Code Word Cloud in Franz Kafka’s “Beim Bau der Chinesischen Mauer” [“The Great Wall of China”]
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I wish to thank Reviewer 1 for their careful reading of my manuscript, “Code Word Cloud in Franz Kafka’s Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer.” Their comments have significantly improved the paper’s focus, clarity, and scholarly rigor. Below, I provide a point-by-point response to their five primary suggestions, referencing the relevant revisions in manuscript.v3.
Comment (R2-1): “After the initial pages, Kafka’s story is overshadowed by a dizzying array of citations and summaries. It becomes disorienting. Some references seem superficial or too broad. Please consider trimming or integrating them more cohesively, especially references from natural sciences and computer science that do not deepen the analysis.”
Response (R2-1):
I appreciate this critique and have streamlined the latter sections significantly. In manuscript.v2, I had extensive references to fluid mechanics, meteorology, and certain computer science papers that only reiterated well-known definitions (e.g., black box = opaque model). In manuscript.v3, I removed or substantially condensed those passages (notably in the old Section 4). For instance:
- All references to fluid mechanics (Arduini & Barkstrom, Elliott, etc.) have been removed.
- The discussion of “diffusion” from purely physics journals is replaced with a succinct paragraph that stays closer to AI/ML contexts (see Lines 360-397).
I believe these changes maintain the interdisciplinary spirit of this article while correcting for Reviewer 1's correct identification of an at-times desultory structure and citations that were piled on in excess, rather than targeted towards the center of my argument.
Comment (R2-2): “There are very few citations of recent scholarship on Kafka’s Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer. Adorno and Benjamin are crucial, but you should bring in more 21st-century Kafka research.”
Response (R2-2):
I have added several recent Kafka studies to situate this reading within current critical discourse:
- Simona Moti (2019) on the relevancy of Habsburg Central Europe’s cultural/political context to "Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer".
- Samuel Weber (2019) on Kafka’s singular vs. collective perspective
- Rignall (1985) and Nicolai (1991) for scholarship specifically on “Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer.”
See Lines 503-543 where these new sources are woven into the argument about partial construction in both a material and a digital sense.
In addition, I have deepened my engagement with Corngold and Wagner (2011) and Klaus Benesch (1997) in Lines 323-359 on the topic of Kafka's Two Desks (his status as both bureaucratic and creative writer), tying my argument to a broader lineage of critical work on Kafka in relation to non-literary media.
Comment (R2-3): “Cloud is indeed a minor detail in Kafka’s text. A more persuasive connection might be the black box problem or the partial-construction aspect. If you keep focusing on the ‘cloud,’ please justify it early on and note that the story mentions clouds only a handful of times.”
Response (R2-3):
I now explicitly address this in Section 1/Introduction (Lines 113-128), acknowledging that Kafka references clouds only a few times in "Beim Bau", while making the case that locating meaning in precisely such singular details is thematically resonant within this specific story, in Kafka’s larger oeuvre, and in the theoretical contexts of critical theory and media archaeology that support the broader stakes of the interplay of partial construction, inscrutability, and digital “clouds” in the age of AI at play. In addition, I have clarified my interpretive pivot of the "cloud" model for grappling with systems of opacity and partial knowledge throughout the essay in line with this reviewer's comments. This is accomplished through my more tightly connecting the "cloud" motif with the black box concept in Section 4 (lines 405-454) to show the structural parallels with AI’s opacity.
Comment (R2-4)
“The cloud metaphor is certainly prominent in discussion of computation, but I would like to see a more clearly articulated explanation of the multiple ways in which it can be related to computation in general and generative AI in particular."
Response (R2-4)
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In revising the manuscript, I expanded on the various dimensions in which the cloud metaphor intersects with computation and generative AI. Specifically:
-
Cloud Computing as Infrastructure and Cloud as a Symbol of Opaque AI Processes
I now clarify in Section 3, Lines 360-397 that “the cloud” refers not only to the widely known remote-server infrastructure—where data storage and processing occur offsite—but also to the large-scale computing resources on which AI models are frequently trained. This grounds the metaphor in a concrete technological substrate. I also address ~Lines 375 the reviewer's desire for more specificity and explicit highlighting of the role of structured and unstructured text in these "word clouds". I discuss how neural networks and diffusion models rely on massive, often inscrutable datasets (what some call “word clouds”), paralleling Kafka’s notion of diffuse structures in Beim Bau. These references highlight how “cloudiness” aligns with the black-box nature of large language models, whose inner workings remain largely hidden even from developers. -
Figurative and Conceptual Overlaps
I have also tightened throughout Section 3 the connection between the literal “cloud” (data centers, server farms) and the figurative “cloud” (ephemeral, ungraspable processes). This underscores how the same metaphor can address both the physical reality of internet infrastructure and the intangible, elusive qualities of AI text-generation processes.
These revisions, motivated by your feedback, aim to show more explicitly that “the cloud” is not a monolithic concept but rather a multilayered phenomenon that spans hardware, software, and interpretative frames. By integrating these clarifications, I hope to have made the metaphor’s relevance to modern AI discourse more persuasive and coherent.
Comment (R2-5): “Section 4, for example, engages with the work of Hubert Damish on the cloud. There is a substantial discussion of Chinese painting, and the juxtaposition with Kafka’s story on the Great Wall implies that there is some special significance to Damish’s interest in Chinese painting in particular, but the connection remains atmospheric rather than being explicitly conceptualized and thus the choice seems disingenuous.”
Response (R2-5):
Thank you very much for highlighting this issue. Although admittedly fragmentary, I hoped my discussion of Hubert Damish and Chinese painting would reinforce the metaphorical dimensions of the “cloud.” However, I recognize that the treatment was tangential and insufficiently integrated with Kafka’s text, thereby creating a disconnect for readers.
To address this concern, I have removed the lengthy passages on Chinese painting as well as the meteorological studies and replaced them with a newly formulated Section 4, “A Note on the Cloud as Interpretive Framework.” (Lines 405-482) This revised section directly links the concept of “cloud” to the “black box” problem that arises in AI discourse, ensuring a more coherent interplay between the metaphor of the cloud and the partial opacity central to Kafka’s “Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer.” By foregrounding how “clouds” in Kafka’s text function analogously to black-box AI systems, the discussion now more explicitly clarifies the cloud’s critical role.
These revisions respond not only to your feedback but also to editorial suggestions that portions of the prior Parts 3 and 4 correctly identified as tripping into a mode of bad faith towards the reader be substantially cut or reworked in order to streamline the manuscript and deepen the black-box analysis. While significantly increasing the attention I pay to the black box, I have maintained the article's original focus on the Benjaminian cloud metaphor. I hope this satisfies the Reviewer's concerns and provides a more convincing, conceptually precise argument.
I deeply appreciate Reviewer 1's insights, which have shaped the manuscript into a more concise, coherent, and well-substantiated argument. I believe the revised version now aligns with the goals of clarity, focus, and depth requested by them.
Thank you again for your time and feedback. If there are any further concerns, I would be happy to address them.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this very interesting paper that brings together a compelling set of ideas around language in Kafka’s lesser known short story. Considering the implications of AI-powered diffusion models in comparison to the cloud architecture and the cloud as a framework and a metaphor for an intermediary black box and for the formation of meaning is a highly original approach.
A minor comment/provocation: While I agree the cloud metaphor is most applicable to diffusion models (and I appreciate it is clarified what kind of AI is being addressed throughout the paper), the argument falls broadly on diffusion and other hardly-interpretable AI architectures (transformers, GANs, graphs, etc.). This could be mentioned since readers generally know transformers from LLMs, but might be less familiar with other architectures. It could also be briefly explained to readers unfamiliar with AI (perhaps around lines 380) about how masking works in diffusion models (and sometimes LLMs) in order to gaining clarity of the image/text/whatever is being generated.
Author Response
I wish to thank this reviewer for their reading of my manuscript, “Code Word Cloud in Franz Kafka’s Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer.” Reviewer 2 offers a concise, helpful, and knowledgable provocation that I found improved the paper's grounding in current AI architectures. I condensed their feedback into three primary suggestions, all of which I agreed with and integrated into a new draft. Details below:
Comment (R1-1): “The paper’s core metaphor linking Kafka’s ‘cloud’ references to AI is interesting, but the argument sometimes conflates diffusion models with other AI architectures (transformers, GANs, etc.). Please clarify that your argument about ‘cloud’ metaphor applies broadly to different black-box AI systems.”
Response (R1-1):
Thank you for this observation. In manuscript.v3, I have added clarifications to Section 4 (paragraph 2, lines 424 onward) to indicate that while diffusion models inspire my “cloud” framework, the opacity concerns likewise extend to other black-box architectures such as transformers and GANs. I explicitly state that each architecture (diffusion, GAN, transformer) employs internal processes that appear inscrutable to an external viewer.
Comment (R1-2): “Consider explaining briefly how masking works in diffusion models (and sometimes LLMs) so that non-AI-specialist readers fully grasp the ‘cloud’ analogy.”
Response (R1-2):
I have integrated a concise explanation of how masking and unmasking operate in diffusion-driven and transformer-based models. Please see Section 3 (lines 381-391) where I explain how noise is added and subsequently removed in diffusion, drawing a parallel to partial construction in Kafka.
Comment (R1-3): Minor query about emphasizing that ‘cloud computing’ in general does not mean “AI,” but that these systems increasingly overlap in practice.
Response (R1-3):
I agree. In Section 3 (lines 360-372), I have inserted a brief note distinguishing standard cloud computing (remote data storage and delivery) from the large-scale AI training and inference run on cloud infrastructures. I now emphasize that “the cloud” in the paper is used both literally (distributed servers) and figuratively (linguistic ‘clouds’ in large language models).
Thank you again for your time and feedback. If there are any further concerns, I would be happy to address them.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis remarkable paper requires the improvements that I have indicated in detail in my report.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The writer is a sophisticated native speaker.
Author Response
I wish to thank Reviewer 3 for their careful reading of my manuscript, “Code Word Cloud in Franz Kafka’s Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer.” Their extensive, often humorously expressed, challenging, highly knowledgable, and wide-ranging comments have significantly improved the paper’s focus, clarity, and scholarly rigor. If not explicitly mentioned, I have integrated any comment on suggested cuts and simplification of language from the Reviewer without issue.
Below, I provide some more detailed responses to their larger conceptual or structural suggestions, most of which I have integrated, referencing the relevant revisions in manuscript.v3 with Line Numbers.
Comment (R3-1): “Can the author simplify the essay for clarity/elegance? It is too long for what it accomplishes. Cut by ¼–â…“ if possible. Many references (particularly in the middle) read like a superficial ‘Forschungsbericht.’”
Response (R3-1):
I have removed from the previous draft manuscript approximately 3,000 words. The largest cuts or compressions occur in what used to be old Sections 3–5, where I removed repetitive references to scientific literature and lengthy theoretical digressions. The writing on Hubert Damisch, the cloud in Chinese painting, purely meteorological studies, and fluid mechanics (phew! That really was far too much) have been removed. The writing on Hamacher, although not completely cut, has been significantly reduced, as well as reframed with additional critical awareness that his relevancy to the word cloud in the digital sense remains here a proposition. Some length has been regained through the integration of other Reviewer Requests for elaboration on various points, but nevertheless, the final manuscript.v3 can be compared at ~9,000 words against the prior version (~11,000 words).
Comment (R3-2): “Please consider removing or drastically reducing extraneous references to physics of real clouds, meteorology, or computer science that do not inform your reading of Kafka. Keep only what truly serves the argument about black-box opacities.”
Response (R3-2): Agreed. Cut.
Comment (R3-3): “The final discussion about ‘cloud computing’ might consider how the digital cloud is designed to store meaning in an accessible form rather than dissolving it. Some mention of Apple iCloud or corporate ownership might be relevant.”
Response (R3-3):
In Sections 1 (~Line 120 ), 3 (Lines 360-372), and 5 (lines 649-684) I now include references to the role of corporate data centers and access to a robust infrastructure that aims to preserve data within my broader examination of a "cloud model". I also highlight that from an end-user perspective, this data is intangible and can vanish or be reconfigured at any time. Thus, the cloud architecture reveals a tension between material containment (owned, regulated servers) and intangible or ephemeral access—a tension resonating with Kafka’s theme of partial or obstructed knowledge.
Comment (R3-4): “Watch out for overblown phrases or decorative verbiage such as ‘coalescing into the diffuse,’ ‘prehensile logic,’ or excessive abstractions that obscure clarity.”
Response (R3-4):
I have undertaken a stylistic edit to remove or replace such phrasing. I hope the language is now more direct.
Comment (R3-5): “Ensure references to Kafka’s story are well integrated. Avoid building large philosophical tangents that overshadow the textual reading.”
Response (R3-5):
I have rebalanced the text to keep Kafka’s short story at the center of the discussion. In Sections 2 and 5, I give close readings of the textual details (e.g., the opening lines, the ephemeral references to clouds and the partial building system). Where I have brought in theoretical vantage points (Benjamin, Kittler, Hamacher), I now more explicitly tie them back to the passages in “Beim Bau” (see pages 5–7, 16–17).
Comment (R3-6) on metaphysical inanities, such as 'state of oneness' and 'a cloud's place in the sky' (but also other locations)
Response (R3-6)
Thank you for highlighting these points. I have revised the manuscript to remove or reduce several of the more abstract and potentially superfluous references—for instance, the earlier phrase about a “state of oneness.” These edits aim to keep the argument grounded in Kafka’s text and the black-box analogy without drifting into potentially inane metaphysical territory.
Comment (R3-7)
“This reader would be delighted if you were to address the obviously cogent parable of the Nile, which overflows destructively when, in parallel fashion, thought overreaches its limits, its ‘banks.’”
Response (R3-7)
I appreciate your encouragement to engage with the Nile parable, as well as helping this seemingly blind article author find the relevant passage in "Beim Bau". The parable does indeed illuminate how overextension—whether of a river’s waters or of human attempts to conceptualize the unfathomable—can become destructive. In the revised Section 5 (Lines 623-648), I have now included a brief analysis of this parable, drawing a direct parallel to the risks of AI’s expansive, “overflowing” generative capacities. Kafka’s cautionary depiction resonates with modern concerns about unbounded data or unchecked diffusion algorithms: just as the river’s beneficial flooding becomes perilous when it exceeds its natural boundaries, so too can computational systems lose clarity or destabilize meaning when they attempt to subsume too much information or overreach interpretive bounds. By integrating this parable, I hope to illustrate more vividly the thematic kinship between Kafka’s text and the discussion of generative AI’s “flood” of output.
Comment (R3-8)
“(331–36) [...] suggesting no intimate knowledge of Kafka’s two desks. Try: ‘Our fumbling interpretations are powerless to deal with the refinements of which the bureaucracy is capable…’ (Kafka, Letter to Baum, 1922, etc.)”
Response (R3-8)
Thank you for drawing my attention to this specific letter from Kafka to Oskar Baum. I agree that quoting Kafka’s own words helps replace any speculative or abstract language. lines 314–334 I quote Kafka’s phrase—“Our fumbling interpretations are powerless…”—to highlight his firsthand insight into bureaucratic systems --> this is followed by a deeper engagement with Corngold and Wagner (2011) and Klaus Benesch (1997) in Lines 323-359 on the topic of Kafka's Two Desks (his status as both bureaucratic and creative writer), tying my argument to a broader lineage of critical work on Kafka in relation to non-literary media. By anchoring my point more firmly in Kafka’s actual correspondence, I believe the argument now remains faithful to Kafka’s experience of the “two desks.”
Comment (R3-9)
“(338) etwa Who says Kafka’s stories are writing machines [etc]?”
Response (R3-9)
I concur that the label “writing machines” requires clearer attribution. In the newly revised lines 335–359, I now specifically credit Klaus Benesch and other scholars who have invoked this terminology to describe Kafka’s interplay between creative fiction and administrative “machine-like” writing processes. Rather than asserting uncontextualized that “Kafka’s stories are writing machines,” I clarify which critics originally introduced the phrase, why they applied it, and how it helps illuminate the mechanistic or systematized elements of Kafka’s narrative style. This revision should make it clear whose scholarship I am referencing and how it supports the central argument of partial or opaque textual systems in Kafka’s works.
Comment (R3-10) on the paucity of additional, and more recent, scholarly engagement with Beim Bau
Response (R3-10)
I have added several recent Kafka studies to situate this reading within current critical discourse:
- Simona Moti (2019) on the relevancy of Habsburg Central Europe’s cultural/political context to "Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer".
- Samuel Weber (2019) on Kafka’s singular vs. collective perspective
- Rignall (1985) and Nicolai (1991) for scholarship specifically on “Beim Bau der chinesischen Mauer.”
See Lines 503-543 where these new sources are woven into the argument about partial construction in both a material and a digital sense.
In addition, as mentioned above, I have deepened my engagement with Corngold and Wagner (2011) and Klaus Benesch (1997) in Lines 323-359 on the topic of Kafka's Two Desks (his status as both bureaucratic and creative writer), tying my argument to a broader lineage of critical work on Kafka in relation to non-literary media.
Comment (R3-11)
“Barely intelligible without an example. What do you mean exactly by ‘reconstructing fragments’?”
Response (R3-11)
I appreciate this request for clarification. By “reconstructing fragments,” I am referring to how AI diffusion and other generative models begin with partial, noisy, or broken-down data and then systematically rebuild (or “unmask”) it to produce coherent outputs—a process analogous to Kafka’s notion of partial construction in Beim Bau. In lines 365–379 of the revised manuscript, I expand on this concept by providing a more concrete illustration of how diffusion models add random noise to data and then refine it step by step until a recognizable text or image emerges. This clarified example should make it clear that “reconstructing fragments” involves methodically transforming incomplete pieces into a cohesive whole, thereby tying the black-box processes of AI directly to Kafka’s method of assembling meaning from partial segments.
Comment (R3-12)
“(177–79) Kindly replace all the German quotes in the text with your English translations from the endnotes. Spare the monolingual reader the task of swinging back and forth from text to notes.”
Response (R3-12)
I understand and sympathize with the inconvenience caused by presenting the original German in the main text and placing the English translation in the notes. However, given the short turnaround time for revisions and specific editorial guidelines I was asked to follow, I was not able to restructure all citations before the final submission deadline. For future work, I will certainly prioritize placing or integrating the English translation directly into the body (with the German text perhaps in a footnote) so that monolingual readers need not toggle back and forth. I regret not being able to implement this arrangement in the current manuscript, but I very much appreciate your suggestion and will keep it in mind.
Comment (R3-13)
“(321–346) What are we to understand by the ‘digital cloud’? What definition do you offer? Is it Kittler’s? ‘The cloud is simply a network of other people’s computers’ (321). Or is it ‘internet infrastructure’, more evocatively … ‘the cloud’? (346). These two definitions do not parse.”
Response (R3-13)
Thank you for underscoring the need to clarify exactly what is meant by the “digital cloud.” In the revised manuscript, I have expanded and refined the discussion from the very outset, showing how both the immaterial claim (“the cloud is a network of other people’s computers”) and the material popular definition (“internet infrastructure”) can be brought into alignment:
-
Introduction – Lines 112–128
I now explain that “the cloud” has multiple valences: the real, physical network of remote servers owned by third parties (Kittler’s emphasis) and the more figurative notion of distributed, often opaque computing resources and services delivered over the internet. I acknowledge that these might initially appear to be two separate definitions, but in practice they are complementary perspectives on the same phenomenon—one focusing on material ownership/control (servers) and the other on intangible user-facing services. -
Section 3 – Lines 362–404
Here, I highlight the tension between these definitions by showing how generative AI systems typically rely on vast server farms (the literal “cloud”) while producing intangible, often inscrutable “clouds” of text tokens. This discussion connects the “physical” and “figurative” cloud in direct relation to AI’s black-box nature, aligning it more explicitly with Kafka’s partial-construction approach. -
Section 4 – Lines 424-454
In this newly reworked section, I tie the cloud metaphor more directly to the black box metaphor. I argue that while the cloud is indeed “simply a network of other people’s computers,” it also operates as a conceptual frame for opaque processes—mirroring the ephemeral and fragmentary appearance of AI outputs. I make it clearer that these definitions, rather than clashing, reflect different scales of observation: from the hardware-level specifics (Kittler) to the user-level experience of “the cloud” as ubiquitous, seamless infrastructure. -
Throughout Sections 5–6
Whenever the term “cloud” recurs, I specify which sense of the term is most relevant (e.g., literal data-center infrastructure vs. figurative ephemeral storehouse of meaning). I also relate these definitions back to Kafka’s images of “fog,” “vapor,” and imperceptible imperial command structures to demonstrate how “the cloud” can signal both physical presence (hardware) and intangible opacity (software/coding).
By integrating these revisions and references I believe the two definitions now hold a productive tension while presenting in a more cohesive way: one emphasizes material conditions and ownership, and the other focuses on the diffuse or opaque dimension of computational processes that parallels Kafka’s text. This should address the concern that “cloud” was being used inconsistently or without adequate explanation.
I deeply appreciate Reviewer 3's insights, which have shaped the manuscript into a more concise, coherent, and well-substantiated argument. I believe the revised version now aligns with the goals of clarity, focus, and depth requested by them.
Thank you again for your time and feedback. If there are any further concerns, I would be happy to address them.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is clear that the author has put significant time and effort into this revision and has made a good faith effort to respond to my suggestions for improvement. This new version is much stronger, and especially the latter half of the essay includes a number of valuable insights. I still have some concerns about organization and about the proportion of the paper actually devoted to Kafka's story, but these are minor enough that I feel comfortable recommending publication. I have made a few marginal comments for the author to consider. I would suggest that s/he focus on tightening up the introductory section to make the role of the figure of the cloud more central
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for recognizing the effort that went into this revision and for your continued thoughtful feedback. I appreciate your kind words about the improved latter half of the essay, as well as your helpful comments on organization. I have fine-tuned the introductory section further so that the cloud metaphor is even more clearly foregrounded, as you suggest. And I really note how much this has improved the flow of my argument. Your valuable marginal notes have also been incorporated into this version. Please see the attachment with changes highlighted.
Thank you once again for your time, your suggestions, and your support.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTwo conditions for publication of your OUTSTANDING essay: incorporate the few corrections I have made on your MS, attached. And, above all, AS AGREED, remove every single German sentence from this MS. & in its place, provide complete English translations. Very brief phrases can be kept in German and translated into English in adjacent parentheses.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Continue to strive to simplify your diction. Continue to strive to simplify your diction. Continue to strive to simplify your diction.
Author Response
Thank you for your generous note and for sharing your final set of corrections. I am appreciate your meticulous feedback throughout this process and for the time you have invested in my essay. As you requested, I have incorporated the changes noted in your attached manuscript and have also replaced all extended German quotations with their full English translations. Wherever I retained very brief German expressions, I have provided the English translation in parentheses, just as we discussed.
Please see the attachment with changes highlighted. If you have any further suggestions, I will be happy to address them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
