Talk:Oblomov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
	This article is supported by the 19th century task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Russia Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

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. 131.111.8.99 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. 89.160.38.228 09:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

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)

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

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)

[edit] Cover Art

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))