Haruki Murakami fans discussion

I finished the book today. And yet again with a Murakami book. I cannot stop thinking about it, as I lay in bed before I sleep, the book floods back to me, I wonder and I ask, what do you think would have happened if Hoshino hadn't of closed the entrance stone and the white snake thing would have got to it?

...... The white snake thing had got to it***

Murakami says that everything in his writing is symbolic and/or iconic.

Sorry. I sent that before I was ready! Murakami says that everything is iconic, and in this book we see characters dealing with past memories and closing chapters of their past. Perhaps closing the entrance stone is symbolic of how hard it is to move past memories sometimes, but when it is time to move on, it is time to move on. Maybe the snake symbolizes the evil in people's souls? There certainly was a lot of violence in the book, and the reference to Arendt was quite interesting. Hoshino had led quite a irresponsible, empty life before, but I think now he is ready to move on to something more fulfilling. What do you think?

Why do you think he chose Colonel Sanders and Johnny Walker, two American pop figures, as characters.

I think people are always reading too much into these things, like what did he want to say in this passage, why did he use this stylistic device, why did he come up with XYZ, why did he do that, etc.

He doesn't plan any of these things. He's said on a lot of occasions that he just sits down and writes what comes to mind. Of course there is some symbolism or whatever you want to call it in his stories but I think he's just "actively relating to stuff" he thinks about, or has memories of; stuff that is related to his life, to anyone's life.

I'm not a big fan of trying to solve every little mystery in his books and, according to Jay Rubin, neither is Murakami himself. In fact,I am very sure that he doesn't even know the answer to any of the questions you guys might have himself.

Marla wrote: "Murakami says that everything in his writing is symbolic and/or iconic."

Where did he say that? I don't recall anything about that and it doesn't really sound (to me) like something he would say. In fact another interview quotes him saying: "I don't know a whole lot about symbolism. There seems to me to be a potential danger in symbolism. I feel more comfortable with metaphors and similes."

/edit: Don't get me wrong, it's sometimes nice to read people's theories on stuff, but I personally feel a lot better not questioning everything.

You raise fair points. Both counter opinions. I like that. I respect you guys answering back. I wasn't looking too much into it myself. To be honest,I did not expect such a detailed answer, from anyone. However I love his metaphors. A lot.

Hi Alessandra,

I had a book group discussion of this book last night, and I think I can shed light your first question. Here in Japan snakes are symbolic in the Shinto religion of god. White of course symbolizes purity. Some perhaps somehow it is god/a higher truth that is creeping out of the entrance stone.

Books can of course be enjoyed on many levels. On a surface level, I love reading Murakami because his stories flow, but then I also love analyzing the symbols/themes/metaphors/etc. with other fans. Most authors don't plan out the deeper significance of their work, it just sort of flows that way.

Mikey, for the reference about things being symbolic/iconic, see chapter 30.

I specifically am intrigued by the quote "Necessity is a role independent of meaning .. What has a role needs to exist."

What do you guys think the role of Colonel Sanders was? How about Johnny Walker? What is the metaphor there?

I absolutely love the quote, "Things in the past are like a plate that is shattered to pieces. You can never put it back." What do you guys think Murakami is saying here about memory?

Love that comment, and thanks for the reference to the painting. Memory is definitely brittle, and malleable.

Alessandra wrote: "I finished the book today. And yet again with a Murakami book. I cannot stop thinking about it, as I lay in bed before I sleep, the book floods back to me, I wonder and I ask, what do you think wou..."

I think it would've affected everyone in a negative way, it would've become chaotic, I cannot start to wonder about it, which makes me see how the plot revolved around this little detail. Closing the entrance stone kind of restored the balance, set everyone for a new and better life with no unresolved issues.

I feel very conflicted about Kafka on the Shore. I really enjoyed reading the book and loved the magical, surreal aspect to it, however I feel very uncomfortable how the novel glamourises pedaphillia. Kafka a 15 year old boy who has a sexual relationship with a 50 year old woman, Miss Saeki. While I understand that in some ways it is a retelling of the Oedipus myth, I am concerned that the relationship is idealized and romanticised, which does not occur in the original Greek myth. Does anyone else share or struggle with this aspect of the story, or am I making too much of it?

Jon wrote: "I feel very conflicted about Kafka on the Shore. I really enjoyed reading the book and loved the magical, surreal aspect to it, however I feel very uncomfortable how the novel glamourises pedaphill..."

Jon, I'm going to tackle this, because I can't sleep. :)

I don't think of it that way, and it doesn't bother me, because not all cultures are the same. Not everyone draws the line for "age of consent" at the same year. (Heck, in many countries - the US, for example - it varies by state.) In Japan, the legal age of consent is 13, so such a relationship with a 15-year-old is neither illegal nor considered immoral. If you live in a culture where the age of consent is, for example, 18, this may seem odd; but keep in mind that there are countries and cultures that think 18 is perverse, as theirs is higher. In some countries, age of consent is "married," and it is considered perverse if one is 40 and unmarried.

It's a matter of perspective. Wikipedia has an article with map/graph showing ages of consent around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_c....

Note: The ages change all the time, too. So even attitudes local to you may change, and what's ok for one generation may seem off to the next or previous. Per Wikipedia, "In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10–12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895)." Also, in many places in the US, 16 is the age of consent, with 15 (or even 13) legal depending on age of partner.

In the case of Kafka on the Shore, nothing illegal happened with respect to the characters involved. So regardless of an individual reader's perspective based on their own culture or beliefs, this plot point isn't intended to be particularly scandalous or taboo.

Thanks for the well thought out reply Candiss. While I understand your argument about cultural relativism, it doesn't mean I have to like the idea! Yes the age of consent in Japan may be 13. It also may be "normal for girls as young as 11 to marry in the Yemen. However just because these things are legal, or culturally acceptable it does not make them a good thing. What worries me about this particular aspect of the story is not teenagers having underage sex but the relationship of a much older woman (50) with a 15 year old boy. It was not just the age difference on its own that was the problem for me but the fact that I felt Murakami had glamorized and romanticised the relationship between Miss Saeki and Kafka and this left me feeling very uncomfortable and troubled. I wondered if anyone else was concerned about this aspect or whether they believed that it was an essential part of the narrative?

Jon wrote: "Thanks for the well thought out reply Candiss. While I understand your argument about cultural relativism, it doesn't mean I have to like the idea! Yes the age of consent in Japan may be 13. It a..."

Hey Jon, I think in a way good literature should take us a little outside of our comfort zone. Stephen King also has a lot of similar scenes in his books (in particular there is a scene in his horror book IT that made me feel uncomfortable)--but I think in a way, literature SHOULD make us feel uncomfortable and challenge us in ways that mainstream books and movies cannot. Anyone else agree with me?

Worst Murakami book in my view.

I guess Jon, you have not read Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, or have you?

Well, it does not mean you have to like the idea and start practicing it in real life but like what Daniel have mentioned, it should not stop you from appreciating good literature.
So to answer your question, I did not struggle with that portion of the story. Yes, I found it interesting and intriguing but not to the point of scandalous. Having an open mind when you read a Murakami book does help a lot in internalizing its story.

Thanks Ranee, Yes I've read Lolita My point is I'm not against the depiction of children having sex with adults in literature. This happens in life and literature must not just reflect the nice things in life. Authors have a duty to disturb and challenge. However my point is that unlike the relationship between Lotita and Humbert, which is never glamorised or romanticised, the depiction of the sexual relationship between Saeki and Kafka is viewed as a romantic, tragic and glamorous event.

But Humbert Humbert is a romantic guy...just messing with you. Well, he did have some merits anyway. Not promoting pedophilia, ok.


This is how I understood Kafka's relationship. I think of him as a teenager or a boy right at his puberty stage having a crush on let's say, his teacher. Thinks of her sexually mixed with his emotions of innocent first love. I read this a few years back and this is how I took it.

This is the first time I read about the threads in this group and I'm surprised that as the book itself has stirred something in my thought, it also made different intellect tackle each other's intelligence.


Ranee wrote: "But Humbert Humbert is a romantic guy...just messing with you. Well, he did have some merits anyway. Not promoting pedophilia, ok.


This is how I understood Kafka's relationship. I think of him a..."

Jon wrote: "Thanks Ranee, Yes I've read Lolita My point is I'm not against the depiction of children having sex with adults in literature. This happens in life and literature must not just reflect the nice thi..."




Nevertheless I think that the part where Kafka and Ms. Saeki made love with each other is a metaphor of a feeling hidden inside. I've read this somewhere as I was searching for dream meanings and I happen to read about people dreaming having sex with other person, it means that the dreamer have a feeling with the person in his/her dream he/she was with, and that feeling is something the dreamer keeps inside. Thus I conclude that Kafka and Ms. Saeki making love is a metaphor that they both convey a deep feeling for each other which only confirms their relationship between them as mother and child...that's how I see it.


Only one thing bothers me, though, about the book is Johnny Walker, what does his flute represent in real life. I've read the book twice already, going for the third time, yet I still can't see the connection of the flute in real life. Now please disregard what does Murakami says about this 'flute' I want to know what other readers think about this one. =)

I just completed my first Murakami and it was Kafka on the Shore! Such a brilliant novel, brilliant in the sense that it is actually making the reader question their life, their decisions and their need for completion and meaning of a story, their story, any story. With all the chaos of the plot, I too am glad the 'entrance' was closed and there is a new beginning for all concerned, including the reader.
I agree with Jj, in how amazing it is to see many different varying reactions from everyone. Also it's wonderful to see similar reactions to how I felt. I was worried if I would not 'get' the book, the concept. But I see I am swimming along nicely.
And I second Jon's view on the sexual relationship between Kafka and Ms Saeki. I too found it disturbing and Jon has worded MY issue well. It's the glamorizing and romanticizing of the relationship I initially had an issue with. Then the Oedipus ending was again hard for me to digest.
I'm grateful to Jon for voicing it out and also to read others' views on it, as it helped me to except it as part of the plot.
As I progressed with my reading the relationship just fitted in for me. I had a less issue of it by then. I looked at it as a 'coming of age' experience, as many have cited here other works with similar themes, which is literature pushing the envelope with its readers. So I got on with it.
I also automatically had internalized the sexual relationship and the graphic nature of the affair, since I saw it as more to do with me and my take on sex and sexual relationships.
I conduct myself is such a way that this particular area is not given prominence. Just the way I'm brought up and my own understanding of repercussions of such an illicit relationship. But why have I not allowed the nature of the human sexual relationship to have its place in my life? Why was Kafka talking about his body or the sex acts in the book the most jarring of the scenes rather than the murders of cats and Walker? I felt Murakami inadvertently was asking me to face my own demons.

Unfortunately the last message on this thread has been posted on Dec 2014.
Is there anyone around to discuss anew? Has it been too long since everyone read Kafka on the Shore?

Yes it has bewn two years, but I think of there would be enough of us to talk about it, since I have reread Kafka for quite a lot of times already, this thread will continue...

Great...

Long time Murakami reader.
I am just starting this one.
This is not the most active group these days, but anyone...
Care to join in a buddy read?

I have just started The Zahir - Paulo Coelho but Kafka is next ... I am relatively active I dont mind being a part

oh man, i can't remember much of the book, but i sure do remember the state of mind Kafka on the Shore put me in. need to give it a re-read, which i should probably do in 2019. re-read old faves.

I read about 25% of the book yesterday. I'd love to have you both in.
Lelia, I just read your review of IQ84 and you may have the best perspective on how to read Murakami. We seem to have a lot of his titles in common.

Patril, I have never been part of an international buddy read, only a large scale group read. If we can get this together I am very excited about what we three might be able to do for each other.

As it happens I just started a re read of a two volume work by Barbara Tuchman. I will shift Kafka to the back burner until we can decide how/when we want to proceed.

Feel free to message me if that works better for you two.

Piyumi wrote: "I just completed my first Murakami and it was Kafka on the Shore! Such a brilliant novel, brilliant in the sense that it is actually making the reader question their life, their decisions and their..."

Just got passed the cats and Walker. One of the hardest few pages I have ever read. Not sure any consensual sex should bother anyone if they can get passed these pages. I have to wonder about a person who focuses on the later with hardly a word about the former.

leila wrote: "oh man, i can't remember much of the book, but i sure do remember the state of mind Kafka on the Shore put me in. need to give it a re-read, which i should probably do in 2019. re-read old faves."

Leila,

I still have not finished Kafka on the Shore, but it an effort to get a handle on it I came across this about Kafka the Writer/philosopher. It reminded me of something you said about reading Murakami:

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literatur...

Quote:
Kafka's world is essentially chaotic, and this is why it is impossible to derive a specific philosophical or religious code from it — even one acknowledging chaos and paradox as does much existential thought. Only the events themselves can reveal the basic absurdity of things. To reduce Kafka's symbols to their "real" meanings and to pigeonhole his world-view as some "ism" or other is to obscure his writing with just the kind of meaningless experience from which he liberated himself through his art.

Expressionism is one of the literary movements frequently mentioned in connection with Kafka, possibly because its vogue in literature coincided with Kafka's mature writing, between 1912 and his death in 1924. Of course, Kafka does have certain characteristics in common with expressionists, such as his criticism of the blindly scientific-technological world-view, for instance. However, if we consider what he thought of some of the leading expressionists of his day, he certainly cannot be associated with the movement: he repeatedly confessed that the works of the expressionists made him sad; of a series of illustrations by Kokoschka, one of the most distinguished representatives of the movement, Kafka said: "I don't understand. To me, it merely proves the painter's inner chaos." What he rejected in expressionism is the overstatement of feeling and the seeming lack of craftsmanship. While Kafka was perhaps not the great craftsman in the sense that Flaubert was, he admired this faculty in others. In terms of content, Kafka was highly skeptical and even inimical toward the expressionist demand for the "new man." This moralistic-didactic sledgehammer method repulsed him.

Kafka's relationship with existentialism is much more complex, mainly because the label "existentialist" by itself is rather meaningless. Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard all have a certain existentialist dimension in their writings, as do Camus, Sartre, Jaspers and Heidegger, with whose works the term existentialism has been more or less equated since World War H. These various people have rather little in common concerning their religious, philosophical, or political views, but they nevertheless share certain characteristic tenets present in Kafka.

Phrodrick wrote: "leila wrote: "oh man, i can't remember much of the book, but i sure do remember the state of mind Kafka on the Shore put me in. need to give it a re-read, which i should probably do in 2019. re-rea..."

phrodrick, thank you so much for sharing that! i'm 100% sure it's something i'm going to want to come back to when i revisit Kafka on the Shore.

wow, this is a good start here, I think we should all have a good book discussion sometimes, a coffee? haha if only we all have an access to the stones so we could all go to that place and discuss over coffee or something


Happy New Year Guys! Let's keep this going :)