Will Oblomov by Goncharov help me stop being lazy?

>>8946305
I own a copy of that book, but I'm too lazy to read it.

sorry i can't help

>>8946305
No.
Source: I've read it

>>8946305
No. The book isn't about laziness.

Also I recommend the Marian Schwartz translation

>>8946305
No. It will make you feel melancholic.
Made me emotionally attached to being lazy (which was already happening).
Allthough i don't identify with Oblomov really.

>>8946383
>>8946385
>>8946449
>>8946522
Ok thanks, I guess I'll read it anyway.
When I get to it.

>>8946305
>“Oblomov” is not really good. Oblomov himself is exaggerated and is not so striking as to make it worth while to write a whole book about him. A flabby sluggard like so many, a commonplace, petty nature without any complexity in it: to raise this person to the rank of a social type is to make too much of him. I ask myself, what would Oblomov be if he had not been a sluggard? And I answer that he would not have been anything. And if so, let him snore in peace. The other characters are trivial, with a flavour of Leikin about them; they are taken at random, and are half unreal. They are not characteristic of the epoch and give one nothing new. Stoltz does not inspire me with any confidence. The author says he is a splendid fellow, but I don’t believe him. He is a sly brute, who thinks very well of himself and is very complacent. He is half unreal, and three-quarters on stilts. Olga is unreal and is dragged in by the tail. And the chief trouble is that the whole novel is cold, cold, cold.

It made me realise that loser will be always loser, no matter how good cicrumstances are. Depressing desu
>>8947284
romantic exaltation between Olga and Oblomov was so annoying