5 ms·
Murakami is one of those authors that has good enough style, culture and influences that at first they come of as quite profound, and at the same-time are pleas
by hurin 12y ago
Murakami is one of those authors that has good enough style, culture and influences that at first they come of as quite profound, and at the same-time are pleasant to read in a way that say Kafka or Dostoevsky are not - then about half-way through the novel you realize it's a cheap knock-off to sell profundity to the general public.
- puranjay 12y agoNow now, you're confusing him with Milan Kundera
- joecasson 12y agoThat's a rather negative way to look at his writing. Sure, he still has plenty of room for improvement in his writing, but it definitely doesn't qualify as a "cheap knock-off." Is there anything specific you can point to, or do you just not like the writing?
- obstinate 12y agoI would say it's a realistic way to look at his writing. It probably seems negative to you because you believe Murakami has more merit than the GP does. Personally I am in agreement with the GP's estimation.
- gajomi 12y agoOne oftentimes hears arguments along these lines about Murakami. That his writing is just pop commercial stuff. I am not sure I ever really grokked what these complaints were all about. Can you say more about what makes his writing like a "cheap knock-off"? At the very least what is the argument that it is a knock off at all (deferring considerations of its valuation)?
- obstinate 12y agoI can't speak for everyone who makes these arguments. My problem with his writing has nothing to do with its status as a knockoff. That said, if I had to guess, the answer to your question would be that faux profundity is always a knockoff of the truly profound.
- afc 12y agoI happen to agree, I don't like Murakami all that much, and I've read 6 or 8 of his novels. I feel a bit similar about him as I do about Stephen King or TV series like Games of Thrones, Orange is the New Black or House of Cards: more manipulative and plain than genuinely interesting. Throw in a little bit of cheating, a little bit of drama, "lovely breasts bouncing violently in the air", "Emotions that, if cut, would bleed", a little bit of vagina, the "bloody weight of desire and the rusty anchor of remorse", to substitute for lack of substance. Then again, who am I to criticize, what have I written that has any substance... All that said, I wonder what it is that makes us feel that trying to pander to the general public is so bad... If by using "cheap tricks" he reaches a bigger audience and connects with more people... More power to him?
- Steko 12y agoIs profundity something we should need a doctorate to have access to? Should Murakami be larding up his books with Turkish puns to alienate the plebian readers?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- altano 12y agoProfundity? Strange, I would describe the stories he tells as being wonderfully shallow: there's a stillness about them that makes you feel more like you were just described a painting or an instant in time in a dream, not a narrative with a plot. I know he's super famous, and I'm sure lots of people have written lots of bullshit about his work, but you can do what I do which is read nothing about him and just enjoy his work like you might casually stroll through a museum. If it feels pleasant, keep doing it.