Composition Oblomov's death. What is the meaning of Oblomov's life? Oblomov: a life story Several interesting works

1. What things have become a symbol of "Oblomovism"?

The robe, slippers and a sofa became the symbols of Oblomovism.

2. What turned Oblomov into an apathetic couch potato?

Laziness, fear of movement and life, inability to practice, substitution of vague dreaminess for life turned Oblomov from a man into an appendage of a dressing gown and a divan.

3. What is the function of Oblomov's sleep in I.A. Goncharov Oblomov?

The chapter "Oblomov's Dream" depicts the idyll of a patriarchal baptismal village, in which only such Oblomov could grow. Oblomovtsy are shown as sleeping heroes, and Oblomovka as a sleepy kingdom. The dream shows the conditions of Russian life that gave rise to "Oblomovism".

4. Can Oblomov be called "an extra person"?

ON. Dobrolyubov noted in his article "What is Oblomovism?" But " extra people"Of the previous literature were surrounded by a kind of romantic halo, seemed strong people warped by reality. Oblomov is also "superfluous", but "brought from a beautiful pedestal to a soft sofa." A.I. Herzen said that the Onegins and Pechorins treat Oblomov as fathers treat children.

5. What is the peculiarity of the composition of the novel by I.A. Gon-Charova "Oblomov"?

The composition of the novel by I.A. Goncharov's "Oblomov" is characterized by the presence of a double storyline - Oblomov's novel and Stolz's novel. Unity is achieved through the image of Olga Ilyinskaya, who connects both lines. The novel is built on the contrast of images: Oblomov - Stolz, Olga - Pshenitsyna, Zakhar - Anisya. The entire first part of the novel is an extensive exposition, introducing the hero into adulthood.

6. What role does I.A. Goncharov's "Oblomov" epilogue?

The epilogue tells about the death of Oblomov, which made it possible to trace the entire life of the hero from birth to the end.

7. Why is a morally pure, honest Oblomov dying morally?

The habit of getting everything from life, without putting any effort into it, developed apathy and inertia in Oblomov, made him a slave to his own laziness. Ultimately, this is the culprit of the serf system and the domestic upbringing it engendered.

8. As in the novel by I.A. Goncharov's "Oblomov" shows the complex relationship between slavery and lordship?

Serfdom corrupts not only masters, but also slaves. An example of this is the fate of Zakhar. He is as lazy as Oblomov. During the life of the master, he was content with his position. After Oblomov's death, Zakhar has nowhere to go - he becomes a beggar.

9. What is Oblomovism?

Oblomovshchina - social phenomenon, which consists in laziness, apathy, inertia, contempt for work and an all-consuming desire for peace.

10. Why was Olga Ilyinskaya's attempt to revive Oblomov not successful?

Falling in love with Oblomov, Olga tries to re-educate him, break his laziness. But his apathy deprives her of faith in the future Oblomov. Oblomov's laziness was higher and stronger than love.

Stolz is hardly goodie... Although, at first glance, this is a new, progressive person, active and active, but there is in him something of a machine, always dispassionate, rational. He is a schematized, unnatural person.

12. Describe Stolz from the novel by I.A. Goncharova "Oblomov".

Stolz is the antipode of Oblomov. He is an active, active person, a bourgeois businessman. He is adventurous, always striving for something. The outlook on life is characterized by the words: "Labor is an image, content, element and goal of life, at least mine." But Stolz is incapable of experiencing strong feelings, from him emanates the calculation of each step. The image of Stolz is artistically more schematic and declarative than the image of Oblomov.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use search

On this page material on topics:

• bummer questions on the text
• bummer test answers
• Oblomovism symbol
• Describe the objects-symbols in Oblomov's novel?
• how many bummer storylines

Goncharov, Ivan Alexandrovich, the greatest Russian critic and writer, who became famous thanks to his works. The life of people, their way of life and the entire era of the rule of peasant law appear in his work. One of his famous works, called "Oblomov". Here, the writer, expresses his thoughts as a critic, and expressively shows all the actions that take place in the novel.

In this work of the author, the main character is Ilya Oblomov, after Father Ilyich. It was, the gentleman who was brought up, calmness, inaction, and very restless people close to him. Due to what, Oblomov became, practical empty space, for oneself and for society as a whole. The main tragedy of life has become indifference to oneself. From an early age, he was banned in almost all of his actions, and in every possible way protected from his thoughts. Even taking into account the walks on the street, which did not pass without the intervention of relatives. With their worries about the boy, the people around him have created this empty image in life, for which Ilya will be practically punished by fate. Over time, the boy grew up as a "houseplant". And having entered adulthood, it becomes catastrophically difficult for him to keep the balance of life in his hands.

Despite all the inaction of the protagonist, the author mentions an important character trait of Ilya, this is his harmlessness. This characterized him as a positive character.

Due to the fact that the hero led a useless lifestyle, the scene in which Ilya meets a new love also speaks, but from his inaction, he sees that she can "pull" him out of this routine. But be that as it may, he finds happiness with Agafya, who gives birth to his son. From his inaction, the whole household went downhill. Against this background, the ingenuity of the swindlers worked, who, after his death, planned to completely destroy his property.

Heart attacks, more and more often visited Oblomov, in which Agafya caught him. Recent times, she practically waited for his death. And now, after a while, Ilya Oblomova suffers another last stroke, which Agafya Matveyevna sees, and he leaves his useless life.

Thanks to Stolz, a descendant of the Oblomovs is in good hands. At that time, Stolz lived with Olga and, unlike his father, he was determined to raise a young orphan. Taking into account the temper of the new father Andrey, then the boy will grow up to be a smart and decisive guy.

Composition pr Death Oblomov in the novel of Goncharov

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, with his novel Oblomov, described a large number of people who live like Oblomov in Oblomov region. Everyone would like to allow themselves to live like Oblomov, to lie on the couch for their own pleasure. Oblomov was accustomed to such a life from childhood, his parents taught him that all servants should do for him. Oblomov, after the death of his parents, did not know how to manage so many serfs, so he did not really care. Oblomov is not a stupid person, but his laziness overpowered his activity.

Oblomov was satisfied with the fact that he lies all day and does nothing, he only cares about food and sleep. Ilya Ilyich seems to be ready to do something for his serfs, but then the fuse goes out, and he again lies on the sofa and does nothing. Oblomov was not prompted to an active lifestyle by either the help of a friend or love. Everything suits him and Oblomov is very frightened by the changes in his life, he does not want to do anything to change his life.

Goncharov wanted to write about a man who was not taught how to live adult life and make decisions on your own. There is dirt and cobwebs around him in the house and Oblomov is not worried about this. Ivan Alexandrovich wrote about Oblomov as a man with a pure heart, there are very few such people left in society. The material side does not bother Ilya Ilyich, for him the spiritual side of life is more important.

When Olga Ilyinskaya tries to remake the adult Oblomov, he opposes it. In the scene described by Goncharov, he even asks his friend Stolz not to let Ilyinskaya see him again. Oblomov does not like the pressure on him, he did not want to be like his friend, he chose a different path for himself.

After breaking up with Olga Ilyinskaya Oblomov suffers, because his heart is broken, but there was a woman who was able to give Oblomov that affection and care that he dreamed of. His connection with Agafya Matveyevna brought him that calmness and peace of mind that Ilyinskaya could not give him.

Oblomov next to Agafya Matveyevna again felt like a little boy who was being taken care of. Their son Andryushka became the fruit of their love.

Once again, Stolz, who has arrived, talking with a friend, realizes that he will soon die. Oblomov asks before the death of his friend not to leave his son and take care of him. Stolz gives Oblomov a promise that he will grow up from Andryushka to be a hardworking and responsible person. Everyone retained good memories of Oblomov, as a person who did not become callous in heart and meager in soul. He did not betray his principles and remained a pure and bright person in their memory.

Several interesting compositions

• Composition Nothing is so rare in the world as complete frankness between parents and children (R. Rolland) Final

  Nobody chooses their parents. This is why there are contradictions between generations. That is why people often do not understand, argue, and do not suit each other. Parents and children often look at others - relatives, neighbors, acquaintances and give examples.

• The image and characteristics of the Wild-Barin in the story The Singers of Turgenev composition

  One of the main characters of the story "Singers" is Dikiy - Barin. The master lived in the village of Kolotovka. Really his name was Perevlesov. And his friends called him Dikim - Barin.

• Frenchman Beaupre in the novel The Captain's Daughter of Pushkin

  During the times described by Pushkin in Captain's daughter, many noble people are foreigners to raise children. At the same time, foreign teachers were not always teachers in the full sense of the word.

• Essay Peter I - Great Reformer or Tyrant? writing

  It is impossible to answer this question unambiguously. What was Russia in the 17th century? Typically a patriarchal state. She seemed to be frozen in her development. She needed it for further development push

• Serov V.A.

  Valentin Aleksandrovich Serov was born on January 19, 1965. creative family... A famous Russian artist grew up in Munich. Valentin owes his career as an artist to his teacher P.P. Chistyakov.

How did I. A. Goncharov's novel Oblomov end?

The novel by Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov Oblomov ends very simply and you can say so according to the script.

Say what you like, but the main character Oblomov's novel became a beloved and closer in spirit hero for many readers, despite the fact that the novel was written more than 100 years ago. That's why this novel you can reread it infinitely many times, and each time discover something new for yourself.

Roman Oblomov ends with Ilya Oblomov dying (from constant laziness and lying, Oblomov developed many illnesses)

Olga married Stolz. They took on the education of the son of Ilya Oblomov (the son appeared from Oblomov's relationship with a simple woman)

Great I am not afraid of this word Roman! I advise everyone to read, love line Oblomov and Olga did not end with anything, since she remained with Oblomov's friend Stolz, Oblomov had a child from a woman who looked after his housekeeping. In general, Oblomov did not reach any heights, neither with his farm, nor with Olga, and he could not solve his affairs with anything, he was always lazy, and it was easy to deceive him

In the title of the novel, the whole plot and script is a complete BACKGROUND. The man who showed hope was smart, handsome, in the end he lost all his potential and died almost in poverty in a small hut with a woman who cleaned and washed after him and from whom the son appeared, but whom Stolz and Olga took for their upbringing. As the saying goes, if you are talented, then you are talented in everything, and if you are lazy, then sooner or later you will be overtaken by failure, the only thing left to say is my fate.

Quite naturally, the novel ends with the death of the main character, Ilya Oblomov. It is like a sentence to the way of life which he led and which did not lead to anything. However, Oblomov found his happiness, he married Agafya, his son was born. But his indifference and laziness completely ruined Oblomov, he himself could not look after the household, and the scammers did not doze. So after the death of his father, Oblomov's son would have been threatened with poverty if not for Stolz, who, by that time married to Olga, took the boy up. I think that with such an adoptive father, a completely different person should have grown from Andrei Oblomov than his own father was.

The novel ends with a kind of epilogue, in which Zakhar tells the story of his unsettled life: he was expelled from everywhere, because in modern times the masters needed much less servants, and he could not cope with his duties: either he drank at the workplace, or he crumbles expensive Bohemian dishes, then he will commit other offenses of varying degrees of unacceptability. He ended up beggar begging for a pretty penny. Stolz promised him a corner on the condition that Zakhar would not get drunk.

The fate of the heroes is discussed in the penultimate chapter. Ilya Ilyich died from a blow,

His widow Agafya Matveyevna was, of course, a woman of a different plan than Olga, but she loved her husband sincerely, because after his death

Her household was cleaned up by a brother and wife, with whom she is actually a servant, since

She gave her little son Andryusha to be raised by the Stolts. Thus, the author gives the reader the hope that Oblomovism will not spread further, and little Oblomov will not repeat the fate of his father, in the healthy balance of his Russian soul and semi-German upbringing.

All quotes are taken from here.

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov died at the end of this work, which, in my opinion, perfectly shows the irregularity of his life, his existence. A person who leads a meaningless life does not see the meaning in it, therefore he dies.

THE END OF THE ROMAN I. A. GONCHAROV OBLOMOV.

The ending of the novel by Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov Fathers and children to some extent was quite predictable. Andrey Ivanovich Stolts which accounts for best friend Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, got married on lovely Olga Sergeevna Ilyinskaya... Unfortunately, further relations between Oblomov and Ilyinskaya did not work out: they are too different people. Ilya Ilyich was the first to write a letter to Olga Ilyinsky with a request to forgive him, but the couple has no future. As he himself said, his life will be a burden for Olga, and he will never resort to the path of correction.

The main character of the novel Ilya Ilyich married Agafya Petrovna Matveevna, the owner of an apartment in a village where he had once moved from the problems and turmoil that had ripened in the city.

Soon after the engagement, was born firstborn. The hero was named Andrey.

After parting with the master, the servant Zakhar drank heavily.

Later Ilya Ilyich Oblomov died... Life for him lost all meaning, so he did not want to remain in this world.

Agafya Petrovna was very worried about the death of Ilya Ilyich and could not come to terms with his death.

Little Andrey Stoltsy took to their upbringing and considered him family.

Oblomov's life and death. Epilogue of the novel. In the third and last time Stolz visits his friend. Under the caring eye of Pshenitsyna, Oblomov almost realized his ideal: “He dreams that he has reached that promised land where rivers of honey and milk flow, where they eat unearned bread, wear gold and silver ...”, and Agafya Matveyevna turns into a fabulous Miliktrix Kirbityevna .. The house on the Vyborgskaya side resembles a rural open space.

However, the hero never made it to his native village. Theme "Oblomov and men" runs through the entire novel. Even in the first chapters, we learned that in the absence of the master, the peasants live hard. The headman reports that the peasants are "running away", "asking for a quitrent." It is unlikely that they felt better under the rule of the Overwritten. While Oblomov was drowning in his problems, he missed the opportunity to build a road, build a bridge, as his neighbor, a village landowner, did. It cannot be said that Ilya Ilyich does not think about his peasants at all. But his plans boil down to ensuring that everything remains as it is. And to the advice to open a school for the peasant Oblomov replies with horror that “he probably won’t plow ...” But time cannot be stopped. In the final we learn that "Oblomovka is not in the wilderness anymore<…>, the rays of the sun fell on her! " The peasants, no matter how difficult it was, did without the master: “... In four years it will be a station of the road<…>, the men will go to work on the embankment, and then they will roll over the cast iron<…>bread to the pier ... And there ... schools, grammar ... "But did Ilya Ilyich manage without Oblomovka? With the logic of the narrative, Goncharov proves his favorite thoughts. And the fact that on the conscience of every landowner there is concern about the fate of hundreds of people ("Happy Mistake"). And the fact that village life is the most natural and therefore the most harmonious for a Russian person; she herself will direct, teach and suggest what to do better than any "plans" ("Frigate" Pallas "").

In the house on Vyborgskaya Oblomov sank down. What was free sleep became a hallucination - "the present and the past merged and mixed." On his first visit, Stolz managed to lift Oblomov off the couch. In the second, he helped a friend in solving practical matters. And now, with horror, he realizes that he is powerless to change anything:<«Вон из этой ямы, из болота, на свет, на простор, где есть здоровая, нормальная жизнь!» - настаивал Штольц…

“Do not remember, do not disturb the past: you cannot turn it back! - said Oblomov. - I have grown to this pit with a sore spot: try to tear it off - there will be death ... I feel everything, I understand everything: I have long been ashamed to live in the world! But I can't go your way with you, even if I wanted to .. Maybe the last time was still possible. Now ... now it's too late ... "Even Olga is not able to resurrect him:" Olga! - suddenly escaped from the frightened Oblomov ... - For God's sake, do not let her here, leave! "

As on the first visit, Stolz sums up the sad conclusion:

What's in there? - Olga asked ...

Nothing!..

Is he alive, well?

Why did you come back so soon? Why didn't he call me there and bring him? Let me in!

What is going on there? ... Has the "abyss opened"? Will you tell me? .. What's going on there?

Oblomovism!

And if Ilya Ilyich found people who agree to endure this life around him, then nature itself, it seems, opposed, measuring out a short period of such an existence. That is why the attempts of the same Agafya Matveyevna to restrict her husband make a tragicomic impression. “How many times have you passed? - she asked Vanyusha ... - Don't lie, look at me ... Remember Sunday, I won't let you visit<…>". And Oblomov, willy-nilly, counted out eight more times, then he came into the room ... "; "It would be nice to have a pie for this!" - “I forgot, I forgot the right! And I wanted it since the evening, but my memory seemed to have lost it! " - Agafya Matveyevna cheated. " It doesn't make sense. For there is no other purpose in life than food and sleep she can offer him.

Goncharov devotes relatively little space to the description of the illness and death of his hero. I. Annensky summarizes the reader's impressions, saying that “we have read 600 pages about him, we do not know a person in Russian literature so fully, so vividly depicted. And yet his death affects us less than the death of a tree in Tolstoy ... ”Why? Critics of the "Silver Age" are unanimous, because the worst thing with Oblomov has already happened. Spiritual death outpaced physical death. “He died because he ended ...” (I. Annensky). "The" vulgarity "finally" triumphed over the purity of the heart, love, ideals. " (D. Merezhkovsky).

Goncharov says goodbye to his hero with an agitated lyrical requiem: “What happened to Oblomov? Where is he? Where? - In the nearest cemetery, his body rests under a modest urn<…>... Lilac branches, planted by a friendly hand, doze over the grave, and wormwood smells serenely. It seems that the angel of silence himself guards his sleep. "

It would seem that there is an undeniable contradiction here. A lofty eulogy to the degraded hero! But life cannot be considered useless when someone remembers you. Light sadness filled the life of Agafya Matveyevna with the highest meaning: “She understood that<…>God put her soul into her life and took it out again; that the sun shone in her and faded forever ... Forever, really; but on the other hand, her life was also comprehended forever: now she already knew why she lived and that she did not live in vain. "

In the finale, we meet Zakhar in the guise of a beggar on the church porch. An orphaned valet prefers to ask for Christ's sake, rather than serve the "unwanted" lady. The following dialogue about the late Oblomov takes place between Stolz and his acquaintance, a writer:

And he was no more stupid than others, his soul is pure and clear as glass; noble, gentle, and - lost!

From what? What reason?

Reason ... what a reason! Oblomovism! - said Stolz.

Oblomovism! the writer repeated with bewilderment. - What it is?

Now I’ll tell you ... And you write down: maybe someone will come in handy. "And he told him what was written here."

Thus, the composition of the novel is strictly circular, it is impossible to isolate the beginning and the end in it. Everything that we read from the first pages, it turns out, can be interpreted as a story about Oblomov, his friend. At the same time, Stolz could tell the story of a recently ended life. Thus, the circle of human life has been passed twice: in reality and in the memories of friends.

Goncharov, a singer of harmony, could not complete his book with one minor note. In the epilogue, a new little hero appears, who, perhaps, will be able to harmoniously combine the best features of his father and educator. “Don't forget my Andrey! - were the last words of Oblomov, spoken in a faded voice ... "" No, I will not forget your Andrey<…>, - promises Stolz. - But I will take your Andrey where you could not go<…>and with him we will put our youthful dreams into action. "

Let's do a little experiment. Open the last page of Oblomov's edition - whatever you hold in your hands. Turning it over, you will almost certainly find an article by Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov "What is Oblomovism?" This work must be known if only because it is one of the samples of Russian critical thought of the nineteenth century. However, the first sign of a free person and a free country is the possibility of choice. It is more interesting to consider Dobrolyubov's article next to the article with which it appeared almost simultaneously and with which it is largely polemic. This is a review by Alexander Vasilyevich Druzhinin “Oblomov”. Roman I.A. Goncharov ".

Critics are unanimous in their admiration for Olga's image. But if Dobrolyubov sees in her a new heroine, the main fighter against Oblomovism, Druzhinin sees in her the embodiment of eternal femininity: "One cannot help being carried away by this bright, pure creature, who has so reasonably developed in himself all the best, true principles of a woman ..."

The disagreements between them begin with Oblomov's assessment. Dobrolyubov argues with the author of the novel himself, proving that Oblomov is a lazy, spoiled, worthless creature: “He (Oblomov) will not bow down to the idol of evil! Why is that? Because he is too lazy to get up on the couch. And pull him off, put him on his knees before this idol: he will not be able to stand up. Dirt won't stick to him! Yes, while he is alone. So still nothing; but when Tarantiev comes, Zattyev. Ivan Matveich - brr! what disgusting filth begins near Oblomov. "

The critic discerningly guesses the origins of Oblomov's character in his childhood. In Oblomovism, he sees primarily social roots: “... He ( Oblomov) from an early age he sees in his house that all housework is done by lackeys and maids, and papa and mamma only give orders and scold for poor performance. " Cites as an example a symbolic episode of pulling on stockings. He considers Oblomov as social type... This is the master, the owner of "three hundred Zakharov", who "while painting the ideal of his bliss ... did not think to confirm its legitimacy and truth, did not ask himself the question: where will these greenhouses and hotbeds come from ... and why on earth will he use them?"

Yet the psychological analysis of the character and the meaning of the entire novel is not so interesting to the critic. It is constantly interrupted by "more general considerations" about Oblomovism. In the hero of Goncharov, the critic is primarily an established literary type, the critic draws his genealogy from Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin. In literary science, it is customary to call it a type of superfluous person. Unlike Goncharov, Dobrolyubov focuses on his negative features: "What all these people have in common is that they have no business in life that would be a vital necessity for them, a heartfelt shrine ..."

Dobrolyubov perspicaciously guesses that the reason for Oblomov's deep sleep was the absence of a lofty, truly noble goal. He chose the words of Gogol as an epigraph: "Where is the one who, in the native language of the Russian soul, would be able to tell us this omnipotent word" forward? .. "

Let's now look at Druzhinin's article. Let's be honest: it's much more difficult to read. As soon as we unfold the pages, the names of the philosophers and poets, Carlyle and Longfellow, Hamlet and the artists of the Flemish school, will flash before our eyes. An intellectual of the highest horizons, an expert in English literature, Druzhinin does not condescend to the average level in his critical works, but is looking for an equal reader. By the way, this is how you can check the degree of your own culture - ask yourself which of the mentioned names, paintings, books are familiar to me?

Following Dobrolyubov, he pays a lot of attention to "Sleep ..." and sees in it "a step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism." But, unlike him, he focuses on the lyrical content of the chapter. Druzhinin saw poetry even in the "sleepy Chelyadinets", and gave the highest credit to Goncharov that he "poeticized the life of his native land." Thus, the critic touched lightly national content Oblomovism. Defending his beloved hero, the critic urges: "Take a close look at the novel, and you will see how many people there are devoted to Ilya Ilyich and even adore him ..." It's not without reason!

“Oblomov is a child, not a cheesy lecher, he is a sleepyhead, and not an immoral egoist or an epicurean ...” To emphasize the moral value of the hero, Druzhinin asks the question: who is ultimately more useful for humanity? A naive child or a diligent official who “signs paper by paper”? And he answers: "A child by nature and according to the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich ... left behind him the purity and simplicity of a child - qualities that are precious in an adult." People "out of this world" are also necessary, because "in the midst of the greatest practical confusion, they often open up to us the realm of truth and at times put an inexperienced, dreamy eccentric and above ... the whole crowd of businessmen surrounding him." The critic is sure that Oblomov - type common to all mankind, and exclaims: "It is not good for the land where there are no kind and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov!"

Unlike Dobrolyubov, he does not forget about Agafya Matveyevna. Druzhinin made a subtle observation about Pshenitsyna's place in Oblomov's fate: she was involuntarily the "evil genius" of Ilya Ilyich, "but this woman will be forgiven everything for the fact that she loved a lot." The critic is carried away by the subtle lyricism of scenes depicting the sorrowful experiences of the widow. In contrast to her, the critic shows the selfishness of the Stolz couple in relation to Oblomov in scenes where "neither everyday order, nor everyday truth ... were violated."

At the same time, a number of controversial judgments can be found in his review. The critic avoids talking about why Ilya Ilyich is dying. Stolz's despair at the sight of a degraded friend was caused, in his opinion, only by the fact that Oblomov married a commoner.

Like Dobrolyubov, Druzhinin goes beyond the scope of the novel. He discusses the peculiarities of Goncharov's talent, compares him with Dutch painters. Like the Dutch landscape painters and creators of genre scenes, the details of everyday life under his pen acquire an existential scale and "his creative spirit was reflected in every detail ... how the sun is reflected in a small drop of water ..."

We saw that two critics in their judgments about Oblomov and the novel as a whole argue and deny each other. So which one to believe? This question was answered by I. Annensky, noting that it is erroneous “to dwell on the question of what type of Oblomov. Negative or positive? This question generally belongs to the school market ... "And suggests that" the most natural way in each analysis of the type is to start by analyzing your impressions, deepening them as much as possible. " For this "deepening" criticism is needed. To convey the reaction of contemporaries, to supplement independent conclusions, and not replace their impressions. Generally speaking, Goncharov believed in his reader, and to remarks that his hero was incomprehensible, he retorted: “And what for the reader? Is he some kind of fool that his imagination will not be able to supplement the rest according to the idea given by the author? Is the Pechorins, Onegins ... told to the smallest detail? The task of the author is the dominant element of character, and the rest is the business of the reader. "