I’m about 250 pages into 1Q84, and it reminds me of one of the things that nag me a little about Murakami’s books. It’s the idea that interesting things happen to passive people. If you’ve read a few Murakami novels, you’ll know that most of his protagonists are basically the same dude, even if…
I feel bad for anyone who misses the boat on this. The stories are whimsical, like The Wild Sheep Chase, lovelorn and emotionally immature/coming of age in Sputnik Sweetheart.
It’s striking to me how many writers seem to set their validation in ego and trying so hard to please a certain type of audience. The key word is please, not reach.
I have a hard time with this blindspot too. I want explanation as to why these characters sit on their laurels. Maybe the lesson here is sometimes the unexpected happens- what are you going to do about it?
Perhaps we should focus on the sociology of the male in Japan versus the United States. Dare we say that there is a difference in social activity? I believe there are differences in the way they work, live, marry and their values. For example, a lot of Japanese men stay with one company. I don’t know very many American men who do this. I think this might be a basis into some of the characters. Do we value monotony and stability less in exchange for that grand pipe dream and follow pie in the sky schemes here?
Sometimes, it’s best to not look at a book with your own eyes. People do not like a story because it does not coincide with their opinions or mirror themselves, at least at first. I think this is the path that modern literature and audiences went and it’s a shame. I think sometimes you have to look beyond that. The answers are there. Often, everything is just handed to us in a wrapped, safe, compartmentalized -labelled, box. Anything deeper than that and we get frustrated. We supply our own interpretations.