3 ms·
That'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 "c
by joecasson 12y ago
That'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.