End of book 1

He is rich for sure. Spent the last year travelling, every bookstore between India Nepal sri lankA, Myanmar and Vietnam had a whole shelf of his bonks.

>>...............it's fucking nothing
I haven't read 1Q84, but that sounds like a majority of Murakami's books. Windup bird, Kafka, etc.. all ended abruptly with nothing getting solved.

Just like.... life

mind bl--

I won't defend him too much but the translations make it even worse.

There's a thing about Marmite, you either love it or you hate it

I read that the translations are not the problem and even in japan critics attack him for cliche` writing that resembles the speech and turn of phrases that are used on tv to translate western shows.

Only northerners genuinely appreciate Bovril. In the Newcastle Football stadium it's so popular it's made in the coffee machines. Gravy, in a coffee machine. I wonder why Britain has a weight problem

That's okay.

I liked it, but it could have done with some trimming down.

I feel like the majority of Veeky Forums dislikes him but there's always one or two RABID - and I mean like cult-level obsessed - fans of his who call people who don't like him "ESL" or brainlets or try to make it sound like he's the only writer in the world capable of talking about globalization.

True, there's a couple in every thread. Their arguments are really long and winded but devoid of any substance.

This is one of those books where the story climaxes 2/3rds of the way to the end and has such a slow burn of a resolution. It's an interesting choice on the author's part, frustrating while reading the last section though.

Who's the Veeky Forums approved Japanese author then? Please don't say Mishima.

Murakami is one of the greatest contemporary writers and I only called that one guy ESL because he clearly had very poor grammar and was incapable of using anything outside out of meme words. I would take the Murakami haters seriously if they ever had a coherent argument and have done a close reading of his work, but they never do.

My arguments have tons of substance, just because you're a brainlet who's incapable of understanding post-modern fiction doesn't mean there is something wrong with my analysis of Murakami's work. Murakami critics on Veeky Forums have ZERO substance to their arguments, all they do it shitpost about how he's like John Green.

Looks like I've drawn the Murakami Defender out of hiding

According to you, no one knows ANYTHING about ANYTHING, if a very valid and clear point is brought up you resort to ad hominem attacks. Dude, we get it, Tokyo John Green is your guy. But to claim everyone HAS to see him with the same misty eyes you do is absurd.

I don't care if anyone dislikes Murakami, its completely your prerogative. I just don't want you shitting up Murakami threads with your intellectually vapid banter when we're actually trying to critically discuss his work, or at least I do, and there are a few others on here that take Murakami seriously.

Also, "very valid and clear" points LMAO. You or anyone else in the recent Murakami threads has not made a single intelligent argument against Murakami, while myself and others have made many in favor. You criticize his prose but you fail to even analyze why you think it's bad. It's not arrogance to not want abjectly simple-minded plebeians like you and other shitposters that post one-liners in threads dismissing authors when you clearly think it's funny to contribute to the terrible culture on Veeky Forums where you fail to provide any intellectual argument to back up your opinions.

Kafka had an ending. the dude grew the fuck up

>vapid banter

You're only calling it vapid because you don't agree with it

No one has ever made a valid complaint against your little bloated, repetitive idol? Of course. Sure. Murakami is saying nothing that Marker didn't record with Sans Soleil, except he's just rehashing his girls and cats obsession book after book. I would never say Murakami isn't talented, but I think everyone needs to ease up on the pedestal they've placed him on.

Not the Murakami poster, but this is a weird argument on either quality of work or point of work. The argument stated seems to be that the works are iterative of other works. So what? Will agree that Murakami can get bloated but it's super comfy reading. Not sure anyone would seriously put Murakami in the canon of timeless or important literature.

He's always brought up as a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Ok, Akutagawa or Tanizaki

Your pick

As a guy who has read 3 of his novels this week, he probably should not be nominated for the nobel peace prize in literature.

>Will agree that Murakami can get bloated but it's super comfy reading.
No, the retard who always blathers on about post national literature and globalization has the audacity to claim he's, in the way he describes the mundane, heir of Carver, which must sound absurd to anyone who has actually ever read Carver's short stories. Yeah, maybe the Japanese Stephen King admires Carver and maybe he paraphrased a book title of his, but he desperately lacks the Japanese Gordon Leish to cut about 50% of shit out.

also
>In the spring of her twenty-second year, Sumire fell in love for the first time in her life. An intense love, a veritable tornado sweeping across the plains—flattening everything in its path, tossing things up in the air, ripping them to shreds, crushing them to bits.

Murakamifags will defend this and claim it's the translation's fault, oh well, I guess in original it amounts to something more than that she was a drizzle and love was a hurricane. If I'm pleb for that I can cope with it.

Oh fuck, internet fight.

>ease up on the pedestal
dunno if you're an ESL tardbot or the witty irish genius of my demise, either way im using this, thanks.

t. haven't read it in Japanese.

Opinion discarded.

Murakami isn't good

Murakami is good.

This is still a weird or awkward argument. You haven't opposed any of my statement that it's super comfy and you admit Murakami is very talented. You seem butthurt that he is highly regarded by a population of reader.

I agree with your statement that Murakami is not a profound writer. I don't personally believe that there is too much what he writes other than comfy prose and broad imagery. You make it sound like some sort of crime.

seems like this is the universal opinion, i agree

but the very very end was good it just took so long to arrive

I'm not going to engage with you again because it's extremely clear that you have absolutely no idea what an intellectual argument consists of and you refuse to engage properly with my analysis of Murakami at all. It's pretty clear that English is not your first language, maybe you are better at expressing yourself in your native language, but I'm not going to argue with you because you're simply not worth the time, there's too large of a gap in understanding.

>dunno if you're an ESL tardbot or the witty irish genius of my demise

Lean toward the former explanation but keep an eye on the latter

And also, Murakami's personal interpretation of Carver actually is the correct one, and Murakami is in many ways continuing the project of Carver' s within a different context. You seem to be hung up on prose for some reason, when Murakami himself has stated that he purposefully keeps his prose simple, his prose is not what makes him good. If you can't look beneath the surface qualities of Murakami's work then you're not going to enjoy him, there's a reason "going underground" is such a common theme used in his novels. You seem incapable of doing that, however. Also, there's nothing wrong with that part that you quoted from Sputnik Sweetheart, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.