why does /lit/ hate murakami

He sounds boring

He's sounds like That Feels guy as an author.
Why would I want that?

>>7330325
>>7330325
Haha... Idiot!

His books range from mediocre to bad.

He has no notable characters, no notable plot lines, no notably good prose.

Plenty of notably bad prose.

>>7330304

I've only read Kafka on the Shore, and I actually liked it. I enjoy reverie, and KotS fits the bill. I don't care much for his assertions that the novel is a riddle that can only be solved by multiple read-throughs and will yield different answers to anyone reading it - that's a huge cop-out. But I did find it very captivating.

I hear Murakami is a one-trick pony though, and that may very well be a source of some of the hate. That, and the fact that regular people read and enjoy him. E/lit/ists resent that.

>>7330304
Teenage girls like him, so he must be bad.

I'm only kinda joking.

...which one?

>>7331801
>regular people read and enjoy him

This argument doesn't really hold water, although it is reiterated daily here. To name a few, the Count of Monte Cristo and The Little Prince are both adored on /lit/ and among the masses at large. Are these just special exceptions to "e/lit/ist resent[ment]" or is it just easier to explain that these books are good whereas most others (including aMericami's) aren't?

>>7330304
I like her books desu

>>7331832
comparing 1 pleb classic and 1 shit children's book written by dead authors vs a contemporary one is dumb. better comparison would be with a hack like eco who manages to write brown-tier crap, appeal to the plebs both on and off /lit/.

>>7330304
He's not an especially deep thinker.

Name dropping authors, philosophers and classical musicians isn't endearing, just annoying.

The books of his that I have read tend to have plots that wouldn't be out of place as one of those animé's those of us with shameful animé colored pasts would have thought were "unique" and "artistic". The type that beats you over the head with previously mentioned name dropping and imagery.

His prose isn't very compelling.

He's very Japanese but not in a culturally interesting way.

>>7331839
Seems immaterial to me if the argument is that "regular people read and enjoy him". It would not actually matter if the authors are dead or not.

WHICH FUCKING MURAKAMI?

>>7330304

Totally love him. 69 and Almost Transparent Blue are good books. Still need to read In the Miso Soup and Coin Locker Babies

Murakami seems like a great literary analog to David Lynch

>>7331853
underrated post

>>7330325
>>7331797
>>7331845
>complaining about the prose when you haven't even read him in the original language

ITT: White People

>>7332079
>White People...

>>in this post: Robert Downey Jr syndrome

>>7331832

Vonnegut gets shit for being too popular and entry level. Same does Steinbeck, Bukowski, Kerouac, Orwell, etc.

While the opposite is true in a few cases, I think the rule is that litfags hate popular works. It plays into the entire intellectual power fantasy that most posters here have, pseudoironically using distinctions between patricians and plebeians.

No need to ask, yes, I vomited a little in my mouth when I wrote pseudoironically, but it seemed the best term to encapsulate what I mean.

>>7332231
I've never seen Steinbeck get shit for being entry level unless someone had only read Of Mice and Men for school, and that's not because Steinbeck was entry level. I think you got shit on for being a girl.

>>7332066
Murakami self evidently writes for an English speaking audience, considering the fact that if Hideo Kojima were to someday suddenly and tragically demap himself, he would become the single biggest westaboo in the east.

>>7332307
>Hideo Kojima were to someday suddenly and tragically demap himself
I like you

>>7332231
/lit/ does seem to have a lot of hipsters.