’s memory. For Ilya Ilyich, Oblomovka is a distant dream, an ideal comparable, perhaps, to the beautiful ladies of medieval knights who glorified wives who were sometimes never seen. In addition, the village is also a way to escape from reality, a kind of half-imagined place where the hero can forget about reality and be himself - lazy, apathetic, completely calm and renounced from the world around him.

The meaning of Oblomov's life in the novel

Oblomov’s whole life is connected only with that distant, quiet and harmonious Oblomovka, however, the mythical estate exists only in the memories and dreams of the hero - pictures from the past never come to him in a cheerful state, his native village appears before him as some kind of distant vision, in its own way unattainable , like any mythical city. Ilya Ilyich is in every possible way opposed to the real perception of his native Oblomovka - he still does not plan the future estate, he delays for a long time in responding to the headman’s letter, and in a dream he does not seem to notice the disrepair of the house - a crooked gate, a sagging roof, a shaky porch, a neglected garden. And he really doesn’t want to go there - Oblomov is afraid that when he sees the dilapidated, ruined Oblomovka, which has nothing in common with his dreams and memories, he will lose his last illusions, which he clings to with all his might and for which he lives.

The only thing that brings complete happiness to Oblomov is dreams and illusions. He is afraid of real life, afraid of marriage, which he has dreamed of many times, afraid of breaking himself and becoming someone else. Wrapping himself in an old robe and continuing to lie on the bed, he “preserves” himself in a state of “Oblomovism” - in general, the robe in the work is, as it were, part of that mythical world that returns the hero to a state of laziness and extinction.

The meaning of the hero's life in Oblomov's novel comes down to gradual dying - both moral and mental, and physical, for the sake of maintaining his own illusions. The hero does not want to say goodbye to the past so much that he is ready to sacrifice a full life, the opportunity to feel every moment and recognize every feeling for the sake of mythical ideals and dreams.

Conclusion

In the novel “Oblomov,” Goncharov depicted the tragic story of the decline of a person for whom the illusory past became more important than the multifaceted and beautiful present - friendship, love, social well-being. The meaning of the work indicates that it is important not to stand still, indulging oneself in illusions, but to always strive forward, expanding the boundaries of one’s own “comfort zone.”

Work test

In addition to the main character, I am attracted by the artistic method and features of the writer’s presentation. Goncharov, unlike, for example, Gogol, a master of detail, or Turgenev, a master of psychological portrait, practically does not bother the reader with reflections on the characters’ personalities; he himself describes them in direct text and in great detail, so that the reader knows for sure how the character will behave in a given situation, or at least understands the reason for such behavior. The most important point for the writer was the process of existence itself. The only thing that remains not completely clear is the author’s point of view. At least, it is not expressed directly, and in this regard, the novel “Oblomov” is one of the most difficult to understand.

The author's position can only be guessed by analyzing some moments of the novel. For example, Goncharov used such a traditional technique as creating a psychological portrait of characters. It was here, not directly, but with the help of subtle hints, that the writer indicated which character traits he liked and which he disliked.

On the very first page there is a portrait of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. The reader immediately forms an opinion about him due to the fact that the writer skillfully directs the flow of the reader’s thoughts in the direction he needs. Flabby, too fat for his age, with the absence of any specific idea in his eyes, with small hands, this man, according to Goncharov, compensated for all these unpleasant facts with one thing: he simply shone with kindness. For this quality, the writer is able to forgive him a lot.

At the master’s call, Zakhar appears with loud groans and stomps. The writer is sure that incomprehensible, unconscious, blind love for his “master” would have forced Zakhar to give his life for him without hesitation. And at the same time he is not able to at least sweep the cobwebs out of the corners.

And suddenly something swift and loud bursts into this dusty and stuffy idyll - Stolz. Goncharov uses his very appearance (the sudden introduction of movement from the outside world into Oblomov’s life), and his image to create a contrast with Oblomov’s image and life. Oblomov is apathetic outwardly, but inside him lies, if not a struggle, then at least a mass of experiences; Stolz, on the contrary, looks like some kind of hurricane, which is here one second, and already hundreds of kilometers away the next. At the same time, his inner world is much poorer, despite his erudition and constant travel; Few things can touch him as deeply as Oblomov. Often in descriptions of heroes the author uses irony; for example, the content of all pages about Zakhara is built on irony; also, a comic effect is created when Goncharov says about Stolz: “He is all made up of bones, muscles and nerves, like a blooded English horse.”

If we turn to female images, we would immediately like to note the image of Olga Ilyinskaya, which is traditionally called one of the best and most successful. We can talk a lot about it, but here we will note only one point, which contains a vivid example of the already mentioned author’s “hint”. Goncharov said that some frivolous young people were afraid of Olga, obviously vying for her attention. Why, you ask? It’s simple: they were not used to seeing subtle intelligence and independence in a woman, so they were wary because she was incomprehensible to them.

To no less an extent, the author’s position is visible through the image of Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna. Stolz said that it was she who destroyed Oblomov. But one should not think that Goncharov spoke through his mouth. As you know, her name is the name of the writer’s mother; therefore, if he named his heroine after the person closest to him, it means that her image should contain something bright, better. And therefore it is she, and not Olga, who becomes the ideal for Oblomov. She is the earthly embodiment of the protagonist’s dreams of the beautiful Militrisa Kirbityevna. He saw a wonderful life with her even in his dreams. It is not for nothing that Goncharov already in Part I includes a multi-page description of Oblomov’s dream; this is a unique and very important compositional and ideological element of the novel. As you know, a person’s deepest dreams are reflected in a dream. Goncharov emphasizes that Ilya Ilyich dreams of his childhood years, because It is in childhood that the foundations of a worldview are laid. Probably, the writer wanted to justify Oblomov in the eyes of readers, saying that he is to blame for his current state to a lesser extent than the structure of modern society itself. Little Ilyusha was raised like a real little boy; where is his fault? All the time, his parents and servants protected him from “excessive” movements; the slightest manifestation of childish unbridledness was immediately suppressed. In addition, Ilyusha was constantly under the impression of fairy tales told to him by his old nanny. It was they who became the basis of his future dreams; He firmly believed that he, like the fool Ivanushka, “suddenly will succeed in everything at once,” the magic pike will do everything for him, and he will live calmly and happily with his Militrisa Kirbityevna. Of course, the idea itself is not bad (especially since it is an important component of the Russian mentality), but life proves its inconsistency, and Goncharov specifically completes Oblomov’s life path in a unique way: Ilya Ilyich, having seemingly lived as he dreamed, finally found peace - "rested in eternal sleep." But he dies from a stroke that happened to him precisely because of the lifestyle that he led.

With similar details, Goncharov shows that the family life of Stolz and Olga also did not bring them happiness. From the lips of Stolz, this person always striving somewhere, at the end of the novel, in a conversation with Olga, you can hear an incredible phrase that is completely inappropriate for him: “You and I are not titans...”. But Olga is just ready to be a “titanium”; she wants and can move forward, accomplishing great things. Thus, this couple, as Goncharov shows, did not work out.

The analysis of the novel's characters shows that it is impossible to identify the author with any hero. “...I wrote only what I experienced, what I thought, what I felt, what I loved, what I saw and knew closely - in a word, I wrote both my life and what grew into it,” Goncharov himself said about his novel. It confirms the idea that none of the characters can claim to be similar to the writer. But one thing is certain: since Goncharov managed to convey their essence and psychology so subtly, it means that the heroes are indeed very close and understandable to him.