Kamila Budrowska's book, based on research into the archives of Poland's Central Office for the Control of the Press, Publications and Performances (GUKPPiW), examines the interaction of censors, writers, and publishers in an interesting period of post-war Polish history, one that encompasses the relative freedom of 1948, the imposition of socialist realism from 1949 to the mid 1950s, and the thaw associated with October 1956.

After an introduction laying out the research objectives and describing the state of the archives, Part One, “Towards a Synthesis,” takes the reader through the work of the censors and enumerates the authors and subject matter likely to arouse their ire: so-called cosmopolitanism, formalism, naturalism, and criticism of the USSR, among other things. Part Two presents case studies of Jerzy Andrzejewski, Stanisław Lem, Władysław Broniewski, and of children's writers, in particular Jan Brzechwa and Irena Jurgielewiczowa. It describes in detail the passage of selected works by these writers through the choppy waters of censorship and the foundering of some. Part Three, “Authors’ Strategies,” examines how writers tried to circumvent censorship. Budrowska returns to the authors from the case studies, finding that Broniewski reacted to the censors, while Lem and Andrzejewski anticipated them. Authors’ strategies included the use of Aesopian language and the so-called “porcelain puppy” device of distracting the censor by inserting obviously unacceptable material in the hope that politically incorrect material spread around the book would pass unnoticed—or at least unhindered: Budrowska shows that censors were well aware of these strategies and even tolerated them: “I would thus argue that many games with the censors took place according to rules established by the censorship authorities” (284) is her somewhat depressing conclusion. Part Four, “Contexts,” deals with attempts by the Censorship Office to control and direct literary criticism and also contains a slightly out of place discussion of the Polish censors’ responses to Il΄ia Erenburg's The Thaw.

Budrowska's description of the state of the archives alone is a great service for researchers. The wealth of information she has uncovered allows her to confirm some existing beliefs, challenge others, and draw her own conclusions about post-war Polish literature. She confirms that it was, in fact, texts aimed at mass audiences that were most strictly controlled, especially on contemporary issues. On the other hand, she questions the “prevailing view that censorship treated children's literature as strictly as works aimed at adults between 1948 and 1958” (251). Her work shows that loyal party members did not always have it easy and that socialist-realist novels were not treated more leniently. In fact, much was expected of communist authors, and “writers who had come from an ideologically alien camp to join the ‘right’ side were in the most favorable position when it came to the struggle with GUKPPiW” (80).

The book betrays at times its origins in the Polish academic system. It is occasionally detailed to the point of pedantry. A section on the poetics of censors’ reviews includes not one or two, but three definitions of the word “review.” At other times, though, Budrowska's anticipation of professorial review board criticisms is to the book's advantage: it is very thorough and she is a scrupulous and careful analyst. A little more context could be provided in places. At one point we read that Stefan Żółkiewski rubbished a book on Polish literary history by Juliusz Kleiner. How significant this was in the greater scheme of things is unclear. How many such textbooks were there? And how many were blocked?

Writers, Literature and Censorship in Poland was originally published in Polish in 2009 and is an oft-cited landmark in Polish scholarship. The translation, by Paul A. Vickers, is good but there are occasional mistakes. “Napastowałem także Stefana Żółkiewskiego” (I also pestered Stefan Żółkiewski) is translated as “I was also imitating Stefan Żeromski” (170). A block quotation on page 138 is incorrectly formatted, making a paragraph from a censor's review look like an interpolation by Budrowska. The English version ends with “Afterword. Ten Years Later.” In it Budrowska says she opted against making significant changes for the translation. This decision was justified: her book has not been superseded and is excellent as it is—of great interest not only to Polish scholars but to anyone studying censorship and literature under communism.