Week 3: Unidentifiable Horror (A Wild Sheep Chase)

I’m envious of the way Murakami writes. Based on assignment restrictions for college, I’ve had to cut down multiple stories to their bare minimums. I long for writing with the same ease as Murakami. He lingers on each detail. There’s development of character through narratives that don’t necessarily support the main storyline or the main goal. It unfolds at a leisurely pace that seems motivated by expanding rather than focused developing that will get to the end objective in the most efficient way possible. His writing inspires me to write more stories and longer ones. 

Art by: Tony Huynh

            I started reading Haruki Murakami’s work “A Wild Sheep Chase” with expectations based on some of his other works that I have read. However, his work varies greatly in style. I did not expect what I read. I am continually impressed by his stories and look forward to reading more of his work in the future.

Murakami's constant is creating stories that raise more questions than they answer. I feel like much of this novel's writing operates on a subconscious level that’s difficult to articulate. The style puts the reader right in the thoughts of the narrator in a personal way. The book feels like a stream of consciousness. Every other line gives the impression of having a deeper meaning to it. When I took my time to digest the text, every page offered a new revelation. These realizations had a lot to do with my ideas about life. But these thoughts rarely clarified the narrative.

The story often felt muddled or confused. I’d become anxious to know how a segment was going to end but the short narrative would be interrupted. The thought would be left hanging and Rat's letters would take over. I found this somewhat frustrating.

I often found myself comparing the way I think and the way the protagonist thinks. I found comfort when there were similarities. But I’m not sure I could explain why this connection inspired a sense of relief.

The way that each detail was paid attention to seemed to give every aspect of the story importance. But the narrator acted like nothing mattered. This often created an interesting discord. It pushed me to question what did matter and what/ who could quantify it. If I thought the whale penis was important does that fundamentally give it importance? Or does it matter more if the original author meant things to have meaning and symbolism?

There’s a constant aspect of loneliness and separation in the story. The narrator says he wants to be with a woman and she agrees. But they don’t "thrust" their hands together to be connected. They tuck their hands into their individual pockets. Which not only keeps them from holding hands, but it’s a clear action that pushes them away from communicating.

The story seemed melancholy but not horrific. If I hadn’t read the story for this class I never would have classified, it as a horror novel. It was simply mellow in a sorrowful way while contemplating the mundane aspects of life. However, it pushed me to question aspects of humanity and existence which mirrored Frankenstein and Interview with a Vampire.

I found the lack of concrete identities interesting. Some characters could have easily melded into one another. The narrator even talked about recognizing aspects of someone in a new person. He saw them as the faceless person from his past. This also reflects a lack of self-identity. “So that by now I've got a string of names and identities like you wouldn't believe. At times I forget what I was like originally.” (p. 97) Rat is the embodiment of total loss of selfhood. 

While other people have complained about how the lack of names disconnects them from the story, I feel like it makes it more personal in a way. Or rather more connecting. There isn’t anything hindering you from connecting with the idea of the psyche that is being presented in it’s purest form through the story.

This novel has been my favorite that I’ve read for the class. While it can be hard to get through, spending the time is important to fully digest it. I worry that I’m simply biased towards his work due to the fact that I have previously enjoyed his short fictions. But I also know that the story built personal connections with me. I felt empathy for the narrator when he visited the place he no longer considers home. I think that aspect of the story plays into the lack of self-identity. However, outside of that, I truly believe any reader that took the time to fully read the book could find an element of the narrator’s tale that they felt a personal connection to.