Kafka: Reader Response vs Marxism

When our group began our conversation regarding approaches to the cryptic and strange text we read, most of us were delineated between Marxist and reader response. In my opinion, reader response theory seems most appropriate. When Looking at ‘Before the Law’ by Franz Kafka through a reader response approach, the intended reader can, with the correct avenues of analysis, excavate many distinct and unique meanings in the text itself. However, some of my group mates put forth a convincing argument that Marxist theory also seemed appropriate for this specific text. In my forthcoming blog post, I’ll be contrasting the two theories and articulating which I feel is more suitable for Kafka’s text.

‘Before the Law,’ by Franz Kafka, even throughout many reads, reads as a nebulous and strange parable with an ambiguous and unclear ultimate meaning. The plot reads like this: A man approaches the law, guarded by a gatekeeper, hoping to gain entry into the law. The man speaks to the gatekeeper, who informs him that he is not able to gain entry into the law just yet. From there on, the man waits at the door, his patience spanning his entire life, till the point where he is a withered man about to die. As he is dying, the gatekeeper informs him that the entry was always available for him.

Now, at first glance, and many afterwards, this story might make seemingly no sense to a reader that is not aware of the many literary criticisms that aid in understanding and garnering meaning from a certain text. Even myself, an English major of sort, had quite a bit of difficulty gathering an astute analysis that I felt confident about. But, with the aid of reader response theory (which is a school of literary thought that focuses on the reader and how different peoples unique experiences and thoughts might result in a different interpretation of the text), it is evident that this text does not seem to cater to one analysis or one type of reader. I also think that this method of analysis is even welcomed by Kafka himself. I say this because of the certain and purposefully elusive language that lends this particular story to multiple avenues of analysis. For example, in this story, the identities and symbolic implications of what the law, or the man, or the gatekeeper are left purposefully vague, allowing for the intended reader to arrive at a myriad of possible analyses.

Along with my previous point, this story itself is so strange; not at all linear with our own realities, that it also leaves a lot of blank room for a certain reader to implement their own meanings to it. By implement their own meaning, I mean, for example: a more straightforward reader, one who doesn’t care much about digging too deep into texts or anything, might just see this story as the tale of one person who is ultimately unable to gain entrance into the law. He might think, ‘huh this sounds like a parable of sort,’ but that might just be the end of his literary pondering. But let’s say, for example, someone with a more pious attitude were to approach this piece. That particularly pious person might interpret this piece as a parable of someone who lacked devotion to god; one who had sinned or something and was punished in front of the gates of heaven. Language like, "If it tempts you so much, try in spite of my prohibition. But take note, I am powerful," has heavily implied connotations of God or another metaphorically powerful deity. The words ‘gates’ can very well allude to heaven, it’s this type of loose language that allows this story to be interpreted in many ways.

On the other hand, this story could be illuminated under a Marxist light. Marxist criticism is a school of theory that focuses on power dynamics and class struggles within a story. Using this lens, the confusing roles of the two characters within the story become more clear. Within a Marxist lens, a reader could interpret the gatekeeper as a sort of power wielding bourgeois, while the old man would be a powerless proletariat of sort. The gatekeeper is restricting the man, which could symbolize a restriction of personal freedom and equality, which the rich are gate-keeping the poor from. The closing lines, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it,” could potentially refer to the possibility of a revolution, or stating that there is a method in which pedestrians could enter that gate that the rich regulate. This theory also makes historical sense, because Kafka himself (according to Wikipedia) was a socialist. This text can be interpreted as an allegory of sort to point out the stark power differences between the rich and poor, encouraging the latter to do something about this unbalanced power difference.

As I wrote this blog post, I slowly warmed up to the Marxist Criticism. They both make sense, but the latter does have the backing of historical evidence. Regardless, both theories feel suitable as a tool to garner meaning from Kafka’s vague, elusive, and difficult text.

"Before the Law"

In my group we mainly focused on the three concepts of Marxist criticism, Cultural studies, and Psychological theories. We believed that the Marxist criticism theory came from the scenes where the man gave all of his valuables and possessions over to the gatekeeper (or the state) while the state itself never gave anything back over to the man himself (the people). The concept of how the story pertained to the law and man also gave a more political sense to the plot, making the Marxist approach a sensible option to consider.





We also considered Cultural studies, assuming that the the gatekeeper of the Law was Russian due to the styling of his black “Tartar’s beard,” which one of our group members had looked up and discovered was a Russian style mustache. This not only related the story to Cultural studies but also links it the Marxist approach by giving the sense that the story is related to the state of Russia and the idea of communism that would eventually come from within the nation. The fur coat of the gatekeeper also gives the sense that he’s from somewhere like Russia further implicating the story’s relation to the state.





The Psychological theory was also one of our main focuses because the concept of the Law actually being a single physical thing or place is quite abnormal and the fact that the man seemed to have an obsessive need to enter also contributed to our thinking. Because of all the unusual aspects of the situation and setting we assumed that everything that was happening was simply happening inside the man’s head. How else could you explain the seemingly immortal gatekeeper or the man’s survival until old age despite never stating that he had any food or water to consume when trying to convince the gatekeeper to let him in. The man’s abnormal thinking might have also been the result of him being insane as he “asks the fleas to help him persuade the gatekeeper.” In the end, it was mostly the obsessive need to enter the Law that gave the Psychological theory basis since that was the most unusual part of the man’s abnormal thinking.





Personally, I only used the Marxist criticism when I first read the piece because of the relationship between the gatekeeper and the man. Within their relationship the gatekeeper is seen as the one who has all the power while the man has absolutely nothing that can be used against him. The gatekeeper is already assigned the role of the oppressor while the man is assigned that of the victim. I also took into account how the man gives up all his valuables to the gatekeeper without hesitation but the gatekeeper never seems to acknowledge the man’s wealth, giving nothing back to the man. This also seems to promote a socialist relationship and as the man (the people) gives everything he has in order to try to change and affect the gatekeeper (the state), but the gatekeeper is completely unaffected by the man yet still has dominion over the man and affects him greatly. The gatekeeper also takes the valuables under the pretense that he does not want the man to feel as if he has “failed to do anything.” I also observed the aspects of the story that my group also noted, leading me to believe that the story was written about Russia, strengthening my belief that the Marxist approach was the correct approach.





I believed that the Marxist critical approach was the most useful of all the other approaches that we considered because it seemed to fit the story the most and seemed a good basis for how the story was unfolding. Despite there being a certain number of oddities that would not necessarily be associated with Marxism, the idea of Marxism was strongly intertwined with the relationship between the two characters and how the man was always trying to get into the Law but was never granted access despite his years of effort. Other theories such as the Psychological theories can also make sense when observing the man’s obsessive need to enter the Law or the fact that the reader might need to consider that all the events occurring could be all happening inside the man’s head, but I believe that the story contained too many elements referring to the socio-economic foundation of Marxism in order for it to be anything else. Despite the wealth of the man, the state was always the most powerful. The man never even attempted to enter on his own, but, instead, decided to wait until the gatekeeper changed and granted him access, which never happened.

"Before the Law": Reader-response v Psychological Theory

“Before the Law” by Franz Kafka is a short story about a man who is trying to gain entry into “the law.” However, the gatekeeper prohibits the man from passing claiming he cannot grant him access at the moment. The gatekeeper warns the man against trying to enter forcefully because there are other gatekeepers that are more powerful than him waiting inside. Due to this, the man sits outside the gate and waits his entire life for permission to enter. As the man’s life is coming to an end he asks the gatekeeper why nobody else besides him has tried to gain entry into “the law” if it something everyone strives for; the gatekeeper responds by telling him the entrance was assigned to the man, but since he is dying it will be closed. The ending of the story is very ambiguous, which allows for different readings based on different critical approaches to apply.

            When reading “Before the Law” in class, the reader-response theory seemed to work best due to the fact that each group member had different interpretations. According to the reader-response theory, the text “can never be complete unless the readers bring their own unique insights to it” (Gardner 175); therefore, each reader’s interpretation is considered equal. During the group discussion, each member shared their own analysis of the story and it was evident the ambiguity left by Kafka was interpreted in different ways by each person. For example, one approach taken was the Marxist theory. In the short story, there is an instance where the man is observing the gatekeeper and contemplating whether or not he should enter by force because “the law should be always accessible for everyone, but as he looks more closely at the gatekeeper in his fur coat…he decides it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside” (Kafka). This line exemplifies the difference in socioeconomic class between the countryman and the gatekeeper, which is the foundation of the Marxist theory. The purpose of the Marxist theory is to “expose the inequalities that underlie societies” (Gardner 170), and when one looks at “Before the Law” through the Marxist lens it is apparent that there is a power dynamic between the two characters. The gatekeeper is the oppressor who is given luxurious items and a position of authority that exert power over the countryman without needing to take any physical action; this in turn prevents the countryman—a poor and powerless man—from reaching higher goals, such as entering the law. The group discussion also emphasized other theories such as formalism and historical criticism that interpreted the text in completely different ways. Due to the fact each member brought a different approach to the discussion and were able to provide evidence to support their interpretation, we ultimately decided reader-response was the best approach because it allows each reader to give the story their own meaning. However, reader-response leaves significant space for interpretation, which not only can result in deviation from the author’s intended meaning but also a never-ending cycle of interpretations that never lead to a concrete answer.

            While the group discussion had ultimately led to a unanimous decision in support of the reader-response theory, another approach that works well is the psychological theory. According to Freud, the mind is divided into many layers within our conscious, subconscious and unconscious, all of which influence human action. In “Before the Law” the countryman is warned about all three gates and gatekeepers guarding the law, which could be interpreted as the three layers of the mind. The gatekeeper warns the man of the others by stating, “I am the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other” (Kafka). When looked at through a psychological perspective, the gates appear to be physical manifestations of the Freudian model, as each part of the mind gets more powerful, so do the gatekeepers. As stated, each part of the mind also controls human actions, meaning one’s motivation and desires. Another interpretation of the story could be that the gates and gatekeepers represent obstacles individuals place for themselves in order to hinder them from reaching their goals. In the story, the gatekeeper never physically prevented the man from entering the law nor did he threaten the man, however, the man stopped himself from entering to avoid failure, confrontation, or perhaps harm. This goes to show that individuals are the only ones hindering their success. Humans utilize their fears and anxieties as excuses to justify the lack of upward mobility in their lives, just like the man used the fear of being harmed by the gatekeeper to justify his failure to enter the law.

Psychoanalytical Reading of “Before the Law”

      When first interpreting “Before the Law,” by Franz Kafka, our group decided the Marxist Literary Criticism made the most sense for understanding what the short story was about. Through the Marxist Criticism lens, “Before the Law” seemed to depict a classic struggle of the lower socioeconomic class, the “man from the country,” trying to gain access to the benefits guarded by “the gatekeeper.” Some of the evidence we gathered included the simple description of the “man from the country,” perhaps depicting the rural and economically struggling class, and the gatekeeper in a “fur coat” and authoritative face with a “Tartar’s beard.” Additionally, the text describes the man from the country spending “everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper,” which seemed to indicate that money played a factor in getting past the gatekeeper. We also interpreted the struggle to reach “the law” as either the economically disadvantaged fighting to gain equal access to justice and the law of the land that catered to the richer, or even heaven, which some used to believe could be accessed through higher social and economic status. The one part of the short story that our group struggled to make sense of, especially in light of the Marxist Criticism, was the ending, in which it is made clear no one else attempted to pass through the gate and the gatekeeper states that “this entrance” was only for this individual man. Thus, the class struggle theory was complicated by this emphasis on the individual.

      Another critical lens that can be used to interpret this short story is the Psychoanalytical Criticism, in which we focus on the mind of the man from the country. Using this literary criticism, the gate and gatekeeper can be understood as the man’s mental barriers he is struggling to overcome. This critical lens made sense of the “journey” this man was on, perhaps some goal he was trying to reach in life (according to the story, attempted numerous times over the years), and one he was willing to spend all his money to obtain. This theory also made the “mental” aspect of the barrier make more sense since physical aspects, money or pleading, made no difference in overcoming it. Additionally, when the text describes how he “forgets the other gatekeepers, and this one seems to him the only obstacle for entry into the law,” it can be understood that there are other avenues available, but the man becomes so fixated on this one entry that he is unable to move on or find another solution. This fixation can be compared to when people get some idea or belief stuck in their mind and cannot overcome it, in spite of other factors or solutions that may be present, even observable by outsiders. Indeed, his stubborn fixation can be understood as the “childish” demeanor he is described as taking over the years, much like someone stubbornly holding onto a belief through heir life. Finally, the ending of the story that describes the gate as being solely available to the man, can cement the interpretation of this specific mental barrier the man has been struggling to overcome and why no one else has been present. With this understanding, it makes sense that everyone would have their own individual barrier to overcome. Thus, through the psychoanalytical lens, the story can be understood as one man’s struggle against a barrier in his mind, perhaps a belief or understanding that keeps him from a certain goal or reaching his full potential. To his mind, it is immovable, but the outsider can see other ways or gates that he ignores in favor of obsessing or fixating on this one barrier.

      Some aspects of the story that are still hard to fit exactly in this critical theory are “the law” being the object the gate separates from the man and the very specific physical description of the gatekeeper. However, after reading the story again through the Psychoanalytical critical lens, the interpretation of this story as depicting the mental barriers people can place on themselves and struggle with their whole lives, in spite of other solutions that outsiders can see, makes more sense. The ending is no longer a mystery and complication as it was with the Marxist criticism, but a cementing of this idea, which I appreciate since I struggled to understand it during the first round of interpretation.

Marxist and Psychological Criticism within "Before the Law" by Franz Kafka

The “Marxist Criticism” critical approach provided in Literary Criticism and Theory written by Gardener seemed the most useful for interpreting Before the Law by Franz Kafka. Gardener states that this approach reflects, “… human interactions are economically driven and that the basic human model of human progress is based in a struggle for power between different social classes.” (3) Gardener then provides an example of this interaction being presented in narratives as a dynamic between “powerful oppressors” and “powerless victims”. This example can be applied to interpreting Kafka’s story.  The “powerful oppressor” is presented as the gatekeeper whereas the “powerless victim” is presented by the country man. The gatekeeper has a position of authority because he grants access for the countryman to pass the gate of the law. There seems to be an economic separation between the gatekeeper and the country man due to the fact that the gatekeeper has a fur coat. Although the mention of the gatekeeper wearing a fur coat serves as an economic separation between both characters the inequalities experienced by the countryman must be examined. 

           Distinct inequalities are presented within Before the Law due to the role and power of the gatekeeper. With only a single  interaction between the gatekeeper and the countryman, it is important to analyze the function of  the “gatekeeper”. The gatekeeper is meant to protect the gate of the law until the countryman has been granted access and allowed to pass through the gate. However, the gatekeeper belongs to a community of gatekeepers which appears to have an influence his actions. When the countryman first attempts to pass the gates without permission the gatekeeper says, “If it tempts you so much, try it in spite of my prohibition. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I can’t endure even one glimpse of the third.” (1) This reflects “vulgar Marxism”because the gatekeeper belongs to a community of gatekeepers that ensures the alienation of individuals such as the countryman. The separation of power between the gatekeeper and countryman yields trouble for the countryman when he says, the man from the country has not expected such difficulties; the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks, but as he now looks more closely at the gatekeeper… he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside.” (1) This power dynamic exist because the countryman submits himself to the gatekeeper and the laws while the gatekeeper exercises his authority. The gatekeeper seems to embody an entity that has no other purpose other than permitting or prohibiting access to the law, making him inhumane. The notion of the gatekeeper being inhumane may correspond to the superstructure of gatekeepers that he belongs to. The gatekeeper may have wanted to show his humanity but his authoritative position may have prohibited him from doing so. 

Another critical approach in understanding the story may be “psychological theories”. This approach poses that, “Psychological critics often interpret literature as a psychological might interpret a dream or wish.” (174) While Kafka’s story does have dream like qualities, I believe the symbols within the story provide particular nuances that do not  contribute to purpose of the story. For example, the gatekeeper may reflect present government attitudes and laws while the country man may represent an average citizen confronting the government. This approach is useful in understanding the narrative, however, it does not provide sufficient information on either character to conduct a deep psychological analysis. Gardner writes that the psychological approach analyzes, “ …the unstated motives and unconscious states of mind of characters, authors, or readers.” (174) As such, there is not enough interaction and character development between the gatekeeper and countryman to dissect their unconscious and potential motives. The gatekeeper serves to tell the countryman that he cannot enter while the countryman submits himself to the authority of the gatekeeper. If either the countryman or gatekeeper challenged their political position there would be enough information for a psychological analysis. 

The Marxist theory provides a sound theoretical approach for interpreting Before the Law because the power dynamic between the gatekeeper and country man enables the progression of the narrative as well as reflecting political and social struggles that extend outside of the story. The psychological analysis is not as accurate in understanding the story due to the lack of character development and  insight.

Before the Law: Marxist Criticism vs Psychological Theory

After reading, Before the Law by Franz Kafka, my group and I were able to conclude that the story could be interpreted through a variety of different approaches. The reasoning as to why this occurred within our discussion was because we all individually thought that various approaches (such as the Marxist theory, reading-response, formalism/new criticism, and psychological theory) would be the best critical approach to utilize for interpreting the passage. However, after presenting our evidence with explanations we ended up deciding that the two best ways to approach and understand this reading were through the Marxist and psychological theory.

My group and I ended up deciding that the Marxist theory could be one of the two best critical approaches for the reading because of various statements within the reading. One main factor as to why my group decided to utilize such a theory was due to the call of attention within the social and economic status between the man and the gatekeeper. It is stated within the reading that the gatekeeper is wearing a fur coat. Thus, inducing the notion of wealth within the gatekeeper. As stated in the reading, “Literary characters can be divided into powerful oppressors and their powerless victims,” (Gardner 1). As characterized in the passage, the law and the gatekeeper represent the powerful oppressor, whereas, the man represents the powerless victim. Within the reading it is also stated that there is a sense of power within the gatekeepers; “But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other,” (Kafka 1). Thus inducing the notion of status among the characters with relations to the law. However, through a psychological approach this can be seen in a different perspective. The gatekeeper’s statement can be seen as a way to induce emotions; such as fear and caution within the man in order to mentally restrain him from reaching the law.

The other critical approach that my group decided to be one of the two best was the psychological theory. Through the visualization of this theory we were able to gain a different perspective of the passage. One is able to see that Kafka conveys important meanings within certain objects and characters of the story. The open gate along with the law symbolize the man’s main goal, whereas, the gatekeepers represent the barriers created to prevent him from reaching his objective. Nevertheless, although the barriers are physical objects and characters, they serve as mental challenges since they mentally rather than physically restrain the man from reaching his goal. The story also states, “Everyone strives after the law,” says the man, “so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” (Kafka 2). Thus, presenting the fact that the barriers presented to the man were meant specifically for him, illustrating the notion of psychological oppression within his life. The man never felt the urge of challenging the law along with gatekeeper even though the doors of the gate remained open. As a result, he ended up wasting his entire life waiting for permission that was never granted to him.

Even though, both the Marxist and psychological theory are great ways to approach the reading, one literary theory is more useful than the other; the psychological theory. Through the utilization of the psychological theory, readers are able to gain a better understanding about the ending of the passage. In the literary work the gatekeeper states, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it,” (Kafka 3). An ending much like this one creates confusion among many readers, but through a psychological approach one is able to fully interpret the meaning of such statements. As stated within the “Literary Criticism and Literary Theory” passage, “The most typical psychological literary criticism examines the internal mental states, the desires, and motivation of literary characters,” (Gardner 2). Ultimately, through a psychological approach one is able to understand that the man is determined and motivated to reach his goal, but due to his inner emotions; such as fear and cautiousness he is unable to attain his desire of reaching the law. Although, the gate remained open to the man, his inner fear and caution of consequences about entering without permission prevented him from achieving his goal (which was easy to access). For such a reason, a psychological approach is more useful than a Marxist one, it is able to provide the reader with a in depth interpretation.

"Before the Law" - Immigration, Goals, and Psychology

“Before the Law” by Franz Kafka is about a man who is trying to get to the other side of the gate but cannot due to there being a gatekeeper. The guard doesn’t let the man cross because he claims that there is a process that needs to be complete before doing so. However as time goes on the man begins to become old and impatient, so he tells the guard he will find another way. The guard then says that there are many other guards more powerful then him, so that even if he can’t stop the man other obstacles will get in the way of the man from crossing the gate. The story then finishes off with the man, closer to death, asking the gatekeeper why there has been no one else attempting to cross the gate and the gatekeeper responds that this gate was only made and intended for him specifically.

When reading “Before the Law” with the readers-response theory it can be perceived differently in many ways since we all read with different interpretations, but for some one relation that is made is that it is about immigration. The first sentence that Kafka wrote that backs up this theory is saying, “To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to gain entry into the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment.” To me it seemed this way because it was the first thing that came to my mind when reading this story because it is a current issue going on in our world today. The gate can be viewed as the border, the man can be viewed as the immigrant, and the gatekeeper can be anything (border patrol, the lengthy process, the government) stopping the immigrant from crossing. Kafka also wrote, “The gatekeeper often interrogates him briefly, questioning him about his homeland and many other things.” When an immigrant goes through the process of crossing into the United States one aspect is getting questioned. These individuals will get question by individuals who work for the government about almost anything and everything. From questions of why an immigrants wants to become a part of America to what they did last week, various questions are always asked. For the ones who cross without going through the process, which the man claimed he would do at one point, they end up facing obstacles which can be harder than waiting. However for a different reader they stated that they interpreted it as a way of reaching goals. Every goal has a gate. The person is yourself and the gatekeeper is the obstacles. After completing one goal and getting through one gate there are many more because goals can be endless, some are little while others are big. However, trying to ignore goals or moving on to the next without finishing the previous can cause problems for the future goals.

    Some readers will read this story with theories other than the reader-response, one being Psychological Literary Criticism. Some may believe that the author wrote it due to some specific urge or thought they had in their mind at the time. The writer can be the character and the gate can symbolize a feeling for the writer. A gate is usually to keep things in or out of something. The gate to the writer may be that they feel trapped and they know there is a way to get out but the “gatekeeper” seems to be stopping them.  However it can also have the same sort of an affect on the way a reader reads the story too. For instance a reader can have anxiety or often times feel alone so when the see that the story is about a man who can’t cross a gate, their mind might begin to think of being trapped or to oneself since the man never saw anyone else other than the gatekeeper. Kafka wrote, “When the gatekeeper notices that, he laughs and says: ‘If it tempts you so much, try it in spite of my prohibition. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper.  But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I can’t endure even one glimpse of the third.’” Reading what the gatekeep said makes it seem that no matter how far deep a person can see or tries to go they cannot escape. It is similar to an endless cycle which is something a person may feel when writing or reading aspects like this is a story.

Prufrock: "My Body Is A Cage" by Arcade Fire

Katie Nguyen
(Song Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdve08cG3pE)

T.S. Eliot’s poem “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” is a lamenting modernist display of the longings and dissatisfactions of a young man who feels trapped in passivity and self-doubt. Arcade Fire’s song “My Body Is A Cage” encapsulates the internal anguish that the speaker alludes throughout the poem. As one might expect, Eliot’s poem is much denser than the lyrics of the song and his narrative flow explores many different avenues in the speaker’s roundabout way of dancing around his intentions. While the forms may differ, especially due to genre convention, both works are keen explorations of self-entrapment and disorientation in the world at large.

Right from the start, Arcade Fire encompasses the source of internal distress that weaves through “Prufrock,” singing, “My body is a cage that keeps me / From dancing with the one I love / But my mind holds the key”. Arcade Fire poignantly compares the mental paralysis of social anxiety and self-doubt to a more tangible sense of confinement. There is a palpable frustration that emerges in situations such as these, where the obstacles are imagined and internal, yet still insurmountable, thus exemplified through “my mind holds the key”. “Prufrock” is similarly trapped in a cycle of passivity and inaction, as evidenced by his incessant self-questioning. He asks “Do I dare / Disturb the universe?” and “So how should I presume? / And how should I begin?”. Immobilized by doubts and negative affirmations of what he “knows to be true”, Prufrock is stalled before he ever truly begins.

Interestingly enough, both Eliot’s poem and Arcade Fire’s song call into play the idea of theatricality and performance through metaphor. Though “Prufrock” is completely saturated with allusions, perhaps the most overt reference is when he exclaims “No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; Am an attendant lord, one that will do… Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse”. Eliot invokes theatre and its clear archetypes to articulate his sense of displacement in his own consciousness. He has essentially taken a backseat to his entire life, which he dually relies upon and resents. His disproportionate self-image relegates him to the realm of the inactionable, rendering him to the service of the main plotline, whatever he conceives that to be. However, it also conveniently alleviates him from ever having to exert agency or any action in pursuit of his own wants and desires, which the lead role, the Hamlet of the story, must do.

This is where a key difference emerges between the poem and the song. “My Body Is A Cage” is an anguished declaration of a paralyzing social anxiety that culminates into a desperate plea to be relinquished from its grip. Especially apparent in the ending lyrics “Set my spirit free / Set my body free,” there is a war between the mind and the body, the desire and the execution. “Prufrock,” which still a lamentation of a self-imposed passivity, produces a more melancholic, regretful air that still ventures to excuse and explain his inactions. However, it must be noted that “Prufrock” is structured as an invitation to the object of his affection, so his leniency upon himself is careful and measured. “My Body Is A Cage” is an inward exultation, a plea toward himself or the universe at large. Empirically, the two works differ in their intended audience, but one could certainly adhere “My Body Is A Cage” to “Prufrock” as an internal representation of his torment and anxiety.

In that vein of applied analysis, the song’s application of theatrical metaphor becomes increasingly poignant. Arcade Fire sings “I’m standing on a stage / Of fear and self-doubt / It’s a hollow play / But they’ll clap anyway”. Rather than playing into the utility of character in theatre, “My Body is A Cage” utilizes the performativity aspect of the medium. He likens himself to an unconvincing performer going through the motions of his life. Later in the song, he sings “I’m living in an age / That calls darkness light,” denoting his detachment from the world and its workings that stems from his lack of being able to communicate effectively. Similar to Prufrock’s line “Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse,” there is an emphasis on a lack of intent behind the words the speakers are able to say that contrasts the surplus of desire that they cannot articulate. Later in the poem, Eliot writes “It is impossible to say just what I mean! / But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen” which is extraordinarily similar to the lyric, “Though my language is dead / Still the shapes fill my head”. Both lines evoke the sense of an inarticulable, emotional vastness that both speakers struggle to express in any kind of lucid or intelligible manner. This, in turn, feeds into the frustration and internal anguish that has been culminating into a profound sense of tormented regret and angst.

Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” and Arcade Fire’s “My Body is A Cage” concern themselves with a nuanced form of angst and dissatisfaction with one’s life and place in the world at large. While there are certainly some tonal and empirical differences, “My Body is A Cage” offers a fitting and powerful supplement to “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” that delves into the intricacies of internal journey that Prufrock could conceivably suffer from.

(WC: 903)

Character Sketch: Mr. Ramsay (To The Lighthouse)

Name: Mr. Ramsay

Appearance: Small blue eyes, lean and narrow

Qualities: Strong presence, Disrespectful, Values truth, Harsh, Overbearing/Oppressive, Unpleasant

Relationship to others (particularly James): Bad

Through the perspective of the son, James, Mr. Ramsay is portrayed as a lean and narrow man with blue eyes. He is noted to have a strong presence, is disrespectful, values truth, is harsh and overbearing, and overall unpleasant. His strong presence is mentioned in James’s thoughts after vocalizing his thoughts about going to the lighthouse. James has an intense reaction to his father’s comment, saying, “such were the extremes of emotion that Mr. Ramsay excited in his children’s breasts by his mere presence.” (4) This implies the strong presence and influence that Mr. Ramsay has. By stating his thoughts, he evokes in his child emotions that are strong as “extremes” imply a high degree of something.

Mr. Ramsay is also seen as a disrespectful character. He is mentioned “grinning sarcastically, not only with the pleasure of disillusioning his son and ridicule upon his wife” (4). Here, Mr. Ramsay is shown taking pleasure in objecting to going to the lighthouse. By grinning sarcastically, the reader can understand Ramsay as somewhat unpleasant in his nature. The usage of “disillusioned” suggests that Mr. Ramsay has a knack of taking people out of dreams and back into reality, a sense of realism that emits from him. As he gets satisfaction in this, it can be seen that Mr. Ramsay enjoys doing this regularly and likes to dwell in someone else’s displeasure. In the same quote, Mr. Ramsay can be seen as disrespectful as he ridicules his wife, “ridicule” implying mocking, a form of disrespect and does not acknowledge his wife.

With all these qualities, an interesting one is that Mr. Ramsay values truth. He is noted to be “incapable of untruth” (4). “Incapable” defines Mr. Ramsay here, as it suggests that, even if he were to try, he does not have the ability to speak lies, or untruth. He is a factual, rather honest person that “never tamper[s] with a fact; never altered a disagreeable word to suit the pleasure of convenience of any mortal being, least of all of his own children that life is difficult” (4). Yet, as truthful as he may be, the quality also causes problems with relationships, such as the one with his son as Mr. Ramsay does not spare anyone’s feelings for the sake of truth. He does not mend his statements, even if it were to satisfy another person.

His truthful nature comes off as harsh, overbearing and almost oppressive. In the previous quote, James mentions that “life is difficult”. Other than literally meaning that life in general is difficult, this overtly states that Mr. Ramsay’s character becomes an oppressive force that makes life difficult for the children. His factual quality becomes a burden to them, so profound that James states, “the passage to that fabled land were our brightest hopes are extinguished, our fail barks founder in darkness…one that needs, above all, courage, truth, and the power to endure” (4). Here, “fabled land” suggests that hope is an ideal that cannot be achieved, a dream, while “extinguished” implies that it is snuffed out, no longer there. This means that Mr. Ramsay takes away the only way that the children can access hope and leaves nothing in the end for them, leading them into darkness.

This characterizes Mr. Ramsay as strong yet unforgiving. He takes away any hope the children may have, for instance, James’s hope of going to the lighthouse. His facts become unbearable for the children, giving the reader a sense of what type of person Mr. Ramsay is. This characterization is further supported, with James saying “power to endure” in the end. The word “power” is the ability to do something. It suggests magnitude, a strength in which is needed to overcome obstacles, in this case Mr. Ramsay. The other word “endure” gives a sense of how strong the obstacle is, a weight to whatever is imposed on the receiver. The word gives it a sense of toughness and suffering, “to endure”. By saying this, it suggests that the weight that Mr. Ramsay imposes on the children and others is significantly large, to the degree that they must continue to suffer and endure the magnitude of his oppression. This, along with other qualities such as strong presence mentioned above, gives insight into the unpleasant characterization of Mr. Ramsay.

"Before the Law" Analysis: Marxism vs. Reader-Response

            The ambiguity present in Franz Kafka's "Before the Law" and the variety of possible interpretations led my group to decide that the reader-response critical theory fits best for this story. It explains the nameless man who is trying to gain entry into an unspecified law, and the vagueness in Kafka's writing opens up different interactions readers can have with the text. However, despite the obscurities, the Marxist criticism better highlights the clear and distinct qualities that help decipher its meaning. Although the reader-response criticism can complete the missing elements of the text, the Marxist criticism is best equipped in understanding the existing qualities in "Before the Law".

            During our group discussion, we mentioned that the different experiences of the reader lead to multiple explanations to the story. We observed that the law the man is striving for could relay different meanings, and the message of the story can vary depending on the reader. In result, the reader-response theory seemed appropriate in analyzing the text. According to Gardner, a reader-response theory is an "interaction between an author and a reader, and it can never be complete unless readers bring to it their own insight." In other words, the text is "not a container filled with meaning by its author" that the readers are left to interpret based on their own experiences (Gardner 175). Kafka, however, has filled the text with meaning and can be complete without the reader's personal analysis. Granted, there are gaps in the story, such as the unidentified man, but knowing the age or name of the man does not add to the comprehension of the reading. The central point is that there is a clear hierarchical divide between the man and the gatekeeper as the man strives his entire life trying to enter into the law. It is this attempt at gaining entry and the power dynamic between the two characters that are the core elements of the story. The flaw in our group's analysis is that we interpreted "a container filled with meaning" and analyzed gaps that were not necessary to the central theme.

            On the other hand, the Marxist criticism identifies the prominent characteristics of the text and provides a more comprehensive reading. Gardener describes that “for Marxist critics… literary characters could be divided into powerful oppressors and their powerless victims," which is clearly exemplified through the clear distinction between the gatekeeper and the country man (Gardner 170). There is already an established divide between the two characters from the beginning as the gatekeeper has an appointed role before the law while the man is stranger from the country with no designated purpose. The hierarchy continues to grow when the gatekeeper states that he is "the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other" (Kafka 1). The "powerful oppressor" role is further shown as the "gatekeeper in his fur coat" and "large pointed nose" has enough authority to hinder his entry into the law while the author provides no description of the man. The fur coat is often associated with wealth and status, and large noses are highly considered as a symbol of confidence and power; these both highlight and elevate the gatekeeper's position. In the next sentence, the "gatekeeper gives him a stool and allows him to sit down" (Kafka 1). This physically places the man at a lower level than the gatekeeper. Additionally, the gatekeeper does not force the man but "allows him to sit down". While this scene can be seen as an act of kindness, it can also reveal a patronizing attitude as the gatekeeper literally exemplifies the idiomatic phrase "to look down one's nose". These actions and descriptions reveal the unequal social status between the man and the gatekeeper that coincides with the Marxist theorists' oppressor and victim statement.

            Another characteristic of the Marxist criticism that is seen in "Before the Law" is the "reification (the process whereby oppressed workers lose their sense of individual humanity)" (Gardner 170). His loss of individual humanity is reflected through his desperate endeavours at persuading the gatekeeper to let him in. This is shown through the man's degradation as he devolves into a character who begs and bribes in demoralizing attempts to enter the law. A pinnacle example is when he seeks help from the "fleas in [the gatekeeper's] fur collar" (Kafka 1). The fleas' home in the fur collar not only reveals an unnatural hierarchy between the man and the insects but also demeans him. Despite being parasites, they are in a higher position than the man as they live in a symbol of prosperity -- the fur collar. Furthermore, the man degrades himself to the point in which he has to ask the fleas for help. Ultimately, he continues to lose himself until death while the gatekeeper remains unaltered. The oppressor remains unchanged while the victim withers away.

            While the reader-response allows for a variety of different interpretations, the Marxist approach tackles the principal component of the story: the struggle between the man and the gatekeeper. The reader-response story focuses on the gaps but does not help explain the attributes that are present. The Marxist theory is best suited in explaining the small yet symbolic illustrations, which aid in understanding the prominent uneven power distribution that plays at the center of the story.

Word Count: 894