Behavior in the service of Oblomov and Stolz table. Oblomov and Stolz: comparative characteristics or anatomy? h) life aspirations

The novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov has not lost its relevance and its objective meaning in our time, because it contains a universal philosophical meaning. The main conflict of the novel - between the patriarchal and bourgeois ways of Russian life - the writer reveals in the opposition of people, feelings and reason, peace and action, life and death. Using the technique of antithesis, Goncharov makes it possible to deeply understand the idea of ​​the novel and penetrate into the souls of the characters. Ilya Oblomov and Andrei Stolts are the main characters of the work. These are people of the same class, society, time. It would seem that people of the same environment should have similar characters and worldviews. But they are completely opposite to each other. Stolz, unlike Oblomov, is shown by the writer as an active person whose reason prevails over feeling. Goncharov makes attempts to understand why these people are so different, and he looks for the origins of this in origin, upbringing and education, as this lays the foundations of the characters.

The author shows the parents of the heroes.

Stolz was brought up in a poor family. His father was German by birth, and his mother was a Russian noblewoman. We see that the family spent all day long at work. When Stolz grew up, his father began to take him to the field, to the market, and forced him to work. At the same time, he taught him the sciences, taught him the German language, that is, he instilled in his son respect for knowledge, the habit of thinking, and doing business. Then Stolz began sending his son to the city on errands, “and it never happened that he forgot something, changed it, overlooked it, or made a mistake.” The writer shows us how zealously and persistently this man develops in Andrei economic tenacity, the need for constant activity. The mother taught her son literature and managed to give him an excellent spiritual education. So, Stolz became a strong, intelligent young man.

What about Oblomov? His parents were nobles. Their life in the village of Oblomovka passed according to its own special laws. The Oblomov family had a cult of food. The whole family decided “what dishes would be for lunch or dinner.” And after lunch the whole house fell asleep and fell into a long sleep. And this is how every day passed in this family: only sleep and food. When Oblomov grew up, he was sent to study at a gymnasium. But we see that Ilyusha’s parents were not interested in their son’s knowledge. They themselves came up with excuses just to free their adored child from school; they dreamed of receiving a certificate proving that “Ilya passed all the sciences and arts.” They didn’t even let him out into the street again, because they were afraid that he would get hurt or get sick. Therefore, Oblomov grew up lazy, apathetic, and did not receive a proper education.

But let's look deeper into the characters of the main characters. Having rethought the pages I read in a new way, I realized that both Andrei and Ilya have their own tragedy in life.

At first glance, Stolz is a new, progressive, almost ideal person. For him, work is a part of life, a pleasure. He does not disdain even the most menial work and leads an active life. From the moment he left home, he lives by work, thanks to which he became rich and famous to a wide circle of people. Stolz's ideal of happiness is material wealth, comfort, personal well-being. And he achieves his goal through hard work. His life is full of action. But despite her outward well-being, she is boring and monotonous.

Unlike Oblomov, a man of a subtle soul, Stolz appears before the reader as a kind of machine: “He was entirely made up of bones, muscles and nerves, like a blooded English horse. He is thin; he has almost no cheeks at all, that is, bone and muscle... his complexion is even, dark and no blush.” Stolz lives strictly according to plan, his life is scheduled minute by minute, and there are no surprises or interesting moments in it, he almost never worries or experiences any event particularly strongly. And we see that the tragedy of this man lies precisely in the monotony of his life, in the one-sidedness of his worldview.

Now let's turn to Oblomov. Work for him is a burden. He was a gentleman, which means that he did not have to devote a single drop of time to work. And I’m not even talking about physical labor, because he was even too lazy to get up from the sofa, leave the room to clean it. He spends his whole life on the sofa, does nothing, is not interested in anything (he just can’t bring himself to finish reading the book “Journey to Africa”, even the pages of this book have turned yellow). Oblomov’s ideal of happiness is complete calm and good food. And he achieved his ideal. Servants cleaned after him, and he had no big problems with housekeeping at home. And another tragedy is revealed to us - the moral death of the hero. Before our eyes, the inner world of this man is becoming poorer; from a kind, pure person, Oblomov turns into a moral cripple.

But despite all the differences between Stolz and Oblomov, they are friends, friends since childhood. They are united by the most beautiful character traits: honesty, kindness, decency.

The essence of the novel is that inaction can destroy all the best feelings of a person, corrode his soul, destroy his personality, but work and the desire for education will bring happiness, provided that a person has a rich inner world.

About such friends as Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Andrei Ivanovich Stolts, A.S. Pushkin very aptly wrote in his novel in verse “Eugene Onegin”: “They got together. Water and stone, poetry and prose, ice and fire are not so different from each other.” Indeed, the characters' characters are so different that many critics agreed: Stolz is a kind of “antidote” to Oblomov. Goncharov wrote: “They were connected by childhood and school—two strong springs.” Therefore, by looking into the childhood of the heroes, one can understand why such different characters were formed between the two friends who lived next door.
The chapter “Oblomov’s Dream” helps to learn about Ilya Ilyich’s childhood, which, according to A.V. Druzhinin, was the first step towards finding out the reasons for “Oblomovism”. From Oblomov’s dream it becomes clear that little Ilyusha was loved, caressed, and pampered by everyone, so he grew up kind and sympathetic. As soon as Ilya Ilyich just dozes off, he dreams of the same dream: his mother’s gentle voice, her gentle hands, the hugs of loved ones and friends... Every time in his dream, Oblomov returned to a time when he was absolutely happy and loved by everyone. The hero of the novel seemed to be fleeing from real life into his childhood memories. Ilyusha was constantly protected from all sorts of dangers, real and imaginary. The servant Zakhar and “three hundred other Zakharovs” did everything for the little boy. Such guardianship and care almost completely drowned out any desire in Oblomov to do anything himself.
Everyone calls Ilya Ilyich a dreamer. How could the nanny’s endless fairy tales about Militrisa Kirbityevna, about heroes, about sorcerers and firebirds not sow in the child’s soul hope for the best, that all problems will be solved by themselves? These same fairy tales gave Oblomov a fear of life, from which Ilya Ilyich tried in vain to hide in his apartment on Gorokhovaya Street, and then on the Vyborg Side.
The complete opposite of Oblomov is Andrei Stolts. We see throughout the novel a comparison of Stolz and Oblomov, as well as their opposition to each other. They differ in literally everything: in appearance, in origin (Oblomov is a nobleman, but Stolz is not), in the upbringing and education they received. The reason for these differences lies primarily in upbringing.

Each of the parents made their own special contribution to the upbringing of Andrei Stolts. His father, Ivan Bogdanovich Stolz, a businesslike and practical German, put above all else a sense of duty, discipline, responsibility and love of work. He tried to instill these qualities in his son, trying to make him a successful businessman.

Andrei’s mother, a Russian noblewoman, on the contrary, “taught him to listen to the thoughtful sounds of Hertz, sang to him about flowers, about the poetry of life...”. Stolz’s mother wanted Andrei to grow up to be an educated Russian gentleman, and not a “German burgher,” and tried as best she could to reduce Father’s influence on Andryusha. In many ways, she wanted to see her son like Ilya Oblomov and often gladly sent him to Sosnovka, where “an eternal holiday, where work is lifted off one’s shoulders like a yoke.”

Stolz's father, of course, loved Andrei in his own way, but did not consider it possible to show his feelings. The scene of Andrei's farewell to his father is piercing to the point of tears. Even at the moment of farewell, Ivan Bogdanovich could not find kind words for his son. Swallowing tears of resentment, Andrei sets off on his journey, accompanied by the lamentations of the servants: “You don’t have a dear mother, there’s no one to bless you.” And it seems that it was at this moment that Andrei Stolts, despite all his mother’s efforts, left no room in his soul for “empty dreams.” In his independent adult life, he took with him only what he thought was necessary: ​​prudence, practicality, determination. Everything else remained in distant childhood along with the image of the mother.

Differences in the characters' personalities explain differences in aspirations and beliefs. You can learn about this from Ilya Ilyich’s story about his ideal of life. Most of all, Oblomov craves peace, carelessness and tranquility. But Ilya Ilyich considered peace not the result of vigorous activity, not a reward for it, but a constant, the only possible and correct state of a person. Arguing with Stolz, Oblomov convinced him that “the goal of all... running around is... the production of peace, the pursuit of the ideal of a lost paradise.” Therefore, why work, do anything, if you still end up with what Oblomov always wanted to have?

And for Stolz the main thing is work. But for Andrei, work is not a way to achieve peace, any desire for which Stolz called “Oblomovism.” For him, work is “the image, content, element and purpose of life.”

If Oblomov was not accustomed to work, he dreamed of achieving everything without it (as in the nanny’s fairy tale: “waved a magic wand” - and “everything is ready”), then Stolz was brought up from childhood by work, which was the goal of his father’s life. Over time, Andrei simply stopped even thinking about existing without activity.
The attitude of friends towards the bustle of the capital is also different. Stolz had already gotten used to it and felt in the light “like a fish in water.” He sees everything, but prefers to turn a blind eye to its shortcomings. Andrey does not allow society to encroach on his innermost feelings and thoughts, as if closing himself off from him with polite behavior.
And Ilya Ilyich, having served himself and carefully listening to the stories of visitors - Sudbinsky, Penkin, Volkov - about capital life, realized that it was too empty (“What to look for there? Interests of the mind, heart?”) and fussy (“Ten places in one day!?"). Ilya Ilyich did not see the point in all these visits, going to work, and balls.
Characters, upbringing and beliefs make up the lifestyle that the main characters of the novel lead. He left some imprint on the appearance of the heroes. Oblomov, a man with surprisingly soft facial features, was much thicker than Stolz and “flabby beyond his years,” and Andrei Ivanovich was “all made up of bones, muscles and nerves,” thin, as befits a person leading an active lifestyle.
Stolz was taught from childhood to activity, to the fact that time is precious and should not be wasted. And therefore, Andrei’s whole life passed in eternal motion, which, however, cannot be called vanity. He was not just in constant dynamics, but brought benefit to himself and others. But, despite his constant employment, he “goes out into the world and reads: when he has time, God knows.” Stolz wanted to encourage Oblomov to lead such a life, who, despite a lot of free time, had nothing to do. Oblomov spent most of his life on the sofa, since “lying down with Ilya Ilyich... was a normal state.” His ideal was a carefree life in unity with nature, family and friends, about which Oblomov spent years dreaming.

The characters' attitude to love is expressed in the novel through their feelings for Olga Ilyinskaya.
Oblomov wanted to see in Olga a loving woman, capable of creating a serene family life, kind and gentle, like his mother. At first the girl was in love with Ilya Ilyich, she liked his touching naivety, “dovelike tenderness” and kind heart. And Oblomov himself was in love with Olga. But, as usual, hoping that everything would happen by itself, he did not take any action to ensure that Olga became his wife. His “vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires... from others” played a fatal role in this situation: Olga preferred a firm and reliable marriage with Stolz to the uncertainty, expectation and inaction of Oblomov.
Stolz, who knew Ilyinskaya almost from early childhood, experienced
love and friendship for her. There were no fiery passions, “burning joys” or disappointments in her. Even jealousy towards an unknown opponent did not cause a storm of emotions in Stolz’s soul. And when he found out that this rival was Oblomov, he felt “peaceful and cheerful.” Stolz saw in Olga a faithful friend and comrade-in-arms in work and therefore tried to instill in her an active spirit, the ability to fight, and develop her mind.
And Olga did not suddenly fall in love with Andrei. The description of her character immediately suggests that Olga Ilyinskaya cannot help but become Olga Sergeevna Stolz.

The love between Olga and Andrey was born and began to grow without “turbulent ups and downs.” After the wedding, she did not disappear, but continued to live, although without development, smoothly and measuredly (“everything was harmony and silence with them”).

From the comparison of the two heroes it is clear that Oblomov and Stolz are completely different heroes. What was the basis for such a strong and loyal friendship between them? It seems to me that this is not only childhood and school, as Goncharov wrote. Stolz and Oblomov complement each other.

Goncharov wanted to reflect in Ilya Ilyich the typical features of the patriarchal nobility, and Stoltz was assigned the role of a person capable of breaking “Oblomovism.” But after reading the novel, I could not imagine the characters so clear. The personality of Ilya Ilyich evokes conflicting feelings: regret about his helplessness and sympathy, because Oblomov has absorbed the contradictory features of the Russian national character, many of which are close to each of us.

Modern life requires “stolts”, and they certainly appear. But Russia will never consist only of such characters. Russian people have always been distinguished by their breadth of nature, the ability to sympathize, and a lively and reverent soul. I really want Stolz’s practical qualities and Oblomov’s “clean as crystal” soul to unite in a modern person.

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 are revealed, it increasingly forces the reader to think about the destinies 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 begins to change in his personal life. 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.

So, the main character of the novel is Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. But the author also pays a lot of attention to Oblomov’s best friend, Stolz. Both heroes live at the same time, and it would seem that they should be similar, but is this so? Oblomov appears to us as a man “... about thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, ... an even light of carelessness glowed throughout his face.”

Stolz is the same age as Oblomov, “he is thin, he has almost no cheeks at all, ... his complexion is even, dark and there is no blush; his eyes, although a little greenish, are expressive.” Oblomov's parents were Russian nobles who owned several hundred serfs. Stolz's father was half German, his mother was a Russian noblewoman.

Faith, Andrei Ivanovich, professed Orthodox, spoke Russian. Oblomov and Stolz have known each other since childhood; they studied in a small boarding school located five miles from Oblomovka, in the village of Verkhleve.

Stolz's father was the manager there. “Maybe Ilyusha would have had time to learn something well from him if Oblomovka had been about five hundred miles from Verkhlevo... The charm of Oblomov’s atmosphere, way of life and habits extended to Verkhlevo;...

There, except for Stolz's house, everything breathed the same primitive laziness, simplicity of morals, silence and stillness." But Ivan Bogdanovich raised his son strictly: "From the age of eight, he sat with his father at the geographical map, sorted out Herder, Wieland, and biblical verses. and summed up the illiterate accounts of peasants, townspeople and factory workers, and with his mother he read sacred history, taught Krylov’s fables and sorted out Telemacus’s warehouses.” As for physical education, Oblomov was not even allowed out into the street, and Stolz “took up from the pointer and ran destroy birds' nests with the boys," sometimes disappearing from home for a day. From childhood, Oblomov was surrounded by the tender care of his parents and nanny, and Stolz was brought up in an atmosphere of constant mental and physical labor. But both Oblomov and Stoltz are already over thirty, what are they like now?

Ilya Ilyich turned into a lazy gentleman, whose life is spent lying on the sofa: “Ilya Ilyich’s lying down was neither a necessity, like that of a sick person or like a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like that of someone who is tired, nor a pleasure, like a lazy person: this was his normal state." Stolz cannot imagine life without movement: “He is constantly on the move: if society needs to send an agent to Belgium or England, they send him; if they need to write some project or adapt a new idea to business, they choose him. Meanwhile, he goes to the world and reads: when he has time - God knows." Comparing Oblomov and Stolz, we see that they are very different, but what unites them?

Yes, undoubtedly, friendship, but what else? It seems to me that they are united by an eternal and uninterrupted sleep. Oblomov sleeps on his sofa, and Stolz sleeps in his stormy and eventful life. “Life: life is good!” says Oblomov, “What to look for there?

Interests of the mind, heart? Look where the center is around which all this revolves: it is not there, there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are dead people, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the world and society!... Don’t they sleep sitting all their lives?

Why am I more to blame than them, lying at home and not infecting my head with threes and jacks?" I completely agree with Oblomov and believe that people who live without a specific, lofty goal are simply sleeping in pursuit of satisfying their desires. But who is more needed than Russia? Oblomov or Stolz?

Of course, such progressive people as Stolz are simply necessary, especially at the beginning of the third millennium. But the Oblomovs will never die, there is a piece of Oblomov in each of us, we are all a little Oblomov in our souls.

It seems to me that the problem of the “sleeping man”, raised in the nineteenth century by Goncharov, is still relevant today. Lenin’s words are well known that even after three revolutions “old Oblomov remained and he had to be washed, cleaned, scuffed and torn for a long time in order for any sense to come out.”

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” rightfully occupies an important place in the collection of Russian classical literature of the nineteenth century. A work that reveals the characters of people living at the same time and in the same society cannot but attract attention, and the life stories of two friends, Ilya Oblomov and Andrei Stolts, deserve special attention.

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is an ambiguous and very curious character. He spends his days on his favorite sofa, being in an eternal half-asleep and some semblance of a state of relaxed apathy. He is not interested in active work, nor in farming, nor in self-development - his whole life is like the sluggish flow of a river, measured and unhurried. It can be noted that Ilya Ilyich’s parents also encouraged this way of life - he was raised in love and tenderness, and sometimes overprotected, which led to the formation of a frankly infantile attitude towards life at a conscious age. Dreams, daydreams and memories of a happy childhood are what Oblomov’s world consists of.

Oblomov's childhood friend, Andrei Ivanovich Stolts, is the complete opposite of the novel's protagonist. Stolz is hardworking, and this trait was instilled in him from the earliest years of his life. Andrei Ivanovich’s parents showed the hero by their example how important it is to be an economic and active person, so as not to simply live your life in vain. But, in my opinion, there are a number of misconceptions in Stolz’s lifestyle - the character literally “lives” by work, his whole life is planned out by the hour and minute, there is no place in it for surprises and simple human joys, not overshadowed by the constant oppression of the need to work and banally keep Everything's under control.

Despite the fact that Ilya Oblomov and Andrei Stolts are completely different, their friendship lasts for decades. Stolz respects Oblomov for his kindness and honesty, and Oblomov appreciates high moral qualities and decency in his friend. Watching the history of their friendship, you begin to think about how secondary character traits, life guidelines and goals can be, if the main thing lives in the souls of people - goodness, justice, openness and willingness to help and support.

In my opinion, in the novel “Oblomov” Goncharov shows readers how important it is to respect and appreciate each other, even if we are talking about people completely different from each other. Neither Stolz nor Oblomov can be called ideal people, but they are able to demonstrate their best qualities and be true friends, and this is worth a lot.

Essay by Oblomov and Stolz

Goncharov, creating a novel called “Oblomov,” showed readers two specific types of people. Such different people. And both are inherently unhappy... Drawing the images of Oblomov and Stolz, the author captured qualities in them that were different from each other. It cannot be argued that the qualities of any of the characters presented are negative. No, these are some kind of shortcomings that sometimes you don’t pay attention to. And often habits are too hard to break...

Ilya Oblomov... A true dreamer, a true romantic. Since childhood, he grew up carefree. The child did not know what commitment and curiosity were. All his life he was away from fame and luxury. The hero grew up at home, completely unprepared for life’s circumstances.

At an early age, her son’s mother overprotected him, which is why Oblomov left the family as a sloppy and inexperienced person. The character loves being in a fantasy world so much that he forgets about reality. That’s why he often spends his time in dreams, and rarely does the hero wander the streets. Oblomov is not able to work; he is too tender and weak for work. However, the character is notable for the fact that in any situation his feelings come first. The priority is not the material, but the spiritual component!

What can I say about Stolz? This character is the complete opposite of Oblomov. He dresses brilliantly, is well educated, and is a hard worker. Since childhood, he showed curiosity about all the oddities in this world. From an early age, his mother managed to introduce art into Stolz’s life and introduce the boy to music and books. The father did not infringe on the freedom of his own child. He knew that if a person is interested, then in no case should this curiosity be excluded. Otherwise, the child will lose all attachment to the world. Therefore, the hero often left home at night in order to explore new areas and outskirts. He himself was responsible for his own life. He himself accepted the punishment for disobedience. Already in the early period of childhood, the child learned the important qualities of adults. Responsibility, integrity, striving for excellence. That is why Stolz was known as a successful man. He has an excellent job that brings in a huge income. His wardrobe is gorgeous. However, the hero does not care about family relationships. He is tied up in numbers and calculations. His calling is to work like a machine. But Stolz has nothing behind this... Feelings don’t come out...

Comparing the two heroes of Goncharov’s novel, it should be noted that Stolz and Oblomov are completely different personalities. If the first is a hard worker, then the other is a real dreamer. For Stolz, it is important to set goals and achieve them. For Oblomov to picture a heavenly life in his head. But, what is noteworthy, Stolz’s beloved initially longed to be with Oblomov. Why? The answer is simple: Oblomov had real feelings. A sincere smile, beautiful eyes, childish sloppiness. All this was attractive. However, due to Ilya's fear, the beloved doves were unable to find each other. But the heroine was not happy with Stolz either. They didn't even have children. So figure out where the right choice is!

Several interesting essays

• Analysis of the work The Third Son of Platonov

  The topic of relations between generations, in particular between parents and children, can safely be called eternal. It is relevant at all times, in all historical eras. This is a philosophical question that can be discussed and debated endlessly.

• Analysis of Aitmatov's story The First Teacher

  The story “The First Teacher” by Chingiz Aitmatov was written in 1962. In this fascinating work, the author takes us back to the distant 1924, the days of the formation of Soviet power. The time when centuries-old foundations were broken

• The image and characteristics of Gerasim in the story of Mumu Turgenev 5th grade essay

  The main character of the story, Gerasim, is a janitor, tall and powerfully built, whom the lady took from the village with her to Moscow.

• Social and philosophical origins of Raskolnikov's rebellion

  In the novel “Crime and Punishment” by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, one of the most important topics addressed by the author is social problems and philosophical problems

• Chatsky's madness in the comedy Woe from Wit by Griboyedov

  In principle, according to the text the situation is simple. Chatsky’s beloved (Sophia), almost jokingly, but a little with anger, since she (and everyone around) is already tired of him with his behavior, says that he has gone crazy

I.A. Goncharov in his novel touches on a very relevant topic: the confrontation between work and laziness, which for centuries has remained the most discussed and debatable. Nowadays, this topic is very problematic, since in our modern society technology is progressing and people stop working, laziness develops into the meaning of life.

The heroes of the novel, Oblomov and Stolz, have been friends since early childhood. Their acquaintance occurs while studying in the house of Stolz’s father, who taught the basics of the most important sciences.

Ilya Oblomov comes from a noble family; from early childhood, little Ilya is pampered and cherished. Parents and nannies forbid him to show any independent activity. Ilyusha, seeing this attitude toward himself, immediately realized that he could do nothing, since other people would do it all for him. His education took place in Stolz's house; he did not particularly want to study and his parents indulged him in this. This is how Oblomov’s entire youth passed. Adult life was no different from childhood and adolescence; Oblomov continues to lead a calm and lazy lifestyle. His passivity and idleness affect his daily life. He woke up at lunchtime, slowly climbed out of bed, lazily ate his food and was not interested in any business. Laziness, ingrained from childhood, did not give Oblomov the slightest chance to strive for science, to understand the world around him. Despite all this, his imagination was very well developed, since due to idleness Oblomov’s imaginary world was very rich. Oblomov was also a very trusting person, and the main person Ilya trusted was Andrei Stolts. Shtolz is the complete antipode of Oblomov. From early childhood, Andrei was accustomed to order and to work. His parents raised him strictly but fairly. His father, a German by nationality, instilled in Andrei precision, hard work and punctuality. From a young age, Andrei carried out various assignments from his father, strengthening his character. He studied with Ilya; from his father, unlike Oblomov, Andrei was good at science, and he studied them with curiosity. Stolz made the transition from childhood to adulthood very early, so Andrei was a very active person. He strived for constant replenishment of knowledge, because “learning is light, and ignorance is darkness. He had a sober and practical view of events, he never did anything hastily without thinking about the issue that he needed to solve. The prudence and punctuality inherent in childhood found a place in Stolz’s adult life. Mobility and energy contributed to him in any endeavors. Considering the life positions of Oblomov and Stolz in relation to Olga Ilyinskaya, the following conclusions can be drawn: Oblomov, living in his own world - “Oblomovshchina,” was a romantic who took a long time to decide on concrete steps in real life. Their acquaintance with Olga Ilyinskaya occurs thanks to Stolz. Their relationship was not strong from the very beginning. Olga, knowing a lot about Oblomov from Stolz’s stories, tries to bring Oblomov back to life through the means of her love, but she fails to do this and “Oblomovism” wins. The relationship between Olga and Andrey develops naturally throughout life, “she laughs at his jokes, and he listens to her singing with pleasure.” They had a lot in common, but the most important thing was that they strived for life, this contributed to their rapprochement and the formation of a family.

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 in a house on the Vyborg side and lives out his life there with the woman he always dreamed of. This denouement shows that the author’s position towards both of his heroes is positive.

After reading the novel by I.A. Goncharov “Oblomov”, I am inclined to think that the events described in this work can be applied to our time, since in modern society there are many people like Stolz and Oblomov. And their confrontation will be eternal.