Murakami - a complete waste of time?

randomguy

(warning - there may be spoilers ahead. if pointing out that at the end the novel doesn't even try to tie its threads together is a spoiler).

I was raging when I finished the Wind-Up Bird Chronicles a few days ago. Biggest waste of time in ages. I am never going to get back the hours I spent wading though it.

I am old enough nowadays that if I start a book and don't get into it, I just won't bother finishing it. Especially since I don't get much reading-time these days, what with having a life and stuff. But with Wind-up Bird the writing was ok, and it was intriguing, so i kept going: I wanted to get to the end to at least know what it was all about. One or two of the story-threads were interesting as well.

So I got to the end. And nothing is any clearer. Maybe there is some deep and meaningful point that went way over my head. Either that, or it was a load of sh1te. I mean, I can put up with things not making sense in books. I used to really like magic realism: Midnights Children, Gabrial Garcia Marquez, Borges, and am really into Louis de Bernieres south american trilogy at the moment. In all those, things that don't make sense happen, but they do make sense (especially if you know a bit about how reality is perceived in the cultures in which they are set). And there is internal cohesion - the magic makes sense within the narrative.

Or take Cryptonomicon or The Baroque Cycle - I get annoyed by the existence of the Enoch Root character, but he at least makes sense internally, he adheres to the logic of the world created by the narrator. In all of these, the author at least knows in what sense these things are meant to have happened, even if the characters or narrator doesn't. (So maybe it is just me. I don't know much about Japan, so maybe if you understand Japanese culture you know in what sense all of the narrative is meant. I didn't get Miyazaki's Spirited Away either, where people kept changing into rats and stuff).

I think Murakami doesn't know what any of his own story means. He has all these things happen, he has all these characters do stuff to each other, and you never know if within the internal logic of the story it is meant to be a dream, or if it is really happening. You never know what level things are meant to be happening on.

I kept reading because I presumed that it would all wind up making sense. I thought he would tell us at the end, (or at least give us enough information, or closure, or exposition or explanation or something so that we could know what it was all about.) I don't know if I am making sense now, but what I mean is that I kept reading because i thought by the end I would at least know whether for example each of the characters actually existed, whether he had actually been down the well, which characters were dreams or imagined or something.

Or am I just meant to take the whole thing as a series of narratives that do not link within the internal logic of the narrative, and are only linked by the overdone thematic links. Take the whole thing like an effort in dream-analysis.

Murakami has seriously annoyed me. Wind-Up Bird Chronicle was pointless, in the true sense of the word. There was no point. Are all his books like this? I'd almost read Norwegian Wood in the hope it would provide some retrospective sense/meaning/point to Wind-up Bird Chronicle...

showry

If you didn't like it then I suppose it was a complete waste of your time. I've had nothing but joy from reading him and love the random, disjointed style and the mix of the banal and the surreal.
I wouldn't give up on him, try Norwegian Wood or Kafka on the Shore first, or The Elephant Vanishes.

The Mad Hatter

Japanese fiction works a little bit differently anyhow. There's a lot more expected of the reader. You sort of get used to it if you watch a lot of Japanese films.

As to this:

I think Murakami doesn't know what any of his own story means. He has all these things happen, he has all these characters do stuff to each other, and you never know if within the internal logic of the story it is meant to be a dream, or if it is really happening. You never know what level things are meant to be happening on.

I'd be fairly certain that Murakami does know exactly what he's doing. But you're not necessarily supposed to, at least (I suppose) on the first read. Personally I find it fascinating when an author doesn't present all the facts up-front, and I like to figure out things for myself.

Dades

I enjoyed the Wind-Up Bird Chronicles, but after about half of Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World - I started to feel the same as you, randomguy.

The drifting "plot" (I use the word very loosely) just annoyed me.

orangecake

I wouldn't give up on Murakami completely. Try Norwegian Wood. A thoroughly enjoyable read with satisfying closure at the end. I do understand where you are coming from though. I just finished Dance Dance Dance and was left feeling pretty flat. Again, there is no reason to stop reading it, the characters are quite interesting, as is the general plot. But I kept waiting for some kind of conclusion. Or at least for the various strands of the story to in some way come together. I was left abit frustrated by it. However, Norwegian Wood remains one of my favourite books so I'm not ready to write Murakami off altogether yet...

zenmonk

Thought Kafka on the shore was excellent, Norwegian Wood not so good.

hatful

I didn't read your post I'll probably end up reading the Wind-Up Bird Chronicles . I'm reading some of his short stories at the moment and I'd advise newcomers to Haruki Murakami to start with his short stories because they show case the more ordinary fare and also the surreal kind of story, often the two are combined -I 'd recommend "Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman" or "The Elephant Vanishes".

Norwegian Wood isn't surreal or absurd if you like the sort of protagonists that populate beatnik generation books then you'll like Norwegian Wood.

fjon

As others have said there is nothing weird about Norwegian Wood, and you aren't left frustrated at the end.
I read Kafka on the Shore a while ago, and while it does have a similarly vague ending, I still thought it kind of made sense.
However, with Wind-Up Bird - no matter how hard I thought about it I couldn't figure out what it was all about. If I'd spent a long time reading it (which luckily I didn't) I would have been disappointed. I just took it as a nice book with interesting characters and nice writing.
I think Sputnik Sweetheart and South of Border were also simple enough love stories. After Dark was blissfully short, and only slightly surreal.

FruitLover

Is this the only book of his you've read? He can be a bit hit-and-miss. For example, I wasn't too impressed with After the Quake or South of the Border, West of the Sun, but I loved Norwegian Wood and quite enjoyed Hard-boiled Wonderland. HBW is the only one I've read in English, and I found the translation a bit jarring occasionally, so it's possible the others aren't translated very naturally either (haven't read WUBC yet).

I'd definitely recommend Norwegian Wood, as not only is it my favourite Murakami novel, it's the most accessible I've read so far.

Tristram

Thread title: I hope not considering I'm getting The Wind-up Bird Chronicle for Christmas [Haven't read the posts in this thread, will return at later date;)]

BossArky

orangecake wrote: »

I just finished Dance Dance Dance and was left feeling pretty flat. Again, there is no reason to stop reading it, the characters are quite interesting, as is the general plot. But I kept waiting for some kind of conclusion. Or at least for the various strands of the story to in some way come together. I was left abit frustrated by it.

+1

Joe Cool

I really enjoyed 'Dance, Dance, Dance'.
Thought 'Wild Sheep Chase' was good too but liked 'Dance...' better.

I got hold of an english translation of 'Pinball' but haven't looked at it yet.

Bodhidharma

Murakami is my favourite writer and i will defend his writing to the hill . . . but i know what the OP is talking about. More often than not the endings are inconclusive, but if you continue reading his books you'll get used to it. I've read all his books (well, all his books that are availbale in english) and his style of writing is, to me anyway, quite Zen in his approach. Things happen, some have meaning others dont, the charcters are individual and you dont always get to the core of them, but i think its a good thing. His books emphasise the complexities and uniqueness of the characters and the situations they find themselves in.
I love his books because i enjoy the way he writes, i dont read them to find out what happens in the end. Its certainly something that takes getting used to. I think its nice to have a little room for imagination in books. Murakami isnt for everyone; those who want a traditional beginning, middle and end should probably avoid him, but if you want to try something different and atmospheric, give one of his shorter books a go, 'A wild sheep chase' perhaps.

mickedm

I couldn't agree with you more Bodhidharma. Nicely put. The first Murakami book I read was After Dark. Blissfully short is right. It has sort of got me hooked and Ive read two more; the wind Up Bird chronicle and Kafka on the Shore in pretty quick succession. The mixing of mundane and surreal really gets me somewhere. And he writes beautifully. Ive just started the memoir/biography. seems like a different kettle of fish altogether. Cant wait to read on

foolsgold

I really like Murakami, I've only read Norwegian Wood and Blind Willow Sleeping Woman so far. He was highly recommended to me by a friend and at first I really struggled but I agree once you stop looking for a defined plot, enjoy his characters and dont question the surreal events that may occur, you will enjoy his style of writing