{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013862148633038121, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0003850596842510589, 'mean_word_length': 5.4148148148148145, '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': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Yuliya Minkova, Making Martyrs: The Language of Sacrifice in Russian Culture from Stalin to Putin

essential here, and deftly captures the challenges that dissident historians faced – is the inaccuracy of immediate truths due to difficulties in compiling information acceptable if the broader underpinning truth remains? This is an intriguing question that Martin explores well through the vehicle of her historical subjects. Martin is also right to argue that the oft noted homogeneity of the dissident non-conformist versus loyal party member fails to capture the complexity of intellectual life in the Soviet Union. This argument is clearly and consistently made throughout this text, reiterating the need to see the dissident movement as a multifaceted collection of individuals, often more in disagreement than in agreement. This might seem obvious, but as Martin rightly notes, the study of Soviet dissent is often portrayed as one of ‘heroes and victims’ (2), a position that this book skilfully demonstrates as being far too simplistic to capture the nuanced position of these individuals. In this context, Martin’s argument that dissident historical research is its own distinct genre is both apt and persuasive. This argument captures the reflexive nature of the history produced by these intellectuals and how it was shaped by their political context, something that deserves particular attention in comparison to other forms of history. Whilst Martin is right to note in her concluding paragraph that an understanding of the role of the international community is essential in understanding how dissidents conducted historical research, more could be done to emphasize this throughout the book itself. Further exploration of the international reception and recognition of the four individuals under assessment, comparing and contrasting their reputation and the impact of their interaction with actors outside of the Soviet Union, would undoubtedly offer an extra dimension to her analysis of these figures. This is an impressive piece that is a recommended read to anyone with an interest in political dissent, intellectual history, or life in the Soviet Union. More broadly, historians concerned with how history is produced in contested political circumstances will find this book fascinating, especially given the ample opportunity it offers to reflect on historical practice and its relationship to truth. Reflecting upon the complexities of how these four figures conducted historical research will offer much food for thought for any historian thinking about their own practice.