Oblomov by Ivan Goncharov
The charming tale of an obstinate man who simply hates getting out of bed
For some, mustering up the energy to get out of bed is the day’s toughest battle. Relinquishing yourself from the soft, warm, oh-so-comfortable sheets and entering into the cold, austere world of reality. Emerging from your hazy dream you’re greeted with a reminder of the bills, stresses, and obligations that encompass your day-to-day. Why face those now? Why not roll back into bed, cover your head with the blanket and absolve yourself of the undesirables of life? Well, that’s exactly what our affable, yet uninspiring hero Oblomov repeatedly tries to do throughout this endearing and cautionary tale. A novel that hinges on the question of the ideal life that quickly dovetails into a desperate search for love and examines the invariable nature of a hopeless man.
In this story, we follow the life of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, a soft-bodied, idle and milquetoast man. Habitually indecisive and indolent he remains in bed for the first 50-70 pages as he speaks to visitors and berates his servant Zakhar. Ilya is the pampered progeny of a wealthy landowning family and was raised on their estate Oblomovka. Early on Goncharov enlightens the reader on how Oblomov ended up in his current lifeless state, which beckons the question of nature vs. nurture. At Oblomovka, his family lives under the presumption that an ideal life is one spent with as few worries as possible. They wish for every day to be spent in idleness, rest, and away from any potential stresses or uneasiness, “…at Oblomovka the souls of the inhabitants were drowned in their soft bodies.” (pg. 143). For the Oblomov family, life is not about striving (sorry Nietzsche) but the ideal life lies in being born, marrying, and dying with as little exertion as possible. You can foresee where this leaves our staid hero Oblomov once he’s all grown up.
When reproached by his childhood friend Andrei Ivanovich Stolz, he defends himself with criticism of the society he observes around him. He sees his peers chasing thrills, drowning themselves in their careers, and busying themselves with frivolous matters. He claims the life of the common man is more misguided and meaningless than his own. In a way, Oblomov’s languorous lifestyle is a reaction to the behavior he views around himself, “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, instead of vitiating my brain with aces and knaves?" (pg. 202) Despite his accurate judgements, his own way of life still remains flawed and as Stolz proclaims Oblomov seems “too lazy even to live” and labels this behavior Oblomovism.
This rift between them introduces a ideological debate on (1) the description of the ideal life and (2) the capability of man to change his nature. Addressing the first question, for Stolz, and most of us, we’d characterize the ideal life as one spent pursuing passions. One where our daily life is spent performing meaningful work, fulfilling our curiosity, and allowing our emotions to add vivacity to the world. Without an aim or purpose, one’s days become filled with empty banter, vain social gatherings, and moments bereft of desire or affection, “When you don't know what you are living for, you simply live from one day to the next, happy when the day is over and night has come, and you can bury in sleep the tiresome question why you have lived this day, and why you will live the next.” (pg. 267) We see this in Oblomov’s life where the banality of it all extinguishes his soul to a point of passivity and submission. However, how can a man like Oblomov or our modern day sloth break away from their obstinate ways? Is it simply making a rational decision or reading the right self-help book? Goncharov explores this psychological question through his affectionate, but fallible hero.
During the 19th century, the ‘superfluous man’ archetype was a reoccurring theme within Russian literature. This is a man who finds himself utterly shaped by his society yet at odds with it, “…for a long time now I have been ashamed to live in the world! But I cannot travel the same road with you, even if I wanted to.“ (pg. 546) Alienated and paralyzed by his situation, the superfluous man becomes cynical and indecisive. This is where our poor hero Oblomov finds himself — unable to find his place. A puzzle piece that doesn’t belong. Fortunate for him, his dear friend Stolz rallies him from his bed and declares it’s “now or never!”
This send us into the bulk of the novel which covers Oblomov’s romantic relationship and frequent trysts with Olga Ilyinsky. Olga represents the cliché “I can change him” belief of naive, young women. The desire to play savior for a man who is so obviously incapable of changing. Oblomov finds himself entranced by her singing and falls head over heels in love with her, “Oh, Lord! What happiness it is to look at her! It takes my breath away!" (pg. 230), and for the first time in his life he has ambition. After further engagements, Oblomov finds himself resigning to his old stagnant ways — inert and fearful of taking the next steps in their relationship. Love is a risk, a leap of faith and introduces the chance of heartbreak. As his wont, Oblomov is fretful and worries he or Olga will fall into an eternal abyss if their love is to fail. Like any woman (and rightfully so), Olga is fed up with the delay of their marriage and his lack of initiative, “You say I am your aim—but you go toward it so slowly, so timidly!” (pg. 399) and eventually calls it all off. She sees her attempts to play the role of savior and rouse Oblomov from his dogmatic slumber have failed and that he’s fallen back into passivity. To pile things on worse, due to Oblomov’s ineptitude, his so-called friends have been stealing money from him and ruining his estate back at Oblomovka.
For me, this is theme much of the story rests upon: Oblomov’s attempt to change his nature. How can a man effectively and permanently change his ways? Is it a matter of handholding (as Olga and Stolz persistently try), a support group, or is the solution internal? Or is a man condemned to fate? I believe what Goncharov hints at is that any lasting change in character must originate internally and be sustained by authentic passion. It can’t be the ephemeral influence of a motivation book or a romantic partner. It must come from within and sustained by the person themselves if one is to change at all, “Man was created to arrange life for himself, even to change his own nature, but you grow a belly and think that nature has sent you this burden. You had wings, but you got rid of them." (pg. 446)”
Over the later chapters, Goncharov revisits his investigation into love and the ideal life. Years pass by and Stolz and Olga have formed a flourishing marriage that enriches them both. However, Olga suddenly finds a knot of melancholic discontent growing within her, despite her plentiful reasons for happiness. Stolz diagnoses this internal discomfort not as a sign of hopelessness, but as an indicator of her hunger for life, “Ah, that's what one has to pay for the Promethean fire! It is not enough merely to endure, you have to love your melancholy, to respect your doubts and questions: they are the surplus, the luxury of life, which appears for the most part on the summits of happiness when there are no base desires.” (pg. 523) Here Goncharov argues that we are essentially faced with two paths in life: withering away in diversion or continual striving guided by curiosity. Stolz suggests Olga should learn to accept the temporary moments of unease and let her insatiable hunger for life excite her. Simply put, Goncharov instructs us to cherish and stoke the flames of curiosity. To live inquisitively and passionately.
This novel is less about the gradual decay of an obstinate, indolent man, and more about the provocative questions it raises surrounding meaning, love, and fate. Despite his vexing behavior and self-induced setbacks, I found our anti-hero to be highly relatable due to the internal struggles he exemplified. We all have a piece of Oblomov hidden within us. Anxious, hesitant, and all too complacent to remain stuck in our ways. I can’t help but draw various parallels into how people live their lives today — passive, idle, and never once seizing upon that ‘now or never’ moment. I’d strongly recommend this to any reader looking for a lighthearted, yet stimulating story.