Who is not a representative of the superfluous person type. What does "extra person" mean?

Head: Maltseva Galina Sergeevna.

MAOU "Secondary School No. 109" Perm.

The expression “an extra person” came into general use after “The Diary of an Extra Man.” So who is he? Head: Maltseva Galina Sergeevna.

Maintaining.

The expression “superfluous man” came into general use after “The Diary of an Extra Man” (1850) by I.S. Turgenev. This is what it says in the “Literary Encyclopedic Dictionary” (1987).
But the first epithet “superfluous” was applied by Pushkin to Onegin, the hero of the novel “Eugene Onegin,” in one of his rough sketches. Almost simultaneously with Pushkin in 1831, Lermontov in the drama “Strange Man” puts the same definition into the mouth of Vladimir Arbenin: “Now I am free! Nobody...nobody...exactly, positively no one values ​​me on earth...I’m superfluous!..” These are the words of V. Manuylov in the book “Novel by M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time.” Commentary” (1975).

The Literary Dictionary says that the “extra person” is a socio-psychological type imprinted in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century. Why did it happen that smart and thirsty people were doomed to forced inaction and became victims of their time?

The outstanding historian V.O. Klyuchevsky has an article on this topic, it is called “Eugene Onegin and his ancestors,” in which he explains the reasons that made people who received a European education “superfluous in their country.” The “cultural and psychological curiosity” is that, giving their children a European education, their ancestors offered a country frozen in slavery, therefore “in Europe they saw him as a Tatar dressed in European style, but in their eyes he seemed like a Frenchman born in Russia.”

Although Klyuchevsky’s words were spoken about Onegin, they apply no less to Chatsky. Chatsky’s drama lies precisely in the fact that he is torn apart by the contract between civilization and slavery, the underdevelopment of social life in Russia.

Chatsky could not admit that Sophia, in their enlightened age, was still at that low stage of moral development at which Famusov and his entourage were. Her idea of ​​valor and honor is no different from the views of those around her: “Compliant, modest, quiet in her face, not a shadow of concern...”

And already Famusov presents a whole program for a successful life in society to this “prodigal son,” but the essence of success is very simple:

When do you need to help yourself?
And he bent over...

This “moral” position has been verified by practice, is convenient, and reliable. The educated and intelligent Chatsky states with surprise the bitter truth: “Silent people are blissful in the world.” But there is no place for him here: “I’ll go look around the world where there is a corner for an offended feeling.” Chatsky is alone before us. And that says a lot. There were many Decembrist and pro-Decembrist-minded people, but the feeling of social loneliness was quite familiar to almost every leading person of that time.

The social and literary development of Russia was so rapid that the image of Chatsky did not satisfy either Pushkin or Belinsky.

Pushkin is not satisfied with Chatsky’s traditional approach to depicting a hero, in which the main character turns into a mouthpiece for the author’s ideas. Pushkin begins work on the novel “Eugene Onegin”, creating a new hero. Belinsky notes: “First of all, in Onegin we see a poetically reproduced picture of Russian society, taken at one of the most interesting moments of its development.” As a result of the reform of Peter the Great, a society was to be formed in Russia, completely separated from the mass of the people in its way of life.

Nevertheless, Pushkin asks the most important question: “But was my Eugene happy?” It turns out that many people of the world are not satisfied with him. Onegin does not immediately come to terms with his bitter disappointment, with the feeling of his uselessness:

Onegin locked himself at home,
Yawning, I took up my pen,
I wanted to write, but it’s hard work
He was sick...

In Onegin, his mind, conscience, and dreams are alive, but he does not have the ability to act. Onegin does not need anything, he has no goal, no ideal - this is his tragedy.

If Chatsky and Onegin were given the historical opportunity to go out onto Senate Square in 1825 together with the most educated representatives of their class, who hoped with one impetuous onslaught to move the rock that stood in the way of civilization, then Pechorin, the hero of Lermontov’s novel, did not have such an opportunity . He appeared later and this was enough for a certain psychological and moral barrier to form between them. Critics, comparing Pechorin with Onegin, said: “If Onegin is bored, then Pechorin suffers deeply.” This is explained by the fact that the “hero of our time” lives during the brutal persecution of everything progressive that began after the defeat of the Decembrists. Lermontov in the preface directly said that he gives “a portrait made up of the vices of our generation in their full development.” Pechorin withdrew into himself, just as all of the most educated Russia withdrew after the terrible upheavals associated with the suppression of the Decembrist uprising.

In his tragic life, Lermontov found a task for himself - to understand and explain to his contemporaries themselves, without hiding or embellishing anything. The novel “A Hero of Our Time”, when published, caused conflicting opinions among readers. The novel contains tendencies towards condemnation of both society and the hero. Recognizing the guilt of society for giving birth to Pechorin, the author, however, does not believe that the hero is right. The central task of the novel is to reveal the depth of Pechorin’s image. The central task of the novel is to reveal the depth of Pechorin’s image. Already from the very composition of the novel, we can see the aimlessness of his life, the pettiness and inconsistency of his actions. By placing the hero in different conditions, in different surroundings, Lermontov wants to show that they are alien to Pechorin, that he has no place in life, no matter what situation he finds himself in.

The theme of the “superfluous man” is characteristic of Lermontov’s work. For example, the same “superfluous person” is the hero of the drama “Strange Man” - Vladimir Arbenin. His whole life is a challenge to society.
In 1856, Turgenev’s novel “Rudin” was published in the Sovremennik magazine. In the image of Rudin, Turgenev shows that the progressive people of the 40s, who received the bitter, but in their own way fair name of “superfluous people,” tried to save them from discord with the social conditions of life by going into philosophy and art. In the personality of Rudin, Turgenev collected both positive and negative features of this generation. Having gone through the difficult path of spiritual quest, he himself cannot reduce the whole meaning of human life to businesslike activity, not inspired by a higher idea. And from the point of view of historical progress, the Rudins, according to Turgenev, are the true heroes of the era, since they are admirers of ideals, guardians of culture, and serve the progress of society.

Conclusion.

In our literature, a type of people has emerged whose existence is purely internal. They do not strive to achieve wealth, fame, or position in society; they do not set themselves political, social, or everyday goals.

The “superfluous people” of Russian literature seek happiness not outside, but within themselves. Initially, they are “laid” with that high ideal, which dooms them to eternal dissatisfaction with reality, to an eternal search for a life goal. Their souls, like Lermontov’s sail, are rebellious, “looking for storms.”

Bibliography.

1. V.O. Klyuchevsky “Eugene Onegin and his ancestors” (in the book “Literary Portraits” 1991)
2. V.Yu. Proskurina “Dialogues with Chatsky” (in the book “Centuries will not be erased...” Russian classics and their readers, 1988)
3. N.G. Valley “Let’s honor Onegin together”
4. N.G. Valley "Pechorin and our time"
5. P. G. Paustovsky “I. Turgenev - artist of words”
6. I.K. Kuzmichev “Literature and moral education of the individual.”
7. L. Urban “The Secret Platonov”. Article “Rereading again.”

The problem of “superfluous” people in society is reflected in the works of many Russian writers. For example, in the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".
Alexander Chatsky is an image of a progressive person of the 10th – 20th years of the 19th century, who, in his beliefs and views, is close to the future Decembrists. In accordance with the moral principles of the Decembrists, a person must perceive the problems of society as his own, have an active civic position, which is noted in Chatsky’s behavior. He expresses his opinion on various issues, coming into conflict with many representatives of the Moscow nobility.

First of all, Chatsky himself is noticeably different from all the other heroes of the comedy. This is an educated person with an analytical mind; he is eloquent and gifted with imaginative thinking, which elevates him above the inertia and ignorance of the Moscow nobility. Chatsky’s clash with Moscow society occurs on many issues: this is the attitude to serfdom, to public service, to national science and culture, to education, national traditions and language. For example, Chatsky says that “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” This means that he will not please, flatter his superiors, or humiliate himself for the sake of his career. He would like to serve “the cause, not persons” and does not want to look for entertainment if he is busy with business.

Moscow nobles are irritated by those qualities of the protagonist’s personality that are precisely positive: his education and desire for knowledge, the ability to think independently and thirst for justice, the desire to serve the Fatherland, but with benefit for progress and with the goal of reforming the existing socio-political system. And the “Famus society” did not want to allow transformations, so people like Chatsky were considered dangerous, they were not wanted to be seen in high society, and they became “superfluous people.”
Chatsky is alone in the crowd of Famusov’s guests, representing Moscow society, where “empty, slavish, blind imitation” of everything foreign reigns and one hears “a mixture of languages: French with Nizhny Novgorod.” Chatsky is a patriot, he would like to be proud of his country and people, but in the morals of the nobles, in their way of life, the hero notes the degeneration of everything Russian, national.

Undoubtedly, patriotism is one of the most worthy qualities of a person, and Chatsky’s spiritual image deserves high praise. But there are some features that somewhat violate the integrity of the positive image. Perhaps, due to inexperience, youth and ardor, the hero does not understand that it is inappropriate to pronounce accusatory monologues at Famusov’s reception. Moreover, no one wants to listen to Chatsky’s opinion, no one cares about his experiences. It evokes negative emotions in others, since direct condemnation of the morals and beliefs of officials and landowners does not contribute to mutual understanding with them. The hero should have understood that Famusov and his guests are not a society where it is worth revealing your soul and sharing thoughts about modern reality. Sophia, like her father, easily classifies Chatsky as crazy, wanting to take revenge on him for ridiculing Molchalin. The hero is forced to leave the Famusovs' house, where his mind, his critical views on life were so unpleasant to those around him. He did not make friends or like-minded people here, but only experienced disappointment, felt insulted and was ready to flee from here in order to muffle his mental pain.

Was there such a place in Russia where Griboedov’s hero could find “a corner for offended feelings”? Probably, Chatsky should go to a place where secret societies of future Decembrists already existed, where smart people who were ready to use their knowledge and strength for the urgent transformations in the Fatherland were valued. In the understanding of the advanced nobles, the mind should be free, “free”, which means that freethinking for the Decembrists was not a dirty word or a definition of a vice, a dangerous illness, but vice versa. It is clear that Griboyedov’s courage was highly appreciated by his contemporaries with progressive beliefs, since his hero Chatsky was close in spirit to the future Decembrists. He aroused sympathy because he felt the need to fight inertia, ignorance, cruelty, injustice and other vices, and wanted to participate in reforms. When communicating with representatives of the Moscow nobility, he saw a misunderstanding, a hostile attitude towards himself, in addition, his situation was complicated by a tragedy in love and loneliness. Therefore, A.S. Griboedov defined Chatsky’s condition as “woe from mind,” since the hero felt “superfluous” in the society of Moscow nobles.

In the works of A.S. Pushkin we will find the theme of the “superfluous person”, for example, in the poem “Gypsies”.
Aleko, the hero of the poem, fled from the “captivity of stuffy cities” to a gypsy camp, hiding from prosecution for a crime he had committed. Aleko did not find his destiny, living in the familiar world, and he was quite happy with gypsy freedom. Secular entertainment, the idleness and luxury of his former life, intrigue and gossip irritate him, but Aleko cannot fill his life with meaning, become useful and necessary to society; it is easier for him to wander aimlessly with the gypsies. However, in the camp, as in high society, he turns out to be a “superfluous person.” The hero did not want to come to terms with Zemfira’s betrayal; he killed the girl along with her new lover. And the gypsies reject the stranger:

Leave us, proud man!
...You only want freedom for yourself...

In the novel by A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" the main character also becomes "superfluous" in high society, although his position manifested itself somewhat differently than that of Chatsky or Aleko.
The environment where such personalities as Evgeny Onegin are formed is represented by secular salons that educate “young rakes.” Endless dinners, balls, entertainment, and playing cards gave rise to a desire for luxury and determined the needs and principles of these people. The monotony of social life (“and today is the same as yesterday”) explains why boredom, gossip, envy, and slander arise and reign in the world. Tatyana (the heroine of the novel) gives an exact definition to all this: “a hateful life is tinsel.”

The novel "Eugene Onegin" reflects many problems of the time. One of them is an “extra” person in society. To show typical characters for a given time (10-20s of the nineteenth century), it is necessary to note the circumstances and origins of their occurrence. And Pushkin touches on the themes of upbringing, education, and family relationships in his work. The hero of the novel, as often happened in noble families, receives a superficial education under the guidance of a French tutor. The lack of useful activities and proper attention from parents in childhood, then an idle social life - all this was typical for the “golden youth” of St. Petersburg, where the main character was born and raised.

It is impossible to explain everything in Onegin’s fate, but significant changes are taking place in his life, as well as in his character. Dissatisfaction with oneself began back in those days when a young rake, bored and disappointed in everything, feeling unnecessary, tries to find something to do, strives to find meaning in life. He leaves the world and settles in the village. The most powerful shock of that time was the murder of Lensky, who became his friend and trusted him with secrets of his heart. Onegin could not forgive himself for the terrible mistake he made because of his own selfishness, unwillingness to explain himself to a person, to be more sensitive and attentive to his young friend and to people in general. This first led him to suffering, to the “anguish of heartfelt remorse,” which forced the hero to rush around the world.
The next test was the unexpected arrival of love. We can say that the very ability to love speaks of Onegin’s rebirth. He is no longer an egoist if the woman he loves becomes more precious to him than life. Morally, he is now purer, higher, as he is able to draw deep conclusions:

To make my life last longer
I have to be sure in the morning
That I will see you during the day.

Onegin, having experienced suffering, learned to understand the feelings of other people, he knew the pain of loss, the pain of unrequited love and the inability to be near the woman he loved. He understands that he is being punished by life for his past frivolity, for “playing at love” when he tested his skills in practice “in the science of tender passion.” And as a result, for his previous reluctance to start a family, for his desire to preserve freedom (now “hateful”), Evgeniy receives suffering and loneliness. He realized how important it is in life to simply have a loved one nearby. It turned out that true bliss lies in the opportunity to love and be loved! Onegin started talking about the soul. And this, of course, is a huge achievement in the moral improvement of the hero.
The hero has gone through a difficult path of spiritual evolution, he is ready to serve society and can become one of those who, entering the secret unions of future Decembrists, thought about reforms in Russia.

The theme of the “superfluous man” is continued in M.Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time.”
Pechorin, the hero of the novel, on the night before his duel with Grushnitsky, recalling his life, comes to sad conclusions: “...why did I live? For what purpose was I born?.. And, it’s true, it existed, and, it’s true, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul.” Pechorin understands that he did not find something very important for himself and “was carried away by the lures of passions, empty and ungrateful.”
Lermontov did not show his hero in any business or in creativity (with the exception of some mentions of dangerous service in the Caucasus associated with the risk of life and keeping a diary). Before serving in the mountain fortress, Pechorin was mostly occupied with secular idleness, so he sometimes needs thrills. Like many representatives of the “golden youth,” the young officer liked his own superiority over “barely blossoming souls”: he could easily “pick a flower and throw it away” without any remorse. Pechorin experienced “the greatest triumph of power,” about which he spoke like this: “...my first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me, to arouse for myself a feeling of love, devotion and fear.”

In his diary (“Pechorin’s Journal”), the hero, prone to reflection, reflects on his life and finds an explanation for many of his actions: “evil begets evil,” and therefore the suffering he endured in his youth gave him the concept of “the pleasure of torturing another.” However, not every young man, as a result of suffering, becomes a tormentor for another person, that is, a villain. Usually suffering makes the soul purer, more sublime, and a person understands the pain of others. Pechorin is not like that, he is an egoist by nature. The hero himself calls himself “an ax in the hands of fate,” as he brings misfortune to many who find themselves next to him.

In many cases, Pechorin acts like a typical hero of the time. It is clear that the formation of his personality was influenced by the peculiarities of the post-Decembrist era, the decline in the social movement and the apathy that set in during the years of reaction, but the person who has good moral inclinations can think about ways to solve problems, both personal and public. Pechorin cynically claims that society made him this way: “They insulted me - I became vindictive..., I told the truth - they didn’t believe me: I learned to deceive.” And social intrigue, victories over women and other meaningless entertainments that filled the emptiness of life became the main occupation in his life.

Pechorin is able to “take on a deeply touched look” in order to fool a pretty girl and arouse her compassion for himself, explaining his coldness and selfishness by the injustices of fate that made him a moral cripple. This is what he does with Mary, playing with her feelings, seeking her love, so that he can then dramatically declare his inability to love. And again, he is not at all concerned about the suffering, pain, broken fate of another person, although Pechorin admits that he often realized that he was an executioner in relation to those with whom fate brought him together. He felt “immense forces” in his soul, but “the forces of this rich nature remained unused, life without meaning...”, as in the story of Onegin in A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin.” But in the previous era, the hero had the opportunity to join the Decembrists, but Pechorin does not have such a prospect, but he does not look like a person who thinks about the fate of Russia and the people. He remains a “superfluous person,” and his life ends too early. The image of the hero of the time, created by M.Yu. Lermontov, helps to understand the tragedy of the fate of an extraordinary person in an unhealthy society.

In I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” the “superfluous person” is the nihilist Bazarov.
Trying to contradict the entire world of aristocrats, nihilists refused to accept their morals, political principles, art, and literature. In polemical fervor, like grimacing schoolchildren wanting to challenge society, they denied everything, intending to “clear the place first,” and then let others create something. Most likely, these new fighters and thinkers vaguely imagined a future that someone would have to build on the ruins of the civilization inherited from the nobles.

The hero of Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” Evgeny Bazarov, studies natural sciences, works a lot in medical practice, and is sure that this gives him the right to treat with disdain those who experience life from other positions. He is often harsh, cynical, even arrogant with people, including those who strive to imitate him, who consider themselves his students. Since Bazarov’s followers do not have their own convictions, they are ready to imitate him, repeat everything that the idol does or says. These people, who have not found anything to do in the Russian social movement, look like a pathetic and absurd parody of fighters for freedom and progress. They cannot be called like-minded people of Bazarov, so the author calls them his students. In reality, these are splinter people who have been scattered by a storm in an era of change, and they are ready to wash up on at least some shore. But the main character, Bazarov, turns out to be a “superfluous” person, not in demand in society. This is a tragic figure: he, like many in this era, did not find his purpose, did not have time to do anything necessary and important for Russia, and, having made a mistake in his medical practice, dies young. In the novel, Bazarov is a very lonely person, since he has no true followers and like-minded people, which means that in nihilism, as in love, he failed.

Of course, one can not take seriously the “attacks” of the nihilist Bazarov against the “principles” of the aristocrat Kirsanov (Pavel Petrovich), especially his absurd opinion about the uselessness and uselessness of music, poetry, and art in general for humanity (“Raphael is not worth a penny”). But upon closer acquaintance with this hero, an understanding comes: his shockingness and harshness are explained by the fact that he himself does not know how to change what he does not like and what he rejects. This was also a phenomenon of the era when the aristocrats could no longer change anything, do anything, and the democrats would like to, but did not yet know what the path of development of Russia should be.

I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Rudin” is also dedicated to the theme of the “superfluous man”, the hero of which (Dmitry Rudin), having become a fighter for justice and democratic transformation at the call of his heart, is forced to leave his homeland. Unable to find a use for his strength, intelligence and talent, feeling unnecessary in Russia, he dies with a red banner in his hands in Paris during the revolutionary events of 1848.

In F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment,” the main character also does not find his place in the public life of the country.
Raskolnikov, who does not want to put up with injustice in society and the imperfection of life, comes up with his own theory, which, in his opinion, will help him find the meaning of life and confidence in the future. Rodion, rejected by society, a “superfluous man,” protests against the fate of the humiliated and insulted “little man,” and therefore wants to assert himself through crime. However, after the murder of the pawnbroker, there were no changes for the better in his life and the lives of those who suffered from the activities of the greedy old woman. And Rodion gradually comes to realize the falsity of the theory of “blood according to conscience”, about special people who are allowed a lot for the sake of great goals. Raskolnikov does not know how to change society so that every person feels “not superfluous,” but he understands that through repentance and turning to faith he can return to the life of an ordinary citizen.

In I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov,” the hero completely withdraws from the problems of society and from the struggle for a better future.
Probably, Oblomov and “Oblomovism” have their supporters and defenders. After all, Ilya Ilyich had a “beautiful soul, pure as crystal”; he remained faithful to the patriarchal way of life of the noble class, loved his parents, honest, simple, warm-hearted people, and preserved the memory of them; he did not harm anyone and did not waste his soul “on trifles”; he preserved national traditions and culture. In essence, Oblomov sought to avoid vanity and excessive, sometimes unnatural thirst for activity. But this desire caused sleep of the soul and led to the abandonment of real life.

Merit of I.A. Goncharov to Russian society not only in the fact that he created a true picture of reality, but also in the fact that the phenomenon depicted by the writer makes one think about the influence of “Oblomovism” on every person, regardless of the era and belonging to any class. N.A. Dobrolyubov also spoke about this in his article on the novel “Oblomov”: “Oblomovism never left us...”. The image of the main character, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, quite naturally continued the gallery of “extra people”. Like Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov and others, Goncharov’s hero is “infected” with the inability to find a job in his contemporary world; he is unable to realize his dreams and plans.
Oblomov’s path is a dead end: he cannot serve, because he does not want to achieve promotion through unworthy means; He doesn’t want to be “in society” because he’s too lazy. And the servility, servility, insincerity or dishonesty, and selfishness of some people interfere with communication and friendship. This makes him sad, depressing and burdens his sensitive nature, which causes a desire to withdraw, live in isolation, solitude, increasingly feeling his uselessness, uselessness and loneliness. The typical complex of the “superfluous person” in Oblomov becomes paradoxical, since it leads not only to the denial of existing reality, but also to the death of the individual. The hero tried to escape from reality at least through dreams, went into the world of dreams, into sleep, and left life altogether.

Thus, in Russian literature the theme of the “superfluous man” is reflected fully and multifacetedly by writers of different eras.

Reviews

Hello Zoya! I read your article with great pleasure, and I remember now when our teacher went over this topic with us, and what is typical is that your arguments are almost word for word. However, when she said about Onegin that he was tired of one thing every day and also balls, theaters and all the high society tinsel, and the comparison was made in the direction of a scientist who also carries out experiments day after day and it would seem that a person too should not enjoy his life. And then she asked the class a question - what is the difference between these two people Naturally, we couldn’t say anything. Then she herself explained to us that a scientist has a goal - to get a result, and over and over again, when performing experiments, he thinks and strives to get closer to what he is looking for, but with Onegin it all comes down to how to kill time, he, as a thinking person, does not may not see this. But, as I understand it, Bazarov got into this company through a misunderstanding, that is, Turgenev placed the accents too sharply, in life such extremes are rarely encountered, but here you just need to get into the skin of the hero - if he It seems that there is no other way out except to destroy everything first, maybe if in those days we had imagined that there would have been the Internet, then Bazarov would not have become so categorical, we also sometimes feel superfluous in this world, but I’ll take the collection coins of my own and on the Internet I’ll start some movie or show, it seems that you’ll take your mind off all sorts of apocaplectic thoughts, otherwise I don’t know how. Maybe now there’s no problem of extra people, Americans generally believe that the planet is overpopulated, and at least 2/3 is needed thrown into the furnace of war to please the powers that be, and argue beyond the boundaries of good and evil. Thank you again for the interesting article, I will continue to visit your page.

How did the image of the “extra person” appear? The origin story is as follows: a romantic hero who is not accepted by society is placed in reality. Everyone stops admiring the romantic; no one is seduced by the torment that occurs in the soul of a loner. Writers understand this and show the true essence of the hero.

Who are considered “superfluous people”?

Who are the “extra people”? They have enormous capabilities, a talent that cannot be put to use. They cannot see the future, so they often go out to have fun to avoid boredom. It’s unlikely to get any simpler or easier. Idle entertainment will only destroy them. They lead to gambling and duels. Some people who have studied this problem consider Alexander Chatsky to be a pioneer in this regard. This character took place in the play “Woe from Wit,” written by Griboyedov. Remnants mean nothing to him, and in the play this nobleman talks a lot, but does little.

Onegin is the brightest representative

(Painting by Yu. M. Ignatiev based on the novel "Eugene Onegin")

The most prominent representative of the image of “superfluous people” is Eugene Onegin, about whom Pushkin wrote. The nobleman is young, educated. He moves around in secular society, but has no specific goals. He started to do something, but could not finish it. Onegin is unhappy, he does not succeed either in friendship or in love. Belinsky compared Onegin with Russian society, which is described in poetry. Nicholas Russia was often represented by nobles who were disillusioned with life and tired of it.

Pechorin, Oblomov, Bazarov

(Grigory Pechorin)

Many may ask the question: “Have they really forgotten about Bazarov, Oblomov, Pechorin?” They also represent the “extra people,” each of whom has certain characteristics. As for Pechorin, he is distinguished by his penchant for reflection and presence of mind. However, this does not help him realize himself. This hero is self-destructing. But, if we compare Pechorin and Onegin, then the first is in search of the cause of his own suffering.

Oblomov, who is the hero of the novel written by Goncharov, is capable of making friends, loving, and has a kind heart. But he prefers to stay at home, he is apathetic and lethargic. Researchers say that this particular hero is the culmination of the era of “extra people.”

(Bazarov in disputes with Kirsanov Pavel Petrovich)

If we are talking about Evgeny Bazarov, the novel “Fathers and Sons,” then everything is different here. This hero is not of noble blood. He sets goals for himself and does science. However, Bazarov cannot find a place in society. He moves away from everything old, not realizing that it is necessary to create something instead. That is why he is classified as “superfluous people”.

The role of extra people in works

It should be noted that it is the “extra people” who are the heroes of Russian literature who are remembered most by readers. Why? The authors show an individual person, his soul, vices, motives. At the same time, there are no moralizing or educational attitudes. The work contains to some extent an analysis of the psychological direction.

At the beginning of the 19th century, works appeared in Russian literature, the central problem of which was the conflict between the hero and society, the person and the environment that raised him. And, as a result, a new image is created - the image of an “extra” 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 real “heroes of their time” - writers, artists, scientists - and who, in Belinsky’s words, became “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".
The first in the gallery of “extra” people are Onegin and Pechorin - heroes who are characterized by cold matter-of-factness, an independent character, a “sharp, chilled mind”, where irony borders on sarcasm. These are extraordinary people, and therefore, rarely satisfied with themselves, dissatisfied with an easy, carefree existence. They are not satisfied with the monotonous life of the “golden youth”. It’s easy for heroes to answer with certainty what doesn’t suit them, but it’s much more difficult to answer what they need from life. Onegin and Pechorin are unhappy, “lost interest in life”; they move in a vicious circle, where every action implies further disappointment. Dreamy romantics in their youth, they turned into cold cynics, cruel egoists, as soon as they saw the “light”. Who or what is the reason that smart, educated people have turned into “superfluous” people who have not found their place in life? It would seem that everything was in their hands, so this means that this is the heroes’ own fault? We can say that they themselves are to blame for how their fate turned out, but I am still inclined to believe that no one and nothing can change a person as much as society, the social environment, the conditions in which this or that person finds himself. It was the “light” that turned Onegin and Pechorin into “moral cripples.” Pechorin admits in his diary: “...My soul is spoiled by light, my imagination is restless, my heart is insatiable...” But if the rebellious nature of Pechorin, a man of the 30s of the 19th century, thirsts for activity, seeks food for the mind, painfully reflects on the meaning of life, about one’s role in society, then Onegin’s nature of the 20s was, to one degree or another, characterized by mental apathy and indifference to the world around him. The main difference between Pushkin's Onegin and Lermontov's Pechorin is the final result to which both heroes arrive: if Pechorin managed to defend his convictions, denied secular conventions, did not exchange himself for petty aspirations, that is, he completely retained his moral integrity, despite internal contradictions, Then Onegin squandered the spiritual strength that prompted him to act. He lost the ability to actively fight and, “having lived without a goal, without work until he was twenty-six years old ... he did not know how to do anything.” Lermontov portrays to us a stronger character than Pushkin, but together they show how the surrounding reality and secular society destroy a gifted person.
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 data 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. And if from the works of Lermontov and Pushkin we can study the anatomy of one human soul, with all its contradictions, then in Goncharov’s novel we can trace 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 he was not presented to us as simply and naturally as in Goncharov’s novel.”
Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, 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 bustling real life by 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 raised to such an extreme degree as, for example, Manilov from “Dead Souls,” and Dobrolyubov was right when he wrote that “... Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person who is looking for something in his life, thinking about something...” Like Onegin and Pechorin, Goncharov’s hero in his youth was a romantic, thirsting for an ideal, burning with the desire for activity, but, like previous heroes, “the color 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 away” 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.” So the main difference
I see Oblomov from Onegin and Pechorin in the fact that if the last two heroes denied social vices in the struggle, in action, then the first one “protested” on the sofa, believing that this is the best way of life. Therefore, it can be argued that the “smart useless people” Onegin and Pechorin and the “superfluous” person Oblomov are completely different people. The first two heroes are “moral cripples” due to the fault of society, and the third is due to the fault of their own nature, their own inaction.
Based on the peculiarities of life in Russia in the 19th century, we can say that if “extra” 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 Pushkin in his novel uses the expression “Russian blues,” and Dobrolyubov sees in Oblomov “our indigenous folk type.”
Many critics of that time, and even the author of the novel himself, saw the image of Oblomov as 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 “suffering egoist” Pechorin, the “smart uselessness” Onegin, the apathetic dreamer Oblomov are the product of the autocratic-serf system. Our time, the 20th century, can serve as proof of this. And now there is a large group of “superfluous” people, and in the 90s of the 20th century, many find themselves out of place and do not find the meaning of life. At the same time, some turn into mocking cynics, like Onegin or Pechorin, others, like Oblomov, kill the best years of their lives, lying on the sofa. So Pechorin is a “hero” of our time, and Oblomovism is a phenomenon not only of the 19th century, but also of the 20th century. The evolution of the image of the “superfluous” person continues, and more than one will say bitterly: “My soul is spoiled by light...” Therefore, I believe that the tragedy of the “unnecessary” is not to blame for serfdom, but for a society in which true values ​​are distorted , and vices often wear a mask of virtue, where the individual can be trampled underfoot by a gray, silent crowd.

(369 words) The story of the appearance of the extra person began something like this: a romantic hero, lonely and misunderstood by society, is suddenly placed by the authors in reality. There was no one else to admire the romantic; the mental torment of a loner no longer attracted anyone. Realizing this, the writers decided to show the true essence of the former hero.

Who are they? People of great potential who cannot find a use for their talents. Not seeing any prospects, they try to avoid boredom through idle entertainment. It doesn’t get any easier; they are drawn to self-destruction: duels and gambling. At the same time, they do nothing. Some researchers consider the first representative of “superfluous people” to be Alexander Chatsky from Griboyedov’s play “Woe from Wit.” He does not want to put up with the remnants, but throughout the entire action of the play the nobleman is eloquent, but not active.

Pushkin's Evgeny Onegin is considered the brightest representative of the “superfluous people”. An educated young nobleman, spoiled by secular society, does not know what he wants from life. Even having given up idleness, he did not bring a single task to completion. We see an extra person in love, friendship, where he is also unhappy. Belinsky wrote that “Eugene Onegin” is “a poetically reproduced picture of Russian society.” Tired and disappointed nobles were a noticeable phenomenon in Nicholas Russia.

“What about Pechorin, Oblomov, Bazarov?” - you may ask. Of course, they are also classified as “extra people”, but each of them has its own characteristics. For example, Grigory Pechorin from Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time” is smart, prone to reflection, but cannot realize himself in life. He is also prone to self-destruction. But, unlike Onegin, he is looking for the reasons for his suffering. Ilya Oblomov, the hero of Goncharov’s novel, is kind-hearted, capable of love and friendship. What distinguishes him greatly from other representatives is that he is a lethargic and apathetic homebody. Therefore, researchers believe that the image of Oblomov is the culmination of the development of the “extra people” type. With the hero of Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” Yevgeny Bazarov, everything is not so simple, because he is not a nobleman. It is also impossible to say that he has no goal in life - he is busy with science. But Bazarov does not find his place in society, rejects everything old, having no idea what to create in return, which allows him to be classified as superfluous people.

It is curious that it was the “extra people” who became the most memorable heroes of Russian literature. This happened due to the fact that the authors showed the soul of an individual person, his motives, vices, without educational, moralistic attitudes. The works began to resemble psychological analysis, and this already prepared readers for the future of Russian realism.