Ive seen things like this about Haruki Murakami before, and Im only now realizing why they bother me. Mainly because, like any popular author, I think hes misread and a lot of the times in pretty idiotic ways. Especially in reviews of his newest novel, there seems to be a common idea that because Murakamis books share certain elements, somehow that means theyre reducible to them. Ive been through most of his work twice, and its especially weird considering how thematically, conceptually and structurally diverse all of his major works have been, particularly in how they approach storytelling. Theres a very clear progression and intense desire to change from his early to late work thats uncommon in any writer (especially after Wind-up Bird, when he started making drastic changes even if they dont always work), and its bizarre that so many people miss it. I do think I preferred reading Murakami though before his overwhelming financial success in the west, when it was more like discovering a secret than finally picking up that famous author everyone else likes. (Similar to people who read David Foster Wallace in the mid 90s, which is something Raúl Clément and Joseph Michael Owens have pointed out that seems really interesting.) I dont like a lot of popular authors, but when I do--George RR Martin is another good example--its interesting to see how poorly theyre read, and how various communities seem to respond to them.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:43:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015