Am I crazy or is this fucking garbage? I've seen people hate on Murakami before here...

That sounds like me. Thanks for the rec.

I read it in swedish, if his writing is good or not, i really cant tell. But i personally love his writing and how he narriave the character, also love how Murakami's book is fast paced and is good at building up a scene. Norwegian wood is good, but not his best work

It's the only novel by Murakami that stands out. Once you've read one of his other works, you've essentially read them all.

user, he's a fucking lonely college student who's constantly getting ignored by his lover. Of course he's full of himself. He spends all his time reading Western books no one reads, and only Nagasawa (who's even more arrogant) likes him. The book outright says that most people dislike him, and that's because he's cocky and puts walls around him.

Now, compare that Toru with the one riding the plane years after the events of the book. The difference is big.

If you wanted a Murakami book with much more depth, you should've gone with The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. But if you don't like the gook you don't like him and that's it.

I really dug it. If not sentimental, it's at least unapologetically sensitive. I'm a fan of Murakami because he tells unironic love stories in a fresh and sincere way. Kafka on the Shore, 1Q84, etc.

The only Murakami I've finished is Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki, but I really liked it. I should read Norwegian Wood, just so I can learn why Veeky Forums shits on him so much.

Is this a good book to start one's Veeky Forums journey? Trying to get into reading literature

>literature
>murakami
No, its literally airport trash

Yeah I got all that but there's no nuance. It's all so plain and straightforward even in the first few pages of the book. Just disappointed if this is the best Japan has to offer.

nah, start with an American or British writer

May as well say start with a good writer.

I recommend Kafka on the Shore and Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki. His writing is largely inspired by various Western authors (Dostoevsky, Salinger, Raymond Chandler, and Kaka to name a few) so if you're into those writers you'll find his work more comfortable to slip into. All told, he's one of my favorites.

I read it and I quite liked it. But then again it was the first book of that type that I read.

I love those authors you mentioned, but Norwegian Wood felt almost like a YA fiction-tier replica of their more straightforward works. Am I missing something? I want to know why Murakami is considered good by the standards of great literature, not by Harry Potter standards. Do you read him in native Japanese or something?

I'm reading this book right now and it's pretty good so far. A lot of sublties about the characters and Murakami effectively uses environment and interaction with the setting as symbolic introspective expression. I really don't know what you wanted OP, I had some expectations and they're all pretty much met and then some. Again this is the same stuff you can find in modernist literature with better prose but Murakami is also writing and Japanese urban zeitgeist which you won't find in western literature.

Lol

It is, dont mind what these people are saying. If you find it appealing, read it. I personally love Murakami You don´t need to start reading heavy books to get into reading, what matters, is that you read, not what you read.

I recommend The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.

...

What you read definitely matters. I think some Steinbeck or something like Catcher in the Rye would be better suited for beginner readers, as they are actually good/well-written. Read stuff that hasn't been translated to start, unless it's some excellent translation of the Greeks. If you do start with Murakami you'll feel comforted by the fact that whatever you read in the future will probably be much better.

Just start with Gatsby, Heart of Darkness or some other works on the shorter end my dude.

i wont argue, but a book thats seems more appealing over a book which does not seem to appealing for me, even if the later is better written I would go without no doubt with the first one, if i wanted to get into reading.

Yeah if you're not gonna read otherwise, you should read anything that interests you

The book is fine, you should focus on how you approach a work of fiction you have no context for.

It's his worst work by far, and of course, that makes it his most popular one. Because women. But yeah, Norwegian Wood is hot garbage.

But go check Kafka on the Shore or 1Q84.

Mistaking isolated for "full of himself."

I don't think you understand characterization very well, user, and your hasty attacks on anyone who'd identify with this character (who you demonstrate a failure to understand) marks you as the real cunt and more pedestrian than the worst page in this novel.

Will def try Kafka on the shore in the future. Not ready to give up on Asian fiction yet.
You need to focus on developing an eye for quality, which this book lacks. I guess by modern fiction standards you could call it fine, but people claim Murakami is the greatest writer to ever come out of Japan and this book doesn't support that claim at all.

He has that psuedo-deprecating narcissism that so many loners-by-choice tend to have in writing. So yeah, he's full of himself, he's annoying, he acts isolated when he's clearly pretty well liked, and those who identify with him without recognizing how awful of a human being he is are cunts. Let's be real user, most the people who enjoy this book aren't literature fanatics. It earned its status of pseudo-intellectual hackjob loved by women for a reason.

I don't read him in the original, no. My Japanese is too poor.

Norwegian Wood is, to put it simply, an exception to the rule. Murakami usually works in surrealism and magical realism. When he wrote this novel, he said he wanted to go for something different entirely. Which is fine, personally, but it isn't really representative of his whole oeuvre.

>magical realism
LOL

>You need to focus on developing an eye for quality, which this book lacks.
No, I have a thorough eye for quality and also for context. I don't think you have either though. Why would you read foreign fiction if you don't have proper context to appreciate all its doing?
>but people claim Murakami is the greatest writer to ever come out of Japan
I've not seen anybody here claim that non ironically.
Seriously stop reading your text superficiality and if you still want to act like a psued, try earnestly to appear like one instead of not even trying in that regard also.

It's like the people who like Catcher in the Rye bc they're "soooo much like Holden irl!!!"

Foreign fiction doesn't require poor writing, but again, that may be due to Rubin's shitty ass translation. I may lack context as I haven't read much Japanese fiction, but having that context does not a masterpiece make. I just think the way in which Murakami characterize, develops themes, and writes is poor by literary standards. I don't fetishize slopes though so maybe that's the issue here.

>I have a thorough eye for quality
>likes murakami trash
My fucking sides

This is my absolute favorite book. What's a good book that i might like considering Norwegian wood nailed almost everything i like in literature? It doesn't need to be Murakami.
My other top 3 are Stoner and Catcher in the rye. I'm fairly new to literature.

If you like this more than Stoner or Catcher I'm going to assume something's wrong with you. You should read Siddartha and Steppenwolf though.

If you wanna stick with American, read Gatsby or The Sun Also Rises

I don't think your definition of proper and poor writing is some universal fact user. For example you accept you lack the proper context then you dismiss the characters and themes which can be appreciated if you have said context, which is a universally accepted argument when it comes to critically looking at a text. Murakami is drawing from a specific era, specific zeitgeist and your answer is literally "who cares if I don't know my shit, let me just shit on this by making a meme thread." Not saying that if you did know your stuff you'd think this book a masterpiece but you would've understood a lot of creative choices for one thing.
You want to be superficial and ignorant, fine by me, try and do it without being both obnoxious and an idiot next time.

>Not knowing lit hates Murakami
>Being this new
Joking asides the consensus on Veeky Forums is that he has a small bag of tricks when it comes to writing and he can't do anything that isn't contained in the small bag. A prominent example is his tendency for most of his main characters to be apathetic, womanising, spaghetti eating, whiskey drinking, jazz listening teens/young men. It sounds really specific which only makes it all the more worse for being true.

He's not an awful writer, at least if we look at the larger world of books, but at best you could say he is only competent at best. I think of him has being somewhere between a John Green and an Ishiguro. He's got some of the YA vibes of Green, which is why I think he is so popular, with enough of the skill of Ishiguro to make people who don't read much to think he is great.

Of the dozen or so Japanese writers I have read he is easily the worst.

What context nigga? That japs have shitty lives in their own special way? Are we really talking the same bland postwar Japan studies that have been done to death in all kinds of media? Is that the context I'm lacking? Having that context means he's not beholden to literary standards? The main point in trying to get across here is that his prose is BAD and it mars the development and portrayal of his characters. Fuck out of here with context because that doesn't excuse him from shit. Nigga!

Fucking Marukami defense force. He's trash. Get used to hearing it on lit

>are we really going to ignore the societal context which helped in conceptualization of this book because I don't approve of any legitimate critical ways that are not rooted in my faux intellectualism
Definitely, spot on ma dood. Carry on with your awesome thread with the intent of having genius discussion.

>his prose is BAD
Negro, don't read foreign literature if that's one of your problem, that's not really going to go away ever.

I'm not saying ignore context you fuckwit. I'm saying having the context in mind doesn't make this contemporary trash good. John Green's shit reflects the society he writes in as well bro, and Muracrummy is only one step up from him.

The Greeks, Hesse's work, and plenty of other stuff retain their quality after translation.

it's bad user

you got memed by the redditor invasion who think murakami is good

>muracrummy

It happens that i read it in my sad times and connected with me

Stoner made me cry like a bitch user. Iktf

You're not crazy. Japanese people just can't fucking write.

I've never read it but always wonder what the nazi reference on the cover is all about

>tfw you realise those aren't trees

the main character hates jews

It's excellent, it perfectly recalls that late 60's period of student unrest and culture. It was actually intentionally written by Murakami to add a pop sensibility to his usual post-modern fiction that deals with themes of initiation, and loss in the contemporary world. It's an unresolved love story, all that Toru is left with at the end is a song (Norwegian Wood by The Beatles) and some memories, and the way it deals with grief and death is masterful. Not to mention that incredible ending.

go back to r/books

Nah, I can read William Gass and Haruki Murakami together, I don't feel a need to justify myself by socially signalling my taste to other people who read.

>no sexy nubile schizo gir to obsess over and kinky outspoken fun girl to distract you from girl1
Why live.jpg

>he says, as he tries to signal his PATRICIAN TASTE

You can enjoy Norwegian Wood and still admit it's mediocre. It's trashy entertainment like most contemporary fiction.

No, I'm saying that Murakami is one of the best living contemporary writers. If you notice the people in this thread who dismiss him have absolutely no coherent arguments at all except for some arbitrary judgement that he is not "literary" enough. If that's your judgement then you might want to notice that Murakami is critically acclaimed in the United States, along with winning Japan's top literary prizes. But since his work is internationally famous, and especially liked by women, you'll have a ton of people trying to signal against it when they haven't even done a close reading of his work and lack any critical faculties.

you sound like your boi-hymen is intact

His books are all samey, his prose is bland and overwrought, his thematic elements aren't well-developed in his characters or their stories, and his intertextual vision is very narrow. If you can't see these things from reading his shit then you are the fool. He's popular and acclaimed because he's easy, sexual, and perfect for "quirky" folks who identify with his narcissistic narrators. He wins awards because the standards for contemporary writers are very low, and even lower for Asian writers (who are generally quite poor). He's not the worst modern writer, but again look at who he's up against. Comparing him to the swaths of literary masterpieces most of us have read makes his work look bad in comparison.
Honestly, go to r/books if you want to circlejerk this slope.

That and freshman essay tier superficial complaints about not liking the narrator.

Probably the same people always in histrionics about Catcher in the Rye.

Catcher in the Rye is excellent.

BUT

If the reason you like the book is bc "Holden is sooo me omg" then you're part of the proble. Catcher's quality lies in the work surrounding Holden, not in Holden himself. He's a vessel, a very specific vessel mind you, for a work that sets on its haunches and explores a theme with nuance and depth. Muracrummy throws his themes out into the wind (hell, his characters say them outright), and it renders most of his work mediocre.

I find it hilarious that anybody would see fucking Murakami as representative of Japanese literature. Most Japanese people would tell you his writing smells of burger.

It's not why I like the novel. I like it mostly for the language, but I like almost all of Salinger's other writing more. But, like with Murakami, so much of its criticism stems more from irritation with certain kinds of readers who identify with the work than with honest analysis.

I think you're selling Murakami short, but when you've invented epithets for him in particular, you've clearly got an axe to grind nobody's going to talk you out of.

I read 49 pages of Norwegian Wood and that's it. I don't even know what his other books are. So there.

>his prose is bland
It's actually pretty nuanced in Japanese.

And yes, most people like him because he's a stylish, exotic po-mo gook, but that doesn't mean that his books are shit. If you have any profound knowledge of post-war Japanese literature and culture, what Murakami's trying to do becomes very apparent. He's honestly one of the most interesting, and at times experimental, contemporary writers.

Like that other user said, he perfectly captures not only the Westernized and globalized post-war Japan, but the globalized world in general.

And besides, you could reduce great authors like Dostoevsky to the same platitudes (an author Murakami is very similar to, ironically).

from my murakami i've read this is my ranking

Norwegian wood>kafka kid chapters>after dark>kafka catman chapters

Cringe

Watch it gaijin

you dont speak japanese

red pill me on murakami.
what's the easiest book to digest from this guy?

I'm reading it right now.
There's a touching sense of sincerity about it I really like.

It's not something that I would rave about and list as one of my favorite novels of all time, but I like it.

Read more

>he thinks I haven't already read the entire western canon
Tu es monolingue probablement aussi eh?
Plebs these days.

Murakami is not representative of the historical lineage of Japanese literature at all. That's the whole point, an author like Kenzaburo Oe is still working within the framework of late modernism and while his work is still critical of Japanese nationalism in contrast to someone like Mishima his work is still fundamentally "national". Murakami's work is postmodern, its post-National. Murakami is very popular among the youth in Japan though, and for good reason because his work actually captures the reality they live in accurately.
His books are not "samey" at all, the fact that you think they are because he reuses symbols just shows that you don't understand both what Murakami is trying to accomplish nor the different phases he's moved through in his career. Neither is his prose bland, though you can't accurately judge the quality of prose through translation. Have you read Raymond Carver? He's an important author to understanding Murakami. And his thematic elements are extremely well-developed, in fact that's what Murakami excels at, so like I said before it goes to show you have not done a close reading of his work at all. All you are is another person unable to accept change or someone creating new narrative forms to deal with our changing world, so instead you retreat back to the old "muh classics" let's just have Harold Bloom decide for me what I will like.
Start with "A Wild Sheep Chase"

I dont have any profound knowledge of japanese culture, what do I need to know?

You don't, that's what he's saying.

Well, having a knowledge of post-war Japanese literature does help to have a contrast with Murakami's work, but the most important Japanese authors to Murakami are Soseki and Tanizaki. But if you want to better understand Murakami's work then it'd be better to be familiar with postmodern literary theory, as long with writers that Murakami is influenced by, like Raymond Carver, Raymond Chandler, F. Scott Fitzgerald, J.D. Salinger, Chekhov, and Dostoevsky.

Yes, part of the irritation that you see with Salinger and Murakami is more from annoyance by the people who read his works or with the personality of their characters than the actual content. Murakami is very influenced by Salinger, which is pretty obvious, he's even translated The Catcher in the Rye into Japanese. Also, people on Veeky Forums won't admit it but part of their antipathy towards Murakami is because he is popular with women, and women's taste in art is often looked down upon and belittled, especially by other young men.

Meant to respond to this post

The conflict between Japanese traditions and Japan's pre-war culture and what modern Japs want and feel. That's a central theme in most of his books.

Like the other user said, reading Tanizaki and Soseki will help you understand Murakami a bit better, and same goea for Chekhov and especially Dostoevsky and Salinger.

Lastly, I'd recommend giving Hideo Levy and Oe a read, although the latter isn't really that similar to Murakami or what he's doing.
Murakami's readership usually consists of gloomy men in my experience. Dunno where the idea that he mainly has female readers came from.

Goddamn there are a lot of faggot weebs on Veeky Forums these days.

I don't think you know what weeb means

From my experience young women read more than young men do in America, and I've had many conversations about Murakami's work with college-age females and seen them reading him. It could be different elsewhere. Online you'll find many female Murakami fans as well. I find it a little strange, since the perspective of Murakami's characters is very male, and from a Feminist perspective he'd probably be critiqued because usually the female characters in his work are there as catalysts for the main male character to be changed. I think most women don't really care about that sort of thing though, and I personally like Murakami's female characters and don't see anything wrong with their depiction.

>people actually discussing literature on Veeky Forums
>"fuckin weebs lol!"

Also, yes, Hideo Levy is worth reading, as well as Oe too, but as I said earlier in the thread Oe is working within a different context. Oe's reception in Japan and his translation into English is because he was seen as a ambassador and the most "representative" and skilled Japanese writer alive, and he won the Nobel prize similar to Kawabata before him. Murakami's reception has absolutely nothing to do with "nationality" all all though, and he's been translated into so many languages and is widely read all over the world, which is part of what makes his work so interesting to interpret and read though. It's funny that this thread is about "Norwegian Wood" the book, which is also a pop song by The Beatles, and The Beatles, The Beach Boys, and other pop musicians that Murakami references are important to understanding him because his work is very similar to theirs in a way even though he doesn't make music. People from all over the world enjoy The Beatles even though they don't understand the lyrics. This deconstruction of the nation and other aspects of the national identity is fundamentally what Murakami's work is about, though of course he addresses many other things. Murakami's work is "pop", I don't deny it, but it's also very literary and does things no one else in contemporary literature is doing. It's very experimental and forward-thinking, even though on the surface it doesn't appear that way. Going "underground" is one of the main symbols and themes used in his work, and this is for a good reason. It's going underneath the post-modern construction of identity and seeing what you find underneath, and as we can see in with the well in "The Wind-up Bird Chronicle" there isn't nothing underneath it all, it's not a void as many other writers and thinkers think, but instead it's something very strange, very frightening, our unconscious dream that lies underneath the threads that hold our Global World together.

In the context of Norwegian wood, Japan's fall out with radical idealism. All the stuff about how leftist student were trying to start the movement and nobody really cared and how it was uninspired captures the feel of post Asamo-Sanso incident Japan.
For the uninitiated
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asama-Sansō_incident
Japan had an ugly fall out with idealism and ideology which dominated the 60s of Japan. A lot of characters in the book grew up during these times. This subtext of how there was these great movement and then one day Japanese saw the ugliness of ideology and turned their back on it is an important subtext and it's unconsciously affecting a lot of characters. For example Nagasawa's philosophy are very much reactionary to this. There's so much discontinuity in Japan during 40s to 80s and a lot of literature and pop media that either came out during that time or refers back to it wants to capture that era's socio-political consciousness, Murakami's is one of them.
Also after the age of idealism came the age of fiction, when Japan turned the attention to their literature and pop media. This is the age when anime and manga and specific types of other pop fiction blew up. People found it interesting. This is also an important knowledge when you consider why Murakami is name-dropping so much western literature in Norwegian Wood.

>trolling people with undergraduate-esque analysis of murakami
>"discussing literature"
you need to go back

This is all really cool but it doesn't make his books good. I'm willing to give the rest of his work a chance but Norwegian Wood is one step above YA fiction.

chink coelho