326 SEER, 82, 2, 2004 the appropriationof non-reproductivesexualityby the 'decadent' artists,and is followed by Graham Roberts's discussion of 'male angst' in the work of Kharms, which is heavily indebted to Kristeva's theory of the abject. While Roberts's closing remarkson the modern horror film seem out of place in a discussion of Kharms, they nevertheless prefigure the concluding section's emphasison post-Soviet society, which begins with BirgitBeumer'sdiscussion of the use of homosexuality, camp and transvestismin the theatreof the I990S as a metaphoric indicator of the dethroning of oppression. Catherine Parnell on Nina Sadur and Galina Rylkova's closing article on Viktor Erofeev make interestingcompanion pieces, dealing as each does with figuresfrom the postSoviet literary world who are notorious for the violence of their gendered aesthetics. Such discussions highlight an important consideration raised by the volume as a whole: a recognition of the diverse and potentially powerimplicated uses to which mattersof gender and sexualitycontinue to be put in Russian culture,and of the need for furtherresearchin thisfield. Department ofRussian CAROL ADLAM University ofExeter Binyon, T. J. Pushkin. A Biography.HarperCollins, London, 2003. xxix + 731 PP. Maps. Illustrations.Notes. Bibliography. Index. 1io.oo (paperback). WHEN a British Slavistwins a prestigious and valuable literaryaward, and is interviewed on the Todayprogramme, no less, the job of reviewing the paperback edition of the prize-winning book seems already half-done. T. J. Binyon's biography of Pushkinsucceeds those by David Magarshack,Ernest Simmons and Henri Troyat as essential reading for the English-speaking Pushkinist.Interestingly,none of theseworksismentioned in thebibliography, an indication perhaps that Binyon wished to go back to Russian sources and to begin his investigation into Pushkin'slife denovo.In so doing he refuses to gloss over the darkside of Pushkin'scharacter,stillless to give any credence to the reverential hagiographies characteristic of Pushkin scholarship in the Soviet era. Indeed, the author has admitted that he did not find Pushkin a particularly pleasant person and, in highlighting the poet's snobbery and extreme touchiness, not to mention his ineptness in mattersfinancial and low opinion of women's intellectualcapabilities,he paints a vivid picture of a man who was often difficultand, at times, downrightdangerousto know. Perhaps the most remarkablefeature of this book is the amount of detail. The conventional cliche for this wealth of detail -is, for once, wholly accurate. There is detail in the text, in the footnotes, in the endnotes and in the extensive and comprehensive index. The reader will learn, for example, the names of all the firstintake at the lycee, and the differentuniformswhich they and their successorswere requiredto wear, as well as the exact layout of Boldino and the ground plan of the flat on the Moika where Pushkin died. Binyon is particularlygood at evoking the atmosphereand topography of the numerouspushkinskie mesta. Forsome of his detail Binyon has relied, inevitably, on the authoritative work by L. A. Chereiskii, Pushkini ego okruzhenie REVIEWS 327 (Leningrad, I988). Where Chereiskii does not record a date, Binyon too is silent. Some of the very few gaps can now be filledvia www.google.ru, which reveals the birthdates of all three of Natal'ia Goncharova's children by Petr Lanskoi, and the death dates of two of them, as well as the dates of I. A. Krylov'sfatherand those of a numberof more marginalfigures.There remain some tantalizinggaps. As might be expected, the birth and death dates of the humble poor, such as the Pushkins'various servants,remain for the most part unknown, and probablyunknowable. Perhaps,however, it is not too much to hope that the death date of Pushkin'sniece Nadezhda, born to his sisterOlga in i837, will one day emerge fromthe archives. Binyon does not, however, use detail for detail'ssakein an attemptto mask ideologically controversialaspects of Pushkin'slife such as the vexed question of his relationship with Nicholas I. He makes it quite clear that in general Pushkinapprovedof the Tsar, both personally(hiscourage in visitingcholerastricken areas) and politically (his suppression of the Polish insurrection of I830). Indeed, Nicholas, farfrombeing the unpersonof Soviethistoriography, emergeswith some credit, his treatmentof Pushkinand his familycontrasting sharplywith that meted out to turbulentpoets in Soviet times. Binyon drawsour attention to, and comments on...