346 SEER, 87, 2, APRIL 200g studies, withan acknowledgement oftheoutright hostility ofone commentator (Vitalii Makhlin, uponwhoseworkZbindenrelies almost exclusively inher accountoftheRussianresponse to Western reception ofBakhtin - in itself a significant weakness in heranalysis), againsta background ofgeneralindifference (p. 133).Hence Zbindendoes notrealizeherstatedaim ofverifying 'theexistence ofa "Frenchconnection" in Bakhtin studies'(p. 4). Probablythestrongest sustained sectionofthebook is thethirdchapter, whichis devotedentirely to the'sociality' themeand is therefore freeofthe methodological tension evident elsewhere. In it,Zbindendrawson therecent workofBrandist, Hirschkop, Poole and Tihanovtodemonstrate theinconsistency in Bakhtin' s accountofsociality in hisessayson thenovel(itis,impossibly , both'an atemporal constituitive feature oflanguage'and 'theresult of a historical processof the differentiation betweenlanguage,thought, and consciousness', p. 59) and accountforhowthisinconsistency came about.In a reasonedanalysis, she also suggests thatBakhtinsurmounts it by placing heterology (sic)and thenovelin a dialectical relationship (pp.73-74). Zbindenunderstands by 'sociality' bothinter-subjectivity and 'social and politicalorganisation as derivedfromFrenchhumanist thought' (p. 6). An HonoraryResearchFellowat Sheffield's BakhtinCentre,she broadlyallies herself withBritish (territorially speaking) Bakhtin scholarship oftheLeftin herappreciation ofthesuperiority ofa historicist - on alllevelsapproach to Bakhtin's work.Whilstthereis nothing wrongwiththis,the structural ambiguity of her studythat I have describeduncomfortably obscuresit and createstheunfortunate impression ofa hiddenagenda.Zbinden'searly declaration ofintent toneglect 'English andAmerican studies' on thegrounds that theseare 'easilyaccessibleand well known'(p. 6) turnsout to be disingenuous, as a rather thoroughly referenced 'English'positionis used to denigrateUS scholarship forits own alleged hiddenagenda of, crudely, anti-Marxism. Butinorderforsuchcriticism tobe entirely fair, inorderthat US scholarship notbe a strawtarget, itdeserves to be analysedin thesame detailthatZbindengrants all herothercommentators and Bakhtin himself. Department ofRussian Studies R. Coates University ofBristol Bradbrook, Bohuslava. A Handbook of Czech Prose Writing1940-2003. SussexAcademicPress,Brighton and Portland OR, 2007.viii+ 156pp. Bibliography. Index.£32.50. Dr Bohuslava Bradbrook's Handbook consists of a seriesof comments on one or twoworksbythirty-five Czech writers, mostofthemstillliving.She concentrates on the middle-brow (forexample,Hana Bëlohradska, Arnost Lustig) and sometimesdelves into Trivialliteratur (for example, Miloslav Svandrlik, Michal Viewegh).She omitsthe contemporary writers who are most highlyregardedby educated Czechs,Jan Balaban,JáchymTopol, Daniela HodrováandPetraHulová.Herbibliography suggests thatsheknows no Czech and littleanglophonesecondary literature; thatperhapsexplains reviews 347 someoftheerrors and falsehoods (forexample,on pp. 26,37,73,74,88, 92, 113,127,131,138).The Handbook also has a moralizing theme:thatthereis a bit too muchfilth in modernCzech literature. On Svandrlik's Cernì baroni (Pragueand Innsbruck, 1969,not Zurich,as Bradbrookhas it) she writes: 'some veryroughmaterialemergedin thisparticular book. Perhapsthere shouldhavebeenwarnings suchas: verystrong, foullanguage,rough, brutal scenes, violence, inhumanity, physical andmoralfilth? Formenonly?'(p. 132). Apparently Bradbrook's bookcame intobeingforor as a result ofherteachinga courseon Czech literature at theUniversity oftheThirdAge. Undergraduates shouldnotbe letnearitforitslazy,imprecise, anti-analytical, often emotional writing thatcontributes nothing toourknowledge orunderstanding ofCzech literature. UCL SSEES R. B. Pynsent Leving,Iurii and Soshkin,Evgenii(eds). Imperila (N': Nabokov i nasledniki. Nauchnaia biblioteka.Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie,Moscow, 2006. 538 pp. Notes.Bibliography. Index.$28.00. Nabokov's linguistic versatility has made himcommonproperty. He is both an Americanand a 'returned' Russianauthor,and thenumerouseditions, collections and adaptations ofhisworkaretestimony tothefactthatNabokov hasjoinedliterary canonson bothsidesoftheAtlantic (andPacific). To some extent, Nabokov'sglobalreachexplainsIuriiLeving'sand EvgeniiSoshkin's choiceoftitle forthiscollection ofessays, suggesting an expansive'NabokovEmpire '('Imperiia"N"') whichspanscultural, nationaland linguistic borders. The unitywhichthe titlesuggests is, however,misleading. In contrast to Nabokov'sgeneralglobalreadership, Anglo-Saxonand Russianscholarship have enduredan uneasyrelationship markedby uncertainty overterritorial claimseversinceRussian-based scholars entered theNabokov-Empire during the era of glasnost' and perestroika. This strainedrelationship can be explained, inpart,as a result oflinguistic barriers as wellas methodologically different traditions. Another factor is theperception amongRussianscholars thatuntilthe 1980stheywere deprivedof what shouldhave been theirs by right. Insteadofa novaia'zembla' theyfoundthewell-mapped terrain of Nabokovstudies, theclaimstowhichweremoreor lesshappilyapportioned amongSlavic and English/American Literature departments in theAngloSaxonworld .Much oftheworkaccomplished byRussianscholars sincethen has nevertheless filledsome important gaps in Nabokovstudies, helpingto contextualize thespecifically Russianand émigréculture ofNabokov'swork. Following earliercollections suchas V. V.Nabokov: proetcontra (StPetersburg, 1997) or Kurturarusskoi diaspory:Vladimir Nabokov- 100: materialy nauchnoi konferentsii (Tallinn,2000),thiscollection ofessays, publishedin Russian,is a further steptowardsbringing scholarsfromEast and Westclosertogether, albeitwithRussiansthistimenot as the 'poor relatives'(p. 15),whichthe editorsclaimis thecommonperception oftheirrole,but as thehoststo a ...