530 SEER, 8o, 3, 2002 I999). Zubova is well aware of the metatextual qualities of Russian postmodernism, and points to the intertextualgames of varioustexts. In addition to the more familiarnames, Zubova introducesher audience to lesser known authors, such as Vladimir Strochkov, Ian Satunovskii, and Vladimir Erl'.Unfortunately, Zubova's studydoes not contain any biographical detailsof the authorsshe quotes. Such an appendixwould be a usefultool for assessingthe spreadof linguisticdeviations, from the point of view of age groups, regional variations and the aesthetic preferences of the poets. It is difficultto assess whether some of the deviations from established linguistic norms were intentional, or derive from the contemporary sloppy usage of Russianlanguage that isparticularlynoticeable in post-Soviet Russianmedia. Krivulinand Shvarts,for example, are philologistsby training,and therefore are more inclined to have playful appropriationof some idioms, or absurd examplesof Soviet newspeak. As Zubova's study demonstrates, numerous poetic experiments reflect on the fluid state of the Russian language itself. In this respect, Zubova's discussion of the satirical elements relating to the concept of gender in contemporary Russian poetry is particularlyrewarding. Zubova's examples from Russian poetry reveal, for example, the uncertaintiesrelatingto gender of animals. Thus, some poets use the feminine form of the noun koshka (cat) with the additional note that it is used in their poem as a noun of masculine gender. Such examples are both amusing and obscure. Zubova suggeststhat contemporary Russian poets are struggling to revive the use of the neuter gender that otherwise has been steadily disappearing from the standard language (p. 301). Many poems quoted by Zubova use Church Slavonic constructions such as esi, bekh,izhe, byst', and sut', to name just a few (pp. 208-39). Another archaicelement that occurs in contemporarypoetry is the Double Nominative Case discussedon pages 368-70. Zubova also refers to the influence of the English language on the contemporary Russian language in relationto the use of nouns as describingwords (pp. 362-68): for example, Rus'-zemlia, shved-koroleva. Zubova'sbook mightbe seen as an attemptto mergelinguisticanalysiswith cultural anthropology (especially Durkheim's theory), since it claims that various linguistic experiments express an archetypal collective conscience (p. 7). The extensive bibliographywill be highly appreciatedby readersof the book, as well as Zubova's reassuring message that the poetic experiments reveal the dynamic process of language evolution and expose the mnemonic abilities of semiotic signs that enable the user to restore forgotten forms and contexts. Department ofFrench andRussian ALEXANDRA SMITH University ofCanterbugy, NewZealand Menzel,Birgit.Biirgerkrieg um Worte. Die russische Literaturkritik derPerestroika. Bohlau Verlag, Cologne, Weimar, Vienna, 200I. xi + 420 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography.Tables. Index. DM 89.80:?4s.9 I. How do you investigate a type of text like literary criticism? Not literary criticism in the general sense, but in a sense which native English speakers REVIEWS 53I normally do not use, and which the Russians, among others, do? Literary criticism in this particular sense means topical, applied writing that greatly influencesthe generalpublic and explicitlyevaluatesthe worksdiscussed. Two possibilities present themselves. We can analyse the contents for consistencyand substanceof the profferedargumentsand evaluations.Or we can focus on pragmatic aspects of literary criticism (for example, by underscoring, collating, and evaluating statistics illustrating the effects of criticismon the purchasingbehaviourof readers). In her Rostock habilitation thesis, Birgit Menzel chooses neither of the above possibilities.And with good reason, for she does not focus merely on the work of a single literary critic, or on the treatment of a single work by various schools or camps of literarycriticism. Rather, she assignsherselfthe more comprehensive task of presenting an 'overview of Russian literary criticism between I986 and I993' (p. I). The reader hoping for a detailed criticism of criticism in Menzel's book will thereforebe disappointed. What she does offer is a survey of groupings and argument-patternsalong with traditions and developments. In other words, Menzel seeks to grasp the changing structuresof literary criticism as an important form of literary communication underthe conditions of the disintegratingSoviet empire. The enticing path of marketingresearchremainsunfeasiblefor the simple reason that salesrecordsfor the period of the Soviet planned economy and the years which immediatelyfollowed do not at all provide an accuratepictureof what readersreallywanted. In her statisticalassessments,Menzel thereforeconfines herselfto extremely illuminatinginformationon developments regardingthe circulationnumbersfor the...