{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02384914032168608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003882418191902385, 'mean_word_length': 4.819354838709677, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Futurism and its Place in the Development of Modern Poetry: A Comparative Study and Anthology. By Zbigniew Folejewski. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, 1980. xv, 288 pp. Illustrations. Paper.

thought and sensibility. Despite Bakhtin's shrill insistence on Dostoevskii's absolute originality, Dostoevskii was very much a part of European and Russian thought and sensibility. We do nothing to mitigate his genius by showing that it was part of history. The view of man as a rational and infinitely perfectible creature held by Chernyshevskii and other radical thinkers was in part a restatement of eighteenth-century views of man. Dostoevskii's attacks on these views was in part a repetition of Romantic dream and post-Romantic nightmare. As often occurred in Russia, the dialectic between Dostoevskii and utilitarian thinkers was the reinvigoration of a conflict that had already appeared in European thought. Except for the digressions on Western history and thought, Leatherbarrow sticks faithfully to the assigned task of a Twayne volume, which is to give us a little bit about a whole lot and to do so in a manner that is effortlessly digestible. In the execution of this thankless task, I would find fault only in the critical literature that Leatherbarrow uses. It is spotty, and the names of influential critics are often missing. He repeats, for example, the familiar platitudes about Dostoevskii's father, which for the most part have been challenged by Joseph Frank in his important and useful biography of the early years. There is no mention of the magnificent essay on Raskolnikov's motives by W. S. Snodgrass, and critics from the Russian tradition are for the most part missing. Leatherbarrow has the potential to write an important book on Dostoevskii. This volume is not it.