Even though this classic New-Critical-era essay, originally published in 1945 in the Sewanee Review, does not even come near tackling issues of geography and landscape, it remains an important essay in the genealogy of geographical criticism because it was one of the first to assert the importance of space, rather than time, in modernist narratives. Furthermore, some later critics extrapolated from his views a view of modernism as anti-time or antihistorical. Frank himself, though, merely argues that the fragmentation and temporal simultaneity of modernist, avant-garde classics by Eliot, Pound, and Joyce invalidates chronology as the organizing force of these works. Analyzing Flaubert as the techniques inventor and using Joyces Ulysses, Prousts In Search of Lost Time, Barnes Nightwood as his principal modernist examples, Frank demonstrates how themes progress not temporally, but spatially, as in a film (in a cinematographic form [86]), in order to achieve (unsurprisingly enough) a thoroughly New Critical totality and wholeness. The essay proceeds to demonstrate possible spatial interpretations of novels, all of which show the root of space to be a juxtaposition of scenes required in order to surpass one or more inconvenient limitations posed on the author by the demands and vicissitudes of time. More specifically, Ulysses thus becomes an attempt to present Dublin as a totality (90), rather than an account of Blooms and Stephens personal growth as the day passes. Prousts epic becomes the monument to his personal conquest of time (92), and Barnes novel a reconstruction the reader makes spatially through the time-act of reading (100). Oddly enough, though, as these readings imply, such a characterization of the spatial seems only to emphasize time, as spatialization is a strategy used only to overcome problems of temporalitynot to present space as a significant mode of experience on its own.