It is an often told story: the period of modernism corresponds to an exhaustion of nineteenth-century models of narrative development, temporal progression, and historical continuity. In contradistinction to such models, modernism in literature and culture more generally has been associated with temporal interruption, immobilization, or spatial form. As exemplary of this tendency of modernist culture, might cite Stephane Mallarme's Preface to Un Coup de des (1895), which states Everything happens by a shortcut, hypothetically; storytelling [le recit] is avoided (105), or Walter Benjamin's unfinished Arcades Project: history decays into images, not into stories (476). Developing from this broad picture, critical descriptions of the novel in this period see modernist fiction as marking the obsolescence of nineteenth-century developmental forms, most prominently the Bildungsroman,1 and accounts of Beckett's fiction have echoed this alignment of literary modernism. In Samuel and the Postcolonial Novel, Patrick Bixby writes, Beckett rewrites the plot of the Bildungsroman so that narrative is directed less toward successful individual development and social assimilation than toward the cancellation of these terms, which are written even further into dissolution and disintegration (8).2Jed Esty has recently provided a critical counter-narrative, arguing that modernist fiction, and in particular the modernist meta- bildungsroman, develops a critical perspective on nineteenth-century developmental and its literary forms, even as it retains elements of them: one way to conceptualize the historical specificity of modernism itself, in fact, is to locate it at the dialectical switchpoint between residual nineteenth-century narratives of global development and emergent twentieth-century critiques of universalist and evolutionary thought (35). This intervention usefully places on the critical agenda the question of how to account for modernism's ongoing engagement with diachronic forms, departing from (or calling for a more nuanced account of) the critical narrative of modernism as antidevelopmental, or invested in spatial or imagistic models. But a lingering problem here is the motivation for modernist fiction's involvement with this strand of nineteenth-century thought. Esty's principal response to this question is that the ideology of developmental historicism retains its purchase more generally in culture, economics, and politics, and the modernist anti-developmental metabildungsroman registers this situation. One danger here, however, is the reduction of inherited developmental forms to the status of ideology or false consciousness.3An alternative approach is to foreground that such forms are not just ideological, but also involve normative or emancipatory impulses, both in their nineteenth-century and modernist versions, and this move opens up another avenue to address the problem of why developmental paradigms retain their currency for modernism. Pursuing this line of thought, the central claim in the following reading of and Theodor Adorno is that modernist narrative might be construed as ambiguously perpetuating normative impulses that structure nineteenthcentury developmental and the novel form - for an accommodation between the subjective organization of experience and the boundlessness of capitalist modernity, between meaningful forms and modernity's denial of such forms. To say this much is not to make a claim for a stable mechanism of subject formation, or to presume a critical autonomy or distance for cultural forms. Rather, an underlying proposition of my discussion is that the literary reflections of and Adorno proceed through the reification, or what Adorno calls neutralization, of cultural forms. For this strain of modernism, the possibility of aesthetic autonomy and critical distance becomes a problem inscribed within the language and interpretive dilemmas of these texts. …