The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Welcome to our discussion about Oblovmov by Ivan Goncharov. This week's discussion will cover Part 1, Chapters 1 - 7.

We were introduced to our "hero" Ilya Ilich Oblomov, his manservant Zakhar, and a handful of his friends. We can quickly see that Oblomov is different, that lying down is his "normal condition."

It puzzled me the number of visitors Oblomov had. They come in, talk to him a bit about what is happening in their lives and encourage him to get up and go out. If they know him, they know he doesn't get up and go out. What's the draw for them to come to visit him? What are these visitors hoping to achieve knowing how Oblomov is and how he lives?

We read in chapter five that while he was working as a civil servant he found ways to get out of work. He hated what he was doing and asked himself, "But when am I going to live? When am I to love?" Do you think he believes his existence, as described to us, is really living? If so, how do you think he justifies this to himself?

We also read where "intimacy with a woman involved a great deal of trouble." How he withdrew from friends. Dressing became a chore. He began to fear the damp/mist. How he reverted to "a sort of childish timidity, an expectation of danger and evil from everything that was outside the sphere of his daily experience..." and that sometimes he had an "attack of nerves..." Do you read anything into this? A mental illness? Or is he just being lazy?

The last chapter we read this week is all about Zakhar. Who he is, his background, how he behaves now. Aside from being a gossip and resenting his master he is "deeply devoted to his master." and would have "jumped into fire or water for him without a moment's hesitation." These two descriptions seem to be a juxtaposition. Why do you think the author created these conflicting details?

I also wanted to mention that I've seen any number of articles online that compare/contrast Oblomov and Hamlet. I'm at a disadvantage for never having read Hamlet. If anyone knows about that and wants to discuss it, it would be welcomed.

I think, from what I read so far (first 3 chapters), that his friends are all very vapid, looking for something to make their lives interesting. But they are embedded in the current society. Status quo, no experiments. One has to do what society expects. Oblomov gets pretty animated at times, he is not all laid back, lounging in bed. I am interested in the further developments. It’s a critique of society. We will see how it goes.

Gem wrote: "It puzzled me the number of visitors Oblomov had. .."

It puzzled me to. But isn’t it just Goncharov’s way of presenting these personnages to us, one by one, so we can have look at all of them? It reminds me of old-fashioned theatre. Oblomov’s room is the stage and they enter the stage one after the other.

...And from his reactions/responses to those visitors we are gradually being introduced to Oblomov himself..

Oblomov, "Well, if it's fine here, why want to go anywhere else?"

Can be a motto of a life philosophy?

Charlotte wrote: "Gem wrote: "It puzzled me the number of visitors Oblomov had. .."

It puzzled me to. But isn’t it just Goncharov’s way of presenting these personnages to us, one by one, so we can have look at all ..."

Yes, we have the socialite, the workaholic, the writer, the guy who blends in everywhere, the one who stands out everywhere. It seems like Oblomov used to go out to things. Today we would have him screened for depression. He isn't particularly happy with his life, but he can't face anything else. But he also refuses to take responsibility for anything, blaming his servant or outsiders for all his problems. Peasants on his farm are working hard to keep him in some comfort (though not as much as he would like).

I was reminded of a French pop song called "Je reste au lit" - "I'm staying in bed". He says why bother checking his mailbox only to find he has no letters, it's too much trouble to get up to answer the phone, people on TV and radio are annoying, he'd rather watch the spiders spin webs. He also says he wastes less air this way, which makes him ecological. He can't save the planet or stop war, so why bother? The link is to the song in French.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GKIO...

Oblomov’s work life reminds me of Bartleby the Scrivener or A Confederacy of Dunces’ hero, Ignatius P. Reilly. Work is dull and an imposition. And as his sloth progresses, he also reminds me of me being in retirement during a pandemic- why get dressed if I’m not going anywhere?

Robin P wrote: "I was reminded of a French pop song called "Je reste au lit"..."

Thanks for the lovely soundtrack to Oblomov!

The last chapter we read this week is all about Zakhar. Why do you think the author created these conflicting details?
.....

I think it is another example of employees who are false, cheat and take advantage. Why he does it could be either because that is the culture - everyone else does it - or he is just not a righteous person. The way he served Oblomov, when he served, was part of the old servant profession.

I sympathize with Oblomov when he works in the office and resents the work culture there. Haven´t we also seen it ourselves nowadays!

Oblomov´s friend Mr. Stolz knows that he is a thinker and actually is lively on the inside, that he has passion for other people and inner volcanic sentiments, that he is not just lazy and slothful as others describe him.

Zakhar is actually lucky to be working for Oblomov. Since Oblomov rarely does anything or notices his surroundings, there is very little cleaning or dressing to do. Oblomov threatens him a lot but doesn't ever do anything to punish him. Oblomov is also oblivious to details, so Zakhar can keep extra change from errands, help himself to supplies, etc. without repercussions.

Where is Oblomovka? Far away, very far away, far out east - perhaps it is not important where it is; it is just somewhere that is different, a distant country in a distant time.

I was surprised by Oblomov's vivid inner life since he's presented as pretty much an apathetic lump. I agree that the visitors (and Zakhar) are presented more like archetypes (like some of the characters in Dead Souls) than like actual people.

Lori wrote: "I was surprised by Oblomov's vivid inner life since he's presented as pretty much an apathetic lump...."

I suspect that 'apathetic lumps' ON AVERAGE may have richer inner life than outgoing people. Time and energy are limited within us. Outgoing/active people are usually 'busy making other plans' to the detriment of their inner life.

I've only read one chapter so far-Oblomov is living in squalor!
I like the interactions between Oblomov and Zakhar. It's good comedy.

No. Not yet. What do you mean?

Cphe wrote: "I mean for the times depicted. Can't imagine that the interaction between them would be allowed, encouraged. I always thought that there was a clear demarcation between the classes."

True. And now I see what you mean. In the Chapter VII (I think) - about Zakhar, the author presents some details of the relationship between Zakhar and Oblomov's parents (that with warmth and almost family feelings) and how they eventually evolved into relationship between Zakhar and Oblomov. We are witnessing here a reflection of a significant transformation in the whole life stile of all the classes in the Russian society at that time. It's very unstable now, and if not 'clear demarcation' between classes, but then the demarcation in ways of relationships between classes becomes much muddier, broken, contradictory and quirky. Serfdom is not abolished yet, but it is in the air.

Oblomov is even too lazy to be a strict master. In a way the two are co-dependent, letting everything keep going.

Zakhar going up on the stove all the time - and coming down again with a thump :-)

It must have been a large structure something like this (see several pictures in this article):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...

Cphe wrote: "Did anyone else view the relationship between Oblomov and Zakhar as being more than Master and Servant?"

They have been together for so long that it has evolved into something else.

To begin with, Zakhar was employed by the father and watched Oblomov grow up. Since Oblomov was a junior in the household and a child, Zakhar still sees him as a child.

Now they are forced to be together. They are quibbling like an old married couple and have to face problems together, whether they like it or not.

Charlotte wrote: "Zakhar going up on the stove all the time - and coming down again with a thump :-)

It must have been a large structure something like this (see several pictures in this article):

https://en.wikip..."

Yes, there was often a shelf or bench where people could sit or sleep.

I think the relationship between master and servant was often a relative close one. The continuous close proximity and intimate knowledge of the “master” by the “servant” was inevitable. Here this relationship is much more in the open than what one usually sees, but it’s certainly not unusual. Servants were often much more intimate with the children of the house, which certainly was the case here. This developed apparently into close interdependence. Devotion could go very deep, but it did not preclude criticism. These two behave like an old married couple in sort of a love-hate relationship.

Since this book is a satire of a certain time and place in history, I wonder if it would be more relatable and interesting to people familiar with Russian culture of that time period. We've read other satires in here, but they've been of British culture of the Regency, Georgian, or Victorian eras, which I and many of us may be more familiar with. I've so far found the dialog in Oblomov to be a bit boring, but I imagine someone more familiar with the culture and time period being satirized might feel differently. Or maybe it will pick up a bit later.

Lori wrote: "Since this book is a satire of a certain time and place in history, I wonder if it would be more relatable and interesting to people familiar with Russian culture of that time period. We've read ot..."

That’s interesting: That you and I could view it differently because of different cultures. I have no inkling that I read it with European eyes and therefore see it in a different way. I think that the dialogue is very funny. It could also be because of a good translation? It is a classic, after all...

I find it pretty funny as well. Maybe because of my European background. But, as so often, the quality of the translation makes a huge difference. I compared my new translation into German with an older one. Quite a difference!
This is certainly a completely different culture than the British Empire. One has to keep that in mind as well.

Actually, I didn’t notice anything related to Russian culture when reading. From now on I will pay more attention and try and see if I notice.

I think a lot of it is universal - anyway that is how I see it.

Lori wrote: "Since this book is a satire of a certain time and place in history, I wonder if it would be more relatable and interesting to people familiar with Russian culture of that time period. We've read other satires in here..."

I, personally, wouldn't call the book a satire. At least not yet. With effort, I can discern some satirical element in it, but it is not at the front. Maybe I am biased because I can't help but recall the movie I saw long time ago, and I can't turn off the memory completely.

The book, seems to me, is to evolve into tragedy, a Gogolesque sort of tragedy, when we laugh through bitter tears.

History, societies, economies move and evolve, yet what happen to people who get caught up in the middle of all that? When Oblomovs are ridiculed and gone, have we lost something human for ever? I suspect the book is about that.

At this point I only suggest not put a label on the book that we only have started.

And as for translations, I just bought for reference and checked a copy translated by Stephen Pearl (I am reading the book in Russian). Sorry to admit, the dialogues are flat. In the original they are extremely funny. And the whole Pearl's narration reads as a report of sorts. That's unfortunate. And that's a problem of translation of fiction in general. There is always a final gab between the original and any translation. With some books the gap is wider than with others. As for Russian authors, I find translating Gogol most challenging, Tolstoy probably friendliest.

And in this book, I agree with Charlotte, the psychological portraits of most characters seem to be universal. And more are still to come! I am sure, in this group, lots of universals will be recognized. Happy reading everyone!

It's not my label, a description of the book (don't remember on which site) says that this is a satire on the Russian aristocracy of that time.

I agree that the psychological problems of the characters are universal. It’s the degree that these issues are played out in the open that seem to be a bit different. It’s not very likely, if not impossible, that the characters would have these kind of interactions openly in the English Empire. It would be likely much more veiled and presumedly “civilized”. That does not mean that inner feelings would differ that much. This certainly is not typically Russian.

Detlef wrote: "It’s the degree that these issues are played out in the open that seem to be a bit different."

Yes, this is true. It seems like Oblomov must be desperate to trust Tarantyev with his personal matters and with advising him (and possibly finding him a flat). Oblomov doesn't seem to be stupid, and he has to know that Tarantyev is not someone to be trusted. But then Alexeyev doesn't seem to know what to do, Stolz hasn't made an appearance, and his other "friends" refused to listen to him. I guess we'll see how this all turns out.
I do agree with Oblomov that moving is a huge pain in the butt. Have done it many times, will have to do it again at some point, and it doesn't become easier.

Lori wrote: "...I do agree with Oblomov that moving is a huge pain in the butt. Have done it many times, will have to do it again at some point, and it doesn't become easier."

An old Russian saying: Moving two times equals one fire. :)

Lori wrote: "It's not my label, a description of the book (don't remember on which site) says that this is a satire on the Russian aristocracy of that time."

Thank you for clarification. Now we know what 'they' think.

And it may turn out that satire is a significant aspect of the book. What I meant is that if we focus on this aspect from the very start, we may overlook something more significant... You know, the old demon of preconditioning.

Charlotte wrote: "Gem wrote: "It puzzled me the number of visitors Oblomov had. .."

It puzzled me to. But isn’t it just Goncharov’s way of presenting these personnages to us, one by one, so we can have look at all ..."

The idea of a stage is an interesting way to view this.

Robin P wrote: "Oblomov is even too lazy to be a strict master. In a way the two are co-dependent, letting everything keep going."

Co-dependent... great discription.