538 SEER, 88, 3, JULY 20I0 iyrunhardsand his abandoned first-person narrative, is thought-provoking not only as a teaching, but also as a critical strategy.However, it is less clear how the chapter fits into thework as a whole, as while the subtext of the transformation of the textduring itswriting is apparent, the parallel transfor mation of the reader/student that assumedly develops from this is lesswell defined. These are, however, minor points thatdo not impact unduly on the overall quality of the study,which yields fresh and exciting insightswhilst remaining true to the spirit ofDostoevskii's fiction, and reinforcesRobin Feuer Miller's reputation as a pre-eminent voice in Dostoevski! studies. UCL SSEES Sarah J. Young Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel. Tolstoy's Quest for God. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ and London, 2007. vii + 199 pp. Illustration. Notes. Bibliography. Index. $34.95. In his compelling new book, Tolstoy's Quest for God,Daniel Rancour-Laferriere argues thatTolstoi theman (in juxtaposition toTolstoi the artist) spent his entire adult life in a quest forGod. He argues that the inTolstoi's writings about religion is not some 'invented narrator', but Tolstoi himself, 'who is honesdy trying to represent himself to the reader, or perhaps only to himself (p. 5), while at the same time agreeing with the view that in factTolstoi is a weak religious thinker. The first chapter, 'Tolstoy Records His Religious Crisis', focuses primarily on Confession, in which Rancour-Laferriere finds both exhibitionist and masochistic tendencies but, most important, narcissism. 'Tolstoy himself was aware of his "egoism" [...] and of the need to "break away from this terrible intoxication with myself, with my T", as he writes on 26 June 1908' (p. 14). Some readers may resist this direct equating of Tolstoi's egoism with the decidedly more limited and less positive notion of narcissism. Rancour Laferriere finds thatTolstoi speaks incessandy toGod in his diaries, but not with Jesus. And when he was able to pray, he preferred to pray to God, although he followed the teachings ofJesus, as 'a fellow masochist' (p. 17). Through close reading of the text,Rancour-Laferriere shows how Tolstoi portrays himself as vacillating between 'faith' in literature and 'faith' inGod. He made 'religious use' of his depression (p. 24). Rancour-Laferriere main tains thatTolstoi's bouts of depression would offerhim the path back toGod, and that thework itselfembodies Tolstoi's attempt 'to give theological repre sentation to hismanic-depressive mood swings' (p. 38). Particularly exciting is the close reading of the passage in chapter twelve of Confession where Tolstoi finds God, forRancour-Laferriere highlights theway inwhich God moves from being a masculine presence to a feminine one (pp. 32-33). He gives a compelling close reading of the dream which concludes Confession,suggesting that 'with the image of himself. [...] supported by a pillar, Tolstoy is telling himself and theworld thathe has become [...] an ascetic like St. Simeon and the numerous other pillar ascetics of Orthodox tradition' (p. 62). (The next REVIEWS 539 [too] short chapter, 'Tolstoy Attacks theRussian Orthodox Church', argues that, '[to] put itbluntly: Tolstoy isnot interested in theology, he is interested in himself, p. 85.) The third chapter, 'Tolstoy Tells Us What He Believes', focuses on What I Believe, inwhich Tolstoi reveals his personal attitude toward Christ, especially his doctrine of non-resistance to evil, on The Kingdom ofGod isWithin You and On Life.Rather than treating thisdoctrine inprimarily religious terms,asmost others have done, Rancour-Laferriere's emphatically psychoanalytic viewpoint leads him to understand non-resistance to evil as 'a species of masochismi, in particular a 'moral masochism' (pp. 94?95). He suggests thatwhen Tolstoi 'went public' with his doctrine on non-resistance to evil, 'he was doing something analogous to the holy fool's willingness to be scorned, cursed, and beaten in public' (p. 97) but was also expressing what had been part of his personality since childhood. His hypothesis, buttressed well by quotations fromTolstoi's works, lettersand diaries, is that non-resistance to evil consti tuted the essence of his Christian belief. He writes ofTolstoi as a 'doubting Thomas' twice over? as one who not only refused tobelieve thatChrist rose from the dead, but also as 'unwilling to accept that any...