Essay by I.A. Goncharov Essay: Oblomov and “superfluous people” Approximate list of literary works and carriers of problems in the direction"Человек и общество"!}

I. A. Goncharov entered Russian literature as a progressive writer, an outstanding representative of that school of realist artists of the 40s who continued the traditions of Pushkin and Gogol and were brought up under the direct influence of Belinsky’s criticism. Goncharov is one of the creators of the great Russian realistic novel. Contemporary Herzen and Turgenev, Ostrovsky and Saltykov-Shchedrin, Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy, Goncharov along with them for decades attracted the attention of advanced democratic criticism and wide circles of readers. The novel “Oblomov” was published in the first four books of the journal “Otechestvennye zapiski” for 1859. The writer's impressions of his childhood provided abundant material for the novel. Remembering your

• childhood, Goncharov wrote: “It seems to me that I, a very sharp-eyed and impressionable boy, even then, at the sight of all these figures, this carefree life-being, idleness and lying, and a vague idea of ​​“Oblomovism” arose. Subsequently, this performance was enriched with impressions of Simbirsk and capital life.” Goncharov's novel was a great and noisy success. One of his contemporaries, critic A. M. Skabichevsky, wrote: “You had to live at that time to understand what a sensation this novel aroused in the public and what a stunning impression it made on the whole society. He fell like a bomb into the intelligentsia just at the time of the strongest public excitement, three years before the liberation of the peasants, when all literature preached a crusade against sleep, inertia and stagnation.”

“Oblomov” appeared in the context of the rise of the democratic movement and was of great importance in the struggle of the advanced circles of Russian society against serfdom. Goncharov himself saw in his new work a continuation of the criticism with which he spoke in Ordinary History against the backward, inert and stagnant morals inherent in the feudal-serf order, which gave rise to Oblomovism. “I tried to show in Oblomov how and why our people turn into... jelly before their time,” wrote Goncharov. Oblomov turned into jelly, into a “lump of dough” by the serf environment.

Goncharov showed that Oblomovism arose on the basis of the ownership of “baptized property”, “three hundred Zakharovs”, that Oblomov was raised by a noble estate with its stagnant life and landowner morals. Ilyusha himself, like most of the inhabitants of Oblomovka, is a gentle and good-natured person. But, according to Dobrolyubov, “the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery. This slavery is so intertwined with Oblomov’s lordship, so they mutually penetrate each other and are determined by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any boundary between them.”

Apathy and immobility are reflected by Goncharov even in the appearance of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - a pampered, flabby man beyond his years who has “slept his ailments.” All life Oblomov is depicted as a terrible, depressing process of gradual spiritual and moral impoverishment of the human personality, as the transformation of a living person into a dead soul. Adhering to the ideology of natural life, the hero exists according to his own principles and his own understanding of a whole and harmonious person. He is devoid of vanity, he is not attracted by careerism, the pursuit of a profitable marriage and wealth. “No,” he exclaims, “this is not life, but a distortion of the norm, the ideal of life, which nature has indicated as the goal of man.” But, picturing for himself the ideal of undisturbed and noble idleness, a carefree and free landowner life, secured by the labor of serfs, Oblomov did not see anything strange in receiving quitrent from serfs and even, despite his complacency, “came up with a new measure against the laziness and vagrancy of the peasants "

Ilya Ilyich rejoices in his immobility and independence, not realizing that he himself is part of a world he hates. Only sometimes does he think about his life with oppressive anxiety and come to the conclusion that “... some secret enemy laid a heavy hand on him at the beginning of his journey and threw him far away from his direct human destination...”. In fact, this enemy, who destroyed everything good in Ilya Ilyich, was his very way of life, everything that later acquired a persistent definition - Oblomovism. In character Oblomov, critic N.A. Dobrolyubov saw a reflection of the Russian national character, called it the “indigenous type” of Russian life, and literary critic D.

N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky characterized Oblomov’s properties as “a trait of the national make-up.” One of the responses to the novel said that Zakhar and Oblomov “grew up on the same soil, were saturated with the same juices,” and the author himself emphasized that his first hero embodies “the elementary properties of the Russian person.” It is no coincidence that the servant Zakhar, who is distinguished by constant grumbling and obstinacy, stubbornness, clumsiness, inertia and sloppiness, admiration for the nobility and, above all, laziness, is depicted in the novel as a double of the main character. But Oblomov’s principle lives not only in his servant. We easily notice similar features both in the hero’s visits and in the life of the widow Pshenitsyna.

A similar way of life took root throughout the villages and hamlets of feudal Russia and in its capital. It manifests itself not only in the behavior of the bar, but also in the inertia of officials, serfs, and people of intelligent professions. Thus, we can conclude that Oblomov embodied character traits generated by the entire Russian patriarchal landowner life.

This image is the largest generalization. However, contemporaries Goncharova understood the bourgeois-exploitative nature of Stolz’s activities. The critic A.P. Milyukov wrote: “In this apathetic nature, under the mask of education and humanity, the desire for reforms and progress, everything that is so contrary to the Russian character and outlook on life is hidden... From these gentlemen come those honest businessmen who , seeking a profitable career, they crush everything that comes their way...

all the founders of supposedly beneficent enterprises, exploiting workers in the factory, shareholders in the company, with loud cries of movement and progress, all the generous emancipators of peasants without land...” Under Stolz’s sober understanding of life, there was hidden a dry business calculation, the subordination of human traits to entrepreneurial practicality .

In character Stolz Oblomov sought to reveal bourgeois limitations: “We are not titans... we will not go... into a daring fight against rebellious issues, we will not accept their challenge, we will bow our heads and humbly endure the difficult moment, and then life and happiness will smile again.”

The bourgeoisie itself, which grew up on the soil of serfdom, was characterized by Oblomovism, which, even after the fall of serfdom, was nourished by numerous remnants of serfdom. Goncharov was absolutely right in pointing out the inevitable death of Oblomovism.

But this could not happen very quickly: Oblomovism continued to interfere with all further progressive development of Russian social life. N.A. Dobrolyubov saw the real positive hero of the novel in Oblomov’s bride, Olga Ilyinskaya. In it the critic saw “a hint of a new Russian life”: “... one can expect from her words that will burn and dispel Oblomovism.”

Another critic, D.I.

Pisarev, in Olga’s personality rightly found “naturalness and the presence of consciousness... truthfulness in words and deeds, absence of coquetry, desire for development, the ability to love simply and seriously, without tricks and tricks...” Olga is not capable of obediently submitting to her fate .

She dreams of saving Oblomov, making him “live, act, bless life,” saving his dying mind and soul. But when Olga becomes convinced of the futility of her efforts and sees that her loved one does not correspond to her high idea of ​​the ideal, she breaks up with Oblomov. Emphasizing in Olga, the desire to fight in the name of noble, and not selfish goals, Dobrolyubov, who saw in the heroine of the novel a progressive Russian woman, writes: “She will leave Stolz too if she stops believing in him. And this will happen if questions and doubts do not cease to torment her, and he continues to give her advice - to accept them as a new element of life and bow her head.

FIPI commentary on the topic “Man and Society” :
"For topics in this direction, the view of a person as a representative of society is relevant. Society largely shapes the individual, but the individual is also capable of influencing society. The topics will allow us to consider the problem of the individual and society from different angles: from the point of view of their harmonious interaction, complex confrontation or irreconcilable conflict. It is equally important to think about the conditions under which a person must obey social laws, and society must take into account the interests of each person. Literature has always shown interest in the problem of the relationship between man and society, the creative or destructive consequences of this interaction for the individual and for human civilization. "

Recommendations for students:
The table presents works that reflect any concept related to the direction “Man and Society”. You DO NOT need to read all of the works listed. You may have already read a lot. Your task is to revise your reading knowledge and, if you discover a lack of arguments within a particular direction, fill in the existing gaps. In this case, you will need this information. Think of it as a guide in the vast world of literary works. Please note: the table shows only a portion of the works that contain the problems we need. This does not mean at all that you cannot make completely different arguments in your work. For convenience, each work is accompanied by small explanations (third column of the table), which will help you navigate exactly how, through which characters, you will need to rely on literary material (the second mandatory criterion when evaluating a final essay)

An approximate list of literary works and carriers of problems in the direction of "Man and Society"

“Man and Society” is one of the topics of the final essay on literature for graduates of 2020. From what positions can these two concepts be considered in the work?

For example, you can write about the individual and society, about their interaction, both about agreement and about opposition. The approximate ideas that may be heard in this case are varied. This is a person as a part of society, the impossibility of his existence outside of society, and the influence of society on something connected with a person: his opinion, tastes, life position. You can also consider the confrontation or conflict between an individual and society; in this case, it would be useful to give examples from life, history or literature in your essay. This will not only make the work less boring, but also give you a chance to improve your grade.

Another option for what to write about in an essay is the ability or, conversely, the inability to devote one’s life to public interests, philanthropy and its opposite - misanthropy. Or, perhaps, in your work you will want to consider in detail the issue of social norms and laws, morality, the mutual responsibility of society to man and man to society for everything past and future. An essay devoted to man and society from a state or historical perspective, or the role of the individual (concrete or abstract) in history, will also be interesting.

Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" is a socio-psychological novel written in the 19th century. In the work, the author touches on a number of social and philosophical problems, including issues of human interaction with society. The main character of the novel, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, is an “extra person” who does not know how to adapt to a new, rapidly changing world, to change himself and his views for the sake of a bright future. That is why one of the most acute conflicts in the work is the opposition to the passive, inert hero of an active society, in which Oblomov cannot find a worthy place for himself.

What does Oblomov have in common with “extra people”?

In Russian literature, this type of hero as an “extra person” appeared in the early 20s of the 19th century. This character was characterized by alienation from the usual noble environment and, in general, the entire official life of Russian society, since he felt boredom and his superiority (both intellectual and moral) over the others. The “superfluous person” is filled with mental fatigue, can talk a lot but do nothing, and is very skeptical. Moreover, the hero is always the heir to a good fortune, which he, however, does not try to increase.
And indeed, Oblomov, having inherited a larger estate from his parents, could easily have settled matters there long ago so that he could live in complete prosperity with the money he received from the farm. However, mental fatigue and boredom overwhelming the hero prevented him from starting any business - from the banal need to get out of bed to writing a letter to the headman.

Ilya Ilyich does not associate himself with society, which Goncharov vividly depicted at the beginning of the work, when visitors come to Oblomov. Each guest for the hero is like a cardboard decoration with which he practically does not interact, putting a kind of barrier between others and himself, covering himself with a blanket. Oblomov does not want to go on a visit like others, to communicate with hypocritical and uninteresting people who disappointed him even during his service - when he came to work, Ilya Ilyich hoped that everyone there would be the same friendly family as in Oblomovka, but he encountered with a situation where every person is “for himself.” Discomfort, the inability to find one’s social calling, the feeling of uselessness in the “neo-Oblomov” world leads to the hero’s escapism, immersion in illusions and memories of Oblomov’s wonderful past.

In addition, the “extra” person always does not fit into his time, rejecting it and acting contrary to the rules and values ​​dictating to him the system. Unlike Pechorin and Onegin, who gravitate towards the romantic tradition, always striving forward, ahead of their time, or the character of the enlightenment Chatsky, rising above a society mired in ignorance, Oblomov is an image of the realistic tradition, a hero striving not in front, for transformations and new discoveries (in society or in his soul), to a wonderful distant future, but focused on the past that is close and important to him, “Oblomovism.”

Love of the "extra person"

If in the matter of time orientation Oblomov differs from the “extra heroes” who preceded him, then in matters of love their fates are very similar. Like Pechorin or Onegin, Oblomov is afraid of love, afraid of what may change and become different or negatively influence his beloved - even to the point of degradation of her personality. On the one hand, parting with lovers is always a noble step on the part of the “superfluous hero”, on the other hand, it is a manifestation of infantilism - for Oblomov it was an appeal to Oblomov’s childhood, where everything was decided for him, they took care of him and everything was allowed.

The “superfluous man” is not ready for fundamental, sensual love for a woman; for him, it is not so much the real beloved that is important, but a self-created, inaccessible image - we see this both in Onegin’s feelings for Tatyana that flared up years later, and in illusory, “spring” feelings Oblomov to Olga. The “superfluous person” needs a muse - beautiful, unusual and inspiring (for example, like Pechorin’s Bella). However, not finding such a woman, the hero goes to the other extreme - he finds a woman who would replace his mother and create the atmosphere of distant childhood.
Oblomov and Onegin, who are different at first glance, equally suffer from loneliness in the crowd, but if Evgeny does not give up social life, then for Oblomov the only way out is to immerse himself in himself.

Is Oblomov a superfluous person?

The “superfluous man” in Oblomov is perceived by other characters differently than similar heroes in previous works. Oblomov is a kind, simple, honest person who sincerely wants quiet, calm happiness. He is attractive not only to the reader, but also to the people around him - it’s not for nothing that his friendship with Stolz has not stopped since his school years and Zakhar continues to serve the master. Moreover, Olga and Agafya sincerely fell in love with Oblomov precisely for his spiritual beauty, dying under the pressure of apathy and inertia.

What is the reason that from the very appearance of the novel in print, critics defined Oblomov as a “superfluous person,” because the hero of realism, unlike the characters of romanticism, is a typified image that combines the features of an entire group of people? By portraying Oblomov in the novel, Goncharov wanted to show not just one “extra” person, but an entire social stratum of educated, wealthy, intelligent, sincere people who could not find themselves in the rapidly changing, new Russian society. The author emphasizes the tragedy of the situation when, unable to change with circumstances, such “Oblomovs” slowly die, continuing to hold tightly to long-gone, but still important and soul-warming memories of the past.

It will be especially useful for 10th graders to familiarize themselves with the above arguments before writing an essay on the topic “Oblomov and the “extra people”.”

Work test

Ilya Ilyich was not by nature an active and active person. Although, of course, he had all the prerequisites not to vegetate, lying on the couch, but to strive for at least something. Young Ilya Ilyich was smart and educated. It would seem that a brilliant future opens up before him. And how did he manage this future? Extremely unwise and short-sighted. He simply buried all his talents in the ground. It is no wonder that in the future they did not bear any fruit, since there were absolutely no conditions for the growth and further development of all good qualities and abilities.

Let us remember the childhood of Ilya Ilyich. Of course, his childhood can rightfully be called a very happy period. The boy was surrounded by universal love and care. Usually happy and cheerful children grow up into very active people who do not want to turn their lives into a monotonous and gray existence. But with Oblomov everything turned out a little differently. Since childhood, the boy was deprived of the necessary freedom, which is very necessary for optimal personal development. Every person in childhood is a real pioneer, discovering everything new. And little Ilya was spoiled by overly obsessive care; he was not allowed to show any freedom.

The hero’s mother “let him go for a walk in the garden, around the yard, in the meadow, with strict confirmation to the nanny not to leave the child alone, not to let him near horses, dogs, goats, not to go far from the house, and most importantly, not to let him into the ravine, like the most terrible place in the area, which enjoyed a bad reputation." One can easily imagine how a child who was forbidden to express his will in childhood will grow up. Gradually, he begins to lose interest in learning new things. But human life is so short, so every moment is precious.

Ilya Ilyich was deprived of the need to take care of his food, so he did not strive for anything. He knew that he should not be afraid of starvation, and everything else worried him very little. If he had been born into a poor family, from childhood he would have seen the constant work of loved ones in front of him, then he might have had a different attitude towards life in general. Oblomov is very carefree and carefree. In youth, such qualities can be forgiven, but as a person grows up, responsibility for his own destiny must appear. Meanwhile, Ilya Ilyich himself does not strive for anything at all, therefore he bears absolutely no responsibility for his life. He acts like he doesn't care.

And gradually everything really becomes indifferent to him. As a child, Ilya loved to listen to his nanny’s fairy tales. And, obviously, fairy-tale fiction was so close and understandable to him that as he grew older, he could not get rid of his completely unnecessary and useless daydreaming. “Although the adult Ilya Ilyich later learns that there are no honey and milk rivers, no good sorceresses, although he jokes with a smile at his nanny’s stories, this smile is insincere, it is accompanied by a secret sigh: his fairy tale is mixed with life, and he is powerless sometimes it makes me sad, why is a fairy tale not life, and why is life not a fairy tale... "

Many people like to dream, but this quality can be both positive and negative. A dream can help a person move forward, achieve new things, and make amazing discoveries. In a word, a dream can push you to take active actions. But in another case, a dream may turn out to be the only achievement that a person is capable of. And that's the worst part. In this case, the dream turns out to be a destructive factor that prevents a person from moving forward and developing optimally. This is exactly what happened with Oblomov. He spends his days in fruitless dreams, thinking about nothing else. “Everything pulls him in that direction, where they only know that they are walking, where there are no worries and sorrows; he always has the disposition to lie on the stove, walk around in a ready-made, unearned dress and eat at the expense of the good sorceress.”