In the forward to What is Literature? Jean-Paul Sartre states that we must begin again, that we must examine the art of writing without prejudice. He attempts to make a case for literary commitment, discussing the relationship between the reader and the writer, and why writing matters. Beyond our entertainment or temporary engagement with the work in question, why does our experience with art matter and does it lead us into anything greater? Regardless of conflicting theoretical views on what constitutes a work of art, it is clear that art is powerful. Relating to a character in a novel, being carried away by a scene in a film or discussing ethical issues that are brought to your attention because of art are common experiences.

Sartre understands this phenomenon and explores our relationship to art by discussing our inherent freedom and eventually how art helps to build our system of morality. In the following, I will discuss Sartre’s argument about prose, literary commitment and the building of our morality through literature. Additionally, I will compare Sartre’s argument to Elaine Scarry’s, illustrating the Kantian connection that Sartre would not care to admit, all in an attempt to argue for the importance of art in the human project and its connection to our moral systems.

What is Writing?

Sartre uses What is Literature? to discuss and thoroughly examine the difference between prose writing and other works of art. These differences also build what he sees as the relationship between the artist and the viewer. Art, as Sartre sees it, exists in and influences society just as society influences it. There is a communication between the world and the artist and so translating this into a work adds an element to it that alters what the artist originally felt[1]. This alteration is something that gives different types of art different abilities. In Sartre’s view, it makes it so that the prose writer is most important.

Sartre distinguishes prose from music, painting and poetry. In regards to music, he says “A cry of grief is a sign of the grief which provokes it, but a song of grief is both grief itself and something other than grief.”[2] The “something other” reflects music’s ability to alter what the original meaning of the artist was. The conversion of emotion into notes causes a “transmutation”[3] that eliminates the original grief and creates something new. “…the significance of the melody…is nothing outside the melody itself.”[4]

One might say that this is where painting triumphs but this is also not the case. Sartre says that the writer can guide you but the painter is mute.[5] With this, he begins to describe the difference between a thing and a sign. The painting of the attic window would lack meaning. Any meaning a viewer sees is what they bring into it. For that, it is a thing. Whereas writing can ascribe meaning and provide others with a guide as to where the true meaning exists, making it a sign. “One does not paint meanings…”[6] but “…the writer deals with meanings…”[7]

Now a writer may deal in meaning but Sartre stresses that there is a difference between prose and poetry. “Poets are men who refuse to utilize language.”[8] The poet serves language and does not use it as an instrument the way the prose writer does. The search for truth takes place in language[9] but finding that truth is not possible through poetry. “For the poet, language is a structure of the external world. The speaker Is in a situation in language.”[10] Here, Sartre means that the poet lives within the words. The poet takes words, alters, shifts them around and creates within the space of the word.

With prose, words are tools that are extensions of the person using them. We utilize words when necessary. Words are tools which “…gradually wear out and which one throws away when they are no longer serviceable…”[11] The poet acts as if they exist outside of the world and so their use of language creates a barrier that muddies their ability to function as a tool. “In short, all language is for him the mirror of the world. As a result, important changes take place in the internal economy of the word.”[12] In order to utilize language most effectively, as a sign rather than a thing, it must be able to realize that it is reflective and altered by the world and so it must develop a relationship between the writer and reader. Prose becomes an extension of a person while poetry merely mystifies what should be made clear.

This is Sartre’s argument for the elevation of prose above all else but I wish to stress that this is problematic. Given his later analysis of the power of prose, what he sees in writing is consistent with the arts he does not hold in the same regard. For him, art is social. There is an element of give and take that comes from the dynamic of the viewer and the artist. What one makes is in part responsible for the state of the world. Thus, there is a shared meaning between people.

Symbolism beyond the simple word or structure of sentences is possible so why can paintings not be signs that the viewer connects? The writer’s ability to create signs must come from some source of common human experience. After all, this is what he accuses the poet of forgetting, “he sees words inside out as if he did not share the human condition.”[13] Writers being able to guide readers to certain ideas or conclusions is no different from the artistic theory of how a painter lays out a frame, drawing the eye to the objects of significance and playing on the social meanings of colors and expressions.

Sartre’s argument loses nothing by reinserting the arts he pushes out but we will discuss more of this later in the paper as we progress through Sartre’s argument. The point for now is that Sartre does believe in art’s ability to affect human life. The communication between the artist and the viewer is essential to our ability to be free, moral agents. While Sartre sees this as the unique power of prose, I will use it as the common ability of art.

Since the arts are forms of communication, what is said and what is not said is ultimately making a statement about what needs to be said or what need not be said[14]. And so to communicate, to act, through art is to alter the world. “To speak is to act; anything which one names is already no longer quite the same; it has lost its innocence.”[15] If you name the behavior of an individual, you reveal it to him; you have altered the state of things and created something that begins with the relationship between what you have said and who has heard it.[16] This relationship is crucial, only in regards to prose for Sartre but we will take it to encompass all art. “…with every word I utter, I involve myself a little more in the world, and by the same token I emerge from it a little more, since I go beyond it towards the future.”[17]


Sartre uses his analysis to develop his concept of commitment. “The ‘committed’ writer knows that words are actions.”[18] Prose, by its very nature, is committed. Commitment for Sartre is a concept that names the relationship between the reader and the writer. To speak (to write in prose) is to act. This action then affects the world. The world then influences the writer who then acts again. This implies a concept of freedom and that freedom, expressed in prose writing, is what Sartre means by commitment. By being a guide, a speaker who directly communicates to the reader, the committed work is appealing to the inherent freedom of people. “…the writer has chosen to reveal the world and particularly to reveal man to other men so that the latter may assume full responsibility before the object which has been thus laid bare.”[19]

Regardless of the intention behind the work, this effect of freedom is always there. Cartlidge writes: “In essence, for Sartre, prose is always political, always committed, always serving a purpose regardless of the author’s intentions and this is so because of the very nature of prose itself and not simply because of the writer’s intentions.”[20] The political aspect comes from being able to “assume full responsibility.” As Sartre writes in “Existentialism is a Humanism,” any action taken or any choice made by one affirms the value of that action or choice[21]. By committing people to a specific choice, Sartre is building a morality and making action political. To govern oneself is to govern all of humanity and so one must act based on this.

I have used to Sartre’s language of the reader and the writer in order to explain what Sartre means. However, to keep with my previous claims, I will now return to using the words artist and viewer because this commitment is not exclusive to prose. What Sartre says about action and freedom to act, his idea of commitment, I believe to be the crux of art’s power over us but by broadening his word choice, the argument he makes becomes more effective.

The relationship between the artist and viewer then builds into the objective and subjective. For the artist, the art is never objective because it reflects them. Even through commitment, the artist is not able to see the art impartially. This is the opposite for the viewer for the whom the work is a revealer. Their relationship to the work is impartial or objective. “Thus, this is ‘true’, ‘pure’ [art], a subjective thing which reveals itself under the aspect of the objective…”[22] Revealing is what we find between the partial/subjective and the impartial/objective. The artist reveals to the viewer and so those revelations connect the two.

The objectivity is crucial because it creates s world of its own that simultaneously reflects the world itself that the viewer can study and gain truth from.[23] “If I fix on canvas or in writing a certain aspect of the fields or the sea or a look on someone’s face which I have disclosed, I am conscious of having produced them by condensing relationships.”[24] The artist is always aware of this power to some degree and so this is how they are able to become a guide for the viewer. However, creating cannot reveal something that is not already clear to the artist. “I cannot reveal and produce at the same time.”[25] If our work is subjective then it is a reflection of us and in it we can find nothing but ourselves.[26] And for this very reason, “…the writer cannot read what he writes.”[27] Reading requires waiting. One foresees and waits for the words to reveal things to them. That is what creates objectivity.[28] “It is the joint effort of author and reader which brings upon the scene that concrete and imaginary object which is the work of the mind.”[29]

Again, this is true of all artistic relationships but this is yet another point that is made more clear by keeping Sartre’s language and then applying to all arts.

The Aesthetic

Viewing art is “…the synthesis of perception and creation.”[30] This means that the artist is a guide but only a guide. The art sets up the signs for the viewer to follow. These signs are still separated and it is up to the viewer to connect the voids. Thus, viewing is directed creation.[31] “Each word is a path of transcendence…”[32] because it requires[33] and builds on our inherent freedom.

Freedom is the crux of Sartre’s philosophy in general and this representation of it in the artist-viewer dynamic is building on his previous work about the lack of human nature. The arts are the “…aesthetic modification of the human project.”[34] The human project is the result of Sartre’s argument for essence preceding existence. “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.”[35] This allows for the impact of art to truly be felt for it is our experience with the arts that shapes us just as much, if not more, than anything else in the world[36]. These works of art then shape us because of our freedom.

Freedom is inherent. Sartre is not making the case that art gives us freedom, the object of what he calls transcendence is not the acquisition of freedom. He is saying that freedom is revealed to us. The artist creates from the partial/subjective realm. They convey what is seen by them in the world. The freedom that allows us to connect the signs of the artist comes from the writer being able to identify the freedom in the world and revealing it to the viewer.

Thus, natural beauty does not call our freedom forth[37]. Every element of art, the tragic or comical or adventurous story that connects to the reader is a loaned experience and it appeals to our sense of freedom. It does not create it but rather builds on it to create.  This is to say that the dynamic between the reader and writer is “…characteristic of [the] aesthetic consciousness…a belief by means of commitment, by oath, a belief sustained by fidelity to one’s self and to the author, a perpetually renewed choice to believe.”[38] Freedom is implied by our ability to create and view art and this is aesthetic consciousness which leads us to create.

Flynn writes: “[the] tendency to identify with certain characters and to experience their plight vicariously conveys conviction rather than information. And this is what existentialism is chiefly about: challenging the individual to examine their life…and to heighten their sensitivity to oppression and exploitation in their world.”[39]

Sartre goes on to say that he would redub the concept of aesthetic pleasure to aesthetic joy.[40] “…this joy…becomes one with the aesthetic consciousness of the spectator, that is, in the case under consideration, of the reader.”[41] This experience is the combination of two inseparable ideas. The first is the recognition of our freedom while the second is acting on said freedom, which we do through creation, through connecting the signs of the artist[42]. The artist revealing any number of things to us (along with revealing our freedom) allows us to transcend what the world is. We then focus on what the world ought to be. It is more than mere pleasure that viewing art gives us because its ability to reveal to us alters how we act and those alterations are creations due to being in the presence of art. Thus, the aesthetic consciousness (the revealed freedom) and the aesthetic pleasure (the revealed objects of the writer) work together in our acts of creation.

The Ethic

The implied freedom comes with responsibility, as Sartre has already mentioned[43]. Additionally, his concept of radical freedom that he discusses in relation to the human project and the aesthetic leads into a moral system. “In fashioning myself I fashion man.”[44] The next step would be to discuss morality through art or beauty. How one can lead to the other, how does this connects to Sartre and how does it illustrate art’s power over the human project. To do this, we look at Elaine Scarry’s “On Beauty and Being Just” which presents an argument for justice through beauty. The disconnect is that she is a strong Kantian whom Sartre is not in agreement with. Even so, there are striking similarities in their view[45]. For now, let us simply say that Scarry’s Kantian claims fit into the larger framework of Sartre’s argument and we will discuss only two specific points between them rather than go over all of Sartre’s similarities to Kant.

Scarry begins by saying that while there is no physical component to works of art the presences of which make the work beautiful, there is a physical presence of beauty in the world that people can study. People find beauty all around. Novels or films or paintings are beautiful and so we can study the sensation of feeling beauty even if there is no solid object that all beautiful things have in common.

In order to thrive, justice needs to proliferate through representations of the idea of justice and it does so in the same way beauty does[46]. Thus, to look for justice, we first look to beauty. The ultimate end for the concept of justice for one in the presences of it is to spread the ideal. This is something that occurs naturally in the presence of beauty. “The beholder, in response to seeing beauty, often seeks to bring new beauty into the world and may be successful in this endeavor.”[47] Beauty teaches a concept of replication that is necessary for the spread of justice and “beauty brings copies of itself into being”[48] so the more beauty one is exposed to, the more one can develop the ability to spread ideas like beauty (or justice since it works in the same way) or create these ideas if they do not already exist in the world.

“The equality of beauty enters the world before justice and stays longer because it does not depend on human beings to bring it about…”[49] Beauty is naturally occurring and through the beauty we naturally observe, we create art which is a consequence of beauty wanting to bring copies of itself into existence. This act of creating is then a skill we apply to justice and ethics at large. While we cannot find justice in nature, we do create it through systems of government or relationships with neighbors. This ability to create is taught through beauty and therefore it can be said the beauty is a necessary condition for the creation of any concept of justice. “Even when beauty and justice are both in the world, beauty performs a special service because it is available to sensory perception in a way that justice (except in rare places like an assembly) normally is not…”[50] As mentioned before, ideas of justice come about, more often than not, in relation to situations we find to be unjust. This injustice then implies a concept of justice that we develop but this can be difficult because when someone asks “why is this unjust?” it is hard to point to what naturally makes a thing that way. Beauty, on the other hand, is naturally occurring and so even in cases where justice and beauty are in the world together, we can observe beauty more frequently and naturally than justice. This beauty gives us the sense of justice that is implied when we discover unjust acts and so it becomes a natural author of our sense of justice.

Beauty’s other natural trait that contributes to our sense of justice is its ability to promote the removal of relevant bias. Justice is often based on the principle that we ought to be fair or objective, really just meaning that we are to be impartial. This is traced back to beauty by Scarry’s concept of radical decentering, which allows us to be impartial. “Beauty, according to Weil, requires us ‘to give up our imaginary position as the center…’”[51]. “It is not that we cease to stand at the center of the world, for we never stood there. It is that we cease to stand even at the center of our own world. We willingly cede our ground to the thing that stands before us.”[52] We do not bring ourselves into the natural beauty that we observe and instead take it on its own terms. This decentering also does not come out of force but rather through opiated adjacency. Beauty is not the only thing in the world that brings pleasure or allows us to feel adjacent “but it appears to be one of the few phenomena in the world that brings about both simultaneously: it permits us to be adjacent while also permitting us to experience extreme pleasure, thereby creating the sense that it is our won adjacency that is pleasure-bearing.”[53]

In Scarry’s argument we can see the relevant concepts that both she and Sartre have mentioned: creation and impartiality. For Scarry, creation is an ability taught through beauty. Something that is actively produced after one experiences the beautiful. For Sartre, creation starts in the presence of beauty. The creation that Sartre discusses comes from his previously discussed notions of aesthetic consciousness and joy. The viewer of a work is already creating when they bridge the gap between the signs of the artist. This then leads them to create in the world and influence later art that will reveal something to a new viewer as the cycle continues. For Scarry, creation comes as inspiration, after being in the presence of the beautiful, but the point is still that the beautiful is what teaches us to create. Sartre would make the same claim. Art reveals our freedom, along with the state of the world, we accept this and then create in the world.

The second element is more difficult to reconcile. Scarry believes in an impartiality, coming from her Kantian foundation and his ideas of disinterestedness. Sartre makes it clear that his idea demands that there can be no impartiality. “He has given up the impossible dream of giving an impartial picture of Society.”[54] Sartre calls words loaded pistols[55] and this plays into his objective and subjective dynamic.

However, Scarry’s radical decentering (and by extension, Kantian disinterestedness) only discusses relevant bias. There is not a clear line differentiating objectivity and subjectivity that one jumps between, there is a spectrum that presents itself when necessary. Sartre has the same structure, especially when he says that fashioning yourself fashions the whole of humanity. There is a subjective arena and an objective arena that need each other. Sartre is not completely without impartiality, either. His concept of the subjective artist is partial. His concept of the objective viewer is impartial. Sartre does not believe in a perfect impartiality but neither does Scarry since impartiality is an effect of being in the presence of beauty. She is writing from perspective of a viewer, whereas Sartre is discussing both the artist and viewer.

Overall, Sartre would subscribe to this view. “As for me who read, if I create and keep alive an unjust world, I cannot help making myself responsible for it.”[56] If art is to be another tool to fashion man, there is a moral and immoral way in which to engage in it and so art (or beauty) becomes about the creation of something moral. “…although literature is one thing and morality a quite different one, at the heart of the aesthetic imperative we discern the moral imperative.”[57] Or as Kant would say, beauty is the symbol of morality.

The Place of the Artist

In this discussion of the power of art and the artist-viewer relationship, Sartre acts as if we simply take what the artist has said and move forward without anchoring ourselves to them. This is not completely true and in order to discuss this, we can bring in Michel Foucualt and Theodor Adorno who analyze the place of an artist in a work. They, like Sartre, limit their discussion to writing but the content of their argument can apply to all art.

Foucault discusses the reader and writer relationship in “What is an Author?” For Sartre, the two work together. He writes as if the writer produces a work and then the reader begins to affect the world through what they read. The author created their subjective world and the reader took it as objective and went forward. This misses the ideological anchors created by the author. We do not simply forget who wrote the work in question when we act and often we are obsessed with the writer before we see the ideas presented for themselves.

Take for example our need to analyze, categorize and define the patterns of Shakespeare. His style and body of work are more present in an analysis of his work than simply taking the ideas as they are and moving forward with them[58].

Foucault writes “…it is not enough to declare that we should do without the writer (the author) and study the work itself.”[59] The problem is that we cannot define “work.” Work has a connection to the author that preserves their context and intent. We wish to act independently of that restraint but it finds its way in when we preserve the privilege of the author through words like “work” which categorize the traits or intent of the author. We create defined space for the author to still influence our reading.

The greater problem is that once we remove the author and simply take the ideas for what they are, we have to address the void created by the death of the author[60]. Can the ideology created by the author that the reader is meant to take away truly exist independently? This is a larger question that must be addressed in a larger paper. However, the connection to Sartre is simply that he seems to dismiss these complexities so creating change in the world the way he wishes to after we view art would not work as easily as he has allowed us to think.

Adorno critiques Sartre heavily on this in “The Commitment.” Sartre’s vision prevents him from recognizing the hell he revolts against. Many of his phrases could be parroted by his mortal enemies. The idea that decision as such is what counts would even cover the Nazi slogan that ‘only sacrifice makes us free.’”[61] Sartre states that the intent of the author does not matter but he forgets the personalization of the work. The author always leaves an imprint. Adorno states, this is true of even Sartre’s own plays. His intent of seeing plays like political events rather than audience engagement alters his meaning to the viewer[62]. This is dehumanizing to the writer but more than that, it sacrifices a layer of the viewing experience unnecessarily.

All of this said, Sartre’s ultimate purpose is to understand the importance of art in human experience. Through his work and its connection to Scarry’s, we can see how art might build a moral system and effect our lives as profoundly as it seems to. Sartre wrote in a response to fascism. The final section of What is Literature? is called “Situation of the Writer in 1947.” He writes “There is no guarantee that literature is immortal. Its chance today, its only chance, is the chance of Europe, of socialism, of democracy, and of peace. We must play it. If we writers lose it, too bad for us. But also, too bad for society.”[63] After World War II, the need to improve society was made abundantly clear and for Sartre, art is how we are able to do that. In his final section, he makes a call for further study of the arts. If humanity is a project like Sartre believes, and we do in fact shape the whole of humanity in shaping ourselves, then something as powerful as art ought to be encouraged and studied even more than we already do in order to guide the human project further.




Sartre, Jean-Paul. What is Literature? Routledge Classics. 2001.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism is a Humanism.” HTML Markup by Andy Blunden. 1998.

Scarry, Elaine. “Beauty and Being Just.” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. 1998.

Cartlidge, James. “What, according to Sartre, is ‘committed literature’?”

Flynn, Thomas, “Jean-Paul Sartre”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2013 Edition.

Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” The Foucault Reader. Vintage Boooks. 1984.

Adorno, Theodor. “Commitment.” 1962.


[1] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 1

[2] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 3

[3] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 3

[4] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 3

[5] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 4

[6] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 4

[7] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 5

[8] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 5

[9] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 5

[10] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 6

[11] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 6

[12] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 7

[13] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 6

[14] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 13

[15] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 13

[16] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 13

[17] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 14

[18] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 14

[19] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 15

[20] Cartlidge, James. “What, according to Sartre, is ‘committed literature’?”

[21] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism.” P. 7

[22] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 22

[23] “Each of our perceptions is accompanies by the consciousness that human reality is a ‘revealer’, that is, it is through human reality that ‘there is’ being, or, to put it differently, that man is the means by which things are manifested. It is our presence in the world which multiplies relations.” What is meant here that the reader/writer dynamic alters the state of things and reveals our ability to manipulate relationships in the world. Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 27

[24] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 28

[25] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 28

[26] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 29

[27] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 29

[28] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 29-30

[29] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 31

[30] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 31

[31] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 33

[32] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 33

[33] “The book does not serve my freedom; it requires it.” Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 34

[34] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 44

[35] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism.” P. 6

[36] Another connection would be Sartre’s line “Nevertheless, when one says, ‘You are nothing else but what you live’… What we mean to say is that a man is no other than a series of undertakings, that he is the sum, the organisation, the set of relations that constitute these undertakings.” Where he makes a similar claim to the previously sited Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 27 where he addresses multiple relations and perceptions. Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism.” P. 19 – 20

[37] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 39

[38] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 37

[39] Flynn, Thomas, “Jean-Paul Sartre”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[40] “…we must bear in mind that the writer, like all other artists, aims at giving his reader a certain feeling that is customarily called aesthetic pleasure, and which I would very much rather call aesthetic joy.” Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 43

[41] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 43

[42] “…my freedom does not only appear to itself as pure autonomy but as creative activity…” Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 43

[43] “…the writer has chosen to reveal the world and particularly to reveal man to other men so that the latter may assume full responsibility before the object which has been thus laid bare.” Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 16

[44] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism.” P. 8

[45] For example, Sartre’s belief that one person’s action leading to what all people ought to do is similar to Kant’s categorical imperative. However, the compare and contrast of Sartre and Kant goes beyond the scope of this paper.

[46] “It would be more accurate to say that one cannot further the aims of justice without (whether one means to or not) placing oneself in the company of the just.” Scary, Elaine. “On Beauty and Being Just.” P. 59.

[47] Scary, Elaine. “On Beauty and Being Just.” P. 60.

[48] Scary, Elaine. “On Beauty and Being Just.” P. 3.

[49] Scary, Elaine. “On Beauty and Being Just.” P. 75.

[50] Scary, Elaine. “On Beauty and Being Just.” P. 75.

[51] Scary, Elaine. “On Beauty and Being Just.” P. 77.

[52] Scary, Elaine. “On Beauty and Being Just.” P. 77.

[53] Scary, Elaine. “On Beauty and Being Just.” P. 78-9.

[54] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 14

[55] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 15

[56] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 46

[57] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 47

[58] Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” P. 106

[59] Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” P. 104

[60] Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” P. 105

[61] Adorno, Theodor. “Commitment.” P. 4

[62] Adorno, Theodor. “Commitment.” P. 4

[63] Sartre, Jean-Paul. “What is Literature?” P. 229