Is Murakami’s Work Autobiographical?
As a painter, I am frequently asked if my work is autobiographical. In the past, I believed that it was
possible to fully remove the self from the artistic process and capture the emotions and actions of others.
Now that I’m a few years older, I have come to realize that it is next to impossible to do this. All art
includes a piece of the artist, even if done unintentionally. Every painting I make is a map of my own
feelings and experiences, expressed in the form of another person/people. The way I see the world is the
way that only I see the world. In that way, every piece of artwork, whether a painting, a piece of music,
some kind of writing, or anything else, contains a fragment of the creator within. Every art form explores
this differently. In music, even if a musician aims to replicate another musician's style completely, there is
an element of uniqueness in their composition that makes it their own. This can get a bit abstract with art
forms like music and visual art, but writing can often give readers a clearer idea of what the narrator is
thinking/feeling. However, this can easily get muddled and speculative. Reading Lolita, a reader could
generalize that Nabokov was a pedophile. While never confirmed, he was revealed to have been molested
by his uncle at a young age. So, it could be argued that he was trying to unpack his trauma through writing.
Others online argue that he was indeed a pedophile. Many such controversial novels leave readers
speculating about the writer's personal life.
Murakami is a great example of a writer whose writing appears to be autobiographical. Whether it is or not
is unclear. However, I am theorizing that his writing is indeed autobiographical, despite his claims that his
characters almost never stem from his lived experiences. I am not arguing that he is consciously lying, but
that he is unaware of how his lived experiences affected him on a subconscious level, and they leak into his
writing.
The main argument for this point would be that the archetype a majority of his male characters seem to
follow: the unnamed passive floater, drifting through life, letting things happen to him, instead of the other
way around. Could this just be a creative choice? Sure, but not necessarily. Anyway, treat this as a simple
thought experiment. Back to my main point, every idea in one's mind, whether original or not, is filtered
through our mind. It becomes our own in a very special way that underscores the individuality of being
a human being. In this regard, even if his ideas come from outside sources, they are filtered through his
experiences and feelings on particular matters. Hence, his stereotypical depictions of women as mothering
savior figures, or some kind of muse existing to please the male character and inspire him on his quest.
Again, not every text falls into this category, but much of what I’ve read has. I have a very hard time
believing there isn’t some perceived truth to what he is writing about- maybe he objectified women
through pedestalization when he was younger. Maybe, he still does now. Hard to say. What I can say is
that the way a majority of his writing over the span of decades seems to present this recurring idea of the
savior/muse woman who serves to please is a very telling detail to note over such a long career. His denial
of knowing about the controversy about his female characters suggests that either he does know and does
not see the error in his portrayal of women, or perhaps he just believes that most men carry this kind of
misogyny. Either way, it is troubling. Is this all a complete fact? I would need a lot more time to research
and prove this, or even come close to doing so. This topic would be more suitably analyzed in a 10-20
page research paper, but for now, this is an interesting exploration into how writing trends may lead
readers to assume personal details about particular writers.
No comments:
Post a Comment