The Study Of Goncharov In China

The achivements to Goncharov's literatures, literary status and relationship between China and him caused the interest of Chinese critics. However, until now "the study of Concharov in China" hasn't been investigated and this makes the importance of my thesis. My full paper divides into two parts mainly.The frist part expounds the course of the study of Goncharov in China. The earliest records of Goncharov in China were found in the Qing Dynasty. These articles showed that Goncharov was mentioned as an important writer. The study of Concharov in China began until Russian literature was accepted in May-fourth movement. Scholars focused on the theme of "Oblomov" and characteristic of Oblomov. The study of Concharov broke off in the 1930s, and resumed in the 1940s. At that time the scholars discussed the representative meaning of Oblomov, and the theme of "the Ravine of the precipice". After the establishment of P.R.China, critics continued to discuss the personalities of oblomov, and "the Frigate Palatas" was studied at that period of time. In the middle of the 1960s, the study of Goncharov broke off again. After 1980 the study resumed, and a large number of themes were published, which illustrated different points of view of study. In the 1990s, critics paid little attention to the writer except for the systemization of his literature criticism.The second part discusses some themes argued by critics after 1980. The scholars illustrated the themes of the writer's three novels.; Also, Critics studied the representative meaning of Oblomov, where his character originated from, the structure in the novel, components of his personality and his characteristics as a superfluity. Scholars couldn't come to a conclusion about the components of his personalities, and his characteristic as a superfluity. The study of artistic feature of his works showed the realistic style. The value of "the Frigate Palatas" in other fields was found except in the subject matter of history. Critics affirmed that his literature criticisms was valuable, but they disagreed with some of his theories in his articles...