How can we account for the vagueness and inconsistency in the style and setting in Zastrozzi: The Master of Discipline, by George F. Walker?
If there is vagueness in Walker's style and in the setting, then this vagueness may be attributed to Walker's philosophy that characters who are built upon reality and truth of the character's human qualities and psychology, bring the other, more intricate qualities to the fore as an incidental corollary to truthful representation. Thus Walker would extend this to setting and author style: some things may be vague because the truth and reality of the character will conjure up the other elements:
Once the reality and truth of a scene are established, the most remarkable things can happen. ... Walker's writing is remarkably funny and lucid, though in rehearsal the actor has to find a heightened sense of truth in it. There's no joke to be built, constructed, or honed; if you build the character, the jokes will take care of themselves. (John Kaplan, "Playing Walker's Zastrozzi with Passion and Maturity")