Did the ending make anyone else think... (Spoiler!)

[Haydn]

The concept of the mind being separated in two, and the one part of the protagonist's mind being able to experience eternity in what is in reality a very short time - it made me think of religion.

I've looked online and couldn't find anyone else drawing the same conclusion, but what I took from this book was that if you die fully believing that some kind of eternal afterlife is possible, then that's what you'll experience, even if you actually cease to exist when your body stops functioning.

Did anyone else have similar thoughts about the ending?

[Junta]

Haydn wrote: "The concept of the mind being separated in two, and the one part of the protagonist's mind being able to experience eternity in what is in reality a very short time - it made me think of religion.
..."

I never connected it to religion (probably since I'm not religious) but it's an interesting perspective! Although I don't have the book with me at the moment, I more or less agree with your take on the end, although I would word it as a sort of alternate life rather than afterlife.

I felt the protagonist's choice to live in the timeless utopia inside his subconscious rather than face reality (by not following his shadow) as a fundamentally sad and defeatist path. It was interesting to read an interview by Murakami where, reflecting on the ending years after publication, he felt he would change the ending if he could (between the four paths of returning to the real world with/without his shadow and staying with/without his shadow).

[James]

Just my viewpoint from one of my favorite books out there: Both worlds exist in the physical brain of the main character, unable to communicate with one another. The choice between an end or eternal life in a non-real world comes from the professor. When the main character dies, his brain dies, and both worlds go with him. What is interesting to me is that he feels he actually has a choice.