Goncharov’s attitude towards Stolz is brief. The relationship between Oblomov and Stolz is the leading storyline in Goncharov’s novel
After much anticipation caused by the publication of one of the main episodes of the novel, Oblomov’s dream, readers and critics were finally able to read and appreciate it in its entirety. As unambiguous as there was universal admiration for the work as a whole, just as varied were the views on the meaning invested by I. A. Goncharov in “Oblomov”. And no wonder; who other than the author can know this for sure? It seems that Goncharov himself, over the long period of writing the novel, managed to change his attitude towards it. It is no coincidence that many of his contemporaries say that he had a negative attitude towards the first part of “Oblomov” and, on the contrary, advised reading the second and third, written much later. Let's try to figure out how Goncharov's views were reflected in this work and what his position was in relation to the main characters.
Initially, the plot of “Oblomov” was apparently conceived as a generalized biography of an inactive, apathetic, receding landowner class using a separate example. The author's position in relation to serfdom should have been reflected in a detailed story about the life of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, who thoughtlessly spent day after day in his country estate. In accordance with this idea, the first volume of “Oblomov” was written, which mostly tells about the childhood of Ilya Ilyich. When writing the next three parts of the work, Goncharov’s attitude towards it changes. Firstly, the author takes his hero to an urban setting and through him shows his attitude towards metropolitan society. Secondly, the storyline becomes more complicated. The latter should be discussed separately. This method of testing love, however, is found not only in Goncharov. By showing how this or that hero behaves when falling in love, the author will be able to discover many new facets in the soul of his characters that would not appear under any other circumstances. At the same time, the author is given the opportunity to teach his hero from one side or another, depending on his attitude towards the latter. Based on the outcome of the love plot, one can also judge the author’s position regarding the character.
The analysis of the work, of course, needs to start with the first part, despite the fact that the beginning and development of the main plot occurs in the next three. At first, through the conversations of the main character, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, the author characterizes him as a friendly and hospitable person and at the same time possessing extraordinary drowsiness and laziness. And then, to explain the origins of his character, Goncharov introduces the hero’s dream, where he shows his childhood. Thus, the composition of the work is not disrupted.
The story about the idyllic region where Oblomov was born and raised begins with one of the main and, in my opinion, the most interesting moments of this part of the novel. Here the nature of the Oblomovsky region is described. Its serenity and plainness, of course, are noticeably exaggerated and sometimes even border on something fabulous, in | the strength of the general atmosphere of the estate. However, interestingly, from Goncharov’s own remarks made here, one can judge that this landscape largely reflects his view of nature. From this passage we see that Lermontov’s descriptions of formidable elements are alien to the author. In his idyllic location, “there are no dense forests - there is nothing grandiose, wild and gloomy.” And it’s not surprising, because Goncharov’s position in relation to them is quite definite: the sea “brings only sadness” to him, and “mountains and abysses... are formidable, terrible, like the claws and teeth of a wild beast released and directed at him...” . But in the “peaceful corner” he outlined for Oblomov, even “the sky... is like a parent’s reliable roof.” “The sun there shines brightly and hotly around noon and then moves away... as if reluctantly...” And “the mountains... are just models of those terrible mountains,” And all the nature there “represents a series of... cheerful, smiling landscapes.. .”.
Next comes a description of landowner and peasant life, that is, what should initially become the basis of the work. The very idea conveyed here is not new: idle landowners, the basis of whose life is the question of what to choose for lunch, and peasants working day after day for the benefit of their masters. What is interesting is not this, but how Goncharov reflects his attitude towards this way of life. Here, as in everything in Oblomovka, the colors seem to be muted. This is how the life of the peasants is described here: “Happy people lived, thinking that it shouldn’t and couldn’t be otherwise, confident that everyone else lived exactly the same way and that living differently was a sin...” I think the author resorted to to this style, because, having reflected his position in relation to the problem of serfdom, he should not have disturbed the atmosphere of general drowsiness, so important for the main character. After all, whatever Goncharov’s attitude towards the landowners, it seems to me that deep down in his soul he sympathizes and sympathizes with Oblomov. The same general apathy that surrounded Ilya Ilyich in childhood could partly justify him.
Here for the first time Goncharov mentions Stolz. The author's position in relation to him in the future is clear. He will have to become a generalized image of an advanced person, including strength of character, a flexible mind, a constant thirst for action, in other words, reflect the complete opposite of Oblomov. Accordingly, the author makes the conditions of upbringing that shape his future character completely different than in Oblomovka.
Now, moving on to the three main parts of the novel, it must be said that the main storyline here is the relationship between Olga Ilyinskaya and Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. However, first we need to consider how the author’s position regarding Oblomov and Stolz was reflected in their comparison. In this case, considering the development of the love line between Olga, Oblomov and Stolz, we can once again emphasize one or another view of the author on the personalities of these two characters.
Endowed with only the most correct and necessary character traits, the author, like the reader, undoubtedly likes Stolz, but at the same time, like most of us, Goncharov feels a feeling of sympathy for Ilya Ilyich. This position of the author in relation to his heroes was reflected not only in their destinies, but even in their portraits. This is how he describes Oblomov: “He was a man of thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, but with the absence of any definite idea, any concentration in his facial features.” And here is Stolz’s description: “He is all made up of bones, muscles and nerves, like a blooded English horse... His complexion is dark and there is no blush; the eyes are at least a little greenish, but expressive.” One cannot but arouse sympathy with the softness and dreaminess of his nature, reflected on his face, while the other delights with his firmness and determination, readable in his entire appearance.
The author's attitude towards them was also expressed through the mutual characteristics of the heroes. And here we need to talk about the strange friendship between these two diametrically opposed people. It’s unlikely that it’s just a matter of childhood affection that once united them. But what then connects them? If Oblomov’s friendship can be explained by the need for a strong, business-like person who would always come to the aid of his indecisive and drowsy nature, then how can we explain Stolz’s attachment to Oblomov? I think that this question can be answered in the words of Andrei himself: “This is a crystal, transparent soul; there are few such people; they are rare; These are pearls in the crowd! ”
Now we can approach the love plot. But, before describing Olga’s relationship with Oblomov and Stolz, it is necessary to say about the author’s attitude towards her. Goncharov is undoubtedly friendly towards his heroine. She is endowed with such traits as insight, poise, and pride. Undoubtedly, the author admires the sense of duty that primarily guides the heroine, the sublimity of her soul, reflected in her beautiful voice. All this is felt in Olga’s appearance: “The nose formed a barely noticeable graceful line; lips thin and mostly compressed; a sign of a thought constantly directed at something. The same presence of thought in the watchful, always cheerful... gaze of gray-blue eyes...” And the author describes her gait as “light, almost elusive.” I think it is no coincidence that Goncharov gives her this special spirituality. She is called upon to be, as it were, Oblomov’s guardian angel, to awaken his sleeping soul.
Of course, Olga's mission was doomed from the very beginning. A person cannot live only by love, without thinking about anything else. However, through her, the author discovered many positive traits in the hero, whom, in my opinion, he sympathizes with. For a while, Goncharov simply transforms Oblomov: “He gets up at seven o’clock, reads, carries books somewhere. There is no sleep, no fatigue, no boredom on his face. Even colors appeared on him, there was a sparkle in his eyes, something like courage or at least self-confidence.” Well, under what other circumstances could Ilya Ilyich’s “pure, faithful heart” be able to manifest itself like that?
In Olga’s relationship with Stolz, everything happens quite the opposite. Their union is natural and harmonious. They are similar and therefore understand each other well. Fate itself predetermines them a long, calm happiness. But here, however, implicitly, the author points out a hidden flaw in Stolz’s nature. Olga, who, it would seem, should be absolutely happy, experiences some strange anxiety, which even Andrei cannot explain. And the question naturally arises whether this is Olga’s vague longing for a passionate feeling that Stolz cannot give her. Perhaps here the author wanted to say that this correct and progressive hero lacks a little crazy impulses.
Be that as it may, the fates of both heroes turn out relatively well. Stolz finds his happiness with Olga, and Oblomov finds his Oblomovka on Verkhlevskaya Street and lives out his life there with the woman he always dreamed of. Such a denouement once again shows that the author’s position in relation to both of his heroes is positive.
The absolute opposite of Oblomov is Stolz, who becomes the embodiment of calculation, activity, strength, determination, and determination. In Stolz’s German upbringing, the main thing was the development of an independent, active, purposeful nature. When describing the life of Stolz, Goncharov most often uses the words “firmly,” “straight,” and “walked.” And Stolz’s surname itself is sharp, abrupt, and his whole figure, in which there was not a fraction of roundness and softness, as in Oblomov’s appearance - all this reveals his German roots. His whole life was outlined once and for all; imagination, dreams and passions did not fit into his life program: “It seems that he controlled both sorrows and joys like the movement of his hands.” The most valued quality in a person for Stolz is “persistence in achieving a goal,” however, Goncharov adds that Stolz’s respect for a persistent person did not depend on the quality of the goal itself: “He never refused to respect people with this persistence, no matter how their goals were not important."
Stolz's goal in life, as he formulates it, is work and only work. To Oblomov’s question: “Why live?” - Stolz, without thinking for a moment, answers: “For the work itself, for nothing else.” This unequivocal “nothing else” is somewhat alarming. The results of Stolz’s work have a very tangible “material equivalent”: “He really made a house and money.” Goncharov speaks very vaguely, casually about the nature of Stolz’s activities: “He is involved in some company that ships goods abroad.” For the first time in Russian literature, an attempt appeared to show a positive image of an entrepreneur who, not having wealth at birth, achieves it through his labor.
Trying to elevate his hero, Goncharov convinces the reader that from his mother, a Russian noblewoman, Stolz acquired the ability to feel and appreciate love: “he developed for himself the conviction that love, with the power of Archimedes’ lever, moves the world.” However, in Stolz’s love everything is subordinated to reason; it is no coincidence that the “reasonable” Stolz never understood What happened between Oblomov and Olga, What became the basis of their love: “Oblomov! Can't be! – he added again affirmatively. “There’s something here: you don’t understand yourself, Oblomov, or, finally, love!” “This is not love, this is something else. It didn’t even reach your heart: imagination and pride, on the one hand, weakness, on the other.” Stolz never understood that there are different types of love, and not just the kind that he calculated. It is no coincidence that this inability to accept life in its diversity and unpredictability ultimately leads to the “Oblomovism” of Stolz himself. Having fallen in love with Olga, he is ready to stop, freeze. “I found mine,” thought Stolz. – I’ve waited!.. here it is, the last happiness of a person! Everything has been found, there is nothing to look for, there is nowhere else to go!” Having already become Stolz’s wife, experiencing true love for him, realizing that she has found her happiness in him, Olga often thinks about the future, she is afraid of this “silence of life”: “What is this? - she thought. -Where should we go? Nowhere! There is no further road. Is it really not, have you really completed the circle of life? Is everything really here, everything?”
Their attitude towards each other can say a lot about the characters. Oblomov sincerely loves Stolz, he feels true selflessness and generosity towards his friend; one can recall, for example, his joy at the happiness of Stolz and Olga. In his relationship with Stolz, the beauty of Oblomov’s soul is revealed, his ability to think about the meaning of life, activity, and its focus on man. Oblomov appears as a man who passionately seeks, although he does not find, a standard of life. In Stolz there is some kind of “lack of feeling” towards Oblomov; he is not capable of subtle emotional movements: on the one hand, he sincerely sympathizes with Ilya Ilyich, loves him, on the other hand, in relation to Oblomov he often turns out to be not so much a friend as “formidable” teacher." Stolz was for Ilya Ilyich the embodiment of that stormy life that always frightened Oblomov, from which he tried to hide. To Oblomov’s bitter and annoying: “Life touches,” Stolz immediately responds: “And thank God!” Stolz sincerely and persistently tried to force Oblomov to live more actively, but this persistence sometimes became harsh and sometimes cruel. Without sparing Oblomov and not considering that he has the right to do so, Stolz touches on the most painful memories of Olga, without the slightest respect for his friend’s wife he says: “Look around, where are you and who are you with?” The very phrase “now or never,” menacing and inevitable, was also unnatural to Oblomov’s soft nature. Very often, in a conversation with a friend, Stolz uses the words “I will shake you,” “you must,” “you must live differently.” Stolz drew a life plan not only for himself, but also for Oblomov: “You must live with us, close to us. Olga and I decided so, so it will be!” Stolz “saves” Oblomov from his life, from his choice - and in this salvation he sees his task.
What kind of life did he want to involve his friend in? The content of the week that Oblomov spent with Stolz was inherently different from the dream on Gorokhovaya Street. There were some things to do this week, lunch with a gold miner, tea at the dacha in a large society, but Oblomov very accurately called it vanity, behind which no person is visible. In his last meeting with his friend, Stolz said to Oblomov: “You know me: I set myself this task a long time ago and will not give up. Until now I was distracted by various things, but now I am free.” So the main reason emerged - various matters that distracted Stolz from his friend’s life. And indeed, between the appearances of Stolz in Oblomov’s life - like failures, like abysses - years pass: “Stolz did not come to St. Petersburg for several years,” “a year has passed since Ilya Ilyich’s illness,” “it’s been five years since we have seen each other.” It is no coincidence that even during Oblomov’s life, “an abyss opened up” between him and Stolz, “a stone wall was erected,” and this wall existed only for Stolz. And while Oblomov was still alive, Stolz buried his friend with an unequivocal sentence: “You are dead, Ilya!”
The author's attitude towards Stolz is ambiguous. Goncharov, on the one hand, hoped that soon “many Stoltz would appear under Russian names,” on the other hand, he understood that in artistic terms it was hardly possible to call the image of Stolz successful, full-blooded, he admitted that the image of Stolz was “weak, pale - it makes the idea look too bare.”
The problem of the hero in the novel “Oblomov” is connected with the author’s thoughts about the present and future of Russia, about the generic traits of the Russian national character. Oblomov and Stolz are not just different human characters, they are different systems of moral values, different worldviews and ideas about the human personality. The hero’s problem is that the author does not give preference to either Oblomov or Stolz, reserving to each of them his right to the truth and choice of life path.
Paying tribute to his time, Mr. Goncharov also developed an antidote to Oblomov - Stolz. But regarding this person, we must once again repeat our constant opinion - that one cannot get too far ahead of life, Stoltsev, people with an integral, active character, in which every thought is immediately an aspiration and turns into action, are not yet in life of our society (we mean an educated society to which higher aspirations are accessible; in the masses, where ideas and aspirations are limited to very close and few objects, such people constantly come across).
The author himself was aware of this when speaking about our society: “The eyes woke up from their slumber, brisk, wide steps were heard, living voices... How many Stoltsevs should appear under Russian names!” There must be many of them, there is no doubt about it; but now there is no soil for them yet. That is why from Goncharov’s novel we see and see only that Stolz is an active person, he is always busy about something, runs around, acquires things, says that to live means to work, etc. But what does he do and how does he manage to do what? - something decent where others can do nothing - this remains a mystery to us. He instantly arranged Oblomovka for Ilya Ilyich; - How? we don't know that. He instantly destroyed Ilya Ilyich’s counterfeit bill; - How? We don't know that. Having gone to the boss of Ivan Matveich, to whom Oblomov gave the bill, he spoke with him in a friendly manner - Ivan Matveich was called into the presence and not only was the bill ordered to be returned, but they were even ordered to leave the service. And it serves him right, of course; but, judging by this case, Stolz has not yet matured to the ideal of a Russian public figure. And it’s not possible yet: it’s too early. And we don’t understand how Stolz could, in his activities, calm down from all the aspirations and needs that overwhelmed even 198 I. A. Goncharov Oblomov, how could he be satisfied with his position, calm down on his lonely, separate, exceptional happiness... Don’t forget that there is a swamp underneath, that the old Oblomovka is nearby, that the forest still needs to be cleared in order to get to the main road and escape from Oblomovka. Whether Stolz did anything for this, what exactly he did and how he did it, we don’t know. And without this we cannot be satisfied with his personality... We can only say that he is not the person who “will be able, in a language understandable to the Russian soul, to tell us this almighty word: “forward!” Perhaps Olga Ilyinskaya is more capable than Stolz of this feat; it is closer to our young life. We said nothing about the women created by Goncharov: neither about Olga, nor about Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna (nor even about Anisya and Akulin, who are also distinguished by their special character), because we were aware of our complete powerlessness to say anything tolerable about them.
To analyze the female types created by Goncharov means to make a claim to be a great connoisseur of the female heart. Without this quality, one can only admire Goncharov’s women. The ladies say that the fidelity and subtlety of Goncharov’s psychological analysis is amazing, and in this case one cannot help but believe the ladies... We don’t dare add anything to their review, because we are afraid to venture into this country that is completely unknown to us. But we take the liberty, at the end of the article, to say a few words about Olga and her relationship to Oblomovism. Olga, in her development, represents the highest ideal that a Russian artist can now evoke from present-day Russian life. That is why she amazes us with the extraordinary clarity and simplicity of her logic and the amazing harmony of her heart and will to the point that we are ready to doubt even her poetic truth and say: “there are no such girls.” But, following her throughout the novel, we find that she is constantly true to herself and her development, that she represents not the author’s maxim, but a living person, only one we have never met before. In her, more than in Stolz, one can see a hint of a new Russian life; one can expect from her a word that will burn and dispel Oblomovism... She begins with love for Oblomov, with faith in him, in his moral transformation... Long and persistently, with love and tender care, she works to arouse life , to evoke activity in that person. She doesn’t want to believe that he is so powerless for good; loving her hope in him, her future creation, she does everything for him: she neglects even conventional decency, goes to him alone, without telling anyone, and is not afraid, like him, of losing her reputation.
But with amazing tact, she immediately notices every falsity that manifests itself in his nature, and explains to him extremely simply how and why it is a lie, and not. He, for example, writes her the letter we talked about above, and then assures her that he wrote it solely out of concern for her, completely forgetting himself, sacrificing himself, etc. “No,” she answers, “it’s not true; if you thought only about my happiness and considered separation from you necessary for it, then you would simply leave without sending me any letters first.” He says that he is afraid of her unhappiness if she eventually realizes that she was mistaken in him, stops loving him and loves another. She asks in response to this: “Where do you see my misfortune? Now I love you, and I feel good; and then I will love another, and that means I will be fine with the other. There’s no point in you worrying about me.” This simplicity and clarity of thinking contains the makings of a new life, not the one in which modern society has grown up... Then, how Olga’s will is obedient to her heart! She continues her relationship and love for Oblomov, despite all extraneous troubles, ridicule, etc., until she is convinced of his decisive worthiness. Then she directly announces to him that she was mistaken about him, and can no longer decide to join her destiny with him. She still praises and caresses him even during this refusal, and even after; but by her act she destroys him, just as not one of Oblomov’s men was destroyed by a woman. She simply and meekly told him: “I only recently found out that I love in you what I wanted to have in you, what Stolz showed me, what we invented with him. I loved the future Oblomov! You are meek and honest, Ilya; you are gentle... like a dove; you hide your head under your wing - and don’t want anything more; you’re ready to coo under the roof all your life... but I’m not like that: this is not enough for me, I need something else, but I don’t know what!” And she leaves Oblomov, and she strives for her own him, although she still does not know him well.
Finally she finds him in Stolz, unites with him, is happy; but even here it does not stop, does not freeze. Some vague questions and doubts bother her, she is trying to find out something. The author did not reveal to us her emotions in their entirety, and we may be mistaken in our assumptions about their properties. But it seems to us that this is a breath of new life in her heart and head, to which she is incomparably closer to Stolz. It is clear that she does not want to bow her head and humbly endure difficult moments, in the hope that life will smile again later. She left Oblomov when she stopped believing in him; 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 advise her - to accept them as a new element of life and bow her head. Oblomovism is well known to her, she will be able to distinguish it in all forms under all caresses and will always find so much strength within herself to carry out merciless judgment on it...
The image of Stolz in the novel “Oblomov” by Goncharov is the second central male character of the novel, who is by nature the antipode of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. Andrei Ivanovich stands out from other characters with his activity, determination, rationality, internal and external strength - as if he was “composed of bones, muscles and nerves, like a blooded English horse.” Even the portrait of the man is the complete opposite of Oblomov’s portrait. The hero Stolz is deprived of the external roundness and softness inherent in Ilya Ilyich - he is distinguished by an even complexion, slight dark complexion and the absence of any blush. Andrey Ivanovich attracts with his extroversion, optimism and intelligence. Stolz is constantly looking to the future, which seems to elevate him above other characters in the novel.
According to the plot of the work, Stolz is Oblomov’s best friend Ilya, whom the main character met during his school years. Apparently, at that moment they already felt a like-minded person in each other, although their characters and destinies were radically different from their youth.
Education of Stolz
The reader becomes acquainted with the characterization of Stolz in the novel “Oblomov” in the second part of the work. The hero was brought up in the family of a German entrepreneur and an impoverished Russian noblewoman. From his father, Stolz adopted all the rationalism, rigor of character, determination, understanding of work as the basis of life, as well as the entrepreneurial spirit inherent in the German people. His mother nurtured in Andrei Ivanovich a love of art and books, and dreamed of seeing him as a brilliant socialite. In addition, little Andrei himself was a very curious and active child - he wanted to learn as much as possible about the world around him, so he not only quickly absorbed everything that his father and mother instilled in him, but he himself did not stop learning new things, which was facilitated by a fairly democratic situation in the house.
The young man was not in an atmosphere of excessive guardianship, like Oblomov, and any of his antics (such as moments when he could leave home for several days) were perceived calmly by his parents, which contributed to his development as an independent person. This was largely facilitated by Stolz’s father, who believed that you need to achieve everything in life through your own labor, so he encouraged this quality in his son in every possible way. Even when Andrei Ivanovich returned to his native Verkhlevo after university, his father sent him to St. Petersburg so that he could make his own way in life. And Andrei Ivanovich succeeded perfectly - at the time of the events described in the novel, Stolz was already a significant figure in St. Petersburg, a well-known socialite and an irreplaceable person in the service. His life is depicted as a constant striving forward, a continuous race for new and new achievements, the opportunity to become better, taller and more influential than others. That is, on the one hand, Stolz fully justifies his mother’s dreams, becoming a wealthy, well-known person in social circles, and on the other hand, he becomes his father’s ideal - a person who is rapidly building his career and reaching ever greater heights in his business.
Stolz's friendship
Friendship for Stolz was one of the important aspects of his life. The hero’s activity, optimism and sharp mind attracted other people to him. However, Andrei Ivanovich was drawn only to sincere, decent, open individuals. The sincere, kind, peaceful Ilya Ilyich and the harmonious, artistic, intelligent Olga were precisely such people for Stolz.
Unlike Oblomov and his friends, who looked to Andrei Ivanovich for external support, real help and a sound, rational opinion, Stolz’s close people helped him regain his inner balance and calm, often lost by the hero in the continuous race forward. Even that “Oblomovism,” which Andrei Ivanovich condemned in every possible way in Ilya Ilyich and tried to remove from his life, since he considered it a destructive life phenomenon, actually attracted the hero with its monotony, sleepy regularity and serenity, rejection of the bustle of the outside world and immersion in the monotony of a family, but in its own way happy life. It was as if Stolz’s Russian beginning, pushed back by the activity of German blood, reminded of itself, tying Andrei Ivanovich to people with a truly Russian mentality - dreamy, kind and sincere.
Love Stolts
Despite the extremely positive characterization of Stolz in Oblomov, his practical knowledge of all matters, his sharp mind and insight, there was a sphere inaccessible to Andrei Ivanovich - the sphere of high feelings, passions and dreams. Moreover, Stolz was afraid and wary of everything incomprehensible to reason, since he could not always find a rational explanation for it. This was also reflected in Andrei Ivanovich’s feelings for Olga - it would seem that they had found true family happiness, having found a soul mate who completely shared the views and aspirations of the other. However, the rational Stolz could not become the “Prince Charming” of Olga, who dreams of seeing a truly ideal man next to her - smart, active, established in society and career, and at the same time sensitive, dreamy and tenderly loving.
Andrei Ivanovich subconsciously understands that he cannot give what Olga loved in Oblomov, and therefore their marriage remains more of a strong friendship than a union of two flaming hearts. For Stolz, his wife was a pale reflection of his ideal woman. He understood that next to Olga he could not relax, show his powerlessness in anything, since he could thereby violate his wife’s faith in him as a man, a husband, and their crystal happiness would be broken into small fragments.
Conclusion
According to many researchers, the image of Andrei Stolz in the novel “Oblomov” is depicted as if in sketches, and the hero himself is more like a mechanism, a semblance of a living person. At the same time, in comparison with Oblomov, Stolz could become the ideal of the author, a model person for many future generations, because Andrei Ivanovich had everything for harmonious development and a successful, happy future - an excellent all-round upbringing, determination and enterprise.
What is Stolz's problem? Why does he evoke sympathy rather than admiration? In the novel, Andrei Ivanovich, like Oblomov, is a “superfluous person” - a person who lives in the future and does not know how to enjoy the joys of the present. Moreover, Stolz has no place either in the past or in the future, since he does not understand the true goals of his movement, which he simply does not have time to understand. In fact, all his aspirations and searches are directed towards the “Oblomovism” he denies and condemns - a center of calm and tranquility, a place where he will be accepted for who he is, as Oblomov did.
Work test
The sixties of the nineteenth century... A new time for Russia... It requires different heroes of literature, who must not only passively resist the surrounding reality, like “superfluous people,” but also actively intervene in life, want to reorganize it and be capable of active good.
One of them is Andrei Stolts, the hero of I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”. Compared to E. Onegin and G. Pechorin, I like this active person. I like him because he knows what he wants to achieve in life and achieves a lot. Is this bad? True, the writer approached the depiction of the “new man” very carefully. He barely showed it in action. And we can only guess about the activities of Oblomov’s friend. But our assumptions are still gratifying: after all, E. Onegin, G. Pechorin, and I. Oblomov did nothing in life, but were just bored...
I wonder why this literary character is so different from his friend? Because he belongs to the noble class purely formally, and therefore is not disfigured by such a social disease as Oblomovism.
I am impressed that A. Stolz is a man of action, he is not “infected” with the nihilistic views that were fashionable at that time, the implementation of his social ideas is not connected with any social movement. Even Ilya Oblomov, in a conversation with a friend, criticizes the empty and selfish secular society (to scold society is a tribute to the fashion that came from “superfluous people”), but Stolz does not react in any way to his words. Perhaps he is convinced that all political disputes are a waste of time, he should be busy with business! And that's why I like him! The hero is undoubtedly right: it is easy to criticize, it is much more difficult to do something sensible, but Stolz’s own affairs are in order, and he arranges others’ (Oblomov’s) in good faith, as if they were his own.
I am attracted by the image of Andrei Stolts and the fact that he is drawn by I.A. Goncharov not only as a business man, but also as a cultured man who loves music, admires Olga’s singing, understands art and is very well read in literature. In life, he does not want to give up anything: neither beauty, nor admiration of nature, nor friendship, nor love. Stolz is a man who lives life to the fullest.
And the last thing for which I respect the hero I.A. Goncharov is his loyalty to youthful friendship: he saves the main character of the novel from ruin, and after the death of Ilya Ilyich, he raises his son.
So, Andrei Stolts is a representative of the “new people”. And thanks to I.A. Goncharov, an observant and sensitive artist who was able to catch something new in the public mood of the pre-reform era.
