Обрыв

by Ivan Goncharov

"Обрыв" И.А.Гончарова - один из лучших русских реалистических романов. В нем правдиво показана жизнь дворянской интеллигенции 60-x годов XIX века. Писатель развивает основную тему своего творчества - тему "борьбы с всероссийским застоем".

Genres: Classics, Russian Literature, Russia, Fiction, Novels, 19th Century, Historical Fiction

790 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1869

About the author

Russian novelist Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (/ˈɡɒntʃəˌrɔːf, -ˌrɒf/; Russian: Ива́н Алекса́ндрович Гончаро́в), best known for his novels A Common Story (1847), Oblomov (1859), and The Precipice (1869). He also served in many official capacities, including the position of censor.

Goncharov was born into the family of a wealthy merchant, elevated as a reward for military service of his grandfather to gentry status. A boarding school, then the Moscow college of commerce, and finally Moscow State University educated him. After graduating, he served for a short time in the office of the governor of Simbirsk before moving to Saint Petersburg, where he worked as government translator and private tutor, while publishing poetry and fiction in private almanacs. People published A Common Story , first novel of Goncharov, in Sovremennik in 1847.

Goncharov's second and best-known novel Oblomov was published in 1859 in Otechestvennye zapiski. His third and final novel The Precipice was published in Vestnik Evropy in 1869. He also worked as a literary and theatre critic. Towards the end of his life Goncharov wrote a memoir called An Uncommon Story, in which he accused his literary rivals, first and foremost Ivan Turgenev, of having plagiarized his works and prevented him from achieving European fame. The memoir was published in 1924. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, among others, considered Goncharov an author of high stature. Anton Chekhov is quoted as stating that Goncharov was "...ten heads above me in talent."

Reviews

[Evoli · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 ☆

It is EXTREMELY NOTICEABLE that Goncharov has been PONDERING AND CHEWING on this book for 20 years...

The vast majority of themes in this book was really interesting, however, it got extremely tedious to read (and mind you, I read it in the original language)...
I've been CHEWING on it for half a year, which is quite a lot for me personally, since I practically run through books (not because I don't analyse them buttt because I dedicate a lot of time to that hobby of mine).
There was so so so much UNNECESSARY drama between the characters, I sometimes didn't understand certain minor motives of characters (it felt like they were all "too soft" and rarely had their own opinion, meaning they couldn't really push through with their actions) and overall, the plot dragged on and on and on. The characters and protagonists started to mainly annoy me and even some "good actions" from their sides couldn't redeem them in my eyes.
I mean slayyy Vera for not following Mark and breaking things off with him, he was really horrible, however, little miss literally mentally killed and hurt everyone in the process... She is SOOO egotistical like UGH. Yet, somehow, everyone seems to like her, while I liked her sister so much more... Yk, if you're miserable because of your own stupidity, why drag everyone into your drama... I'd get it if you need help/advice buttt her behaviour wasn't initially based on that and she only came crawling to them for help when this Mark dude fricked her over.
And what about Boris??? Bro is like idk 30-40 years old and is far from being a mature and responsible adult. His grandma literally does everything in the household and he goes like "oh, just drop it, it will somehow sort itself out". On top of that, he constantly kept giving most random people money for no real reason.
To end this spoiler. THEIR GRANDMA DESERVED BETTER, poor woman...
What I did love about them though was the fact that they're so open-hearted to help each other as a family/as relatives!!! They were all ready to go an extra mile for each other.

The "culmination" literally happened in part 4 of the book, which is around page 700 out of 820 pages... And for me personally, that's just too far into the book.
I'd say that's because he (Goncharov) kept writing it for such a long time and because he KEPT ADDING SIDE PLOTS (which I personally found unnecessary for the overall plot and his "message"...)

Initially, it was extremely captivating and exciting, however, towards the 60% mark I mainly just wanted it to be over, which was extremely unfortunate, given the importance and significance of this literary piece and the majorly important discussed topics. What kept me reading was the stunning language, phrases and formulations of deepest thoughts.

Would I still recommend this book? ABSOLUTELY YES!!!!
I think it's a book that everyone needs their own opinion about... Some people will heavily relate with the characters and might understand how they can solve their own situations. It's truly an eye opening read!!!

[J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

First a note on the English translation: If you read this in English and not the Ardis 1994 edition, you aren't reading anything close to the Russian original. So if you had bad reading experience please blame the lazy translators who couldn't be bothered translating all of this brilliant masterpiece.

Now on to the book:
So little happens in about 800 pages, that I can summarize it in a sentence, "Some semi-wealthy nobleman's country cousin has a short affair with a pseudo-anarchist and then everyone freaks out. " If that sounds like too little action, please leave and go watch transformers.

So why is this perhaps the top 10 best books I have ever read? Why do I think its better than any Dostoyevsky text I have ever encountered? I honestly can't put a finger on it, but mainly its that Goncharov was better at writing human psychology than perhaps any writer in the 19th century. So many of Dostoyevsky's characters feel inflated, or deflated, almost like Dickensonian caricatures. Goncharov's cast feels real. I believe these people, or people like them actually lived, breathed, had conversations and had concerns about life, death, honor, and family. His situations aren't grandiose or manufactured, they arise naturally and normally.

The people in the Precipice are annoying, funny, pathetic, ridiculous. We've all met someone like that. They all have flaws, even the all-beloved and intelligent Vera, turns out to be way less free thinking and liberated that she thinks she is. She isn't so much judged by her immediate circle for her "fall," as much as she literally can't believe she isn't the ideal she thought herself to be. Her anarchist boyfriend is just a gadfly without any guile. He isn't half as interesting as an anarchist-nihilist seducer really should be. Raisky, the main character is so tiresome, half the women in the book want to avoid him for chapters at a time. One may think Vera is a tease, but one can't blame her for avoiding Raisky's annoying never ending, "woe is me," "I'm an artistic genius and will teach you about life" rants. Some of the secondary characters turn out to be much more insightful and interesting than the main ones. At times, you wonder, where is Goncharov going with this thread, and maybe you never really find out....

Overall, its easy to dismiss such a work. Its values and concepts aren't so much outdated, as too abstract and nuanced for today's post-modernism loving audiences. For the lover of the 19th century psychological novel, this is as good as it gets.

[Anna Anjos · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my all-time favorites. The power of thought is so strong in this book, even despite the difference in today's traditions, habits and perceptions of love, relationship and decisions it still feels important and complicated to make these decisions and react on temptations (although the results would be much less tragic today, in most cases).

[MJ Nicholls · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goncharov’s swansong is a sprawling monster where an impatient dilettante returns to his country estate and tries his luck with two cousins—the first, a flighty, immature pixie under her Granny’s heel, the second an aloof and headstrong enigma with a gorgeous phizog. Across 500 pages or so, we follow Raisky’s attempt to rouse passion in the first cousin Marfenka, then his tortured attempts to make the second cousin Vera have even the faintest whiff of feels for him. Into the mix is thrown intellectual vagabond Mark, whose loathing for the fetters of tradition and societal norms causes conniptions across the village, especially with the iron-clad materfamilias, the Granny Tatyana. The culmination of two decades’ work, Malinovka Heights, aka The Precipice, is an overblown beast of a novel that bursts blood vessels to probe into the innermosts of its personnel, creating an unforgettable cast of infuriating, obnoxious, comical, and mercurial characters, all caught in an era of emotional restraint and religious convention. The heart of the novel is the marvellous Granny, first a figure of amusement, emerging as a compassionate crutch for the whole family, whose emotional intelligence keeps the histrionic mayhem of the madcap family in check. For those comfortable luxuriating in the indulgent soup of the Big Russian Epic, Goncharov’s second masterwork is not to be missed.

[Ivan Damjanović · Rating 2 out of 5]

Imam 4/8 stranica folio bilježaka, ali nemam previše vremena tipkati (knjižnica se zatvara u pola 8, a nisam kod kuće; a i da jesam....) pa evo samo najosnovnijih crta, dojmova i šta već ne. Major spoiler alert, to se valjda podrazumijeva (iako bi rijetki vjerojatno i uzeli ovo u ruke in the first place, nažalost- morali su u GISKO-u na tavan zbog mene, opet). Nažalost, moram konstatirati, dojam je da Gončarovljev romaneskni opus, za razliku od, npr. kolege Rusa realista Fjodora Mihajloviča (čiji je opus strelovito kvalitativno rastao) u zamjetnoj mjeri kvalitativno retrogradirao od gotovo pa odlične Obične pripovijesti do osrednjeg (ali najrazvikanijeg) Oblomova do razočaravajućeg (ali najdužeg) Ponora. Također, kao da je retrogradirao iz postromantizma u romantizam. Kao i u Oblomovu, tu je gomilu opisa i okolišanja. Ono što ponajviše zapinje za oko činjenica je da je junak Gončarova uvijek nekakav naivac/ žutokljunac, čak glupan (što je samo po sebi zanimljivo i originalno, pogotovo za to doba). Ovdje je to itekako slučaj. Često sam imao dojam da je protagonist Rajski (’promašeni, ali potkoženi umjetnik’) najveći krebil među protagonistima, možda ikad.
Ima tu i odličnog insighta, prije svega u ljubavnu problematiku; ’running jokes’ (Jegorkino skidanje kovčega s tavana); ima i 5 star dijelova (!); književnih i umjetničkih referenci; vrlo solidna kvalitativna i kvantitativna razina humornih odušaka.
Ono najvažnije, fabula, uglavnom je predvidiva i (meni) razočaravajuća.
Naslovna simbolika, Ponor, predstavlja gubitak nevinosti prekrasne Vere u nečasnim okolnostima, ali dobrovoljno, s bitangom Markom koji očito simbolizira liberalni svjetonazor/ateizam. Uz to pri kraju dolazi škakljiva pripovjedačeva briga "Što ako nisam (ne budem mogao) provalijama okružiti njezin pad pa ruske djevojke počnu kao koze skakati u ponore?"
Još neke napomene. Valja zapaziti, što se Marka tiče, ne može se optužiti autora za klišejizirano demonificiranje, Mark je prikazan vrlo ambivalentno. To se ne može ustvrditi za neke likove, kao što je Kozlov, koji je vrlo neuvjerljiv i izgleda da mu je namijenjena samo uloga komične karikature (nevjerojatno da je lik toliko načitan, a da ga neka flundra dribla kao malog majmuna). Lik šumara, uzornog gospodarstvenika Tušina kao da je utjecao na Josipa Kozarca (izričito na Mrtve kapitale, Među svjetlom i tminom te Slavonsku šumu). Ako ne, vidi se duhovna srodnost. Općenito, lik "mede" Tušina predstavlja uzornog ruskog čovjeka.
Pri kraju, tu je nadahnuta oda ženama u proznom obliku u formi "umetnutog rukopisa", začetak romana unutar romana, (metatekst?) slično kao u Elijahovoj stolici Igora Štiksa i, naravno, "najvećem romanu svih vremena", Don Quijoteu.
Postoji dobra mogućnost da ću ovaj osvrt nadopunjavati ako budem osjećao potrebu/ ako se sjetim nečeg relevantnog.

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ужасно затянутый и сентиментальный, но тем не менее умный, симпатичный какой-то роман. Люблю Гончарова за чуткость и добродушие.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nihilistic vs traditionalist views of love/sex. Are we all nihilists today?

[Lia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Была уверена, что сажусь перечитывать, но сейчас уже сомневаюсь. Совершенно восхитительный текст, ироничный, наивный, проницательный и очень смешной местами. Хорошо быть взрослой)

[Дмитрий · Rating 4 out of 5]

Роман великолепен в художественном плане; очень много букв для такого небогатого на события сюжета, но и убрать ничего нельзя.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

By the time The Precipice was published in 1869 the Superfluous Man, embodied here by Raisky, and the New Man, embodied here by Volokhov, were already well established characters in Russian literature. Raisky is a bit more energetic than Goncharov's more famous Superfluous Man, Oblomov, but equally ineffectual. Volokhov is a weak reflection of the more powerful and decisive New Men already introduced by Turgenev in Fathers and Sons and Cherneshevsky in What Is To Be Done. By moving these standard character types away from the extremes, back to a middle ground, Goncharov gives us characters that are perhaps more realistic and believable than the archetypes, but also, unfortunately, less compelling. Perhaps the greatest virture in the weakness of Raisky and Volokhov is that it better allows us to appreciate the power of the leading female character, Vera, who towers above her male counterparts in the clarity of her vision of the world, morality and human relations. Also of interest is Tushin, the forester, who is a natural man, a pure Russian soul, steadfast and loving, happily tucked away deep in his wooded estate. Tushin struck me as a precursor of Tolstoy's Levin, and in some ways Tushin's calm plays against Vera's fire in the same ways that Levin's story contrasts with Anna's.

I read in some of the descriptions of this book that Goncharov considered it his best novel, but that it was poorly received by critics. The critics of that era in Russia who were heavily influenced by the tradition of Belinsky wanted literature to reflect the Russian national character (or at least what each of them in their own ways perceived the Russian character to be) and to be a vehicle for social change that could slyly get past the tsar's censors. The only acceptable kind of soft character would be one like Oblomov -- so extreme in his softness that he became instantly iconic. The middle of the road characters in this story did not serve the perceived social need. Still, critics aside, I think Goncharov was wrong because this book is no Oblomov. Oblomov is a treasure; this book was enjoyable, but just not up to the standard of Goncharov's more famous work.

[Annouchka · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was quite disappointed with this one. 'Oblomov' by Goncharov, which is considered to be the 1st of the 3 books that he wrote, is an absolute masterpiece, whereas 'The precipice' is good but honestly, too long! Some parts were just excessive.

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 3 out of 5]

ENGLISH: Maurice Baring says about this book in his An Outline of Russian Literature.: Its main idea is the contrast between the old generation before the reforms and the new generation of Alexander II's day. A paler Fathers and sons.

I don't fully agree with this description, as the reforms Baring mentions practically don't appear in the novel. For me, this is a typical Russian story of unhappy love, like those in Turgenev (see my post about this: https://populscience.blogspot.com/201...).

There is a romantic triangle (later a quadrangle) formed by Boris, the main character, who is in love with his cousin Vera; but she feels a deep passion for the anarchist Mark, who is in love with her, but his ideas forbid him to marry and establish a lasting relation; therefore he wants her to start a clandestine relation; as she refuses, all three characters are unhappy and miserable.

The novel does not end when she finally yields, but about one third of it is dedicated to the consequences of Vera's fall, which affect most of the main characters, especially her aunt, Tatiana Markovna, one of the best described characters in the book.

The only relation I can see with Turgenev's "Fathers & Sons" is the fact that, of the male main characters, one is an anarchist; but his relation with the protagonist is quite different as in Turgenev's novel.

A little slow at times, especially when Vera continually refuses to trust her cousin with her romantic problems.

ESPAÑOL: Maurice Baring dice sobre este libro en su An Outline of Russian Literature.: Su idea principal es el contraste entre la vieja generación antes de las reformas y la nueva generación de los días de Alejandro II. Un pálido Padres e hijos.

No estoy totalmente de acuerdo con esta descripción, ya que las reformas que dice Baring prácticamente no se mencionan en la novela. Para mí, esta es una típica historia rusa de amor desgraciado, como las de Turgenev (véase mi artículo al respecto: http://divulciencia.blogspot.com/2017...).

Hay un triángulo romántico (más tarde un cuadrilátero) formado por Boris, el personaje principal, que se enamora de su prima Vera. Pero ella siente una pasión profunda por el anarquista Mark, que a su vez está enamorado de ella, aunque sus ideas le prohíben casarse y establecer una relación duradera; por eso quiere que ella inicie una relación clandestina. Como ella se niega, los tres personajes son desgraciados.

La novela no termina cuando ella finalmente cede, pues el último tercio está dedicado a las consecuencias de la caída de Vera, que afectan a la mayor parte de los personajes principales, especialmente a su tía, Tatiana Markovna, una de los personajes mejor descritos en el libro.

La única relación que puedo ver con "Padres e hijos" de Turgenev es el hecho de que, de los personajes masculinos principales, uno es anarquista; pero su relación con el protagonista es bastante diferente al de la novela de Turgenev.

Un poco lenta a veces, especialmente cuando Vera se niega continuamente a confiar sus problemas románticos a su primo.

[Cristian Mocanu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pfoai de capul meu, o fost lung romanul ăsta!

Sincer, nu vreau sa scriu o recenzie lunga, așa că o să înșir doar pe scurt părerea mea subiectivă legată de natura acestei cărți.

Dialogurile sunt superbe! Cred că punctul forte al acestei lucrări - ultimul roman scrisă de Goncearov - sunt felul în care există patos, umor, naturalețe între personaje. In general, întrucât am citit-o in original ( in rusă ), consider că cititorul o să aibă mai mult de câștigat de pe urma formulărilor neaoșe.

Protagonistul este un artist ratat, deci pentru el, întregul subiect la cărții reprezintă o căutare a unui ideal artistic. Inițial nu-l găsește în Sankt-Petersburg, și merge in satul său, unde are o moșie (da, e nobil, căci, sa fim serioși, ce artist din sec. XIX din Rusia nu era nobil?), în Malinovka. Are loc un contrast de valori între bunica lui - Tatiana Markovna - și valorile personale ale lui Raiskii - personajul principal. Și opoziția asta dintre valori de oraș și cele de dat (urban/rustic) joaca un rol destul de important aici.

Cartea se desfășoară greeeeeu. Autorul își ia tot timpul din lume sa descrie aproape obsesiv de cinematografic ce se întâmplă cu fiecare dintre personaje. Un alt minus este și aplecarea către social într-o măsură atât de mare, încât intriga plotului - care, evident că e o dragoste secretă - devine doar o palidă proiecție narativă.

Personajele sunt bine construite, dar proporționarea evoluției lor nu este amplasată corespunzător în carte. Doar protagonistul și protagonista (Vera Vasilievna) au parte de schimbări majore. Restul personajelor rămân aproape la fel, cu excepția unuia, a cărui evoluție m-a dezamăgit. El reprezintă antagonistul romanului, și se vede că Goncearov, spre deosebire de Dostoievski, nu își reprezintă adversarii ideologici în cea mai bună formă a lor .

Într-un final, da: e un roman bun, și pentru că e singurul roman citit de mine (adică celorlalte fiind Oblomov [romanul său cel mai popular] și O Istorie Comuna), o să rămân la a crede că e capodopera lui Ivan Goncearov până la proba contrarie, așa cum a crezut însuși autorul cărții.

3/5! Un roman bine făcut.

[Amalia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Romanul "Râpa"surprinde atat de precis viata din Rusia a anilor 1840-1850 ,zugraveste un tablou plin cu personaje inedite ,create in antiteza.Tiparul vremii de atunci stabileste cu ajutorul iubirii granita dintre lumea veche si cea noua.E o trecere de la un personaj amortit in "Oblomov" la un personaj Raiski talentat care ascunde o fire artistica......mai depare va las sa descoperiti singuri ce insemna pentru personaje "atunci"si "acum".

[Maria S. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jesus Christ it's good. I didn't expect it to be SO GOOD. It's a thicc boi, but it's a dramatic and gripping boi! I laughed, I cried, I felt all the feels. Please read this, you will not regret it. Also, Mark sucks. That's all. Just read it.

[Inna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much more hilarious and entertaining than you might expect. Made me laugh many times. Much longer than it should be. Could hardly finish. The female lead is unbearable. Still a masterpiece, and Goncharov is by far the most underestimates Russian author.

[Nemalevich · Rating 4 out of 5]

от трех до пяти звезд. иногда допускает моралитэ такой длины, что перестаешь верить, что они - дань формату.

[Egor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Как низко пали нравы за каких-то полтора века. Серьезный роман, который заставляет задуматься. А это лучший итог любой книги.

[Jate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Лучше, шире, глубже и неожиданнее, чем я думала

[Natalia Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Великий роман, нет, величайший.
Не только главные герои, Борис Райский, Вера, Марфинька, Марк Волохов, Татьяна Марковна, настоящие, сложные, живые. Но и те, кто мелькает на паре страниц, запоминаются, и они живые, точные, настоящие.
Часто пишут, что роман о борьбе старого и нового. Да, и об этом тоже. Но, как и всё великое, он вообще выходит за рамки любых формулировок. Это роман о людях. О том, что внутри. О попытке понять себя, выбрать, не потеряться. И он на удивление современный, если вам интересны не события, а внутренние сражения.
После перечитывания Тургенева и Гончарова меня внезапно осенило: как же по-разному они смотрят на женщину.
Гончаров родился на шесть лет раньше Тургенева, умер на семь лет позже. Жили и писали в одно время, но насколько разные миры.
Один, изящный дворянин с блестящим образованием, второй, практичный купеческий сын, выросший в доме, где ценились счёты, пироги и здравый смысл.
У Тургенева женщина - муза, высшее существо, иногда мудрее и сильнее самого героя. У Гончарова тоже не простушка, но уже совсем не муза. Она не витает в облаках, а варит борщ, страдает, терпит, устаёт и продолжае�� жить. Идеализацией от него не пахнет. И это тоже очень честно.
Оба великие, оба любимые.
И я рада, что в этом хаосе смогла собраться и перечитать.
Иногда стоит просто остаться дома, налить себе чай и уйти в

[Vadym Otrishko · Rating 5 out of 5]

Единственный минус - Гончаров написал всего 3 романа за свою жизнь

Я очень его люблю. Каждый раз, когда заканчивается роман, как будто уезжаю из летнего лагеря: в душе очень приятно и радостно за проведенное время, но грустно, потому что нужно уезжать.

Персонажам веришь, они живые. Чувства, которые они переживают, сопереживаю вместе с ними. Нет карикатурности. Автор ничего не хочет вдолбить мне. Просто делиться тем, как он понял эту жизнь, как он описывает жизнь через литературу. Делает это честно и красиво.

Чистое удовольствие и то, ради чего я вообще читаю художественную литературу

[Caner Sahin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yaşamın akışını da onun asıl amacı olarak göstermeye çalışıyordu. Bir maddeyi, onu oluşturan parçalara ayırdığında, böylece maddenin taşıdığı anlamları da parçaladığını sanıyordu.

Derin acılara ancak büyük ruhlar böylesine güçlü katlanabilirler.

[Moushmi Radhanpara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wrote over twenty years, the third novel The Precipice by Ivan Goncharov was not as acclaimed as the other books by the writer. But Ivan considered this book to be his best, bringing out his grand artistic ambition. Though it was less successful, it is definitely considered as one of the best Russian classics.

The book in all includes all, political insight, artistic handiwork and romance. The story throws perfect light on the times of Russia, and how the lives of the countrymen were then. It touches briefly on romantic idealism, utilitarianism, philosophical positivism and the age old traditional values.

Vera proves to be an absolutely intelligent and independent heroin but at the same time symbolising the women of the times. It is in her heartbreak that the story finds depth. Boris Raisky, is also portrayed well, an artist-dilettant who cares nothing about his properties and money but rather wants to grow as an artist, as a writer. Mark Volokhov, a nihilist in the tradition of Turgenev's Bazarov; and Ivan Tushin, a traditional, yet enlightened landowner, all hold different and solid places in the plot. It would be callous to foget the full-blooded portrait of Raisky's wise and strong grandmother without whom the plot may not move and has a remarkable effect on Raisky and Vera at the same time. We have three men trying to win the love of Vera. As the plot unfolds we get to know what happens to the grandmother, Raisky, Vera, her sister and the rest. An absolute classic.

[Stefan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Бесподобный роман воспитания в исполнении великого астеника, который зовет уснуть в глухой провинции, все новые нравы находит искаженными и недопонятыми старыми — проверенными, и продолжает великий флоберовский порыв к освобождению женщины без обязательной левизны в комплекте.

Семиотика обрыва ясна, ловко является, но за 800 страниц может надоесть, как и многое другое в романе, если не брать во внимание, что и вправду подлинная задача этих гольдберг-вариаций — нас усыпить, а уж потом во сне говорить о страстях, déclarations и искусствах.

Что делает Гончарова умницей — это уловленная до Фрейда энциклопедически Фрейдистская точность некоторых конфигураций характеров. И он определенно не словесный ювелир, но несколько точных фраз, вы слишите, Шура, не уступают! Par example любовное «пожилые девушки» о старых девах, «трактирный либерал» о хамоватом бездеятельном умнике с налетом новых идей™...

Все неудачное (включая два, как мне показалось, антисемитских абзаца) окупается ненатянутой самоиронией. Один метароман в последней главе, который ограничился фразой «Глава 1» и немедленным переходом автора навсегда в скульпторы, стоит этого сна.

[Lusia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Гончаров лучший! Насколько актуален и будет таковым всегда! Каким наблюдательным и очень очень опережающим время был Иван Александрович👏🏻.

"– Для какой цели? – повторила она, – а для такой, чтоб человек не засыпал и не забывался, а помнил, что над ним кто-нибудь да есть; чтобы он шевелился, оглядывался, думал да заботился. Судьба учит его терпению, делает ему характер, чтоб поворачивался живо, оглядывался на все зорким глазом, не лежал на боку и делал, что каждому определил Господь…

– То есть вы думаете, что к человеку приставлен какой-то невидимый квартальный надзиратель, чтоб будить его?

– Шути, а шутя правду сказал, – заметила бабушка."

"Одни птицы родились жить в клетке, а другие для свободы."

Бабушка🔥 А вот, казалось, адекватная Вера разочаровала😅 (нет, не грехом её). И Райский к ней в придачу😅

23.04.2023

[Kikizoshi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read: ~2019
Reviewed: 26/8/2020
So... I spaced out a lot during this book. But I'll call it... trying to immerse myself with Raisky. Overall, I enjoyed this book. The characters were likeable, the story mildly engaging, and overall, it was buttered toast and jam in book form. Not a parfait, but still tasty in its own right, and a wonderful snack in the morning.

[emil · Rating 3 out of 5]

i’m....kind of disappointed?? this was good...well it was okay. but kind of boring, sorry. i only stuck around because i liked Raisky and decided i should, if i legally could, take a shot every time they said “precipice”

[Esther Mateo · Rating 4 out of 5]

He leído este libro en una edición antigua en español, cuyo título es El declive. No hay ninguna edición actual en nuestro idioma. No sé muy bien por qué. Goncharov fue un gran escritor ruso.
http://convistasalhorizonte.blogspot....

[Maria Medvedeva · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ну очень неторопливо написано. Местами читалось интересно и легко, очень живые портреты персонажей, но некоторая избыточность повествования утомляла.

[Arina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Начиналось тяжеловато, но потом разогналось. Прекрасная, совершенно замечательная история, написанная с такой добротой и с любовью и к людям, и к искусству, и к природе, и к простой жизни.