|
Post by BSam on Jul 26, 2005 20:46:29 GMT -5
this thread is about Haruki Murakami
one of the best japanese writers, and just best writer ever
you must read his books they are so good
|
|
|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on Oct 30, 2016 8:06:45 GMT -5
I know that we have a few Murakami readers here, so I'm surprised to see the lack of replies in this thread.
I went to see an interview with Murakami today, hosted by his Danish translator and a local professor of literature (or something like that, I know he had something to do with literature and the local university). I was in the second row, so I was about ten metres away from him. It's kind of overwhelming to think about. It was an interesting experience; I got the general impression that Murakami writes more for the sake of his own experience than anyone else's, and that it was just a pleasant side effect for him that other people like his books as well. He seemed almost surprised over getting the attention, which I suppose he can't have been after so many years of fame, but it was still kinda endearing. On exit, we were each given a pre-signed Murakami book of our choice in the Danish translation; I picked 'The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle', which I was planning to read as the next one - though I might get another copy to read in order not to damage the signed one.
|
|
|
Murakami
Feb 14, 2017 16:30:51 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Grace on Feb 14, 2017 16:30:51 GMT -5
Murakami is pretty great. I finished Norwegian Wood a while ago, and my friend kinda bust my bubble, saying that Murakami doesn't really know how to write women. Thoughts on this?? I was surprised that I hadn't had this thought first, radical feminist that I am, but, considering it, the women he writes tend to be not all that developed beyond serving the advancement of male character development/plot. I love Murakami and his style, but his books do tend to have quiet ish male protagonists who fall in love with mysterious, slightly quirky but extremely sexy female characters? Interested in other people's thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on Feb 14, 2017 17:49:16 GMT -5
One of the things that puzzle me about Murakami is that he keeps me interested even though he basically writes the same (honestly pretty dull and, as you point out, very male-centric) story over and over again. Curiously, the Murakami readers I know in real life are pretty much also those who identify most strongly as feminists. Just looking at the statistics, I'd say it was the allure of a reading something that provokes you, something with which you disagree but is nevertheless skillfully thought out, but that's not even it; at least, that's not what I feel, and nobody else I've talked to seems to have had that experience, either.
One audience question when I went to see him (I'm really trying to restrain myself from mentioning all the time that I went to see him, but this part actually does seem relevant) was about his treatment of women in his books, and he responded that - and I'm just paraphrasing from memory here, this was months ago - he doesn't think explicitly about the fact that he's writing women, he just writes people (which sounds pretty feminist from where I'm standing), but also that he can only write about the world the way he experiences it (which, looking at his works, suggests that he has a rather limited understanding of women as people, at least subconsciously).
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Feb 14, 2017 21:02:39 GMT -5
he responded that - and I'm just paraphrasing from memory here, this was months ago - he doesn't think explicitly about the fact that he's writing women, he just writes people i think that's the standard response that authors give nowadays, both because it's easy and because millennials are always asking them. "how do you approach writing female characters?" "duh, i just think of them as people!" *everyone cheers* the real answer, imo, is the female characters feel flat because all of murakami's characters are flat. i've heard that a lot of japanese critics don't like murakami because he's disrespecting japanese literary tradition,or something.. granted, i haven't read a lot of other contemp japanese stuff, but i was always really surprised by that perspective, because murakami's storytelling reminds me most of Noh theater: you could argue that there are actual plots and characters, but in realtime, watching the noh play or reading the murakami novel, that's all pretty arbitrary. Noh usually stretches out to about five hours; several masked figures share the stage and move at a snail's pace; they recite their lines/songs in extremely drawn out syllables; and occasionally they encounter a bizarre supernatural element. that's essentially murakami, and even if sexy females are quite prominent, that doesn't say much about his male characters. the only real thing that distinguishes any of his creations is the superficial characteristics he attributes to them, and that's often their physical appearance, much like the custom masks of Noh actors... i haven't really noticed development in any characters from any of his novels, because they hold only a singular abstract purpose for the book as a whole, just as his surreal, supernatural moments do. attaching ourselves to characters as individuals, expecting them to be the source of the novel's thesis and maturation, seems to me a distinctly western critique.
|
|
|
Murakami
Feb 15, 2017 11:02:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Grace on Feb 15, 2017 11:02:41 GMT -5
It is really interesting how Murakami manages to keep our attention (and then some) without relying on characters to do so. I don't really buy the idea that "nothing really happens" in his books, or that the same things happen over and over again, because otherwise we wouldn't keep reading. Looking back at the plot summary of Norwegian Wood, for example, a LOT happens, albeit very slowly (and meditatively), but I remembered almost all of it, which is a credit to the writer. I'd have to look at it more, but his stark prose, uniquely strange writing style, understanding of the complexities of the human condition and use of universal themes probably help (lol).
In a super harsh feminist light (the one my friend was using), the onus is on the writer to present women as more complex than sex objects, to challenge the overarching narrative that literally constantly plagues us in order to be maximum feminist and Murakami doesn't do this, which is probably what my friend was responding to. However, I also understand that is not at the top of every writer's consciousness, especially male writers of a certain age. And I understand that Murakami doesn't prioritize the depth of many characters, though I would argue that devoting an entire book to the internal monologue of the always-male protagonist counts as development of at least one male character.
|
|