From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels / 19th century (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by 19th century task force.
Note icon
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.
WikiProject Russia / Language & literature (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.

Stoltz <-> Schtotlz -- somebody please decide o the right transcription.

I changed everything to Schtoltz - This is the transliteration used in the English translation I'm looking at (the Russian is Штольц). Fikus 05:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The Penguin edition uses Stoltz. I don't think there's a definitive transcription, but I'm guessing that the Penguin edition is the most widely read. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion, I just made a choice in the interest of being consistent. I don't know anything about German names, I only took a guess based on the Russian. Fikus 00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case it should definitely be changed back to Stolz. That's the only logical and correct spelling. And the Penguin edition bears that out. Will do that soon unless there are serious objections. 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the ending of the "The Novel" part because one important scene - the one where Oblomov finally fights his way out in life - was left out, and so its implications to the ending of the book.

I wish to remove the third paragraph which says "Oblomovka is a word that appears in the English translation of the novel. It seems to refer to an imaginary place in which people like Oblomov might live.", since Oblomovka is clearly the name of the Oblomov estate. "Seems to be" is rather vague too. 09:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Are these quotes really necessary? They appear to be longer than the plot descriptions themselves. If the second one is quite good for the plot description and analysis, the first one is hardly necessary. In my opinion, either they should be cut down or replaced by more concise ones expressing the same idea, or the plot section edited and expanded. Well, the latter should be done anyway. It uses very emphatic language, and misses out important parts of the plot — the section on Oblomov's life with Agaf'ya Matveevna is particularly confusing. I'll do it when I have time, but if someone gets here before that — please edit the plot summary. --AVIosad 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous man, and Oblomov's real problem[edit]

The article said the Superfluous Man was a "stereotype". This is too negative; ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA observes that some of the most memorable characters in Russian literature (Eugene Onegin, Pierre in WAR AND PEACE, Uncle Vanya) are penetrating studies of "superfluous men". Perhaps say "pervasive theme" or "archetype"?

A book on European literature (unfortunately I can't remember the name and can't cite it) suggests the OBLOMOV was really an attack on Russian serfdom, showing its demoralizing effects on a likeable character who never has to do his own work, as well as on a "well-treated" serf who never learns to fend for himself. To say that Oblomov was just "spoiled rotten" is too narrow. CharlesTheBold 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art[edit]

The text accompanying the picture indicates it's from the 1858 Russian version, but when I clicked the outside link, it says it's from "Russian version" but does not indicate it's from the 1858 original. The cover art does not look like it's from that time; rather, I would guess it's from about 1930 to 1970. I suggest the "1858" be removed from the book cover description. (Kejo13 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Oblomov's class status[edit]

On the one hand, we say Oblomov is a nobleman. On the other, we have:

The novel focuses on a midlife crisis for the main character, an upper middle class son of a member of Russia's nineteenth century merchant class.

So is he a nobleman, or a bourgeois? These seem like they should be mutually exclusive. john k (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This should definitely be corrected. Oblomow is a member of the landed gentry, of course. Certainly not of some kind of merchant class. That would change the whole novel (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Oblomov_Cover.jpg may be deleted[edit]

I have tagged File:Oblomov_Cover.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Oblomov.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Oblomov.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Images on Page[edit]

The only image a plain title page of an edition of the novel, which does not add much value. No other images. Consider looking to more valuable images.

Stylistic problems[edit]

The sentence structure is choppy in parts and there is an unnecessary use of elevated language when giving a general background. Also, the style/layout of the article is not well compartmentalized. While the placement/order of the sections makes sense, the content tends to jump around from topic to topic. For example, there is plot information in the intro and background in the plot section.


The first paragraph of the “Plot” section seems better suited for a separate “Background” or “Publication History” section. Also I think some more summary of the book could go into the introductory paragraph. We might want to add a section about “writing style,” and “interpretations.” The article moves logically other than some additions that could be added. We might also want to add a section about Ivan Goncharov after the plot section.

Keeping the topic objectively covered[edit]

The article is objectively written for the most part. The only place I can see that might be bias is in the first adaptation section mentioning Son of Oblomov, where the writer states “less and less of the original script until eventually the entire piece was improvised farce.” The rest of the article looks to be objective.

Covering the topic/Content[edit]

The article is missing sections that are covered in the Wikipedia articles for most major novels, such as “Background” or “Themes”. The section “Oblomovism” feels better suited as a subsection under “Themes” or “Legacy”, since the novel covers many other themes that are mentioned in “Plot” but not explored fully. The “Plot” section mentions themes like purpose, the Superfluous Man, and social satire, but these themes would be better explored in a separate section.


The cited sources seem reliable, but the article itself needs more citations to support its claims - for example, citations are needed for Son of Oblomov, and the introductory claim of Oblomov as the Superfluous Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandriaVasques (talkcontribs) 12:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources to Consider[edit]

Seeley, F. F.. (1976). Oblomov. The Slavonic and East European Review, 54(3), 335–354. Retrieved from Borowec, C.. (1994). Time after Time: The Temporal Ideology of Oblomov. The Slavic and East European Journal, 38(4), 561–573. Stilman, L.. (1948). Oblomovka Revisited. American Slavic and East European Review, 7(1), 45–77. HARJAN, G.. (1976). Dobroliubov's "What is Oblomovism?": An Interpretation. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, 18(3), 284–292. Retrieved from Blair, Elaine. "The Short Happy Life of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov." The New York Review of Books. NYREV, Inc., 09 Sept. 2010. Web. 07 Feb. 2016. Peace, Richard. Oblomov: A Critical Examination of Goncharov's Novel. Birmingham: Dept. of Russian Language and Literature, U of Birmingham, 1991. Print. Shteyngart, Gary. "Ten Days With Oblomov: A Journey in My Bed." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 Sept. 2006. Web. 07 Feb. 2016. Diment, Galya. Goncharov's Oblomov: A Critical Companion. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1998. Print. Ehre, Milton. Oblomov and His Creator: The Life and Art of Ivan Goncharov. Princeton, N.J, 1973. Print. Louria, Yvette and Seiden, Morton I., Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 3, 39-68 (1969), DOI: — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandriaVasques (talkcontribs) 02:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)