IN 2001 LAUREL BRAKE wrote an article entitled "On Print Culture: The State We're In." Now, almost fifteen years later, where does the term "print culture" stand in relation to Victorian studies? 1 Brake was both brave and wise in her speculations. She knew very well that terminology -and fields and theories -have lives of their own and yet that sometimes someone has to step forward and try on certain names for size, make a pitch for style and fit and function. Brake took that risk in her endorsement of print culture. This essay considers the ways in which print culture has resonated in the intervening years by reviewing both books that have engaged productively with the term and books that have not used the term and yet are working under its umbrella.This essay is less a stock taking, however, than a review article that bears in mind -and keeps at the forefront -the critical purchase of the term "print culture." At the same time, it is by no means a comprehensive review essay. I hope that the result is not an inadequate treatment of both areas of focus -the salience of print culture as a category and the books under review -and I hope that it can begin to give some parameters to a term that is often loosely defined. This essay, then, is not a survey of the field. Indeed, when I was asked to do a review essay with a focus on print culture, I hesitated because I found the term too capacious. What, after all, does it not include? I thought that I would likely narrow my discussion, say, to periodicals. But as I scrutinized recent books with an eye to their engagement with print culture, I began to realize that it might be useful to articulate some aspects of the term that are not always articulated and think about its value, not in my kneejerk response to its capaciousness, but rather in the many ways in which the term is, in fact, delimited and productive in relation to those limits.My first sense of the capaciousness of print culture relates to its affiliation with book history. Initially, I thought a review essay on book history would be more useful than an essay on print culture. Book history is a new field with relatively clear demarcations, whereas print culture includes book history and so much else. If book history leans toward (but is not defined by) material culture and print culture leans toward (but is not defined by) political culture, there is no question that print culture also embraces material culture. Indeed, there is no question that print culture gains its energy, in part, from the very "communications circuit" -Darnton's oft-cited phrase -that book history embraces. 2 Book history's society SHARP, after all, captures the network of interrelated aspects of print in its acronym: the 895