The Obscure Reading Group discussion
Logistics
>
In Between Books - Oblomov
I will join you all. Our library has it and perhaps along the way I will buy a used copy too. I want to read more Russian classics. The library copy is a 1954 edition and at least be the cover on the website looks like a Penguin.
Darrin wrote: "I will join you all. Our library has..."Great, Darrin! Glad to see you.
The book is in four parts. Maybe we can just plan to cover a Part per Week.
Cherisa wrote: "Please note the 1915 Hogarth translation is available on Project Gutenberg (their ebook #54700 - hyperlinks off this site not allowed so I can't post it for you)...."Really? This looks interesting. I will check it out.
Just trying out the link here. See if it works.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/54700...
OK. The first page and I am laughing out loud. And the link seems to work.
Here are some of my thoughts on Part I and the first two chapters of Part II. We are introduced to Ilya Ilyich Oblomov as an early thirties, mostly non-descript man whose indolence and lack of ambition are deeply profound. His dark gray eyes filled with kindness and gentleness are his one telling characteristic. He is troubled by news from his steward that his estate needs his attention, and that its financial condition is in dire straits. We also learn that he is being hounded by creditors such as the grocer, and faces eviction from his landlord not just for being in arrears for the rent on his apartment but for its needed renovations as it is falling apart around him. He is attended by his slovenly and nearly equally lazy valet Zakhar. They have been together since Oblomov was a well-beloved and much pampered child on the family estate now in distress.
In spite of what appears to be radical withdrawal from society and activity due to his indolence, Oblomov appears quite popular, getting many separate visitors this morning all looking to have him join the crowd leaving town for Yekaterinhof, where "everyone goes" on the first of May.
The first scenes are jaw droppingly descriptive of how Oblomov lives, his personal habits of lassitude, the mess he lives in, the pampering he received by his parents and the whole family and houeshold staff when he was a boy, and the extent to which he dreams his life away. Some of it is funny and ridiculous, maybe dreamlike and bucolic to some (if only in small doses), but my overall takeaway and personal reaction to it was mostly how utterly boring such a life would be. Goncharov is giving us the backstory, but he's ambiguous - to some it might seem like Heaven, to others it would truly be Hell. Where do you stand?
Only at the end of Part I (page 176 in my paperback edition of the translation by Ann Dunnigan), does Oblomov finally get out of bed, when it's about 4:30 that afternoon (without hardly getting past the greeting of an urgent letter he intends to send to his steward). His friend Andrei Ivanovich Stoltz has arrived.
I want to creep over into Part II just for two chapters so we can contrast Stoltz with Oblomov. The two men are boyhood friends and almost complete opposites, except for sharing a core goodness. Stoltz was the son of Oblomov's erstwhile teacher, a German married to a Russian, who did his darnedest to try to get Ivan Ilyich's parents to care about their son's education. They, however, prized his comfort and ease over any struggle to learn or work, while at the same time extending their love and care to Andrei Ivanovich as their son's friend and companion.
The lives of the two friends have gone on very differently since school days. Stoltz is a successful man of the world, active, competent, upright and temperate.
The stage is set with the two main male characters. The action can now begin.
What is your impression of the early section? Are you engaged? Is this your first Goncharov?
Cherisa, a copy of Oblomov has come into our library but I haven't had a chance to pick up the hold yet because I have been too busy at work to walk up to the library. I will pick up tomorrow morning and join you in reading.
I began reading two books this morning where the story starts with the main character lying in bed, Oblomov and Swann's Way. Hmmm....
I have a copy of D.S. Mirsky's, A History of Russian Literature, which I have hung onto since college. Because it focuses on specific authors, Dostoevsky, Turgenev and now, Goncharov, I like to read about each author before I start reading the books we have been reading here on Obscure.I noticed Goncharov had a book published called The Frigate Pallada which is about his travels to and from the far east. If I can find it I would like to read this too. He spent time in Korea and Japan as part of his government service and it is always interesting to here an outsider's view of countries and cultures in Asia especially from historical time periods, at least to me anyway. He also took the long way home via Siberia to St. Petersburg which I think will also be interesting to read about.
Tempted to join too, but have so much to read. I'll see how it goes. Have you read Proust before, Darrin? I finished his novel this year in Paris!
Darrin, I have Goncharov’s The Precipice lined up for my next title of his.
Matthew Ted wrote: "Tempted to join too, but have so much to read. I'll see how it goes. Have you read Proust before, Darrin? I finished his novel this year in Paris!"It was actually your final review after finishing all volumes that inspired me to purchase a new copy of Swann's Way, the Lydia Davis translation. I have an older translation of the book that I attempted to start but could not get into it.
I feel like I want to read this but it is not something that I can read when I am tired or distracted and I will probably take it slow so it may sit on my currently reading shelf for a while.
I am not well read (more like not read at all) in the classics and when Ken's invitation to read Jude the Obscure came and I enjoyed it so much I realized I had an opportunity to catch up with what others had enjoyed and appreciated for so long. Some are enjoyable reads and some are a trudge *cough*The Brothers Karamazov*cough*....I hear so much about Proust that I feel like it won't be a trudge...but we shall see.
Even though I have a degree in Russian Language and Literature, I did not end up reading a lot of Russian classics while I was at the university or to put it another way, I did not read with any depth, more like a broad time range of Russian lit, from Gogol to Bulgakov. I want to go deeper into this too which is why I want to join in on Goncharov even though we just finished The Brothers Karamazov and Home of the Gentry.
Mod
But certain classic authors do that to me: Henry James, Wm Faulkner, "Who's Afraid of" Virginia Woolf, Proust. I just get itchy and impatient with the language.
As for Oblomov, I fear this train left the station before I even packed my luggage at home!
Something I like about this book and Home of the Gentry is the humor. In Home of the Gentry, the chapter that mockingly described Lavretsky's family tree was one of the best things about the book. Oblomov is a similar type of character and this first chapter employs a lot of sarcastic ridicule of the various visitors as well as Oblomov himself.Looking back at Cherisa's questions, I must say I am engaged and I am enjoying reading this just as much as I did Home of the Gentry. A couple of questions that I have in my head are...Are there other books that poked fun of the petty nobles and landowners during this time or are Home of the Gentry and Oblomov the only ones? Sometimes it seems to me that 19th century Russian literature is critical of Russian society as a whole. Why does there always seem to be at least one German minor character? Lemm in Home of the Gentry and now Stolz in Oblomov.
In my copy of the book, which is a Penguin, 1954 translation by David Magarshack, Oblomov gets out of bed upon the arrival and insistence of Tarantyev.
Darrin wrote: "In my copy of the book, which is a Penguin, 1954 translation by David Magarshack, Oblomov gets out of bed upon the arrival and insistence of Tarantyev.. ..."Ah yes Darrin, you're right, but in my defense it's easy to forget - in my copy Ivan Ilyich "reluctantly got out of bed, even more reluctantly moved to a large armchair, sank into it, and sat motionless" when Tarantyev came. Whereas when Stoltz arrived, "Stolz, Stolz!" cried Oblomov in delight, rushing toward his friend" it was with much more enthusiasm and energy that Ivan Ilyich rose.
8 - )
Regarding the mockery of the petty nobles nd landowners, I think there is plenty of that in Russian lit, but I am away from my library (down the Jersey shore this week), and can't thumb through books looking for examples. Conspicuous consumption and backlash against rising bourgeois values was definitely common in the 18th century. Whether it was mockery or outright criticism I just cant come up with something.
Regarding Germans, that's funny you notice. I recently read an essay by Toni Morrison (Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination) about how black characters have been used in American literature as a trope or shortcut for certain things (and how wrong and unfair that has been). Maybe German characters in Russian lit serve the same sort of purpose. Of course not the same themes as blacks, but to stand in for stolidness and mechanistic approaches to living, etc.
Maybe German characters in Russian lit serve the same sort of purpose. Of course not the same themes as blacks, but to stand in for stolidness and mechanistic approaches to living, etc. Yes, that makes sense. Without being able cite anything that I have read in the past, I seem to remember this ongoing historical love/hate relationship between Germany and Russia. Obviously there are the two wars but I am not thinking about either of them. Prior to WW1, Germany was seen as the country that "got its act together" whereas Russia and the Russians felt themselves to be living in a backwater. Germany for Russians was a country to be both admired and ridiculed because of that stolidness and mechanistic approach to life that you have pointed out.As I continue reading the first chapter, and having read the small biographical descriptions of Oblomov and Zakhar, I keep thinking of Oblomov in today's world and the words chronic depression keep going through my mind. I have had days and even weeks when all I wanted to do was ruminate and dwell on my anxieties and would have given anything to just lie in bed all day but Oblomov has taken this to new extremes.
Darrin wrote: "Maybe German characters in Russian lit serve the same sort of purpose. Of course not the same themes as blacks, but to stand in for stolidness and mechanistic approaches to living, etc. Yes, that m..."Chronic depression puts a pathological stamp on what ails Oblomov, and that might be the right direction, Darrin. There is a lot in the critiques about the "superfluous man" and what caused the malaise. This is a main conversation about the book to have. Part 2 crystalizes a lot of it, and so that's what my focus will be here. I'm going to start a separate entry for it to start off fresh.
And I hope your anxieties aren't often debilitating, Darrin. Oh, that black dog.
Part IIUp to now, we've seen Ilya Ilyich as a kindly couch potato who has withdrawn from life, with no explanation of why. Laziness is one thing, but his way of life, of absolute apathy, is radical. When he is roused to arguing with Stoltz, Ilya Ilyich defends himself with equivalency - the value of all the running around that others do, without love, kindness, honesty or sympathy for their fellow human beings, or the emptiness of concentrating on a card game in a fashionable salon, -- "Are these people not dead? Are they not sleeping their lives away? Why am I more guilty than they, lying at home in my own bed?" He's saying he's no more dead to life than they are.
Stoltz gives his friend credit, and says at least he's reasoning, philosophizing. Wanting nothing but peace and rest, no stress or anxiety about the future, cheerful days and simple nights in the unchallenging bosom of gently loving friends and family - these are the life dreams of his friend that Stoltz names "Oblomovism."
Later in Part II, Goncharov writes this: Despite the fact that Oblomov had spent his youth in a circle of young men who knew everything and believed in nothing, who coolly, sagely, analyzed and solved all the problems of life, he still cherished a belief in friendship, love, and honor, and however much he had been, and still might be, mistaken about people, and however much he suffered for it, his fundamental belief in human goodness was unshaken." In this regard, Oblomov is different from the other "superfluous men" of Russian literature. And that's who we need to speak of now. What is this concept of the superfluous man, and why is it so much in Russian literature?
"Lishny Chelovek", Russian for "superfluous man", recurs so much in 19th century Russian literature that it became a national archetype. I read up on it some to renew my understanding, and the problem seems generational - young aristocrats, educated, idle, well-informed but not in urgent need of making a living, remain bystanders, incapable of or unwilling to take effective action on any issue, even pressing ones they care about. Our Oblomov daydreams, lives on the income of the estate he never visits and lets it be badly managed or allows himself to be robbed by his steward without care. Superfluous has an obsolete meaning in English that might be the appropriate one for the Russian term - instead of "not needed, or redundant" it used to (also) mean "wasteful." The first would mean these men themselves aren't needed - there being no place in society for them to bring their talents to; the latter meaning that they themselves waste their talents or resources, being profligate of what they have and could put to better use if they weren't who they are. Note that their non-engagement doesn't appear reflective of or isn't described as depression, but it could very well be part of the mix. Can feelings of lack of purpose drive mental illness? Mental state and mental illness are different, but mind-body theory and the synergy of the two makes them hard to fully separate.
In Part II, Oblomov has been energized with love for Olga, introduced by Stoltz, who had accepted their mutual friend's assignment to keep Ilya Ilyich roused and busy while Stoltz was off traveling. We see in this section of the story that even love might not be enough to keep Ilya Ilyich in gear. His ambivalence is even creeping into Olga's sensibilities. Toward the end of Part II, she is beginning to suffer cases of nerves that might be incipient realization that she has chosen wrong, fallen in love with the wrong man and that it might be too late to change course. This isn't her story, but her superfluous man impacts her, and we see he had a presentiment of this with the letter that he wrote her. Though Ilya Ilyich took back the letter, and they try to go on as before, it couldn't be unread, and is doing its damage. The return of her cousin Sonya, and being in the company of others who don't see the good in Ilya Ilyich (or are non-judgmental the aunt and the baron), are causing more stressors.
Is their love all a big mistake? Can love "save" Oblomov? Should Olga sacrifice her life to it because she seems to already have chosen? Is Oblomovism such a bad thing? "Busy" isn't necessarily a virtue, right? What questions do you think Part II raises?
The issue of women saving men came up in interesting ways in this part. First of course Olga vis-a-vis Ilya Ilyich as we already mentioned. Also Anisya, whom the valet Zakhar has married. Her intervention has smoothed out Oblomov's household a bit and helps not only her husband but the master and the new activity in his life. But at one point when speaking of Anisya's virtues and how little her husband credits her with them, Goncharov generalizes her and all wives with this: There are many husbands like Zakhar in the world. A diplomat will sometimes carelessly listen to his wife's advice, shrug his shoulders, and then sit down and write exactly what she has advised. An administrator may whistle or listen with a pained grimace to his wife's chatter about a serious affair of state, and the next day repeat it to the minister. These gentlemen treat their wives just as lightly and sullenly as Zakhar treated his, look down on them as women, they regard them as mere flowers, something to divert them after the serious business of life.
In contrast, and what makes Ilya Ilyich a kinder, gentler superfluous man, comes a few pages earlier. Oblomov had realized the role Olga was playing to his Hamlet (to participate in life or not):
She would be the cause of his transformation! It had already begun: the moment she commenced singing, Oblomov became a different person....He would live and work blessing life and her. To restore a man to life--just think how a doctor was glorified when he saved a hopeless invalid!
This sort of dance between the genders, "save me, help me, but don't expect any credit or respect for it," is both humorous and deadly serious in its way. Is Olga's life to be sacrificed to save Oblomov's? Is Goncharov's sentiment about women here just a throwaway item uncentral to his overall theme?
Hi, everybody!Sorry I'm so late! I've missed the notification of this thread and thought we were not starting just yet. I hope I'm not too late!
I've read the first two parts by now and will be on time with the rest.
Here are my impressions:
The first scenes of the book seemed more akin to a play than to a novel. The characters, including Oblomov, looked more like caricatures than like real people. The fact that everything happened in a single location, Oblomov's room, intensified the theatrical impression. Also, there was no sign of all these people in the second part; I wonder if we'll see them at all. There was a snipe at authors who ridicule their characters, - well, this looked exactly like this.
The book became more interesting for me when the relationship between Oblomov and Zakhar was explored. Neither of them looked very likeable, but I could pity them both.
Oblomov is, of course, pitiful, but also very relatable. I've noticed before that when asked about my ideal day (a popular self-help exercise), I might mention that my house would be neat and tidy, but would never mention doing the actual cleaning-up. I do love spending time on the couch, only there's usually a book in my hands - but I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't see much difference between daydreaming and reading fiction.
But there's a difference, too: I actually enjoy my dreams, i. e., do the pleasurable things that I would like to do. Oblomov dreams of spending time in the country, but cannot actually make himself go to the country.
Still, I do get him when he says that the other's business is not real life either.
So this started as a psychological novel with forages into philosophy, the good old search for the meaning of life. Suddenly the second part is all romantic and rather soap-opera-ish, even. I am trying to pretend that I don't remember the ending (I remember it very vaguely, anyway); can this affair work? We all need encouragement from time to time, but can a relationship work when all the work is to be done by just one of the couple? Why is Oblomov always imagining the ways in which it could fail - is he subconsciously hoping it would? Why is it so difficult for him to propose, if he's sure that his intentions are honest?
I liked Olga more before she started playing with Oblomov. I wonder what is her vision of their future. Obviously, there's another young woman (like Lisa) without maternal guidance and much experience with men.
Stolz is an interesting character. I think the author is trying to describe him as likeable, but at the same time his sympathies are really with Oblomov, so from time to time he takes Stolz down a notch. Turgenev thought people (or at least men) were either thinkers like Hamlet or doers like Don Quixote; here we see a thinker and a doer, too, but the doer is as unquixotic as possible.
Now I'll have a look at what you've written :)
Cherisa wrote: "Goncharov is giving us the backstory, but he's ambiguous - to some it might seem like Heaven, to others it would truly be Hell. Where do you stand?"I would not want to live in this particular hamlet, but I do love it when I don't really have to do anything. I do not want to just eat and sleep all day, but I wouldn't object to having enough money and free time to do whatever I want :)
What do you think?
Cherisa wrote: "What is your impression of the early section? Are you engaged? Is this your first Goncharov?"
I said before the discussion that I thought I preferred this one: A Common Story, now we'll see if it holds :)
I'm more engaged after the second part than I was after the first.
(But I read them in close succession since the need to speed up, so it didn't really matter).
I have not read 'The Precipice', though.
In Russian, all three of these novels start with an O :) (I find it a curious fact).
Darrin wrote: "Are there other books that poked fun of the petty nobles and landowners during this time or are Home of the Gentry and Oblomov the only ones? Sometimes it seems to me that 19th century Russian literature is critical of Russian society as a whole. Why does there always seem to be at least one German minor character? Lemm in Home of the Gentry and now Stolz in Oblomov.
They're definitely not the only ones. You're absolutely right, Russian lit is (I think) always critical of Russian society,
But I would say that Lemm and Stolz are quite different. Lemm is partly comic relief, partly foil, he's there to characterize other people more than to act himself. Stolz, on the other hand, is, I think, a concept rather than a person so far, so he is very active.
Cherisa wrote: "Maybe German characters in Russian lit serve the same sort of purpose. Of course not the same themes as blacks, but to stand in for stolidness and mechanistic approaches to living, etc."Maybe not always mechanistic approaches, since Lemm is, on the opposite, a talented musician, but I agree that both Lemm and Stolz's father are described with a hint of condescension, so to speak. But not Stolz himself (so far).
In this book, the English are also mentioned, again, with mingled respect and ridicule.
Darrin wrote: "Germany for Russians was a country to be both admired and ridiculed because of that stolidness and mechanistic approach to life that you have pointed out.
Germany, yes, but not necessarily the Germans living in Russia! They were, I'm afraid, often viewed as inferior immigrants. What Tarantyev says about Stolz in his absence was not a unique sentiment.
Is Oblomov depressed? It's an interesting point, Darrin. I would say, no. The outward signs are similar, he doesn't have energy for anything. But he doesn't seem to be suffering from it - in fact, he seems to be enjoying his dreams and his long naps. I think, you know, this would be a totally valid supposition in real life, - people often overlook depression even in their loved ones, so it's better to check twice. But this is a book that ponders certain ideas, so I think we should consider it more in terms of concepts, maybe, than strictly realistically.
That said, I certainly have had days when I couldn't get up :( But I was not dreaming sweet dreams then. Reasons to Stay Alive is a good book for such days, in case anybody needs it for themselves or somebody else.
Cherisa wrote: "Is their love all a big mistake? Can love "save" Oblomov? Should Olga sacrifice her life to it because she seems to already have chosen? Is Oblomovism such a bad thing? "Busy" isn't necessarily a virtue, right? What questions do you think Part II raises?" Part II definitely raises the questions you've formulated so well; but I'd say that with two more parts to go, it's too early to judge, isn't it?
There's another interesting point: Stolz said he was partial to Olga when he first described her singing; Olga said she loved him (as a friend... maybe). But for now, Stolz seems more or less forgotten.
Cherisa wrote: "This sort of dance between the genders, "save me, help me, but don't expect any credit or respect for it," is both humorous and deadly serious in its way. Is Olga's life to be sacrificed to save Oblomov's? Is Goncharov's sentiment about women here just a throwaway item uncentral to his overall theme?"
Great questions, Cherisa!
Oblomov obviously has his own doubts considering the question of Olga's sacrifice.
Note that so far he has still done nothing :)
I would say, Goncharov (although I have not read 'The Precipice') is generally sympathetic to women, but I'd like to come back to this question when we finish the book.
By the way, Oblomov compares himself to Hamlet, but he compares Olga to Cordelia, not Ophelia.
Plateresca, the Shakespeare references are really interesting. Hamlet is pretty straightforward, but I don't really understand how the Cordelia reference works, though. The daughter who truly loves her father won't make a show of it. How does that fit Olga's situation? Is it a foreshadowing that Ilya Ilyich will banish her? But then that puts Oblomov in the King Lear role. Confusing. Maybe we need to wait and look over this thread once we're done with the book.
Plateresca wrote: "Hi, everybody!Sorry I'm so late! I've missed the notification of this thread and thought we were not starting just yet. I hope I'm not too late!
I've read the first two parts by now and will be ..."
Welcome, Plateresca! Glad to see you! You already have a lot of good things to contribute!
Thank you!I agree, we should return to the King Lear allusion later on. Off the top of my head, I would say that Cordelia is unappreciated by other characters until later on in the play, - we are told that Olga is unpopular with young men because of her frank manner. But Oblomov probably meant just that she's loving and innocent. King Lear also hugely misjudges his daughters, - could be a lot of things, really.
Plateresca wrote: "I think, you know, this would be a totally valid supposition in real life, - people often overlook depression even in their loved ones, so it's better to check twice. But this is a book that ponders certain ideas, so I think we should consider it more in terms of concepts, maybe, than strictly realistically." I was at least somewhat serious that my modern take on Oblomov's condition was possible but reading further, Oblomov's dream about his childhood in Oblomovka made me realize that he is more the product of his upbringing and his parents, the do-nothing father and the overprotective, helicopter mother, than any potential psychological ailments I might diagnose him with.
I am trying to not read too much of what is being said above as I am behind both of you. I have only just started part 2 and have some catching up to do.
Part IIIThough he thinks he loves Olga, Ilya Ilyich is slipping back into Oblomovism, hoping things improve without his having to undertake any effort to make them go his way. Page after page cycles through his desires, his lack of activity, his excuses, his brief commitment to make any effort to change his ways.
The apartment situation that Tarantyev engineered has Ilya Ilyich getting very comfortable with the housekeeper Agafya. Between her and Anisya, Zakhar's wife, both women are creating the comfort and ease our hero seeks. He gently interacts with the children in the house, helping them with their lessons but no actual responsibility for them. If only he didn't have to worry about money and responsibility and peasants and quitrent and taxes, wedding costs, scandal....
It's heartbreaking when Olga finally realizes that Ilya will never wake up. Her love can't save him. He has nothing to offer her but tenderness, and though she is softhearted, she knows they can't be united. There is no "forward" or "higher" to reach for in a life with him, and she can't do it. What I say is GOOD FOR HER. And thank goodness. What Ilya offers, Oblomovism, would be a living death for her.
In this part, we see with clarity that Tarantyev is no friend, but a scoundrel out to take all he can from Ilya. Additionally, his landlord's son, Ivan Matveyevich, is a snake in the bosom of the family where Ilya is residing. Will Ilya turn over his estate to their agency and lose all his resources through their chicanery?
What Goncharov has done in this section is show that in two most fundamental areas of living - love and finances, the superfluous man cannot or will not take the necessary steps to secure his own success. He would turn over his entire estate to a stranger rather than travel to look after,, or at least into it himself. Far easier to hope he won't be cheated, though he doesn't even stop to consider that possibility, merely leaps at the chance that someone will do all the work and send him all the income, with a little fee and travel expenses off the top.
To quote Zakhar - "pathetic."
What do you think about this section? What questions or issues does it raise for you?
I agree, Cherisa: 'pathetic' is exactly the word for this part!It was funny to read in the beginning of it how Oblomov started losing enthusiasm for his affair as soon as he realized marriage meant he had things to do; but not at all funny to read in the end about how Olga finally realized the scope of his passivity.
Again, I agree that she's better off without him.
He was getting exceedingly tired of the affair, too, since he even stopped visiting her, - but I guess the author suggests that he is thus losing his chance for inner growth.
What do you think happened to the money he thought he had? Did somebody steal it or did he just forget a couple of extra expenses?
What do you think of Agafya? She seems a kind soul, but the expression that comes to my mind is 'creature comforts', Oblomov leers at her forms and enjoys her home cooking so. Olga with her books and singing and intelligence is her exact opposite.
It feels like there's something improper in what happens between Agafya and Oblomov. On the surface, they're just being nice. But the way she doesn't enter his room because she's not properly dressed, but thrusts in her bare arm... I have a feeling this is not quite decent.
His being nice to her children, too... On the surface, it's just that, being nice, but what does this lead to, right? Especially since he's supposed to be arranging things for his marriage with another woman.
So nothing he does can be described as infidelity, and yet there is an air of impropriety and maybe even lewdness about some of these descriptions.
I understand the apartment is unkempt, too, and this enhances Oblomov's own inner mess. It practically inspires one to clean up :)
The alliance between Ivan and Tarantyev is disgusting. But then, come to think of it, basically, they just mirror Oblomov's attitude to his village. He's only interested in the money it brings, he can't bear to go there even for a short time, lets the family house fall into disrepair etc. They're very interested in his money, too. Talk of being superfluous...
Cherisa wrote: '...someone will do all the work and send him all the income, with a little fee and travel expenses off the top' - Right, this happens all the time. And he does not believe this out of stupidity; it's just a necessity out of unwillingness or inability to act himself.
Stolz is still absent, only mentioned a few times in conversation so that we don't forget about him. OK, Stolz, time to reappear in the last act :)
The gown in this part becomes a magical thing: Oblomov puts it on (or rather, he's made to put it on) and it takes away the rest of his will. Then a snowfall covers everything in snow - a symbol of sleep and death in nature. I must say I hate summer (and this summer has been particularly difficult) and enjoy winter, but in literature summer often stands for life and vivacity and winter is the opposite. So Oblomov was awake in summer, and prepares to hibernate in winter.
By the way, the lethargic nap of the population of Oblomovka in Oblomov's dream is also compared to the sleep of death, and also has this fairy-tale quality about it, doesn't it? Only here a kiss fails to wake up the prince...
The phrase 'vicarious embarrassment' describes my emotions while reading this part best.
Are you enjoying the book so far?
Plateresca wrote: "I agree, Cherisa: 'pathetic' is exactly the word for this part!"Lots of great comments in your thread, Plateresca! I don't want to miss any.
He was getting exceedingly tired of the affair, too, since he even stopped visiting her, - but I guess the author suggests that he is thus losing his chance for inner growth. Absolutely agree. The "wellspring" of love that temporarily revived Ilya is drying up pretty quickly. When he didn't visit that day they "put the bridges back" and OLga was so beautiful and ready to receive him, you just knew it was over.
What do you think happened to the money he thought he had? Did somebody steal it or did he just forget a couple of extra expenses? I'm sure it was a combination. That day Tarantyev came and Ilya just kept throwing money at him to get him to leave even though he was running short until the next remittance from the estate made it clear he can't manage money in his pocket let alone his larger affairs. And also we know his steward is cheating him on the other end, if not all the other people involved with his affairs at Oblomovka, like the buyers of his grain, etc. I'm sure they collude to underpay with no one watching the steward.
What do you think of Agafya? Who knew elbows were an erotic thing? :) There is definitely an incipient lust brewing here, however mild (Ilya is not ever going to be a passionate lover). I don't think she has any ulterior motives or is in any way trying to seduce him. She seems like a good person, a hard worker, who wants to have a place in the sun where she can be fulfilled and do her duty and enjoy herself a little, not in anyway maliciously but caring about those around her. Ilya provides this is multiple ways and she's happy to provide him whatever comfort and ease she can in return. But you're right, his attention to Agafya shows that he's blind to his true lack of devotion to Olga.
The gown in this part becomes a magical thing: Oblomov puts it on (or rather, he's made to put it on) and it takes away the rest of his will. Then a snowfall covers everything in snow - a symbol of sleep and death... You're so right about the use of metaphors and symbols here. The gown is definitely the stand-in for Oblomovism. Even cleaned and pressed, it represents that he is reclothing himself for the apathy and lassitude and withdrawal from life that we had hoped he escaped. Without Agafya, it would return to its previous state of disarray, but we can imagine she'll wrestle it off him occasionally to keep it at least somewhat clean.
And snow, yes, that too represents the chill happening - the cooling of love. Even the bridges, which represent connections and allowing outreach, can't make Ilya cross over into life and love. He stays away when Olga is so ready to receive him. Really sad.
Stolz is still absent, only mentioned a few times in conversation so that we don't forget about him. OK, Stolz, time to reappear in the last act... We are definitely awaiting the return of Stoltz. You mention a prince and a kiss, but re Stoltz, we await the knight in shining armor riding in on his white stallion. :) I'm still hoping he lives up to my remembrance. It must be in Part IV because though there was some glimmer of it in Part I, there wasn't enough to have lasted all these years in my mental landscape.
Are you enjoying the book so far? I am, and also glad to be rereading it with you. Chatting helps tease out things that make the book more interesting. Thank you!
I've been nodding as I've been reading your post: I agree with you on all points!Thank you! It was your (excellent) idea to read this together (I've learnt that it was published in the same year as 'The Home of the Gentry', so of course, it made perfect sense!). I am enjoying our discussion greatly!
Actually, I think that this book is much better read in company. It is very philosophical, and philosophy goes well with discussions.
That said, I think it's very well-written. The main characters represent ideas, ways of living and thinking, and they even seemed a bit too simplistic, a bit like caricatures in the beginning; but they've developed into full-dimensional characters and by the end, although still a discussion of ideas really, the novel is at the same time realistic and coherent.
Yes, Stolz does reappear in the last act, and I'm dying to know if he lived up to your expectations! Has he?
Darrin, are you catching up?
Plateresca wrote: "I've been nodding as I've been reading your post: I agree with you on all points!Thank you! It was your (excellent) idea to read this together (I've learnt that it was published in the same year a..."
I am so glad to have gotten to read it with you! There's a book by Wendy Lesser, Nothing Remains the Same - Rereading and Remembering, where she talks about the transformations that can happen in our perceptions and experiences of books if and as we reread them at different periods and ages in our lives. She uses different titles to illustrate her ideas, and were I to construct a reader memoir like that, Oblomov would absolutely be one of the essays.
Unlike in the previous parts, I don't want to summarize the action to prevent spoiling it for others. But I do want to talk about Stoltz and insofar as it goes, about his marriage. SPOILER ALERT below.
.
.
.
From childhood, we know that Andrei is posited as Ilya's opposite. As a grown-up, he is the active, driven, interested man to Ilya's passive, indolent, superfluous man. We've seen what daily life actually looks like for the superfluous man, and that marriage to such a one means life circles around meals and holidays, small excursions to small, local, seasonal events, no intellectual stimulation, no participation in issues beyond the kitchen garden or local market.
Part IV shows us how different marriage is to Ilya's opposite. For me, Goncharov's description of Andrei and Olga's marriage is breathtaking. What they both bring to it, the psychic energy they devote to it, the care they tend it with, the humor and history they share, the open communication they keep kindled-- utterly ideal. There's a little bit of a "savior" problem that Goncharov creates that I object to - Olga would never find true love without him, but then maybe Andrei would never find it without Olga, either. That qualm doesn't prevent me from appreciating the drawing he makes of what a beautiful marriage looks like. Maybe this is what I've carried with me all these years. (I discovered it's been 35 years since I first read the book.) Stoltz's staunchness as a friend is good, and I appreciate his friendship with Olga even more than his friendship with Ilya, but his example of lover and husband strikes me much more deeply on this later-in-life reread. His personal values and integrity, his practices across his life to husband his strength and call forth his reserves when needed for hard things, his engagement in life and openness to beauty - just awesome. Revisiting with him has really been wonderful.
I'd like to start a final post with an overall discussion of the book and get your final thoughts.
Nineteenth century Russian literature, what can you say? Big ideas, cultural and social commentary, class and gender, humor and satire -- all packed together for our literary edification, education, entertainment and consideration. Goncharov is right up there with Tolstoy and Dostoevsky for kicking around so many aspects of the human condition with compassion and heart. I think the most basic theme for this book is "how to live" or "by what principles do we make a life?" Not many are so lucky in life that they can have a living with no effort or sweat, but Goncharov shows what that kind of life looks like. Pretty empty and meaningless. Even though he's harmless and loveable and brought some happiness into the world, Ilya was a superfluous man - unneeded in the world and unheeding to the difference or improvement his engagement with it might have contributed to society around him. His benign presence, however, is preferable, if you'll allow me to make a political statement in this forum, to the superfluous men of today - those who take guns into crowded places and wantonly kill because they have no care of being in the world. Okay, off the soapbox.
160 years later, I think Goncharov is still meaningful today. His commentary on broad swaths of the human condition, on women's "place" for being a subservient helpmeet or equal partner, his meditations on active or passive interest and participation in what's going on around us, the good, kind, criminal, forthright, diffident types of people in the world and how they always seem to have existed, make Oblomov and his creator still relevant.
I really enjoyed this reread with you. Thank you!
One more comment, and that's about Olga's aunt. I remember many years ago reading a Mark Helprin story, maybe it was Soldier of the Great War, where a toddler seemed to be wandering around the estate unsupervised. But in fact, his watchers followed a creed one might call "benign neglect". Let a child explore and learn. Keep an eye out for major safety issues, but otherwise, let them experience their life. No helicoptering there!In Olga's aunt's case, we don't know at what age Olga came to be under her care or tutelage, or even why, but her creed seemed to be "live and let live." Be a companion, perhaps even a mentor, keep an eye out, but live and let live. In most households, I think a young woman in any society at that time would be under tight control or constraints, but Olga's freedom was mostly hampered only by her own conscious or internally felt pressure to protect her reputation. This is a rarity I don't recall in other Russian novels.
I don't think we ever learned the aunt's name (please correct me if I'm wrong!), but her presence in Olga's life and Russian lit is significant in its way.
Oh yes, we are interacting with books on multiple levels, and this changes as we change. Sadly, my memories of my first reading of 'Oblomov' are too vague; I'm sure my understanding of it has changed, but I can't say how exactly :)Speaking about the last part, I want to say that it's different from the other three in that a lot of things actually happen in the outer world here, unlike in the first three parts where most of what happens is in the minds and hearts of the characters and does not necessarily lead to external manifestations.
Also, wow, Goncharov is a master of unromantic romantic scenes! Oblomov's flirting comment that Agafya might sew her nose to her skirt is so gross, but also all the military comparisons in the scene between Stolz and Olga made me quite uncomfortable.
So, Stolz, at last!
I agree, his marriage to Olga is idyllic. I have some slender doubts as to whether it is realistic, though. Is it possible that a serial international entrepreneur could also be such an engaged husband and parent? Well, the author tries hard to convince us of this, so let's hope that it's really so :)
I guess Goncharov's treatment of Olga as going into the details of his business and practically becoming a partner was very modern and feminist!
Also, Stolz is very generous in taking care of Oblomovka and getting rid of all the parasites without, as I understand it, any gain for himself. I'm glad he went even further and got Ivan kicked out of his governmental job (although this was sadly reversed later on, but still) - I am sure this was not from spite but from his desire to do good and prevent further injustice.
Yes, the Russian classical authors are very nice to concern themselves so much with what is the right way to live. I think for (most of) them, and certainly for Goncharov, it's important that a person would leave something good behind them, effect a lasting positive change. So Stolz is improving every business he comes in contact with and is educating his children (and not only his, by the way :)), and so is Olga. What happens after Oblomov's death is tragic, really.
So, as to the question of who are the superfluous people in modern times... I'd say a superfluous person would be somebody who just went to work and then to a bar or to watch Netflix and then there's nothing left but the pollution they caused. On the other pole would be somebody like Elon Musk, I guess :) But I like to think of a game-changer in terms of 'Middlemarch''s Dorothea, too, as of somebody who does not change the world in any big way, but makes a positive impression on every life she comes in contact with.
I am also very grateful to you, both for the reread and the discussion :)
Speaking about Olga's upbringing, it's explicitly mentioned that she was on her own when forming her ideas, and that it was good for her. Yes, I do think this is a modern concept, even for our times, - that a young person can be better off on their own than under parental guidance (I think 'The Home of the Gentry' somewhat implies that Lavretsky fell in love with the bad woman at least partly because he was neglected as a child, - I'd say this is the traditional view). (My husband didn't have a father and his mother was the opposite of a helicopter one, and he's the least messed-up person I've ever met). Yes, this is clever of you to have noticed this!The aunt's name is Marya Mikhaylovna, and it seems it's missing from the Gutenberg text!
A couple of notes I wanted to add...Almost every character likes Oblomov! This lets us know that he's actually nice. Stolz wouldn't bother so much about him if he didn't truly believe in his inherent goodness, and Olga wouldn't have fallen in love with him (although I think she probably doubted her love from the very beginning, but was too obstinate to admit it).
There's a point in the fourth part when everything is just as Oblomov would have it: he is well cared for and his life is completely untroubled. If the book was to end there, one would say, 'Well, so what's wrong with this kind of living?' But he dies (prematurely, I guess) and leaves all the people who loved him in a very sad state, - and this is what's wrong (according to the author, as I understand it).
Stolz has the best of two cultures: German pragmaticism and, I guess, the Russian soulfulness. And he's close to being the Übermensch of the novel. And I've been talking about the Russian dismissive attitude towards German immigrants! :) Well, maybe Goncharov was original in this way, too. (Stolz means 'proud' in German).
Plateresca wrote: "Stolz has the best of two cultures: German pragmaticism and, I guess, the Russian soulfulness. And he's close to being the Übermensch of the novel. And I've been talking about the Russian dismissive attitude towards German immigrants! :)"We had talked about the use of Germans in Russian literature when we first started, Plataresca, and I'm glad you brought it up again. "Dismissive" maybe but also a little envious, I think, in that they are the "doers" that can make thing and get things done. Remember Peter and later czars really recruited for talent among them to help them modernize the empire across various disciplines. The characters in the story who are the most dismissive of contemptuous of Stoltz for being German are the scoundrels ripping off Ilya.
Thanks for mentioning the meaning of Stoltz's surname! I didn't know that, and I'll bet it Goncharov used it meaningfully.
Ilya got what he wanted, but not only did he die young, but it seemed even he got terribly bored at he end. Goncharov I think very clearly signaled that an active life is preferable. That said, "to each his own" and "live and let live" so long as you don't add to the world's awfulness.
Plateresca wrote: "I agree, his marriage to Olga is idyllic. I have some slender doubts as to whether it is realistic, though. ..."Idyllic means not realistic, I suppose, but one can dream. Marriage is hard, heck, every relationship is, but you hope that mutual respect and care and appreciation permeate, that neither partner stops working to keep it working, and personal growth doesn't prevent growing together as well.
Has the book inspired you to be more active, I wonder? I find I am being more active in my garden, but probably it's just the weather getting slightly cooler :)Yes, I think Olga and Andrey respect each other, and also challenge each other, so they have all the chances of being a happy couple. I'm also sure it would have been impossible for her to challenge Oblomov to do anything that would interest her. It's curious that the men do not seem to be in the least jealous: Oblomov is happy for Olga, Stolz has no objections to her enthusiastic interest in Oblomov, - a touching aspect of this unlikely friendship.
This book was excellent and I am glad to have read it. I have caught up on all of your commentary above and agree with everything. I am sorry I was not able to keep up with the two of you but I got started late and have too many other books going on...it is just the way I roll I guess.Anyway, I would really like to keep going on 19th century Russian lit and thinking about what I might read next. Goncharov's non-fiction travelogue, The Frigate Pallada is not available even through inter-library loan and even used copies on eBay are expensive. Though, now that I think about it, Project Gutenberg might be an option.
Regardless, I am considering Tolstoy but probably not War and Peace or even Anna Karenin...perhaps a short story collection to begin with. I will continue to give it some thought. I am on a bit of a heavy reading binge with other books right now anyway.
After reading the comments above earlier today, I realized how much symbolism there was in the dressing gown...the putting on of the gown, the taking off, the patching up, etc...I wonder if Oblomov was buried in it?
Darrin wrote: "This book was excellent and I am glad to have read it. I have caught up on all of your commentary above and agree with everything. I am sorry I was not able to keep up with the two of you but I got..."Thanks for reading the book even if you couldn't keep up with us and kick in for the discussion, Darrin. I like knowing that books I like get read out there in the world, even ones 150 years old and older. Like listening to an obscure classical work, the fact that the sounds or words or ideas of its creator still float in the aura of our world means something important or at least significant to me.
Let us know what you decide to read and I'll try to join you. I'm all in for 19th century Russians, or Germans. Would you consider Chekov? I just read Lady with a Dog (amazing), so have a new copy of his short stories I could plow into.
Darrin wrote: "After reading the comments above earlier today, I realized how much symbolism there was in the dressing gown...the putting on of the gown, the taking off, the patching up, etc...I wonder if Oblomov..."That would really seal the deal, wouldn't it, that the symbol of his indolence would confirm the sum total of the man's existence. Very sad to think.
Darrin, I'm so glad you could finish the book and enjoyed it, in the end! I can see there will be a new edition of 'The Frigate Pallada' this autumn! I've checked on ABE, which is my favourite resource for used books, and there's one 1965 edition and this new one, which is sold on preorder. I suppose the new translation might be better, so if you're still interested later on, we could check it out then!
Also, I'd like to reread 'War and Peace' one day, but definitely not just now. I reread 'Anna Karenina' a couple of years ago and it was a huge time investment :)
Sorry for the off-topic, Cherisa!
My guess is, it is very probable that Oblomov was buried in his favourite dressing gown! :)
I reread W&P every five years or so for about 25 years, and the last time I said that was probably the last time, but I've been rethinking that decision. ;-)
The Obscure Reading Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Reasons to Stay Alive (other topics)A Common Story (other topics)
One last thing about why I want to reread it regards Oblomov's close friend, Stoltz. I have carried this literary character in my mental landscape for decades as an apotheosis of a good friend, a solid, salt-of-the-earth, steady man who keeps the world on track. I want to see if he holds up to my memories and beliefs after all these years. I hope so, but we'll see.
Please note the 1915 Hogarth translation is available on Project Gutenberg (their ebook #54700 - hyperlinks off this site not allowed so I can't post it for you).