Despite the fact that V.V. Nabokov is undoubtedly one of the most studied authors, including among young philologists, S. G. Sharonova’s final qualification work “Traditions of an adventure novel in the work of V. Nabokov” is devoted to a relatively little-studied topic. As the dissertator rightly notes, "there are almost no works where V. Nabokov's novels would be considered as a legacy of adventurous literature" (p. 3). Master's thesis by S.G. Sharonova partly fills this gap, which already gives her a certain degree of novelty and relevance. 
In general, the study by S.G. Sharonova, of course, should be recognized as a success; its compositional structure is substantiated, the main conclusions made by the undergraduate are quite convincing, the formulated tasks are mostly fulfilled. At the same time, the path to the last of the tasks set by the author (“to determine the transformation of the traditional nature of the adventure novel in the work of V. V. Nabokov” (p. 4)) turned out to be only a dotted line. An important and fruitful thought - "V. Nabokov departs from the canons of an adventurous novel, according to which the author and the reader are only interested in the ups and downs, the actions of the character, the bright events” (p. 70) - the dissertation stated only in the “Conclusion”. The main part of the work somewhere leaves the impression that the undergraduate is trying to single out the adventurous tradition in Nabokov as something autonomous and existing on its own in its “ready-made” and unchanged form - hence the formulations like “special attention should be paid to the course of adventurous time in novel” (p. 56). Nabokov's typology of hero-adventurers proposed by the author would also look more organic in the main part, and not in the final arguments. 
Unfortunately, the work contains speech (“which will allow you to take a fresh look at the writer’s texts” (p. 3); “the specifics of the adventure novel in Russian literature and in the work of V. Nabokov, in particular, were studied on the basis of dictionary entries (p. 4); “no less important in the novel is time, whose dependence on space” (p. 54), etc.) and logical errors. There are some inaccuracies in the bibliographic descriptions. The "Introduction" does not say anything about the research methodology, although the methodological basis of the research itself is quite obvious (first of all, the works of M.M. Bakhtin). 
However, despite all the shortcomings noted, the work of S.G. Sharonova, of course, can be considered a complete, independent and original study, which has a good prospect of continuation. I would like to note the author's ability to work, his healthy research ambition and courage, genuine interest and enthusiasm with which he worked on the topic. The WRC meets all the requirements for the final qualification works of the Master of Philology, and, of course, deserves a good rating.
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor N. Karpov