Stolz is the antipode of Oblomov, a positive type of practical figure. In the image of Sh., according to Goncharov's plan, such opposite qualities as, on the one hand, sobriety, prudence, efficiency, knowledge of people of a practical materialist should have been harmoniously combined; on the other - spiritual subtlety, aesthetic susceptibility, high spiritual aspirations, poetry. The image of Sh., according to Goncharov, was supposed to embody a new positive type of Russian progressive figure. Sh.'s ideal of life is unceasing and meaningful work, it is "the image, content, element and purpose of life." Sh. defends this ideal in a dispute with Oblomov, calling the latter's utopian ideal "Oblomovism" and considering it harmful in all spheres of life.
Unlike Oblomov, Sh. passes the test of love. He meets the ideal of Olga Ilyinskaya: Sh. combines masculinity, fidelity, moral purity, universal knowledge and practical acumen, allowing him to emerge victorious in all life's trials. Goncharov himself was not entirely satisfied with the image, believing that Sh. was “weak, pale,” that “an idea peeps out of him too nakedly.”
“Olga in the strict sense was not a beauty, that is, there was neither whiteness in her, nor the bright color of her cheeks and lips, and her eyes did not burn with rays of inner fire ... But if she were turned into a statue, she would be a statue of grace and harmony ”- exactly like that, in just a few details, I. A. Goncharov gives a portrait of his heroine. Olga is a stranger in her environment. But she is not a victim of the environment, because she has both intelligence and determination to defend the right to her life position, to behavior that is not oriented to generally accepted norms. Olga, in her development, represents the highest ideal that a Russian artist can now express from the current Russian life, a living face, only such as we have not yet met, "wrote N. A. Dobrolyubov. -" ... In her - something more than in Stolz, you can see a hint of a new Russian life, you can expect a word from her that will burn and dispel Oblomovism ...
About love and marriage: Love in the novel "Oblomov", as in other Russian novels, plays a huge role. In the novel "Oblomov" love revives the main character, brings happiness. She makes him suffer - with the departure of love in Oblomov, the desire to live disappears.
The feeling that arises between Olga and Oblomov: love comes to him and absorbs him completely. This feeling inflames his soul, feeding on the tenderness that has accumulated during hibernation and is looking for a way out. It is new to Oblomov's soul, accustomed to burying all feelings at the bottom of consciousness, therefore love revives the soul to a new life. For Oblomov, this feeling is a burning love - a passion for a woman who managed to change him in such a way. Olga manages to change Ilya Ilyich, knocking out of him laziness and boredom. For this she loves Oblomov! Here is what the hero writes to his beloved: “Your present “I love” is not real love, but future. You are mistaken, in front of you is not the one you were waiting for, whom you dreamed of. Wait - he will come, and then you will wake up, you will be annoyed and ashamed of your mistake ... ". And soon Olga herself is convinced of the justice of these lines, falling in love with Andrei Stolz. So her love for Oblomov was just an expectation, an introduction to a future novel? But this love is pure, disinterested, selfless; and we are convinced that Olga can love and believes that she loves Oblomov. With the departure of this love, Oblomov does not find what to occupy the emptiness in his soul, and again he sleeps for whole days and lies idle on his sofa in St. Petersburg, in the house of Agafya Pshenitsyna. Over time, having got used to the measured life of his mistress, our hero will humble the impulses of the heart and begin to be content with little. Again, all his desires will be limited to sleep, food, rare empty conversations with Agafya Matveevna. Pshenitsyna is opposed by the author to Olga: the first is an excellent hostess, a kind, faithful wife, but she does not have a high soul; Having plunged into a simple semi-village life in the house of Pshenitsyna, Ilya Ilyich seemed to find himself in the former Oblomovka. Lazily and slowly dying in his soul, Oblomov falls in love with Agafya Matveevna. And Agafya Matveevna? Is this her love? No, she is selfless, devoted; in this feeling, Agafya is ready to drown, to give all her strength, all the fruits of her labors to Oblomov. It seems that her whole life has passed in anticipation of a man who could be devotedly loved, taken care of him, as if he were his own son. Oblomov is exactly that: he is lazy - this allows you to take care of him like a child; he is kind, gentle - this touches the female soul, accustomed to male rudeness and ignorance.
Oblomov's friend, Stolz, does not understand this love. From him, an active person, lazy home comfort, Oblomovka's orders, and even more so a woman who has become coarse in her environment, are far from him. That is why the ideal of Stolz is Olga Ilyinskaya, a subtle, romantic, wise woman. It lacks even the slightest shadow of coquetry. Stolz offers Olga to marry him - and she agrees. His love. pure and disinterested, he does not seek profit in it, no matter how restless "dealer" he may be.
The relationship between Pshenitsyna and Oblomov is quite natural, close to life, while the marriage of Olga and Stolz is utopian. Oblomov is closer to reality than the realist Stolz. Olga and Stolz live in the Crimea, all things - both necessary for work and romantic trinkets - find a place for themselves in their house. They are surrounded by an ideal balance even in love: passion is drowned in marriage, but not extinguished. But Stolz does not even suspect what riches are still hidden in Olga's soul. Olga outgrew Stolz spiritually, because she did not stubbornly strive for the goal, but saw different roads and chose which one to follow. She tried to understand and love Oblomov's life, but she failed. Now, in the Crimea, Olga feels the features of Oblomov's idyll in her life, and this worries her, she does not want to live like that. But the love of Olga and Stolz is the love of two developing people who help each other, and they must find a way out in order to continue to search for their true path.
Stolz and Olga. Two love stories. While these events are unfolding in a house on the Vyborg side, another love story is being played in parallel in distant Switzerland. Having met Olga and her aunt abroad, Stolz again takes on the mission of an older friend and teacher, and suddenly realizes with amazement that she can teach him sooner how to “not allow the soul to be lazy” (these lines of Zabolotsky, although written later, cannot be better convey the dominant character of Olga - the eternal search). "He ( Stolz) watched with surprise and anxiety as her mind demands daily daily bread, as her soul does not stop, everything asks for experience and life<…>. Having arranged Olga with flowers, overlaid with books, notes and albums, Stoltz calmed down, believing that he had filled his friend’s leisure for a long time<…>and suddenly, ready-made questions caught her face ... ”Knowing the history of the temporary resurrection of the phlegmatic Oblomov, we believe that even the rational Stolz could not resist the charm of this searching soul and was wounded by her friendly indifference. "From him<…>haughty self-confidence fell asleep; he no longer joked lightly, listening to stories of how others lose their minds, wither away<…>from love ... "" And what about Olga! Did she not notice his situation or was she insensitive to him? Stolz, thus, finds himself in the position of Onegin, who "dries up, and hardly / No longer suffers from consumption", while the secular lady Tatyana "... or is it not visible, or is it not a pity ..."
Olga, like Pushkin's heroine, is actually "visible" and "sorry"; but the heroine Goncharova - like Tatyana - feels the chains of duty on her. Yes, she is not married, but she has already experienced a love interest, and according to the strict puritan morality of that time, and this was already considered treason, meanness: “She ( Olga) rummaged through her experience: there was no information about the second love. Reminds me of authority<…>- from all sides hears an inexorable verdict: “A woman truly loves only once.” Of course, sanctimonious secular maidens, like the notorious Sonechka, by cunning saved themselves from the pangs of conscience: “Sonechka would not have thought to say about Oblomov that she joked with him, for fun, that he is so funny that is it possible to love “such a bag”, that no one will believe it." But this option is not for honest Olga, she would be closer to something else - “... then, maybe, she would have found a“ decent party ”, of which there are many, and would have been a good, smart, caring wife and mother, and would have considered the past girlish dream..." That is, she would again become like Tatyana, "there would be a faithful wife and a virtuous mother ...".
But the moment of inevitable explanation had arrived. “I will help you ... did you ... love? ..” - Stolz said forcibly - it hurt him so much from his own word. The strength of the character's experiences, his jealousy, his pain is emphasized by pauses and remarks: "he again smelled of horror", "he himself felt that his lips were trembling." However, the pain was replaced by "amazement", and then "a joyful shiver ran through him" - when he found out that Oblomov was the subject of his first love. “Ah, if only I could know that the hero of this novel is Ilya! How long has it been. How much blood has gone bad! For what?" he repeats several times. A devoted friend, he, however, does not see a worthy opponent in Oblomov; someone you can truly fall in love with. “But for love, something is needed ... which cannot be defined or named, and which is not in my incomparable, but clumsy Ilya,” Stolz declares triumphantly. Unaware that he is almost verbatim repeating Sonya with her arrogant statements that it is impossible to "love such a bag." I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that Andrei Ivanovich at that moment, uttering these words, betrayed his old friend.
Olga does the same. Convinced that nothing threatened her future happiness with Stolz, she “tried to blame herself only then so that he defended her more ardently, in order to be more and more right in his eyes.” Finally, Ilyinskaya asks the decisive question: “But if he… changed, came to life, obeyed me, and… wouldn’t I love him then?” "But it's a different novel and a different hero that we don't care about." The reader, like Olga, knows that everything was far from being so simple. But it is easier for the heroine and Stoltz himself to believe and agree with the “backdated” wisdom derived: “Your so-called love lacked content; she couldn't go any further. And even before separation, you parted and were faithful not to love, but to its ghost, which you yourself invented ... ”We have a happy explanation, foreshadowing a prosperous marital union, but if you think about it, one of the most terrible and bleak pages of the novel.
A stunning contrast to this selfishly proud happiness is the scene in which Oblomov learns that his best friend has married his beloved (still loved by him) girl. "Dear Andrew! Oblomov said, hugging him. - Dear Olga ... Sergeevna! he added<…>- God bless you! My God! how happy I am! Tell her ... "" "I will say that I don’t know another Oblomov!" - Stolz, deeply moved, interrupted him. This repeated pause before calling his beloved officially - by her first name and patronymic - can tell a lot about his hidden feelings. In the greatness of the soul, Goncharov's character is equal here with Pushkin's lyrical hero: "... I loved you so sincerely, so tenderly, / How God grant you be loved to be different."]
The explanation took place far from Russia, in charming, but alien Switzerland, and the young Stolts settle down to live far from the Russian hinterland - in the Crimea. "A net of grapes, ivy and myrtle covered the cottage from top to bottom." In the same vein, Goncharov gives a description of the interior decoration of a charming cottage. Everything is harmonious (the piano takes pride of place), functional (“high desk”, “gloves”, “samples of various clays, goods and other things”), and the reader is cold from this “correctness”. As soon as the hero or heroine enters Oblomov's "field of attraction", the novel blossoms with colors. And vice versa: as soon as Oblomov leaves, the way of narration changes: dialogues, genre scenes give way to the author's rather dry analysis.
“Outside, everything was done with them, like with others,” the narrator states, talking about their family life and life, and draws the usual daily routine - “get up ... early”, “liked to sit for a long time for tea”, “dined”, “traveled in the fields", "make music". As a result, the author is forced to admit that their days are passing, “as Oblomov also dreamed of.” “Only there was no drowsiness, despondency with them ...”, - as if recollecting himself, he makes a reservation. Let's be fair, moving to a different era. For its time, equality, similar to that which reigns in the Stolz family, was a rare phenomenon. To understand this, it is enough to turn to one of the early stories of L.N. Tolstoy about family. The heroine of "Family Happiness" Mashenka also marries for love a noble, worthy man, passionate about his rural affairs, the landowner Sergei Mikhailych. But in a happy marriage at first, it never occurred to him to devote his wife to his cares and affairs. The result is sad - the young wife yearns, misses, rushes into the maelstrom of secular life. Only in the finale does the author express hope for the harmonization of relations between the spouses - through common concerns about the upbringing of children. From this historical point of view, Stolz's relationship with his wife is approaching the ideal: "Any building, business on his own or Oblomov's estate, company operations - nothing was done without her knowledge or participation." In the end sums up a joyful conclusion
And suddenly, unexpectedly for her husband (but not for the reader), in the circle of life's abundance, in the midst of happy family worries, Olga begins to get bored, to languish. “I’m not sick, but ... I’m sad<…>. Suddenly, as if he finds something on me, some kind of melancholy ... life will seem to me ... as if not everything is in it<…>. Or am I tormented by a stupid thought: what else will happen? The nervous, stumbling rhythm of Olga's confession reflects the painful work of self-knowledge, attempts to understand her own soul. She herself tends to define her dissatisfaction with life as “dreaminess”, “stupidity”: “Everything pulls me somewhere else, I become dissatisfied with nothing ... My God! I'm even ashamed of these nonsense ... "
But Andrei was able to quickly grasp and poetically describe the essence of her torment: “No, your sadness, languor<…>- rather a sign of strength ... The search for a lively, irritated mind sometimes breaks through everyday boundaries, of course, they do not find answers, and sadness appears ... temporary dissatisfaction with life ... This is the sadness of the soul, questioning life about its secret. However, knowing that “if so, this is not nonsense”, that the “Prometheus fire” of knowledge and a thirst for activity for the benefit of people burns in her - what ways does Stolz offer her? "We are not Titans with you<…>, he suggests. Let's bow our heads and humbly go through a difficult moment. And then life, happiness will smile again ... ”Moreover, the businesslike rational Stolz suddenly recalls the wrath of the gods. “See that fate does not overhear your murmuring,” he concluded with a superstitious remark<…>, - and did not consider it for ingratitude! She does not like it when her gifts are not appreciated. He gives her worldly-wise, but vulgar advice from an existential point of view - to cherish the present: “Wait a minute, when<…>grief and labor will come ... and they will come - then ... these questions are not up to ... ”Long pauses here have the opposite meaning: not to understand yourself, but to fix your reasoning in the mind of the interlocutor. It is understandable why, after such a conversation, Olga begins to see “certain and terrible dreams”, “... she saw a chain of losses ...” And, of course, she became more attached to her husband, as the only protector from future troubles: “... Only love did not betray her even in this dream…”
Many readers did not agree that this was the final stage of Olga's relationship with Stolz. Too much this frightened happiness contradicts the logic of the character of the heroine and the "Promethean fire" that really burns in her. Such a subtle critic as Dobrolyubov saw the inevitability of their break if the action of the novel continued: “And she ( Olga) is ready for this fight, yearns for it<…>. It is clear that she does not want to bow her head and humbly endure difficult moments ... She abandoned Oblomov when she stopped believing in him; she will leave Stolz too, if she ceases to believe in him. And this will happen if questions and doubts do not stop tormenting her.
Thus, Stolz cannot be called one of the best people of his generation. It seemed that, unlike Oblomov, Andrei Ivanovich fulfilled all the conditions for this. Many of his peers were eager to "look into German universities" - he "sat on student benches in Bonn, Jena, Erlangen." When others "gathered ... to travel along and across Europe" - Stolz "learned Europe as his estate." Their conscience commanded them to raise the dignity of women, make them equal to men, "purify their taste" - he did this in his family, with Olga. He forgot the main thing - all these conditions were supposed to lead to the main goal - to "serve" his country, since "Russia needs hands and heads." Andrey, having received the consent of Ilyinskaya, sums up with satisfaction: “Olga is my wife ... Everything is found. Nothing to look for, nowhere else to go." Dobrolyubov expressed the opinion of the majority of readers when he wondered how Stoltz "could be satisfied with his lonely, separate, exceptional happiness ...". Reflections on the real Stolz allow us to take a different look at Oblomov. He did not find a great purpose in his life. But the hero, at least, was looking for her, fought. He even tried to oppose himself to society, at least in the form of a "domestic" protest. And he made sure he couldn't do anything. Ilya Ilyich does not flatter himself about the bitter results of his life.
The characters of the main characters in Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" are exceptionally true and talentedly depicted by the author. If the artist's task is to snatch and capture the essence of life, inaccessible to the understanding of the layman, then the great Russian writer coped with it brilliantly. Its main character, for example, personifies a whole social phenomenon, named after him "Oblomovism". No less worthy of attention is the phenomenal friendship of Oblomov and Stolz, two antipodes who, it would seem, should have irreconcilably argued with each other or even despised each other, as often happens in the communication of completely different people. However, Goncharov goes against stereotypes, linking the antagonists with strong friendship. Throughout the novel, observing the relationship between Oblomov and Stolz is not only necessary, but also interesting to the reader. The clash of two life positions, two worldviews - this is the main conflict in Goncharov's novel Oblomov.
The differences between Oblomov and Stolz are not difficult to find. Firstly, the appearance is striking: Ilya Ilyich is a portly gentleman with soft features, puffy hands, and slow gestures. His favorite clothes are a spacious dressing gown that does not restrict movement, as if protecting and warming a person. Stolz - fit, slender. Constant activity and business acumen characterize his practical nature, so his gestures are bold, his reaction is quick. He is always dressed appropriately to move in the light and make the right impression.
Second, they have different upbringings. If little Ilyusha was cherished and cherished by parents, nannies and other inhabitants of Oblomovka (he grew up a pampered boy), then Andrei was brought up in strictness, his father taught him how to run a business, leaving him to make his own way. Stoltz, in the end, did not have enough parental affection, which he was looking for in his friend's house. Oblomov, on the contrary, was too affectionate, his parents spoiled him: he was not suitable either for the service or for the work of a landowner (taking care of the estate and its profitability).
Thirdly, their attitude to life differs. Ilya Ilyich does not like fuss, does not waste efforts to please society, or at least wedge into it. Many condemn him for laziness, but is it laziness? I think not: he is a nonconformist who is honest to himself and to the people around him. A nonconformist is a person who defends his right to behave differently from what is customary in his contemporary society. Oblomov had the courage and fortitude to silently, calmly adhere to his position and go his own way, not exchanging for trifles. In his manner of carrying himself, a rich spiritual life is guessed, which he does not put on a social showcase. Stolz lives in this window, because flickering in a good society always benefits the businessman. It can be said that Andrei had no other choice, because he is not a gentleman, his father earned capital, but no one will leave him villages by inheritance. He was taught from childhood that he himself should earn his living, so Stoltz adapted to the circumstances, developing hereditary qualities: perseverance, hard work, social activity. But if he is so successful by modern standards, why does Stoltz need Oblomov? From his father, he inherited obsession with business, the limitations of a practical person, which he felt, and therefore subconsciously reached out to the spiritually rich Oblomov.
They were drawn to the opposite, feeling the lack of certain properties of nature, but could not adopt each other's good qualities. None of them could make Olga Ilyinskaya happy: with one and the other, she felt dissatisfied. Unfortunately, this is the truth of life: people rarely change in the name of love. Oblomov tried, but still remained faithful to his principles. Stolz was also only enough for courtship, and after that the routine of living together began. Thus, in love, the similarities between Oblomov and Stolz manifested themselves: they both failed to build happiness.
In these two images, Goncharov reflected the conflicting trends in the society of that time. The nobility is the backbone of the state, but some of its representatives cannot take an active part in its fate, if only because it has gone and is petty for them. They are gradually being replaced by people who have gone through a harsh school of life, more skillful and greedy Stoltsy. They do not have that spiritual component that is needed for any useful work in Russia. But even the apathetic landowners will not save the situation. Apparently, the author believed that the merging of these extremes, a kind of golden mean, is the only way to achieve the well-being of Russia. If we consider the novel from this angle, it turns out that the friendship of Oblomov and Stolz is a symbol of the unification of various social forces for the sake of a common goal.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!Love, family and other eternal values in the perception of Oblomov and Stolz
The friendship between such dissimilar people as Ilya Oblomov and Andrey Stolz is amazing. They've been friends since early childhood, and yet they have so little in common! One of them is surprisingly lazy, ready to spend his whole life on the couch. The other, on the contrary, is active and active. Andrey from a young age knows for sure what he would like to achieve in life. Ilya Oblomov did not encounter problems in childhood and adolescence. In part, this calm, easy life, along with an overly soft character, turned out to be the reason that Oblomov gradually became more and more inert.
Andrei Stoltz had a completely different childhood. From a young age, he saw how hard his father's life was and how much effort was required to "push off the bottom and emerge", that is, to earn a decent social status, capital. But the difficulties not only did not frighten him, but, on the contrary, made him stronger. As he grew older, the character of Andrei Stolz became more and more solid. Stolz knows well that only in constant struggle can he find his happiness.
The main human values for him are work, the opportunity to build a prosperous and happy life for himself. As a result, Stoltz gets everything that he dreamed about in his distant youth. He becomes a rich and respected person, wins the love of such an outstanding and unlike other girl as Olga Ilyinskaya. Stolz cannot stand inaction, he would never have been attracted to such a life, which seems to be the height of happiness for Oblomov.
But is Stolz so perfect compared to Oblomov? Yes, he is the embodiment of activity, movement, rationalism. But it is precisely this rationalism that leads him to the abyss. Stolz receives Olga, organizes their life at his own discretion and will, they live according to the principle of reason. But is Olga happy with Stolz? No. Stolz lacks the heart that Oblomov had. And if in the first part of the novel Stolz's rationality is affirmed as a denial of Oblomov's laziness, then in the last part the author is more and more on the side of Oblomov with his "heart of gold".
Oblomov cannot understand the meaning of human fuss, the constant desire to do something and achieve something. He was disillusioned with such a life. Oblomov often recalls his childhood, when he lived in the countryside with his parents. Life there flowed smoothly and monotonously, not shaken by any noteworthy events. Such calmness seems to Oblomov the ultimate dream.
In the mind of Oblomov there are no specific aspirations regarding the arrangement of his own existence. If he has plans for transformations in the countryside, then these plans very soon turn into a series of next fruitless dreams. Oblomov resists Olga's intentions to make a completely different person out of him, because this is contrary to his own life goals. And the very unwillingness of Oblomov to connect his life with Olga suggests that he understands deep down: family life with her will not bring him peace and will not allow him to selflessly indulge in his beloved work, that is, absolute inaction. But at the same time, Oblomov, this dove, has a "heart of gold." He loves with his heart, not with his mind, his love for Olga is sublime, enthusiastic, ideal. Oblomov goes with the flow and becomes Agafya's husband, because this fait accompli does not threaten his comfortable and peaceful existence.
Such a family life does not frighten Oblomov; Agafya's attitude towards him fits perfectly into his ideas about happiness. Now he can continue to do nothing, degrading more and more. Agafya takes care of him, being an ideal wife for Oblomov. Gradually, he ceases even to dream, his existence is almost completely likened to a vegetable one. However, this does not frighten him at all, moreover, he is happy in his own way.
Thus, Goncharov in his novel does not condemn either Oblomov or Stolz, but he does not idealize either of them. He just wants to show different views on the moral and spiritual values of two opposite people. At the same time, the author says that a rational attitude to life, feelings (Stolz) impoverishes a person no less than boundless daydreaming (Oblomov).
Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" was highly appreciated by critics of the second half of the 19th century. In particular, Belinsky noted that the work was timely and reflected the socio-political thought of the 50-60s of the nineteenth century. Two lifestyles - Oblomov and Stolz - are considered in this article in comparison.
Characteristics of Oblomov
Ilya Ilyich was distinguished by a desire for peace, inaction. Oblomov cannot be called interesting and varied: he used to spend most of the day in thought, lying on the couch. Plunging into these thoughts, he often throughout the day never got up from his bed, did not go out into the street, did not learn the latest news. He did not read newspapers as a matter of principle, so as not to bother himself with unnecessary, and most importantly, meaningless information. Oblomov can be called a philosopher, he is concerned about other issues: not everyday, not momentary, but eternal, spiritual. He looks for meaning in everything.
When looking at him, one gets the impression that he is a happy freethinker, not burdened by the hardships and problems of external life. But life "touches, gets everywhere" Ilya Ilyich, makes him suffer. Dreams remain only dreams, because he does not know how to translate them into real life. Even reading tires him: Oblomov has many books he has begun, but they all remain unread, misunderstood. The soul seems to be dormant in him: he avoids unnecessary anxieties, worries, anxieties. In addition, Oblomov often compares his calm, secluded existence with the lives of other people and finds that it’s not good to live the way others live: “When to live?”
This is what constitutes the ambiguous image of Oblomov. "Oblomov" (Goncharov I.A.) was created in order to describe the personality of this character - uncommon and extraordinary in his own way. He is not alien to impulses and deep emotional experiences. Oblomov is a true dreamer with a poetic, sensitive nature.
Stolz characteristic
Oblomov's way of life can in no way be compared with Stolz's world outlook. The reader first meets this character in the second part of the work. Andrei Stoltz loves everything in order: his day is scheduled by the hour and minute, dozens of important things are planned that need to be urgently redone. Today he is in Russia, tomorrow, you see, he has already unexpectedly gone abroad. What Oblomov finds boring and meaningless is important and significant for him: trips to cities, villages, intentions to improve the quality of life of those around him.
He opens in his soul such treasures that Oblomov cannot even guess. Stolz's way of life consists entirely in activities that feed his whole being with the energy of cheerfulness. In addition, Stolz is a good friend: more than once he helped Ilya Ilyich in business matters. The way of life of Oblomov and Stolz is different from each other.
What is "Oblomovism"?
As a social phenomenon, the concept denotes a focus on an idle, monotonous, devoid of color and any kind of change in life. Andrei Stoltz called "Oblomovism" the very way of life of Oblomov, his desire for endless peace and the absence of any activity. Despite the fact that a friend constantly pushed Oblomov to the opportunity to change the way of existence, he did not budge at all, as if he did not have enough energy to do this. At the same time, we see that Oblomov admits his mistake, uttering the following words: "I have long been ashamed to live in the world." He feels useless, unnecessary and abandoned, and therefore he does not want to dust off the table, sort out books that have been lying there for a month, and leave the apartment once again.
Love in the understanding of Oblomov
Oblomov's way of life did not contribute in any way to the acquisition of real, and not fictitious, happiness. He dreamed and planned more than he actually lived. It is amazing, but in his life there was a place for a quiet rest, philosophical reflections on the essence of being, but there was a lack of strength for decisive action and the implementation of intentions. Love for Olga Ilyinskaya for a while pulls Oblomov out of his usual existence, makes him try new things, start taking care of himself. He even forgets his old habits and sleeps only at night, and goes about his business during the day. But still, love in Oblomov's worldview is directly related to dreams, thoughts and poetry.
Oblomov considers himself unworthy of love: he doubts whether Olga can love him, whether he suits her enough, whether he is capable of making her happiness. Such thoughts lead him to sad thoughts about his useless life.
Love in the understanding of Stolz
Stoltz approaches the issue of love more rationally. He does not indulge in ephemeral dreams in vain, as he soberly looks at life, without fantasy, without the habit of analyzing. Stolz is a business man. He does not need romantic walks in the moonlight, loud declarations of love and sighs on the bench, because he is not Oblomov. Stolz's lifestyle is very dynamic and pragmatic: he proposes to Olga at the moment when he realizes that she is ready to accept him.
What did Oblomov come to?
As a result of protective and cautious behavior, Oblomov misses the opportunity to build a close relationship with Olga Ilyinskaya. His marriage was upset shortly before the wedding - he gathered for too long, explained himself, asked himself, compared, estimated, analyzed Oblomov. The characterization of the image of Oblomov Ilya Ilyich teaches not to repeat the mistakes of an idle, aimless existence, raises the question of what love really is? Is she the object of lofty, poetic aspirations, or is it the calm joy, peace that Oblomov finds in the house of the widow Agafya Pshenitsyna?
Why did Oblomov's physical death occur?
The result of Ilya Ilyich's philosophical reflections is this: he preferred to bury his former aspirations and even lofty dreams in himself. with Olga, his life focused on everyday existence. He knew no greater joy than to eat well and sleep after dinner. Gradually, the engine of his life began to stop, subside: ailments and cases became more frequent. Even his former thoughts left him: there was no longer any place for them in a quiet room that looked like a coffin, in all this sluggish life that lulled Oblomov, more and more away from reality. Mentally, this man was long dead. Physical death was only a confirmation of the falsity of his ideals.
Achievements of Stolz
Stolz, unlike Oblomov, did not miss his chance to become happy: he built family well-being with Olga Ilyinskaya. This marriage was made out of love, in which Stolz did not fly into the clouds, did not stay in destructive illusions, but acted more than reasonably and responsibly.
The way of life of Oblomov and Stolz are diametrically opposed and opposed to each other. Both characters are unique, inimitable and significant in their own way. This may explain the strength of their friendship over the years.
Each of us is close to either the type of Stolz or Oblomov. There is nothing wrong with that, and the coincidences are likely to be only partial. Deep, loving to reflect on the essence of life, most likely, Oblomov's experiences, his restless mental throwing and searching will be understandable. Business pragmatists, who have left romance and poetry far behind, will embody themselves with Stolz.
