The way that characters deal with any give situation unrealistically

>>7326662
Murakami basically said the meaning of the novel was "fuck it there is no meaning take what you want from it"

>>7326662
>The way that OP makes a post unrealistically makes it impossible for me to grasp the thread intellectually.

What am I supposed to take away from this? Is there an obvious message or is it "just" trying to be interesting and creative?

>>7326687

it's about a mood

the book captures and explores ennui, existential anxiety, nostalgia all very well

my god that cover

is that american

>>7326662
It's a way to deal with the seemingly random events of life like described in Raymond Carver's short stories. The narrative follows a dream-like logic as found in the French Surrealists who sought to unify dream-reality and wake-reality.

>>7326687
that wasn't helpful

are you talking about how he just beats up some dude for no reason?
yep it's not my favorite murra novel

>>7326704
This and exploring how Japan's brutal history still has unseen influences today.

>>7326711
I'm considering reading "Norwegian Wood". Is it more based in reality than "TWUBC"? Are the characters actions credible and comprehensible or are all Murakami novels like this?

>>7326719
You might wanna read Tsukuru instead. Norwegian Wood is only fine when you're >22 years old.

>>7326725
What do you mean, "fine"?

>>7326719
It's more grounded in reality in that there's no wacky metaphysical dream bidness in it. there is some genuine attempt to make real people but there is still the wacky traits that he can't seem to shake. Decent novel though.
Don't listen to >>7326725 Colorless Tsukuru is a total piece of shit.

Oh also do you like the protagonist of Wind Up Bird? Cause he's also the protagonist in every Murakami novel ever. Does that appeal to you?

>>7326732
>Colorless Tsukuru is a total piece of shit.
By what means? It was most certainly his most "grown up" novel so far. The characters' motivations and backgrounds were far more interesting and nuanced than in his other books.

>>7326737
did we read the same book? It's the same recycled characters he's been writing for ages with somehow less personality than usual
also why was the gay blowjob not explored further? I would be fine with the novel if there were just more gay blowjobs.

>>7326742
>did we read the same book?
Well, I read it two years ago in the German translation. Maybe the English translator fucked it up. But for me it was refreshing and surprisingly different in a good way after the trainwreck of 1Q84.

>>7326750
For me it might just be that my enjoyment of his novels goes down with each book I read.

>>7326763
Eh, his shtick is just getting old, I guess. There was only one short story in his last book I really liked. "Kino"
Everything else in there bored me to death.

>>7326769
Ha, I just looked it up and saw that the short stories weren't even published in English yet. They're not too bad, though. Just nothing to get really excited about. Still better than 1Q84 though.

>>7326779
"Kino" can be found here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/kino?currentPage=all