stablish the programmatically anti ethical thematic anchor of The Stranger without reference to the flood of events culminating in the Nazi occupation of France or for that matter the ethics of the French colonization of Algeria? How can one argue for one theory of art without referring to other theories? How can Sartre be read without reference to Hegel or Marx? The answer is that of course one cannot, and for this reason the works that are the focus of this research must not be seen as exclusively but as representatively applicable to a theory of art that connects work with creator. More generally, the culture to which twentieth century European literature is addressed is more and not less complex, more and not less subject to critical review from non European and nonliterary perspectives.
Yet it may be safely said that the particular writers and works cited here are emblematic of an aesthetic attitude that is at once idiosyncratic and a decisive literary model for other works. Further, one distinguishing characteristic that these works share is that they consciously break away from preceding or prevailing literary, moral, or philosophical norms. Accordingly, how these writers achieved their artistic design is an appropriate topic of investigation. To put it another way, the works circumscribing this research may be taken as a basis for generalizing toward a developmental theory of aesthetics. Various works As will be seen hereafter, the form and content of serious literary output were made irrevocably different because of these works, as was the cultural climate in which these and subsequent writers conceived and acted their role.
The highly idiosyncratic nature of the works cited is their most apparent feature. It is almost a tautology to say that each work expresses the personal vision of its creator, and psychohistorical criticism is fraught with peril. But of course the works and their creators are of their time, ...