Luna’s comment > Likes and Comments
Like
Hi Phrodrick, thank you for your response! Let me clear up a few misunderstandings:
The referral to concubines was a broad example for male-preferential relationships, and to expand further on it being an origin for speaking on the trope of the singular male with many female companions commonly seen in all types of media. It was not to say it literally makes an appearance in said novel (if that was the case, all use of analogies are to be deemed hyperbolic and literal), but the relevance the concept plays. The conclusion I wished to draw from bringing up concubines, was the legacy of the modern day harem fantasy and trope that it has left.
I do not say Murakami himself strips female agency, I spoke of agency in relation to very traditional patriarchal Asian family structures. I implore you and anyone reading what I have wrote to please keep in mind the relativity of everything I have said in relation to the topics I raise. The paragraph in which agency itself is mentioned is an introduction to ‘East and South-East Asian families [structures].”
As stated, my comment itself is an attempt to put what others also struggle with in Murakami’s writing into a cultural context. It’s not intended as a direct attack on Murakami, nor the readers of Murakami.
“Why is he in particular to be punished?”
I do not wish to punish him, and have not stated as such. I simply wish to participate in, and allow for further discourse on this matter that was raised 9(!) years ago, and is clearly on-going.
“Are we to judge all literature?”
I’d hope so! Just as we judge film, food, music, and art in all forms. Personally, I enjoy forming and hearing critical opinions on all of the above, it’s the only way we can further learn and open our minds to new interpretations; gaining, rather than losing, value from modern or centuries old classics. I studied literature, so critical reading is something I thoroughly enjoy, and it shouldn’t be viewed as necessarily antagonistic or negative.
Again, I appreciate your perspective, but the continuation of discussion is the reason why these threads exist, rather than to simply “put this one down and move on” as you wish for me to do. As stated in my post, I wanted to provide further perspective, but not to “punish” nor “erase any of” Murakami’s writing, these are preconceptions on my intention that hold no truth. I wish to keep this a respectful, open place for discourse, on a discussion board that is dedicated to the topic at hand.
If you look to my account, I have read many of Murakami’s work, because I genuinely enjoy his storytelling. In no world would I wish for him to be erased.
I’m not sure what relevance your colonialism comment has, but I will end here as to keep it relevant to discussing the text.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Hi Phrodrick, thank you for your response! Let me clear up a few misunderstandings:The referral to concubines was a broad example for male-preferential relationships, and to expand further on it being an origin for speaking on the trope of the singular male with many female companions commonly seen in all types of media. It was not to say it literally makes an appearance in said novel (if that was the case, all use of analogies are to be deemed hyperbolic and literal), but the relevance the concept plays. The conclusion I wished to draw from bringing up concubines, was the legacy of the modern day harem fantasy and trope that it has left.
I do not say Murakami himself strips female agency, I spoke of agency in relation to very traditional patriarchal Asian family structures. I implore you and anyone reading what I have wrote to please keep in mind the relativity of everything I have said in relation to the topics I raise. The paragraph in which agency itself is mentioned is an introduction to ‘East and South-East Asian families [structures].”
As stated, my comment itself is an attempt to put what others also struggle with in Murakami’s writing into a cultural context. It’s not intended as a direct attack on Murakami, nor the readers of Murakami.
“Why is he in particular to be punished?”
I do not wish to punish him, and have not stated as such. I simply wish to participate in, and allow for further discourse on this matter that was raised 9(!) years ago, and is clearly on-going.
“Are we to judge all literature?”
I’d hope so! Just as we judge film, food, music, and art in all forms. Personally, I enjoy forming and hearing critical opinions on all of the above, it’s the only way we can further learn and open our minds to new interpretations; gaining, rather than losing, value from modern or centuries old classics. I studied literature, so critical reading is something I thoroughly enjoy, and it shouldn’t be viewed as necessarily antagonistic or negative.
Again, I appreciate your perspective, but the continuation of discussion is the reason why these threads exist, rather than to simply “put this one down and move on” as you wish for me to do. As stated in my post, I wanted to provide further perspective, but not to “punish” nor “erase any of” Murakami’s writing, these are preconceptions on my intention that hold no truth. I wish to keep this a respectful, open place for discourse, on a discussion board that is dedicated to the topic at hand.
If you look to my account, I have read many of Murakami’s work, because I genuinely enjoy his storytelling. In no world would I wish for him to be erased.
I’m not sure what relevance your colonialism comment has, but I will end here as to keep it relevant to discussing the text.
Where?
The females have no agency?
The female protagonist was a highly valued killer for a female owned and operated agency whose entire existence was for the purpose of killing males.
An unrestricted, unpunished, extra legal right to kill men. That is what no agency looks like?
I appreciate the insiders view of many, all<?> of Asian cultures, but how does any of it relate to Murakami, or to this book?
If you are correct that it or he lacks "open discourse on these issues", Why is he in particular to be punished because he wrote the book/s he did write and not book with the the polemics you want? Dare we list all of the issues of that day or this not addressed?
Are we to judge all literature, or only Asian literature erasing any of them with an absence of open discourse on any of many issues?
Not liking any given book or writer is an absolute matter of taste. Maybe even politics. Maybe just put this one down and move on.
While I am at it:
Over all Japan was an owner and occupier of a colonial empire. The case that it suffers from colonialism can be made, but a rather weak conditional case and even if granted, a very short colonial status.