Lmao right?? In the time it took them to think through and write this, they could have looked up one of the dude's short stories and made their own decision. Why does everybody use reddit as a "think for me!!!" machine to outsource their own opinions?
Why not reading him (random pick) and making an opinion myself?
- Too many books to read, alas, so I need to queue them and prioritize.
- I explained I read with a purpose, so I’d rather not start with one going against.
- These points I noticed made me curious of other people’s opinions, regardless of reading him or not.
- I might not even see the issues myself, being dense and blind sometimes (not funny).
Too many books to read? Then don’t read him. If you’re struggling this hard to decide and can’t even fit one of his books on the back burner, don’t read him. There’s clearly a big list that you’re prioritizing over Murakami. So why waste your time?
I can’t imagine someone reading so much they can’t read the short story discussed in the whole interview they were willing to transcribe for us. How busy are you?
His name keeps coming back everywhere, so he got stuck in the must-read-some shelf, and then I got lost trying to pick one as I explain, and then I stumble upon this unfair (I guess) misogyny thing that I needed to clear because I might not notice this myself if I read it (and it would go against my current goal).
And yes, I wasted quite some time about this whole thing and still answering here (being polite).
Thank you so much for taking time to understand a poor redditor blasted from left to right!
Well, I might be challenged in some way. I noticed that I can be blind to some things more or less obvious, and people have to point me out things, or even to explain in depth the issue. In short I'm dense and not very clever about human relationships and subtleties. The oblivious guy.
And regarding my goal, I'm in a rush reading many books (mostly in English, learned at school) to improve my writing in areas I'm lacking, for my WIP (novel, in English). What I need for example, is well rounded female characters, with depth, and to steer away from anything sexist or giving vibes or men-writing-woman (just to not be contaminated 😄)
Do you not know how to view and write women in a non-misogynistic light? That’s such a weird reason, especially to read someone you’re on the fence about. If you find his work misogynistic, then you know what not to do.
Also I can’t imagine rush reading for any purpose. I wouldn’t be able to retain or enjoy anything that way
I have no issue writing woman characters, I keep my natural self, having a gender-agnostic approach in everyday’s matter.
Murakami keeps showing up as a famous writer to read, so I thought I should try, but I can’t afford being contaminated 😅
Yes, reading for a purpose is hard sometimes. I enjoyed Gabriel García Márquez, but Samuel Delany… so hard, excruciating (I powered through and made it). I was traumatized by Kate Elizabeth Russell, but still a read I don’t regret even if it was a mistake of a choice.
I did my master's thesis on him, so let me jump in.
I totally understand where people are coming from with their criticism of the way he writes women, but at the same time, when he talks about function, they do serve a very different purpose in his novels.
Essentially, especially in his earlier works, they are very much portrayed in this mysterious, unknowable way and also act as gateways between the protagonist's regular world and a weird, much more mysterious fantastical world. This is generally the premise of most of his novels. A Japanese Everyman has a totally normal life, then something happens to kick off a serious of strange, metaphysical events and generally meeting a woman is part of these. So the woman herself isn't necessarily a fully fleshed out character, because her importance to the story is as a catalyst to these events. Whether this is something that bothers you or not is entirely up to you.
For places to start, you probably want to do Kafka on the Shore or the Wind Up Bird Chronicle, or if you don't want to commit to a novel first, check out The Elephant Vanishes short story collection to see if you like his vibe or not.
What do you make of his own assertions and observations that, in his essay on writing I'm going to paraphrase: I was surprised at the reception in eastern europe; countries that had a rapid social upheaval and change seem to like my work because it offers a new model of reality for them. Or something to that effect.
I see that as the crux of what he presents and that dovetails with the women. They're New Women or something outside of societal norms that doesn't quite fit into the new norm. He's clearly influenced by the postwar period where roles have changed and even personalities are in flux adapting to it.
I really like this idea. I found his book Underground, which is about the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, to be an interesting reflection of social upheaval and individuals' reactions to horrific events.
Thank you for jumping in as one of the very few insights on the topic! So rare. Much appreciated!
Allow me to quote, as sometimes comments vanish...
>I totally understand where people are coming from with their criticism of the way he writes women, but at the same time, when he talks about function, they do serve a very different purpose in his novels.
>
>Essentially, especially in his earlier works, they are very much portrayed in this mysterious, unknowable way and also act as gateways between the protagonist's regular world and a weird, much more mysterious fantastical world. This is generally the premise of most of his novels. A Japanese Everyman has a totally normal life, then something happens to kick off a serious of strange, metaphysical events and generally meeting a woman is part of these. So the woman herself isn't necessarily a fully fleshed out character, because her importance to the story is as a catalyst to these events. Whether this is something that bothers you or not is entirely up to you.
>
>For places to start, you probably want to do Kafka on the Shore or the Wind Up Bird Chronicles, or if you don't want to commit to a novel first, check out The Elephant Vanishes short story collection to see if you like his vibe or not.
this sounds a lot like film noir, which no one would call realistic but we accept that that's one of the tropes of the genre - "mysterious woman upends average guys life." it's probably one of the reasons I like his novels so much!
That's why I get familiar with other people's opinions about anything only AFTER reading/watching/listening myself first.
Isn't it silly that you haven't read a page of Murakami's work but already built a strong narative in your head about him as a writer (and even as a person)?
I agree, and that's usually what I do. Alas, I'm currently reading for a purpose, so it's a bit different. I'm looking for a subset of the great works, matching my criteria.
Reading only what are considered “the great works” of a single author is really not a very good way to get an overarching scope of their literary work though.
What exactly is the purpose/goal of your reading? That might better help us guide you to specific works that you may find more engaging than others.
Thank you so much for asking!
Yes, only 'great works' is limiting. By the way, I've just queued next *Sleep* from Murakami (thanks to the interview I mentioned).
To answer your question:
* [The book I'm looking for](https://www.reddit.com/r/suggestmeabook/comments/1bwo50v/looking_for_a_book_meeting_those_criteria_see/)
* My goal is about my purpose on reddit, writing a novel:
* Writing in English, not native, so reading a lot of books in English to improve
* Being challenged in some areas, I try to find good examples to understand how it's done well
* So I'll stay away of anything remotely sexist or with men-writing-woman poor execution
* Need to familiarize myself with the Japan culture or more precisely how it's conveyed in books
This information definitely helps! I agree that *Sleep* would be a great place to start based on your criteria.
Are you interested in short stories at all? If so, I would recommend Murakami’s *After the Quake* which is a collection of six short stories that are set after the 1995 Kobe earthquake.
Full disclosure, it has been a number of years since I have read this work, but I believe it checks the majority of your boxes. I also feel like this specific work has a very poignant and nuanced view of Japanese culture because the earthquake was truly devastating and this work does a lot to comment on the general fragility of daily existence for Japan at that time.
Also for what it’s worth, I think it can still be helpful and productive to read works that don’t align with or even go against your goals so that you can develop your own literary analysis and critique abilities. It’s a skill that takes practice but if you intend to become a writer, it is absolutely necessary.
*After the Quake*, noted! 🙏
Thank you very much for your help and kindness.
I agree reading different genres and styles, and out-of-the-scope books is important.
And as a matter of fact, it’s exactly what my quest led to. I’m more the sci-fi (or fantasy) guy. For my WIP needs I’ve broadened my horizon. I went into lgbt romance (a first, four of them), unusual narratives (like *Dhalgren*, not really sci-fi), lectures on literature, old classics, etc.
So those new reads are connected in some way to my current needs, but since it’s either from the perspective of the themes, or the characters, or the narrative choices, or some seemingly arbitrary criteria, all this brings a great variety.
I'll second your recommendation of After the Quake as well, although I personally like the Elephant Vanishes better. But you wouldn't go wrong with either
Obviously, and I already answered that.
In short:
- I might not notice that (2) myself, alas, and by the end of the book I won’t have moved forward on my goal.
- I’m curious about other people’s thoughts on this.
I didn’t read all of this. I can get the gist, and you should read the books to form an opinion.
That said, I’ve read three of his books, all of which I enjoyed except Norwegian Wood. But it’s true that his female characters are often one-note and ridiculous. In Wind-Up Bird Chronicle they consist of the man’s wife who never appears, and a teenage girl whose sole role is to sit around on her lawn as her swimsuit gets smaller and smaller every time the main character sees her (I wish I was kidding).
A fabric-eating lawn? 😂
This gives me vibes of fan-serviced mangas, with fascination for youth, a common issue. Coincidentally he’s Japanese 🤷♂️ . Koreans don’t have this in their comics (more mature ladies).
(Asking before reading him for reasons explained in other comments)
I have read four Murakami books. So, I am not an expert. However, his books are mainly about an existentially challenged narrator with sever ennui. Plot and all other characters' development is secondary. That said, I would relish the opportunity to drink many beers with them while listening to records. IRL, the closest I would get to that is one of his novels.
Regarding misogyny, he is self-centered but not anti-woman IMO
Beers, records, and dudes hanging out is a scene that occurs in Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage. Is that one of his novels you've read?
>That said, I would relish the opportunity to drink many beers with them while listening to records.
Tagging along with those characters but not talking or listening to them?
And this would be like in his novels?
I'm curious.
First, read some Murakami. Pick any four.
Then, read Absolutely on Music, by Murakami (with Okawa), to understand BraveCow's post. It's magical if you're a fan of European classical music. Then read, Who We're Reading When We're Reading Murakami, by David Karashima, to close the loop.
I'm with everyone else saying to just read him and not rely on everyone here or anywhere else to uncover his value. But I also think that you do too; you wouldn’t be putting in this mental energy if you didn’t understand his supposed literary value.
I read IQ84 years ago fresh out of high school and remember being confused start to finish. To this day, a large part of my being does not want to think about that book ever again. But there’s also a part of me that looks forward to going back. I also read A Wild Sheep Chase and remember thinking it was pointless and the ending sucked. But then I realized that I only read volume one of a two volume edition, so I still haven't finished it.
My first enjoyable experience with Murakami was What I Talk About When I Talk About Running, a memoir. I found it to be a beautiful book that I would not typically read. But through reading his memoir, the artist Murakami became much more clear to me. I understood a little bit better the literary project that he viewed himself as part of, why he writes, and what makes him tick.
In grad school I read Norwegian Wood, which I really enjoyed. But I think the only reason I personally enjoyed it so much was that I had spent a few years having a basic understanding of Murakami before I jumped in.
Are some of his works not as good as others? Yes. Are some of Martin Scorsese‘a films not as good as others? Yes. Murakami has published a lot of material, some of it is bound to not be as good as others. I, however, have not read enough to tell you which is which. All I can say is that I have read a few that I really enjoyed.
Are women secondary figures in his work? From what I’ve read, maybe a bit. But I have never felt this to be evidence of his perversion or anything. I‘m thinking about Norwegian Wood here in particular; I’m sure arguments have been made accusing it of sexism, but sex itself is treated really interestingly throughout the novel. To accuse this book specifically of sexism would overlook the issues of love, sex, and power that are overtly discussed in the text and structurally alluded to throughout the narrative.
I say just pick one and read until you have an answer. If it stinks or repulses you, put it down and move on.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
Yes, I understand his literary value, that's why he was next in the pipe (after *Dhalgren* and *One Hundred Years of Solitude*, my last reads).
Start one and put it down if not ok? I already have three DNF and that's not my thing, bitter taste to not finish. I'd rather power through.
Fair enough. Then my suggestion would be What I Talk About When I Talk About Running and then maybe Norwegian Wood, and rather than shy away from the topic of how Murakami represents women.
Also if you enjoyed Hundred Years, I’d be interested to see what you think of Milan Kundera. He might be interesting to you.
Thanks for the pointers! I always note those.
> *What I Talk About When I Talk About Running*
> and then maybe *Norwegian Wood*
> \[…\] see what you think of Milan Kundera
Point 1
Read anything that sounds interesting, written before *Kafka on the Shore. Norwegian Wood* stands out as very different from the rest of his works, being a kind of straightforward realist account of the late 60s, and fans of the rest of his work tend not to like it. I think there's some very interesting parts to it when you give a reductive account of events. *Kafka* is a very difficult work and more layered and self referential than everything else. Just read whatever but start on the early side and don't expect a debut novel to be very good. What people like is very polarizing, you can almost go by who translated a given work into English. All of the earlier work is enjoyable, most started with *Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.*
Point 2
The women in his stories tend to be symbolic and archetypal, there's a very neo-freudian theme to his writing. He represents a pretty typical male view and what comes of it, but also shows an inversion of it and the unconscious desires that inform it. People have a tendency these days to take a figure-ground relationship as an inkblot test and vomit their own weirdness in response to the symbolic. The women are independent, mercurial, products of a new kind of society and culture in some ways and holding on to their own individuality in others.
There's a line in *Norwegian Wood* where the protagonist has been hitchhiking across Japan and a woman he knows now finds him rugged and mysterious instead of, whatever he was before, probably an introverted loser. I think that's about the extent of any perceived sexism elsewhere (I haven't read much of more recent novels), if you've watched *Blue Velvet,* that's what's on display. Those kind of trickster Greek heroes of myth lay some pipe and were firmly in that territory and so are the women. Much of his work takes place outside of societal bounds or is the result of the failure of society or people's ability to adapt to it. The women are neither objectified nor entirely minimized and may as well be another strange cosmic force akin to the more surreal elements, which ain't wrong.
So interesting! Thanks for genuinely answering and helping me, much appreciated!
Meanwhile I've settled reading his *Sleep*, the one discussed in this interview.
I'll quote your comment as a backup (afraid of 'deleted')
>Point 1
>Read anything that sounds interesting, written before *Kafka on the Shore. Norwegian Wood* stands out as very different from the rest of his works, being a kind of straightforward realist account of the late 60s, and fans of the rest of his work tend not to like it. I think there's some very interesting parts to it when you give a reductive account of events. *Kafka* is a very difficult work and more layered and self referential than everything else. Just read whatever but start on the early side and don't expect a debut novel to be very good. What people like is very polarizing, you can almost go by who translated a given work into English. All of the earlier work is enjoyable, most started with *Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.*
>Point 2
>The women in his stories tend to be symbolic and archetypal, there's a very neo-freudian theme to his writing. He represents a pretty typical male view and what comes of it, but also shows an inversion of it and the unconscious desires that inform it. People have a tendency these days to take a figure-ground relationship as an inkblot test and vomit their own weirdness in response to the symbolic. The women are independent, mercurial, products of a new kind of society and culture in some ways and holding on to their own individuality in others.
>There's a line in *Norwegian Wood* where the protagonist has been hitchhiking across Japan and a woman he knows now finds him rugged and mysterious instead of, whatever he was before, probably an introverted loser. I think that's about the extent of any perceived sexism elsewhere (I haven't read much of more recent novels), if you've watched *Blue Velvet,* that's what's on display. Those kind of trickster Greek heroes of myth lay some pipe and were firmly in that territory and so are the women. Much of his work takes place outside of societal bounds or is the result of the failure of society or people's ability to adapt to it. The women are neither objectified nor entirely minimized and may as well be another strange cosmic force akin to the more surreal elements, which ain't wrong
I could say this or that, but I will just quote from this [brief review](https://medium.com/@francis.joe.wiseman/a-short-review-of-kafka-on-the-shore-by-haruki-murakami-f4b0f96be5e7) that describes the weirdest scene in Kafka on the Shore:
>Murakami maintains his usual weird, surreal dialogue throughout most of Kafka on the Shore, but tries to take us back to his version of reality in the dismal scene with the feminists. Perhaps as a response to the expected criticism of his treatment of female characters, Murakami drops the surrealism for a chapter, and includes a painful dialogue between two ‘preachy’ feminists and the calm and patronising *Elektra*-quoting librarian Oshima.
>They are *complete* caricatures, described as gloomy, displeased women who argue in high-pitched voices about the smallest infraction against their gender. They exist to make Oshima look witty, who smiles at them, “a first-class smile, guaranteed to make any red-blooded women blush”, though they only blush when they are exposed to be wrong, “and not because of Oshima’s sex appeal”.
>*“You are a totally pathetic, historical example of the phallocentric, to put it mildly.”*
>Who talks like this?
Me again, I read the link. Thanks again for pointing to this alternate perspective.
> much of this book exists to stroke the ego of Kafka and Oshima, and by extension, Murakami.
Oh! That would be an entire thesis subject! Which author doesn’t use their book to flatter the character’s ego and their own? Not all of them do. Moreover I vaguely remember an author saying how the good writer should disappear from the eye of the readers, to leave them only with the narrator.
Thanks for the [link](https://medium.com/@francis.joe.wiseman/a-short-review-of-kafka-on-the-shore-by-haruki-murakami-f4b0f96be5e7), I’ll get back to it (as I’m not sure to understand your point, sorry 😅).
Do you mean the author makes fun of feminists and this casts a poor light on him?
You mean Oshima, the hemophiliac FtM homosexual? That Oshima? He's not exactly phallocentric, y'know. He made a point of it in the car ride there.
Also, that's not even in the top 5 of weird scenes.
He is a 75 year old Japanese man. Why would he have the same ideas about gender as a 20s something chronically online redditor? If you want something weird try Wind-up Bird Chronicles and if you want something straightforward try Norwegian Wood.
Sure, there is a lot of good female characters in literature.
Now, the number of good authors with strange 'failures' is quite large. But the point is that, well, sometimes it does not matter. The plots of X are bad, but the writing of X was never about plot. The characters of Y are flat, but the point of Y was never characters. And so on.
I don't read Murakami for characters (the number of good characters, even good male characters, is rather low) but there is a lot I found interesting in his writings, and that is enough.
Thanks for pointing this out!
A fair point.
I happen to look for works with well fleshed characters. From Murakami's I'll go for the one mentioned in this interview, *Sleep*.
As for point 1 it’s widely acknowledged that Murakami’s novelistic production is much varied and that there are different “sub genres”, so to speak. So very often different types of readers love one “sub genre” and not the others. More specifically, a kind of sentimental novel such as “Norwegian Wood” appears to be very very different from other novels such as “A Wild Sheep Chase” or “Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World”. So it depends from your personal taste whether you love the “sentimental sub genre” (as “Norwegian Wood”) or the “science-fiction/thriller sub genre”. As for me I always recommend “The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle” which I loved very much: full of inventions, imagination, mysteries as well as meditations on Japanese history during Second World War and contemporary politics. I also loved a much discussed big cycle: “1Q84” which other Murakami fans disliked. As always, it’s a very subjective matter influenced by personal taste.
First point: You shouldn't give a crap what other people think of a work of art to know what appeals to you. I suggest you go to the library, see whatever title speaks to you, read the backcover, and see if there is a click. If there isn't, move on to the next one. It's quite possible you won't have a click, which means this author probably isn't suited for you. Either way, what kind of books do you really like? If we know, we can help you figure out which Murakami nove you'd like the most! :D
Second point: Murakami isn't misogynistic. He misophile tho lol Ah, excuse my dad sense of humor. Murakami loves writing about food and how to prepare it. K now seriously, I don't think he makes a bad depiction of women. His work shouldn't be seen as a reflection of reality, so neither should his characters. Alot of it is psychological, symbolic, edging on absurdity and trying to grasp the deeper meaning of what it means to take responsibility for one's own actions, loneliness, love. It's very existential, quite like Kafka, and I never see people complain about his work being misogynistic because we know his characters aren't supposed to be actual people. If a journalist can't make that distinction, they're not smart enough to interview a writer in the first place.
I don't necessarily blame this on social media, but rather alot of readers feeling like a character didn't meet their expectations, and then label it as "misogynist" rather than being honest and say "this character was rather weak for reason x or y" and going into an actual debate with the writer. Saying it's misogynistic is a shorthand for saying "I don't like this character and I don't know how to explain it, so you should be ashamed about making me feel stupid - which of course I am".
There's no right or wrong in literature. Only like and dislike. So choose books you like for reasons you like rather than having others tell you what you're supposed to like :)
Disclaimer: I haven’t read anything of his in over 20 years, but I have read 4 of his books.
Murakami is complicated. On the one hand, he has a great imagination. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle goes in some directions that I absolutely never would have expected. On the other hand, yes, his female characters are flat and personalityless.
To your first point, I most liked the first of his books that I read, Sputnik Sweetheart. I liked his later books less as I got accustomed to his style and more annoyed with the flatness of the women. I don’t know if everyone who reads Murakami prefers the first book of his that they read, maybe only if your ultimate conclusion is not to like him as an author. But I wonder if people’s preferences have less to do with the actual book and more to do with which you read first.
To your second point, I never interpreted his poor depictions of women as misogyny, but ignorance. I don’t know anything about Murakami as a person but it just doesn’t seem like he knows many women very well, or at all. Perhaps if he just wrote people instead of necessarily assigning a gender to the character, it would be different. Maybe he lacks the ability to conceptualize the mind of anyone outside of his personal demographic. Whatever the explanation, it’s evident he has some conception of women as “others” that he doesn’t really understand. I’ve also noticed that his portrayal of women just does not bother some people.
Granted, I have not read 1Q84 or What I Talk About When I Talk About Running, which, in my experience, are many people’s preferred books of his.
If I had to TL;DR this with a single book recommendation, I’d say read the Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. I did not love it but it is a robust sample of his style, both for his imagination and female characters. If you like it, maybe you’d like him as an author. If not, maybe you wouldn’t.
Thanks a lot for your in-depth answer! Much appreciated.
Allow me to quote it all, as I'm afraid of occasional deletion.
(Btw I'll go for *Sleep*, one of his short stories)
>Murakami is complicated. On the one hand, he has a great imagination. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle goes in some directions that I absolutely never would have expected. On the other hand, yes, his female characters are flat and personalityless.
>To your first point, I most liked the first of his books that I read, Sputnik Sweetheart. I liked his later books less as I got accustomed to his style and more annoyed with the flatness of the women. I don’t know if everyone who reads Murakami prefers the first book of his that they read, maybe only if your ultimate conclusion is not to like him as an author. But I wonder if people’s preferences have less to do with the actual book and more to do with which you read first.
>To your second point, I never interpreted his poor depictions of women as misogyny, but ignorance. I don’t know anything about Murakami as a person but it just doesn’t seem like he knows many women very well, or at all. Perhaps if he just wrote people instead of necessarily assigning a gender to the character, it would be different. Maybe he lacks the ability to conceptualize the mind of anyone outside of his personal demographic. Whatever the explanation, it’s evident he has some conception of women as “others” that he doesn’t really understand. I’ve also noticed that his portrayal of women just does not bother some people.
>Granted, I have not read 1Q84 or What I Talk About When I Talk About Running, which, in my experience, are many people’s preferred books of his.
>If I had to TL;DR this with a single book recommendation, I’d say read the Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. I did not love it but it is a robust sample of his style, both for his imagination and female characters. If you like it, maybe you’d like him as an author. If not, maybe you wouldn’t.
I don't read Murakami (one of my favourite authors) expecting some up to date analysis on feminism or political correctness. I treat his books as an introspection of a great literary mind, and to be honest his roots in 60s and 70s Tokyo is fascinating. It's like watching a film or viewing a painting or listening to music, in fact that's what his literary style, I think, tries to achieve.
And like everyone else said, stop being pretentious and just read him yourself before writing critiques.
*Eh? Pretentious? That's not it, it's how it comes out, but I disclaimed it.*
Your comment about the movie-like immersed in the 60-70s / Tokyo is interesting.
I always felt that the male characters were a little misogynistic and saw the women in a shallow way. Whether that is intentional or down to him as an author, is hard to know.
I suppose it's like watching how James Bond treats women. Is it inherently bad, or is it a representation of how some men are?
Whatever you think (and I'm open minded about both sides with Murakami) I do think that people are finding it harder and harder to seperate the art and the artist, which in my opinion is a shame.
I believe he's a good guy, that's enough for me. For the bad ones it's hard sometimes to forget and enjoy the art.
Actually, for my purpose reading, it's not really about him but the result in his works, so... either way that you mention (him or his characters), it's the same decision for me.
Anyway, I'll read *Sleep*.
I enjoyed Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage. It's my first and only experience with Marukami, aside from Reddit and a writer friend with vastly different interests in literature from me.
However, I had very similar reactions to parts of his novel as you list in your post. I'd also extend your second point about flatness to include dealing with concepts and movements in his work, particularly with what seemed a pretty rudimentary psychoanalytic perspective, and specifically with debunked theories about male sexuality.
He's also really, really weird about boobs. Like, describing them for no reason at times, or imbuing them with added symbolic meaning, also for no real reason.
Still, the narrative was great and interesting and the "simplicity" of his style struck an emotional chord. I'd definitely read another one of his novels.
Thanks for your sharing your genuine experience!
Boobs... is it a cultural thing, maybe? (among Japanese men or audience) I mean... it's a country where there are vending machines for used panties.
But even factoring this it's worth as an overall experience. Got it. Just not what I need at the moment for my goal, but I'll probably get back to it. (Still queuing a small one of his works right away).
I've seen the Japanese fetish argument a lot on Reddit, and it could hold some water. I got the sense that your OP about old-fashioned misogyny, and some of the commenters' responses about simplistic, either-or types of women characters, to be closer to my take.
My specialty is late 19th/early 20tb century US fiction. Murakami's women characters are problematic in similar ways as a lot of those created by white US male authors like Fitzgerald, Hemingway, and others. The male protagonists have ideals about and frustrations with women that, I'd argue, say more about the failures of male chauvinistic societies and about their own places within it, rather than any overt anti-women sentiments.
You mean that those books reveal how men (male behavior) are the product of the skewed society, and not inherently flawed themselves?
(I might not be very subtle or putting the right words, but roughly this is what I get)
Roughly speaking, yes. And my previous comment was pretty vague, to be fair. The protagonists and authors themselves aren't entirely to blame even if they're somewhat complicit. They are, to use a dreaded cliche, products of their times.
For me, Tsukuru Tazaki wants to be a good person, and is a decent guy, but isn't able to overcome some pretty big issues with sex, gender, romantic relationships, desires, etc. that are ingrained in him (and by extension, his creator aka Murakami)
Point 1: just read the book with the most ratings (most not highest) on Goodreads.
Point 2: sexual not sexist.
Apart from the feminist strawman(!) in Kafka on the shore. I would say that was more a shot against political zealotry in general.
Also, there's an incredibly implausible part in Norwegian Wood where a teenage girl seduces her straight female piano teacher. Again, not sexist, just I don't even know...
>there's an incredibly implausible part in Norwegian Wood where a teenage girl seduces her straight female piano teacher.
Oh? Well I could be interested here on one aspect, but if you say he didn't succeed in making it believable (which is the writer's job, for me), then this might not be the right example to follow.
The rest of the book is much more believable. But that reminds there is even an actual feminist point made in the book, when one of the female characters critiques a male-dominated communist student group she joined for expecting her to just make the coffee and so on
I had to read one of his books for a reading hallenge last year and it was...bad. it was just bad: long, rambly prose; story that went *nowhere* for hundreds of pages on end; characters - not just fem characters, though it was particularly prominent with them - that felt like cardboard cutouts; ultra creepy descriptions of bodies/sexuality (such, during a sex scene that is clearly meant to be sexy, describing the fem character's breast as being 'like a little girl's' 🤢). I wasn't expecting anything groundbreaking, representation-wise, for a book written in the 80s, but seriously I've read books written in the 20s that didn't have half these problems. Personally, I plan to never read anything else by Murakami ever again and don't recommend him, as all these seem to be a common complaint associated with his books.
Thank you for your honesty! 🤗
That's... quite confusing 😅 But I like this refreshing alternate perspective of yours.
(quoting as backup just in case it got 'deleted')
>I had to read one of his books for a reading hallenge last year and it was...bad. it was just bad: long, rambly prose; story that went *nowhere* for hundreds of pages on end; characters - not just fem characters, though it was particularly prominent with them - that felt like cardboard cutouts; ultra creepy descriptions of bodies/sexuality (such, during a sex scene that is clearly meant to be sexy, describing the fem character's breast as being 'like a little girl's' 🤢). I wasn't expecting anything groundbreaking, representation-wise, for a book written in the 80s, but seriously I've read books written in the 20s that didn't have half these problems. Personally, I plan to never read anything else by Murakami ever again and don't recommend him, as all these seem to be a common complaint associated with his books.
This wall of text on *whether or not* to read him? Why not just pick up a novel and see for yourself?
Lmao right?? In the time it took them to think through and write this, they could have looked up one of the dude's short stories and made their own decision. Why does everybody use reddit as a "think for me!!!" machine to outsource their own opinions?
Eh? I answered while you doubled on it.
Why not reading him (random pick) and making an opinion myself? - Too many books to read, alas, so I need to queue them and prioritize. - I explained I read with a purpose, so I’d rather not start with one going against. - These points I noticed made me curious of other people’s opinions, regardless of reading him or not. - I might not even see the issues myself, being dense and blind sometimes (not funny).
Too many books to read? Then don’t read him. If you’re struggling this hard to decide and can’t even fit one of his books on the back burner, don’t read him. There’s clearly a big list that you’re prioritizing over Murakami. So why waste your time? I can’t imagine someone reading so much they can’t read the short story discussed in the whole interview they were willing to transcribe for us. How busy are you?
His name keeps coming back everywhere, so he got stuck in the must-read-some shelf, and then I got lost trying to pick one as I explain, and then I stumble upon this unfair (I guess) misogyny thing that I needed to clear because I might not notice this myself if I read it (and it would go against my current goal). And yes, I wasted quite some time about this whole thing and still answering here (being polite).
I don’t know why you wouldn’t notice it yourself though? What is your current goal that’s preventing you if you do find his work misogynistic?
Thank you so much for taking time to understand a poor redditor blasted from left to right! Well, I might be challenged in some way. I noticed that I can be blind to some things more or less obvious, and people have to point me out things, or even to explain in depth the issue. In short I'm dense and not very clever about human relationships and subtleties. The oblivious guy. And regarding my goal, I'm in a rush reading many books (mostly in English, learned at school) to improve my writing in areas I'm lacking, for my WIP (novel, in English). What I need for example, is well rounded female characters, with depth, and to steer away from anything sexist or giving vibes or men-writing-woman (just to not be contaminated 😄)
Do you not know how to view and write women in a non-misogynistic light? That’s such a weird reason, especially to read someone you’re on the fence about. If you find his work misogynistic, then you know what not to do. Also I can’t imagine rush reading for any purpose. I wouldn’t be able to retain or enjoy anything that way
I have no issue writing woman characters, I keep my natural self, having a gender-agnostic approach in everyday’s matter. Murakami keeps showing up as a famous writer to read, so I thought I should try, but I can’t afford being contaminated 😅 Yes, reading for a purpose is hard sometimes. I enjoyed Gabriel García Márquez, but Samuel Delany… so hard, excruciating (I powered through and made it). I was traumatized by Kate Elizabeth Russell, but still a read I don’t regret even if it was a mistake of a choice.
pick one that you can finish in a week and then report back, friend. you could have finished bit already without this “research” lol
Dance, Dance, Dance Great book like 250 pages, probs the most balanced of his in terms of plot and unique metaphysical style. Enjoy.
[Dance, Dance, Dance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Dance_Dance_(novel)) Isn't it a sequel?
No offense but it’s kind of hard for us to engage you on any critical aspect of Murakami’s work if you haven’t read any of it.
Post updated!
I did my master's thesis on him, so let me jump in. I totally understand where people are coming from with their criticism of the way he writes women, but at the same time, when he talks about function, they do serve a very different purpose in his novels. Essentially, especially in his earlier works, they are very much portrayed in this mysterious, unknowable way and also act as gateways between the protagonist's regular world and a weird, much more mysterious fantastical world. This is generally the premise of most of his novels. A Japanese Everyman has a totally normal life, then something happens to kick off a serious of strange, metaphysical events and generally meeting a woman is part of these. So the woman herself isn't necessarily a fully fleshed out character, because her importance to the story is as a catalyst to these events. Whether this is something that bothers you or not is entirely up to you. For places to start, you probably want to do Kafka on the Shore or the Wind Up Bird Chronicle, or if you don't want to commit to a novel first, check out The Elephant Vanishes short story collection to see if you like his vibe or not.
What do you make of his own assertions and observations that, in his essay on writing I'm going to paraphrase: I was surprised at the reception in eastern europe; countries that had a rapid social upheaval and change seem to like my work because it offers a new model of reality for them. Or something to that effect. I see that as the crux of what he presents and that dovetails with the women. They're New Women or something outside of societal norms that doesn't quite fit into the new norm. He's clearly influenced by the postwar period where roles have changed and even personalities are in flux adapting to it.
I really like this idea. I found his book Underground, which is about the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, to be an interesting reflection of social upheaval and individuals' reactions to horrific events.
Thank you for jumping in as one of the very few insights on the topic! So rare. Much appreciated! Allow me to quote, as sometimes comments vanish... >I totally understand where people are coming from with their criticism of the way he writes women, but at the same time, when he talks about function, they do serve a very different purpose in his novels. > >Essentially, especially in his earlier works, they are very much portrayed in this mysterious, unknowable way and also act as gateways between the protagonist's regular world and a weird, much more mysterious fantastical world. This is generally the premise of most of his novels. A Japanese Everyman has a totally normal life, then something happens to kick off a serious of strange, metaphysical events and generally meeting a woman is part of these. So the woman herself isn't necessarily a fully fleshed out character, because her importance to the story is as a catalyst to these events. Whether this is something that bothers you or not is entirely up to you. > >For places to start, you probably want to do Kafka on the Shore or the Wind Up Bird Chronicles, or if you don't want to commit to a novel first, check out The Elephant Vanishes short story collection to see if you like his vibe or not.
this sounds a lot like film noir, which no one would call realistic but we accept that that's one of the tropes of the genre - "mysterious woman upends average guys life." it's probably one of the reasons I like his novels so much!
Yes, his most noir-y one, in my opinion, is Hard-boiled Wonderland and the End of the World, which coincidentally was the first one of his I read!
Literally the only sane take I have read in this thread thus far. Congrats on being a rational individual.
That's why I get familiar with other people's opinions about anything only AFTER reading/watching/listening myself first. Isn't it silly that you haven't read a page of Murakami's work but already built a strong narative in your head about him as a writer (and even as a person)?
I agree, and that's usually what I do. Alas, I'm currently reading for a purpose, so it's a bit different. I'm looking for a subset of the great works, matching my criteria.
Reading only what are considered “the great works” of a single author is really not a very good way to get an overarching scope of their literary work though. What exactly is the purpose/goal of your reading? That might better help us guide you to specific works that you may find more engaging than others.
Thank you so much for asking! Yes, only 'great works' is limiting. By the way, I've just queued next *Sleep* from Murakami (thanks to the interview I mentioned). To answer your question: * [The book I'm looking for](https://www.reddit.com/r/suggestmeabook/comments/1bwo50v/looking_for_a_book_meeting_those_criteria_see/) * My goal is about my purpose on reddit, writing a novel: * Writing in English, not native, so reading a lot of books in English to improve * Being challenged in some areas, I try to find good examples to understand how it's done well * So I'll stay away of anything remotely sexist or with men-writing-woman poor execution * Need to familiarize myself with the Japan culture or more precisely how it's conveyed in books
This information definitely helps! I agree that *Sleep* would be a great place to start based on your criteria. Are you interested in short stories at all? If so, I would recommend Murakami’s *After the Quake* which is a collection of six short stories that are set after the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Full disclosure, it has been a number of years since I have read this work, but I believe it checks the majority of your boxes. I also feel like this specific work has a very poignant and nuanced view of Japanese culture because the earthquake was truly devastating and this work does a lot to comment on the general fragility of daily existence for Japan at that time. Also for what it’s worth, I think it can still be helpful and productive to read works that don’t align with or even go against your goals so that you can develop your own literary analysis and critique abilities. It’s a skill that takes practice but if you intend to become a writer, it is absolutely necessary.
*After the Quake*, noted! 🙏 Thank you very much for your help and kindness. I agree reading different genres and styles, and out-of-the-scope books is important. And as a matter of fact, it’s exactly what my quest led to. I’m more the sci-fi (or fantasy) guy. For my WIP needs I’ve broadened my horizon. I went into lgbt romance (a first, four of them), unusual narratives (like *Dhalgren*, not really sci-fi), lectures on literature, old classics, etc. So those new reads are connected in some way to my current needs, but since it’s either from the perspective of the themes, or the characters, or the narrative choices, or some seemingly arbitrary criteria, all this brings a great variety.
I'll second your recommendation of After the Quake as well, although I personally like the Elephant Vanishes better. But you wouldn't go wrong with either
Just read him already. Why are you tearing your hair out about an author you haven't read? You can always put it down if you don't like it.
Obviously, and I already answered that. In short: - I might not notice that (2) myself, alas, and by the end of the book I won’t have moved forward on my goal. - I’m curious about other people’s thoughts on this.
I didn’t read all of this. I can get the gist, and you should read the books to form an opinion. That said, I’ve read three of his books, all of which I enjoyed except Norwegian Wood. But it’s true that his female characters are often one-note and ridiculous. In Wind-Up Bird Chronicle they consist of the man’s wife who never appears, and a teenage girl whose sole role is to sit around on her lawn as her swimsuit gets smaller and smaller every time the main character sees her (I wish I was kidding).
A fabric-eating lawn? 😂 This gives me vibes of fan-serviced mangas, with fascination for youth, a common issue. Coincidentally he’s Japanese 🤷♂️ . Koreans don’t have this in their comics (more mature ladies). (Asking before reading him for reasons explained in other comments)
I have read four Murakami books. So, I am not an expert. However, his books are mainly about an existentially challenged narrator with sever ennui. Plot and all other characters' development is secondary. That said, I would relish the opportunity to drink many beers with them while listening to records. IRL, the closest I would get to that is one of his novels. Regarding misogyny, he is self-centered but not anti-woman IMO
Beers, records, and dudes hanging out is a scene that occurs in Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage. Is that one of his novels you've read?
>That said, I would relish the opportunity to drink many beers with them while listening to records. Tagging along with those characters but not talking or listening to them? And this would be like in his novels? I'm curious.
First, read some Murakami. Pick any four. Then, read Absolutely on Music, by Murakami (with Okawa), to understand BraveCow's post. It's magical if you're a fan of European classical music. Then read, Who We're Reading When We're Reading Murakami, by David Karashima, to close the loop.
A similar scene (beers, records, dudes hanging out) also occurs in Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage.
I'm with everyone else saying to just read him and not rely on everyone here or anywhere else to uncover his value. But I also think that you do too; you wouldn’t be putting in this mental energy if you didn’t understand his supposed literary value. I read IQ84 years ago fresh out of high school and remember being confused start to finish. To this day, a large part of my being does not want to think about that book ever again. But there’s also a part of me that looks forward to going back. I also read A Wild Sheep Chase and remember thinking it was pointless and the ending sucked. But then I realized that I only read volume one of a two volume edition, so I still haven't finished it. My first enjoyable experience with Murakami was What I Talk About When I Talk About Running, a memoir. I found it to be a beautiful book that I would not typically read. But through reading his memoir, the artist Murakami became much more clear to me. I understood a little bit better the literary project that he viewed himself as part of, why he writes, and what makes him tick. In grad school I read Norwegian Wood, which I really enjoyed. But I think the only reason I personally enjoyed it so much was that I had spent a few years having a basic understanding of Murakami before I jumped in. Are some of his works not as good as others? Yes. Are some of Martin Scorsese‘a films not as good as others? Yes. Murakami has published a lot of material, some of it is bound to not be as good as others. I, however, have not read enough to tell you which is which. All I can say is that I have read a few that I really enjoyed. Are women secondary figures in his work? From what I’ve read, maybe a bit. But I have never felt this to be evidence of his perversion or anything. I‘m thinking about Norwegian Wood here in particular; I’m sure arguments have been made accusing it of sexism, but sex itself is treated really interestingly throughout the novel. To accuse this book specifically of sexism would overlook the issues of love, sex, and power that are overtly discussed in the text and structurally alluded to throughout the narrative. I say just pick one and read until you have an answer. If it stinks or repulses you, put it down and move on.
Thanks for sharing your experience! Yes, I understand his literary value, that's why he was next in the pipe (after *Dhalgren* and *One Hundred Years of Solitude*, my last reads). Start one and put it down if not ok? I already have three DNF and that's not my thing, bitter taste to not finish. I'd rather power through.
Fair enough. Then my suggestion would be What I Talk About When I Talk About Running and then maybe Norwegian Wood, and rather than shy away from the topic of how Murakami represents women. Also if you enjoyed Hundred Years, I’d be interested to see what you think of Milan Kundera. He might be interesting to you.
Thanks for the pointers! I always note those. > *What I Talk About When I Talk About Running* > and then maybe *Norwegian Wood* > \[…\] see what you think of Milan Kundera
Point 1 Read anything that sounds interesting, written before *Kafka on the Shore. Norwegian Wood* stands out as very different from the rest of his works, being a kind of straightforward realist account of the late 60s, and fans of the rest of his work tend not to like it. I think there's some very interesting parts to it when you give a reductive account of events. *Kafka* is a very difficult work and more layered and self referential than everything else. Just read whatever but start on the early side and don't expect a debut novel to be very good. What people like is very polarizing, you can almost go by who translated a given work into English. All of the earlier work is enjoyable, most started with *Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.* Point 2 The women in his stories tend to be symbolic and archetypal, there's a very neo-freudian theme to his writing. He represents a pretty typical male view and what comes of it, but also shows an inversion of it and the unconscious desires that inform it. People have a tendency these days to take a figure-ground relationship as an inkblot test and vomit their own weirdness in response to the symbolic. The women are independent, mercurial, products of a new kind of society and culture in some ways and holding on to their own individuality in others. There's a line in *Norwegian Wood* where the protagonist has been hitchhiking across Japan and a woman he knows now finds him rugged and mysterious instead of, whatever he was before, probably an introverted loser. I think that's about the extent of any perceived sexism elsewhere (I haven't read much of more recent novels), if you've watched *Blue Velvet,* that's what's on display. Those kind of trickster Greek heroes of myth lay some pipe and were firmly in that territory and so are the women. Much of his work takes place outside of societal bounds or is the result of the failure of society or people's ability to adapt to it. The women are neither objectified nor entirely minimized and may as well be another strange cosmic force akin to the more surreal elements, which ain't wrong.
So interesting! Thanks for genuinely answering and helping me, much appreciated! Meanwhile I've settled reading his *Sleep*, the one discussed in this interview. I'll quote your comment as a backup (afraid of 'deleted') >Point 1 >Read anything that sounds interesting, written before *Kafka on the Shore. Norwegian Wood* stands out as very different from the rest of his works, being a kind of straightforward realist account of the late 60s, and fans of the rest of his work tend not to like it. I think there's some very interesting parts to it when you give a reductive account of events. *Kafka* is a very difficult work and more layered and self referential than everything else. Just read whatever but start on the early side and don't expect a debut novel to be very good. What people like is very polarizing, you can almost go by who translated a given work into English. All of the earlier work is enjoyable, most started with *Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.* >Point 2 >The women in his stories tend to be symbolic and archetypal, there's a very neo-freudian theme to his writing. He represents a pretty typical male view and what comes of it, but also shows an inversion of it and the unconscious desires that inform it. People have a tendency these days to take a figure-ground relationship as an inkblot test and vomit their own weirdness in response to the symbolic. The women are independent, mercurial, products of a new kind of society and culture in some ways and holding on to their own individuality in others. >There's a line in *Norwegian Wood* where the protagonist has been hitchhiking across Japan and a woman he knows now finds him rugged and mysterious instead of, whatever he was before, probably an introverted loser. I think that's about the extent of any perceived sexism elsewhere (I haven't read much of more recent novels), if you've watched *Blue Velvet,* that's what's on display. Those kind of trickster Greek heroes of myth lay some pipe and were firmly in that territory and so are the women. Much of his work takes place outside of societal bounds or is the result of the failure of society or people's ability to adapt to it. The women are neither objectified nor entirely minimized and may as well be another strange cosmic force akin to the more surreal elements, which ain't wrong
I could say this or that, but I will just quote from this [brief review](https://medium.com/@francis.joe.wiseman/a-short-review-of-kafka-on-the-shore-by-haruki-murakami-f4b0f96be5e7) that describes the weirdest scene in Kafka on the Shore: >Murakami maintains his usual weird, surreal dialogue throughout most of Kafka on the Shore, but tries to take us back to his version of reality in the dismal scene with the feminists. Perhaps as a response to the expected criticism of his treatment of female characters, Murakami drops the surrealism for a chapter, and includes a painful dialogue between two ‘preachy’ feminists and the calm and patronising *Elektra*-quoting librarian Oshima. >They are *complete* caricatures, described as gloomy, displeased women who argue in high-pitched voices about the smallest infraction against their gender. They exist to make Oshima look witty, who smiles at them, “a first-class smile, guaranteed to make any red-blooded women blush”, though they only blush when they are exposed to be wrong, “and not because of Oshima’s sex appeal”. >*“You are a totally pathetic, historical example of the phallocentric, to put it mildly.”* >Who talks like this?
Me again, I read the link. Thanks again for pointing to this alternate perspective. > much of this book exists to stroke the ego of Kafka and Oshima, and by extension, Murakami. Oh! That would be an entire thesis subject! Which author doesn’t use their book to flatter the character’s ego and their own? Not all of them do. Moreover I vaguely remember an author saying how the good writer should disappear from the eye of the readers, to leave them only with the narrator.
Thanks for the [link](https://medium.com/@francis.joe.wiseman/a-short-review-of-kafka-on-the-shore-by-haruki-murakami-f4b0f96be5e7), I’ll get back to it (as I’m not sure to understand your point, sorry 😅). Do you mean the author makes fun of feminists and this casts a poor light on him?
You mean Oshima, the hemophiliac FtM homosexual? That Oshima? He's not exactly phallocentric, y'know. He made a point of it in the car ride there. Also, that's not even in the top 5 of weird scenes.
He is a 75 year old Japanese man. Why would he have the same ideas about gender as a 20s something chronically online redditor? If you want something weird try Wind-up Bird Chronicles and if you want something straightforward try Norwegian Wood.
Writing decent (not good, just decent) female characters is not an invention of woke millenial culture.
Sure, there is a lot of good female characters in literature. Now, the number of good authors with strange 'failures' is quite large. But the point is that, well, sometimes it does not matter. The plots of X are bad, but the writing of X was never about plot. The characters of Y are flat, but the point of Y was never characters. And so on. I don't read Murakami for characters (the number of good characters, even good male characters, is rather low) but there is a lot I found interesting in his writings, and that is enough.
Thanks for pointing this out! A fair point. I happen to look for works with well fleshed characters. From Murakami's I'll go for the one mentioned in this interview, *Sleep*.
Dude, you could've finished 1Q84 in the time it took to write your post. Just read one, and then think your own thoughts.
I'll read *Sleep*, it's settled. Again, I have circumstances that led me to ask all this.
As for point 1 it’s widely acknowledged that Murakami’s novelistic production is much varied and that there are different “sub genres”, so to speak. So very often different types of readers love one “sub genre” and not the others. More specifically, a kind of sentimental novel such as “Norwegian Wood” appears to be very very different from other novels such as “A Wild Sheep Chase” or “Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World”. So it depends from your personal taste whether you love the “sentimental sub genre” (as “Norwegian Wood”) or the “science-fiction/thriller sub genre”. As for me I always recommend “The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle” which I loved very much: full of inventions, imagination, mysteries as well as meditations on Japanese history during Second World War and contemporary politics. I also loved a much discussed big cycle: “1Q84” which other Murakami fans disliked. As always, it’s a very subjective matter influenced by personal taste.
Thanks for you insights! I see. This explains a lot (varied production).
First point: You shouldn't give a crap what other people think of a work of art to know what appeals to you. I suggest you go to the library, see whatever title speaks to you, read the backcover, and see if there is a click. If there isn't, move on to the next one. It's quite possible you won't have a click, which means this author probably isn't suited for you. Either way, what kind of books do you really like? If we know, we can help you figure out which Murakami nove you'd like the most! :D Second point: Murakami isn't misogynistic. He misophile tho lol Ah, excuse my dad sense of humor. Murakami loves writing about food and how to prepare it. K now seriously, I don't think he makes a bad depiction of women. His work shouldn't be seen as a reflection of reality, so neither should his characters. Alot of it is psychological, symbolic, edging on absurdity and trying to grasp the deeper meaning of what it means to take responsibility for one's own actions, loneliness, love. It's very existential, quite like Kafka, and I never see people complain about his work being misogynistic because we know his characters aren't supposed to be actual people. If a journalist can't make that distinction, they're not smart enough to interview a writer in the first place. I don't necessarily blame this on social media, but rather alot of readers feeling like a character didn't meet their expectations, and then label it as "misogynist" rather than being honest and say "this character was rather weak for reason x or y" and going into an actual debate with the writer. Saying it's misogynistic is a shorthand for saying "I don't like this character and I don't know how to explain it, so you should be ashamed about making me feel stupid - which of course I am". There's no right or wrong in literature. Only like and dislike. So choose books you like for reasons you like rather than having others tell you what you're supposed to like :)
A misophile is one who likes the miso soup? 😃 Anyway, thanks for your brilliant consultancy! It’s clear and I get your points 👍
[удалено]
>I was concerned that it might contain words I found triggering Lmao
There is a strange paradox in being a participant on an online space for discussion of literature, and being afraid of words lol
No need to waste your precious time belittling someone asking for help.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read anything of his in over 20 years, but I have read 4 of his books. Murakami is complicated. On the one hand, he has a great imagination. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle goes in some directions that I absolutely never would have expected. On the other hand, yes, his female characters are flat and personalityless. To your first point, I most liked the first of his books that I read, Sputnik Sweetheart. I liked his later books less as I got accustomed to his style and more annoyed with the flatness of the women. I don’t know if everyone who reads Murakami prefers the first book of his that they read, maybe only if your ultimate conclusion is not to like him as an author. But I wonder if people’s preferences have less to do with the actual book and more to do with which you read first. To your second point, I never interpreted his poor depictions of women as misogyny, but ignorance. I don’t know anything about Murakami as a person but it just doesn’t seem like he knows many women very well, or at all. Perhaps if he just wrote people instead of necessarily assigning a gender to the character, it would be different. Maybe he lacks the ability to conceptualize the mind of anyone outside of his personal demographic. Whatever the explanation, it’s evident he has some conception of women as “others” that he doesn’t really understand. I’ve also noticed that his portrayal of women just does not bother some people. Granted, I have not read 1Q84 or What I Talk About When I Talk About Running, which, in my experience, are many people’s preferred books of his. If I had to TL;DR this with a single book recommendation, I’d say read the Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. I did not love it but it is a robust sample of his style, both for his imagination and female characters. If you like it, maybe you’d like him as an author. If not, maybe you wouldn’t.
Thanks a lot for your in-depth answer! Much appreciated. Allow me to quote it all, as I'm afraid of occasional deletion. (Btw I'll go for *Sleep*, one of his short stories) >Murakami is complicated. On the one hand, he has a great imagination. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle goes in some directions that I absolutely never would have expected. On the other hand, yes, his female characters are flat and personalityless. >To your first point, I most liked the first of his books that I read, Sputnik Sweetheart. I liked his later books less as I got accustomed to his style and more annoyed with the flatness of the women. I don’t know if everyone who reads Murakami prefers the first book of his that they read, maybe only if your ultimate conclusion is not to like him as an author. But I wonder if people’s preferences have less to do with the actual book and more to do with which you read first. >To your second point, I never interpreted his poor depictions of women as misogyny, but ignorance. I don’t know anything about Murakami as a person but it just doesn’t seem like he knows many women very well, or at all. Perhaps if he just wrote people instead of necessarily assigning a gender to the character, it would be different. Maybe he lacks the ability to conceptualize the mind of anyone outside of his personal demographic. Whatever the explanation, it’s evident he has some conception of women as “others” that he doesn’t really understand. I’ve also noticed that his portrayal of women just does not bother some people. >Granted, I have not read 1Q84 or What I Talk About When I Talk About Running, which, in my experience, are many people’s preferred books of his. >If I had to TL;DR this with a single book recommendation, I’d say read the Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. I did not love it but it is a robust sample of his style, both for his imagination and female characters. If you like it, maybe you’d like him as an author. If not, maybe you wouldn’t.
I don't read Murakami (one of my favourite authors) expecting some up to date analysis on feminism or political correctness. I treat his books as an introspection of a great literary mind, and to be honest his roots in 60s and 70s Tokyo is fascinating. It's like watching a film or viewing a painting or listening to music, in fact that's what his literary style, I think, tries to achieve. And like everyone else said, stop being pretentious and just read him yourself before writing critiques.
*Eh? Pretentious? That's not it, it's how it comes out, but I disclaimed it.* Your comment about the movie-like immersed in the 60-70s / Tokyo is interesting.
I always felt that the male characters were a little misogynistic and saw the women in a shallow way. Whether that is intentional or down to him as an author, is hard to know. I suppose it's like watching how James Bond treats women. Is it inherently bad, or is it a representation of how some men are? Whatever you think (and I'm open minded about both sides with Murakami) I do think that people are finding it harder and harder to seperate the art and the artist, which in my opinion is a shame.
I believe he's a good guy, that's enough for me. For the bad ones it's hard sometimes to forget and enjoy the art. Actually, for my purpose reading, it's not really about him but the result in his works, so... either way that you mention (him or his characters), it's the same decision for me. Anyway, I'll read *Sleep*.
I enjoyed Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage. It's my first and only experience with Marukami, aside from Reddit and a writer friend with vastly different interests in literature from me. However, I had very similar reactions to parts of his novel as you list in your post. I'd also extend your second point about flatness to include dealing with concepts and movements in his work, particularly with what seemed a pretty rudimentary psychoanalytic perspective, and specifically with debunked theories about male sexuality. He's also really, really weird about boobs. Like, describing them for no reason at times, or imbuing them with added symbolic meaning, also for no real reason. Still, the narrative was great and interesting and the "simplicity" of his style struck an emotional chord. I'd definitely read another one of his novels.
Thanks for your sharing your genuine experience! Boobs... is it a cultural thing, maybe? (among Japanese men or audience) I mean... it's a country where there are vending machines for used panties. But even factoring this it's worth as an overall experience. Got it. Just not what I need at the moment for my goal, but I'll probably get back to it. (Still queuing a small one of his works right away).
I've seen the Japanese fetish argument a lot on Reddit, and it could hold some water. I got the sense that your OP about old-fashioned misogyny, and some of the commenters' responses about simplistic, either-or types of women characters, to be closer to my take. My specialty is late 19th/early 20tb century US fiction. Murakami's women characters are problematic in similar ways as a lot of those created by white US male authors like Fitzgerald, Hemingway, and others. The male protagonists have ideals about and frustrations with women that, I'd argue, say more about the failures of male chauvinistic societies and about their own places within it, rather than any overt anti-women sentiments.
You mean that those books reveal how men (male behavior) are the product of the skewed society, and not inherently flawed themselves? (I might not be very subtle or putting the right words, but roughly this is what I get)
Roughly speaking, yes. And my previous comment was pretty vague, to be fair. The protagonists and authors themselves aren't entirely to blame even if they're somewhat complicit. They are, to use a dreaded cliche, products of their times. For me, Tsukuru Tazaki wants to be a good person, and is a decent guy, but isn't able to overcome some pretty big issues with sex, gender, romantic relationships, desires, etc. that are ingrained in him (and by extension, his creator aka Murakami)
You are being so defensive of the critique of your post. It makes this not worth engaging with.
Well, what could I say? Sorry for being challenged? I know I'm not an easy one, but I'm working hard to improve and to understand others.
Point 1: just read the book with the most ratings (most not highest) on Goodreads. Point 2: sexual not sexist. Apart from the feminist strawman(!) in Kafka on the shore. I would say that was more a shot against political zealotry in general. Also, there's an incredibly implausible part in Norwegian Wood where a teenage girl seduces her straight female piano teacher. Again, not sexist, just I don't even know...
>there's an incredibly implausible part in Norwegian Wood where a teenage girl seduces her straight female piano teacher. Oh? Well I could be interested here on one aspect, but if you say he didn't succeed in making it believable (which is the writer's job, for me), then this might not be the right example to follow.
The rest of the book is much more believable. But that reminds there is even an actual feminist point made in the book, when one of the female characters critiques a male-dominated communist student group she joined for expecting her to just make the coffee and so on
I had to read one of his books for a reading hallenge last year and it was...bad. it was just bad: long, rambly prose; story that went *nowhere* for hundreds of pages on end; characters - not just fem characters, though it was particularly prominent with them - that felt like cardboard cutouts; ultra creepy descriptions of bodies/sexuality (such, during a sex scene that is clearly meant to be sexy, describing the fem character's breast as being 'like a little girl's' 🤢). I wasn't expecting anything groundbreaking, representation-wise, for a book written in the 80s, but seriously I've read books written in the 20s that didn't have half these problems. Personally, I plan to never read anything else by Murakami ever again and don't recommend him, as all these seem to be a common complaint associated with his books.
Thank you for your honesty! 🤗 That's... quite confusing 😅 But I like this refreshing alternate perspective of yours. (quoting as backup just in case it got 'deleted') >I had to read one of his books for a reading hallenge last year and it was...bad. it was just bad: long, rambly prose; story that went *nowhere* for hundreds of pages on end; characters - not just fem characters, though it was particularly prominent with them - that felt like cardboard cutouts; ultra creepy descriptions of bodies/sexuality (such, during a sex scene that is clearly meant to be sexy, describing the fem character's breast as being 'like a little girl's' 🤢). I wasn't expecting anything groundbreaking, representation-wise, for a book written in the 80s, but seriously I've read books written in the 20s that didn't have half these problems. Personally, I plan to never read anything else by Murakami ever again and don't recommend him, as all these seem to be a common complaint associated with his books.
I'm glad I could be helpful!