Reviewed by: Goncharov in the Twenty-First Century ed. by Ingrid Kleespies and Lyudmila Parts James Womack Goncharov in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. by Ingrid Kleespies and Lyudmila Parts. (Studies in Russian and Slavic Literatures, Cultures, and History) Boston: Academic Studies Press. 2021. xxviii+ 235 pp. $109. ISBN 978-1-64469-698-9. The editors of this attractive volume stress their desire to distance the study of Ivan Goncharov from a 'conventional psychological, Freudian approach' (p. xiv), while escaping the 'unquestioned dominance of Oblomov' (ibid.) in the author's œuvre. Laudable yet complicated aims. In particular, the Freudian toolbox is and remains useful for unpacking Goncharov's infantilizing fantasies. Goncharov in the Twenty-First Century is to be praised for its ambition and its work of contextualization and expansion. It rouses readers of Goncharov from the comfortable divan of tradition on which, in our dressing-gown-clad idleness, we might prefer to subside. The collection is divided into four sections, each with a different perspective and depth of focus. The first two essays, by Sergei Guskov and Kirill Zubkov respectively, deal with Goncharov the man, including his work as a Petersburg official (chinovnik) and, more specifically, as a censor. As is only natural, essays on similar subjects cover similar material: both authors quote Aleksandr Druzhinin's refusal to 'consider' Goncharov's acceptance of the post as 'disgraceful but […] a writer shouldn't be a censor' (pp. 18 and 2s). However, each critic takes this quotation in a different direction. Zubkov positions Druzhinin's opposition within the framework of the 18 3os rise of the 'thick' journals: an aesthetic judgement in the face of uncomprehending 'official' censorship. Guskov's discussion leads us back to Goncharov's work, showing how, for example, the sympathetic (and extremely amusing) portrayal of cultural and generational tsuris in Goncharov's first novel, A Common Story (Obyknovennaia istoriia, 1847), benefits from its author's role, which allowed Goncharov to see both sides of various societal divides. A section consisting of three essays on 'The Challenges of Philosophy' makes claims for Goncharov as a consciously philosophical writer: Vladimir Ivantsov's essay on Platonic subtexts in Oblomov is detailed and compelling, although I could not help feeling that the world of forms identified with the 'oblomovskii Platon' (Oblomov's Plato) might twist quite easily into the Freudian readings this volume wants to escape. Victoria Juharyan's argument that Goncharov's three novels form a unified 'Hegelian project' (p. 74), is cleverly made, but occasionally feels as though the texts are being read in the service of a pre-existing thesis, rather than being allowed to suggest their own conclusions. For example, 'A Common Story can be read as a parody of the often-misrepresented Hegelian notion of "reconciliation with reality"' (p. 81): 'can be read' is given a lot of heavy lifting to do here and elsewhere. Sonja Koroliov brings us back to Oblomov via Derrida and Schopenhauer: it would [End Page 150] be interesting to read a longer discussion of Oblomov's prelapsarian yearnings in the light of Derrida's idea of le don, a topic with which Koroliov engages only briefly (p. 109). The third, thematic group of essays contains some of the richest writing in the volume: in particular, Valeria Sobol's discussion of the Gothic in relation to The Precipice (Obryv, 1870) opens up engaging areas for future study, connecting what is usually perceived as Goncharov's realism to such fruitful intertexts as 'Gogol's "The Portrait" and the opening chapters of Maturin's Gothic novel Melmoth the Wanderer' (p. 122). One might notice in passing—again?—that the connection between Freudian theory and the Gothic is long-established. Ani Kokobobo and Devin McFadden's queer reading of The Precipice is a pineapple of an essay: spiky yet juicy. The last group of essays is not thematic, but instead focuses on a single text, Goncharov's travel book The Frigate 'Pallada' (Fregat 'Pallada', 1858). Aleksei Balakin's analysis of this work's 'aesthetic construction' (p. 155) nicely complements Lyudmila Parts's discussion of 'Palladaʹ's imperial project through the lens of laughter and various other physiological indicators of assumed superiority...