Comparison of Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" and Yo La Tengo's "Last Days of Disco"

T.S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” and Yo La Tengo’s song “Last Days of Disco” both explore their respective speakers’ experiences at parties, which differ both in the outcome and the speakers’ views surrounding authenticity. The former begins with the Prufrock’s walk to the event, which he describes with words carrying connotations of his anxiety, like “restless,” “insidious,” and “overwhelming” (Eliot 6, 9, 10). Once there, he connects with no one and instead spends the evening in his own head, watching “the women come and go” and wondering if he dares “disturb the universe” (Eliot 35, 46). This uniformity he applies to others suggests that his problem comes from himself; he doesn’t see them as unique individuals as real as himself, so he can’t understand them, and doesn’t know how to deal with them. This interpretation is reinforced when he implies that interacting with one of them would be akin to “disturb[ing] the universe,” since that would make them a force of nature that exists on a level distinct from his own. This world view prevents him from acting on his desire to engage with people as he grows old.

While both works use a party as the setting for their narratives, Yo La Tengo distinguishes its song immediately by focusing on the speaker’s interaction with one particular individual, as opposed to the anonymous “women” from Eliot’s poem (35). The band’s speaker follows this up with the declaration that he doesn’t “really dance much,” but is “glad that [he] did, this time,” after being asked to by the person in question. So, the story is already taking on a pleasant tone at this point, as the two people involved are implied to click almost as soon as they begin to interact with each other. By admitting that he doesn’t “really dance much,” however, the speaker creates a sort of division between himself and any other person at the party due simply to his negation to usually partake in the socially expected activities of such an event. By engaging in that activity within the same stanza, he shows himself to be willing and able to overcome his habits and natural tendencies if it means establishing a connection with a person he can enjoy being around. So, while both stories follow seemingly antisocial protagonists, the one in Eliot’s poem lets his nature get the better of him, while Yo La Tengo’s speaker takes a chance and seems to be all the better for it.

A second significant point of comparison can be found in how each speaker views authenticity, as parties can be regarded as manifestations of collective superficiality, in which it can be easy to judge people for what one regards as behavior prodded by society and not their own desires. In “Last Days of Disco,” the speaker says, “I wasn’t dressed right. I rarely am / You told me that you didn’t care. / I laughed as you wobbled on your platform shoes.” While the two characters revel in mutual enjoyment of disregarding social expectations, they each express it in different ways. First, the speaker admits to nonconformity in his attire; the fact that he subsequently says “I rarely am” suggests a timidity around the subject, as the phrase is short and offers no real opinion on the matter. However, the person he’s spending the evening with accepts his choice immediately as if to validate it. Meanwhile, this person wears “platform shoes” but doesn’t know how to use them, and doesn’t seem to take it too seriously when the speaker laughs at that. This suggests that her choice of attire is more of a social costume than some intentional representation of her identity. So, while the subject of authenticity comes up in the song, the speaker seems to brush it off as nothing more than a reason to not take himself, his partner for the evening, or even society too seriously.

On the other hand, Eliot’s speaker grapples with authenticity throughout the poem in ways that keep him from relating to the people around him. One example is the repetition of how the “women come and go / Talking of Michelangelo,” which is almost immediately followed by his worry that they’ll judge him by saying “‘how his hair is growing thin,’” and “‘how his arms and legs are thin’” (Eliot 35, 36, 41, 44). The juxtaposition between discussion of high art and superficial judgment suggests that he doesn’t trust the way they portray themselves, as if their topic of discussion is nothing more than a way to make themselves feel important. If that were the case, they would be flaunting an area of culture that they wouldn’t actually be a part of in a way that is lacking in authenticity. The speaker also seems to wonder about his own authenticity and how others would respond to it, saying that his conversation would be full of misunderstandings and that the other participants would likely utter “‘That is not what I meant at all; that is not it, at all’” (Eliot 97, 98). The repetition of that phrase suggests that the speaker is particularly afraid of such an awkward situation, and so chooses to withhold his authentic self by simply not engaging in conversation at all. This comparison between the two works, the speakers’ perspectives, and the results of their actions ultimately explores how one’s identity and perception of others, and most importantly how seriously one takes those things, can impact the outcome of such situations.