Not many books have added words to their national lexicon, but Oblomov is one. Oblomovism became quite a vogue term at the time of its publication in 1859. It means to stagnate, to be indolently idle, to let life pass you by. And this is the theme of the novel. Oblomov certainly has the ability to succeed in his endeavours, but his inherent laziness thwarts him at every step, despite continual revivication by his friend Stolz. Oblomov’s estate is in a shambles, for which he has a plan - never finished. He falls in love with, and intends to marry the willing Marya Mihailovna - and talks himself out of it. He intends many a grandiose scheme and ends up buried under a tree on the Vyborg side of St Petersburg, his life cut short due to a stroke courtesy of his indolent lifestyle, living a happy (I.e. workless) life in a shared house with his landlady to whom he attaches a surprising fondness. The contrast between the Russian Oblovmov and the German Stolz cannot be more contrasted. Stolz manages to revive Oblomov’s fortunes, despite his ability to fritter away his resources through his relationship with the scoundrel Tarantyev (who receives his comeuppance through the endeavours of Stolz). Oblomov remains single, Stolz himself marries Marya. Oblomov’s estate becomes profitable, due to the work of Stolz as his estate manager. In short, the fact that Oblomov manages to last as long as he does, is down to his great, German friend. Oblomov is a great ‘if only’ story. If only Oblomov could rouse himself, if only he did marry Marya, if only he saw what a bad influence Tarantyev was, then he would be a success. But he is doomed to failure, a Russian Hamlet.

On reading one cannot but help to think that the whole novel is a parable about Russia. Obolomov is the old Russia, held back by its own people, while Stolz is the new Germany (or at least Prussia), modern and alive. If only old Russia could learn from new Prussia then it could only prosper, Goncharov seems to intimate.

His writing style is very different to that of Gogol, one of his contemporaries; whereas Gogol relies on psychological characterisation, Goncharev prefers to anthropomorphise Russian characteristics, (The lazy servant Zahar or the landlady Agafya Matveyevna for example), without managing to fall into caricature. His protagonists are distinct, coherent and consistent throughout, which shows his true skill. Interestingly Goncharev spent his later years pathologically railing against another contemporary, Turgenev, falsely accusing him of plagiarism.

Despite being virtually unknown in the West, Goncharev has an art and a skill in his writing that merits his place within the pantheon of Russian writers of his age.