It seems to me that I am not the only one having trouble understanding what Bahtkin isreally trying to say to his readers. I must confess he does a great job at explaining what is NOT correct but his own theory is scattered and very hard to pin down. As I read other bloggers I was comforted in seeing I am not alone in this argument. From what I can understand it seems that Bakhitn has a serious problem in the way modern critics are approaching the “pecularities of  the stylistic life of discourse in the novel. “(1191) Bathkin points out that these modern ways lacked an approach that was both principled and at the same time concrete. As far as style is concerened it seems that Bahtkin feels that numeroius factors come together in order to form ones indiviual style. “More often than not, stylistics defines itself as a stylistics of “private craftsmanship” and ignores the social life of discourse outside the artist’s study, discourse in the open spaces of public squares, streets, cities, and villages, of social groups, generations and epochs” (1190).  That the world around the author as well as thier personality, talent, and original ability come together to create an original voice. If I understood Bahtkin correctly than I would have to agree with this  theory simply because it would have to be true. I do not feel talent alone can get someone by far enough in this world without these other factors playing a major role.