536 SEER, 86, 3, JULY 2008 One suspects that the limitations in this study have arisen in large part (and perhaps justifiably) from an approach heavily focused on the personal experience of the author. Van deWater admits thatpart three ismuch more 'subjective' in focus, largelybecause she attended many of theproductions she discusses. (This perhaps also explains why there is much more detailed discus sion of productions in the 1990s than in the Soviet era, and why her discussion is limited to these two particular theatres.) Yet, despite these shortcomings, this work isa useful contribution to scholarship on Soviet/Russian theatre and on the litde-studied area of theatre for young people in general. London Kate Sealey Rahman Marsh, Cynthia. Maxim Gorky:Russian Dramatist. Peter Lang, Oxford, Berlin, Vienna and New York, 2006. 382 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Indexes. ?42.00 (paperback). This is the firstmajor study in English devoted exclusively to Gor'kii the dramatist rather than the prose writer and, as such, is a very welcome addition to studies of a writer whose former status as a Soviet icon is undergoing reas sessment both in his home country and elsewhere. The emphasis on his place as a specificallyRussian (rather than Soviet) dramatist is strategically designed to rescue Gor'kii from his former domestic champions and to locate him within a tradition of Russian realist dramatic writing from Ostrovskii to the present which, whilst owing a debt to late-nineteenth century European naturalist dramatists, counteracted their generally pessimistic perspectives by lending their stage naturalism a more political, and therefore ameliorative, coloration. Cynthia Marsh's qualifications for the task include a number of articles on Gor'kii the dramatist as well as, crucially, practical work with students. The result is a work which attempts to place the emphasis on Gor'kii's skills as a dramatist firmly within the context of performance, analysing the ways in which stage space is deployed as a means of dramatizing conflictswhich are articulated in terms of linguistic and spatial relations and where matters of power and social class, which might otherwise appear crudely schematized, are seen to be handled with far greater subtlety than hitherto imagined. The clash between everyday naturalistic action and melodramatic incident, to which are added a degree of grotesquerie and elements of fairground entertainment, far from being matters on which Gor'kii might be indicted, become, in Marsh's sympathetic view, consciously contrived features of a skilled dramatist's manipulation of generic collisions which mirror profound conflicts in the social world of pre-revolutionary Russia. The treatment of the plays is chronological, beginning with Gor'kii's firstplays written for theMoscow Art Theatre, including The LowerDepths, followed by those plays written before 1905which focus on the plight of the Russian intelligentsia, of which Summerfolkis probably the best known. The theme of exile is then given thematic importance, viewed as consonant with Gor'kii's own position between 1906 and 1917when he lived abroad and reviews 537 where a play likeEnemies discloses a sharper emphasis on political conflict as well as evincing the emergence of a distinctive feministperspective which, in Marsh's view, is as ambiguous as Ibsen's and foreshadows Gor'kii's treatment of powerful matriarchs such as Vassa Zheleznova. The study concludes with Gor'kii's return to the Soviet Union in the early 1930s with the dramatic emphasis now on powerful men, as depicted in plays such as Egor Bulychev and the Others, who epitomize the ambivalence of Gor'kii's contempt for an enervated, dying pre-revolutionary regime coupled with his admiration for its neurologically and physiologically stronger representatives. At one point the status of a number of defining categories deployed in the study are described as being intelligibly 'obvious' to audiences at the time whilst, in a post-Soviet climate, these terms are now seen to be 'largely academic' (p. 125). However, the discussion tends to lean rather heavily on the continuing validity of portmanteau terms such as 'bourgeois' and 'bourgeoisie' and, consequently, reads at times like a slightly tendentious version of Soviet style literarycriticism yoked to a less than rigorously theorized systemof stage semiotics. This may derive from a degree of uncertainty about the kind...