Isolation and Non-Linear Time in Tolstoy’s “Childhood” and Goncharov’s “Oblomov

Katharine Morrill

Tolstoy’s Nikolenka and Goncharov’s Oblomov are figures who both demonstrate a significant degree of isolation from the societies in which they function. Nikolenka, as exemplified by his repeated humiliation at his grandmother’s place, demonstrates throughout Childhood his inability to fully fit in with society. Oblomov, the archetype of superfluity, spends a significant portion of Goncharov’s novel languishing on the sofa, thereby not only delaying the tasks that await him but also missing out on important developments in society. I argue that essential to both characters’ isolation is the manner in which Nikolenka and Oblomov conceive of time: indeed, in both novels, the characters’ respective conceptions of time prevent them from operating normally within society. Nikolenka is perpetually trapped in a given moment, unable to think further than the issue at hand; Oblomov operates within a stagnant, cyclical time frame which causes him to postpone the same simple tasks repeatedly. Accordingly, both are unable to accept the linear vision of time upheld by society, and remain distanced from the latter. In “Loneliness and Social Class in Tolstoy’s Trilogy Childhood, Boyhood, Youth”, Anne Hruska argues that Nikolenka’s behaviour towards himself and others is indicative of “discomfort and ambivalence” towards social class and his position with regards to both his aristocratic relatives and the lower-class individuals who surround him: his tutor Karl Ivanych, the household servants, young Ilenka Grap (68). At times, Nikolenka attempts to align his behaviour with that of his brother and Seryozha. This results in him taking part in Ilenka’s torment, despite the fact he remains unconvinced “that it was all so merry and amusing” (Tolstoy 75). On the other hand, the ballroom scene, in which Nikolenka attempts and fails to dance the mazurka with a young princess, exemplifies his isolation from the societal structures of the aristocracy by demonstrating his inability to catch on to expected behaviours, and highlights his shame upon failing to do so. Hruska argues that this “societal ineptitude” demonstrated by Nikolenka throughout the novel “connects him…to [Ilenka] in particular”: just as Ilenka, who is of lower class than the Irtenev and Ilin families, is shunned by his peers, so too does Nikolenka fail to gain approval from his ‘friends’ and family (69). After his minor faux pas at the party, for example, he notices that “[everyone] was staring at [him], some with astonishment…some with derision…” (Tolstoy 87). This oscillation between partaking in the belittling of those of lower social class and being similarly belittled demonstrates that Nikolenka is incapable of assimilating with either group. Within the parameters of Childhood, this ambiguity and inability to fully fit in anywhere is partially contextualized within the framework of adolescence; indeed, Nikolenka’s brother Volodya, who is older and therefore ostensibly more aware of how to act in certain situations, seamlessly integrates himself into society and is more successful than his brother at interacting with the other children and adults alike: “[Seryozha] simply had no real liking for me, he clearly enjoyed playing and talking with Volodya more”; “the others are all dancing without doing pas de Basques, and our Volodya has adopted the new way too” (71; 86). Hruska, however, follows the development of Nikolenka’s status as an ‘outsider’ through Tolstoy’s trilogy: commenting on Nikolenka’s behaviour during a ball scene in Youth, for example, she remarks that “just as in Childhood, Nikolenka, after mistreating [Ilenka], immediately goes into a social situation similar to the one [Ilenka] occupied” (72). Accordingly, I propose that rather than viewing Nikolenka’s “social ineptitude” as a function of his age alone, it is also useful to examine his conception of time in order to explain his isolation (69). Although Childhood as a whole chronicles Nikolenka’s adaptation to his rapidly-changing life circumstances, his inability to de-

cisively fit in with any given group remains constant over the course of the novel, thereby demonstrating his myopic conception of time. Most notably, every moment at which Nikolenka makes some sort of mistake, or fails to do something the way he feels is expected of him, is characterized by an over-reaction to the situation. Subsequent to the abovementioned dance incident, he reflects and draws the conclusion that “[everyone] despises [him] and always will”, further noting that “[the] road to everything is closed for [him]: friendship, love, honours”; this not only aligns him with the outsider Ilenka, but also demonstrates that he is unable to think beyond a given moment and consider the long-term implications of minor actions (Tolstoy 88). Accordingly, Nikolenka can be considered as possessing a fragmented conception of time which runs contrary to the linear narrative upheld by those surrounding him; in this manner, minor upsets (such as not possessing dance gloves, making a mistake while dancing, or regretting the poem he writes for his grandmother’s name-day) signify catastrophe and affirm him as an outsider. In contrast, Volodya and the boys’ grandmother react “with complete indifference” and remain “completely indifferent” in the same social situations which drive Nikolenka to fret needlessly (82; 87). Goncharov’s Oblomov demonstrates a similar degree of removal from society. In contemplating the “misfortunes” thrust upon him (the unpleasant letter from the bailiff at Oblomovka and his imminent eviction from his apartment), he laments the fact that he seems to be incapable of responding to these events as others would: “He became absorbed in a comparison of himself with those ‘others’… He had to admit that another one would have managed to write all the letters…that another would have moved to a new flat, carried out the plan, gone to the country” (Goncharov 100). Oblomov’s realization is characterized as “one of the most clear-sighted and courageous moments” of his life; indeed, this episode is one in which his isolation – a feature apparent to the reader from the outset of the novel, where lying down alone in his home is described as “his normal condition” – becomes evident to him (14). The narrator describes Oblomov’s internal dialogue as “dreadful” and “painful”; Oblomov laments “the arrested development of his spiritual powers” and the “feeling of heaviness” that accompanies his daily life (101). The language employed in this passage is similar to the terms in which Nikolenka’s despair at failing to perform in society is expressed; the latter asks of God why he has been “[punished] so horribly” after forgetting to omit pas de Basques when dancing (Tolstoy 87). Accordingly, Oblomov’s revelation has the effect of emphasizing the severity of the divide between himself and the rest of society; whereas “[he], too, could have done” the things he feels another would have in his place, he finds himself unable to due to the “huge rock” which “[seems] to have been thrown across the narrow and pitiful path of his own existence” (Goncharov 100; 101). This “huge rock” symbolizes the intangible barriers holding Oblomov back from leading a ‘normal’ life; although his industrious, ambitious friend Stolz remarks that “[ten] years ago, [Oblomov], too, was looking for something different” (understood in the context of the conversation to be ‘something other than rest and repose’), he no longer shares the motivation and aspirations typical of men of his age and social class (101; 180). Prior to Oblomov’s realization of his isolation, he engages in a debate on the form and function of literature with his visitor, Penkin. Whereas the latter, who upholds that “burning spite, bitter war on vice, contemptuous laughter at fallen human beings” are key components of the literature of the day, demonstrates that he is aware of early Realist tendencies in literature, Oblomov reacts against this and indicts the new literature (which he has not even read) for its lack of humanity and compassion, questioning the value of “the

fun of picking up some man and presenting him as true to life” (35). Here Oblomov, who squanders his time languishing in a dressing gown in a dingy room, is unwilling – perhaps even unable – to accept the linear development of literature from one literary school to another; the advent of Realism poses a threat to Oblomov and disconcerts him precisely because it serves as evidence that significant developments in society have occurred since he withdrew from it, effectively leaving him and his repetitive denial of reality behind. Along with Oblomov’s realization of his own isolation, this episode indicates that his conception of time produces effects similar to those wrought by Nikolenka’s inability to think beyond fixed moments in time. Indeed, throughout the novel, any activity suggesting the necessity of extended commitment – reading a novel or attending to his affairs in the countryside, for example – is abandoned, as Oblomov invariably becomes overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task and can no longer think about it: “[he] tried to get the book…began it…would have mastered it, but instead he lay looking apathetically at the ceiling, with the book lying beside him unfinished and not properly understood”; “[again], Oblomov put off his journey because he was not yet ready to put his affairs in order” (67; 71). This shows that Oblomov cannot so much as think beyond his immediate circumstances; he is, essentially, trapped on the couch by the “huge rock” which is his insurmountably fragmented and in-the-moment conception of time (101). Accordingly, he is fated to repeat a cyclical pattern of sloth and delay interspersed with intense yet unrealized bouts of desire for self-actualization. In both novels, society operates according to a linear narrative; ‘normative’ characters – Nikolenka’s brother Volodya and Oblomov’s acquaintance Penkin, among others – exemplify this through their understanding of the flexibility of trends and behaviours in society. Neither protagonist, however, thinks in linear terms; Nikolenka fixates on concrete points in time, deriving his somewhat fatalistic attitude towards his own behaviour from this skewed perspective, whereas Oblomov actively and repeatedly shirks involvement in any activity that transcends brief temporal engagement. Accordingly, both are shown to be set apart from society, distanced from the behaviours expected of individuals belonging to their respective age and class categories. In this manner, stagnant and cyclical conceptions of time function for Nikolenka and Oblomov respectively as invisible barriers to integration within a greater framework; the contrast between linear ‘society time’ and their own detached and fragmented conceptions of time proves in both cases to present a significant obstacle complicating the characters’ identities and socialization.

Goncharov, Ivan. Oblomov. Translated by David Magarshack, Penguin Books, 2005. Hruska, Anne. “Loneliness and Social Class in Tolstoy’s Childhood, Boyhood, Youth”. The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2000, pp. 64-78. Tolstoy, Lev. Childhood, Boyhood, Youth. Translated by Judson Rosengrant, Penguin Books, 2012.