I tried reading Haruki Murakami's new short story "First-person singular". Apparently, it is a collection of short stories published in literary magazines, not a newly written one.
When I read it, I thought that I could remember the slow board for China in Amazon Review, but at the same time, the expectations for the next feature film increased. That was my first thought.
As the title suggests, most of the first-person singular names are "I" and "I". It is Haruki's standard way of writing.
Haruki Murakami once said that Dostoyevsky's "Karmamasov Brothers" was his ideal work, and wanted to write it sometime.
Then, for that reason, I abandoned the first person and began to challenge the third person's work (I wonder if "After Dark" was the first of the trial), but I did not feel very pinned. Even after that, I made 1Q84 and Kafka by the seaside, which is not completely first-person, but alternates first-person, but they are all excellent works, but I was a little discomforted by the reader who liked Haruki Murakami from the beginning. ..
The first person certainly has a lot of restrictions in telling the story, and he/she is not enough to write the width and depth as he wrote in “The Novelist as a Profession”.
That's why I think I tried to switch to third person. However, if you compare it to baseball, when a pitcher who is a fastball player turns into a soft pitcher, he is happy with his success, but a little loneliness, so that he feels a certain kind of disappointment. The appeal of the fastball that I tried to draw deeply has disappeared.
I think that is the true intention of fans who have stopped reading Murakami's novels these days.
And this new short story has completely returned to the original first person. I think nostalgia comes from that.
However, if it is exactly the same as the slow board to China, I think that it is not so if it is said that the third person's attempt was useless.
After all, if you understand rudeness, you are evolving (deepening). I got the fastball back.
Until now, "I" was a story that protected my own world and lived through it, colliding with the world and still trying to stick to "I". I have sympathized with the unyielding nature of "I" and the reckless battle.
By introducing the third person, the world was shaken. Because, if there are as many "I" as there are characters in the story, and if they start fighting with the world if they are correct, it is clear that the results of the story will be uncollectible and fail.
If I could overcome it and draw it all, I think that the modern version of Karamazov was completed by this time.
However, from my guess, I think that the third-person novel was temporarily shelved. Then has it evolved somewhere? That is the fact that this third person was temporarily shelved.
I think that people understand that they are making works in the third person, but that is the perspective of God. In the Norwegian forest, the "Greek tragedy" means that God has to appear to solve the messed up consequences that God has to solve.
Then, it is God, that is, "I," who judges the characters. In that case, it becomes thin as an individual. Because the whole story becomes "I".
In other words, my world is subdivided by the number of characters. That's the power of the individual. This is because "I" = "God" cannot create a world better than I.
Then, Haruki, who returned to "I" again, started writing again in the first person this time. And the consistent theme is "presence". In other words, do other characters, including me, really exist? I intended to recognize it, but I think it is an illusion, including my own existence. That's what it means.
Even if you go to the bar wearing fashionable clothes, even its existence is mistaken. The story of the fact that the opposite sex was supposed to be understood was actually a criminal. A monkey that steals a person's name (that is, the existence itself) (I don't think it's a big sin in the work, but I think it's a felony that's unforgivable)
In other words, do we really exist? He raises the question of how far he can recognize others and how much he can do.
There, you can feel the new evolution of Haruki Murakami. And, as I mentioned at the beginning, it seems to be a stepping stone to the next feature film (since in the past, the short film was positioned as an experimental work of the next feature film).
“Existence and time”, raised by philosopher Heidecker, I really feel like giving me an answer as to whether or not I am present at this time.
I may have thought too hard about it, but it was a short edit that made me think about various things.
It was Nakamura, who was reluctant to read the book review at all. Please read it for the time being.