I very rarely downvote comments, but I find it distressing that the top comment thread on this post seems to be turning towards a hate-on-Murakami theme.
Not only do I enjoy his work very much, and found some of it to be extremely influential in my life (i.e. Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World) I fail to see the value add in these sorts of comments about any creator's work.
The points about his recurring themes are technically true, but it can be easily debated whether he has reason for using the same metaphors across much of his work.
In any event, to me it seems pointlessly negative to critique such a unique and influential writer with these broad strokes. The best you could hope to achieve with these sorts of comments is nothing, and the worst would be to discourage someone else from finding real enjoyment and meaning by reading him.
Specifically, I enjoyed that little essay about the origins of his writing career so much, and it ever so slightly decreased that enjoyment to turn to the comments and see immediate negativity ... so where is the net gain in that?
This is what I came here to write, I think you're spot on.
There's a similar criticism of Hemingway's works[1]: that his prose is stagnant and unchanging. But the fact of the matter is, his books are phenomenal. I still think about many of them often, and they have had a profound impact on my life. I feel much the same way about Murakami. Yes, his protagonists are often similar (say, if one compares the descriptions of solitude in home life in Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, which I'm reading now), and many follow similar themes, but regardless his books (and short stories) are a delight to read. They are full of beautiful thoughts and writing that, though similar, often build on and compliment one another.
Not only do I enjoy his work very much, and found some of it to be extremely influential in my life (i.e. Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World) I fail to see the value add in these sorts of comments about any creator's work.
The points about his recurring themes are technically true, but it can be easily debated whether he has reason for using the same metaphors across much of his work.
In any event, to me it seems pointlessly negative to critique such a unique and influential writer with these broad strokes. The best you could hope to achieve with these sorts of comments is nothing, and the worst would be to discourage someone else from finding real enjoyment and meaning by reading him.
Specifically, I enjoyed that little essay about the origins of his writing career so much, and it ever so slightly decreased that enjoyment to turn to the comments and see immediate negativity ... so where is the net gain in that?
Edit: Spelling, and added the last sentence.