Response 6: Oct 20

Type your name in the Subject box, plus any subject heading you want for your response. Type or cut-and-paste your response in the box below that and hit the "Add a Comment" button. Note: you may need to scroll down to post your response if a lot of people have already responded.

comments:

Sarah Haas --shaas1, Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:46:55 -0400 reply
There are so many points in this book that can be thought about and dissected to find deeper meaning. I would first like to provide a suggestion of why the book is centered, in an indirect way, on the earthquake. An earthquake, much like any other major event, is something that affects a whole group of people but in different ways. The earthquake, or say terrorist attacks of Sept.11th, hit a society and everyone recognizes the face that they did happen and have caused damage. However, people all come out of these situations differently. A person who had a family member in the middle of this tragedy might handle it differently than someone who lived on the outskirts of the town and were not directly affected. I feel that this ties in to why the stories have epiphanies, but no specific ending. They are all affected by something, and we see this in the turning points they have in their minds, but we are left to only imagine how they are affected directly. Looking more into a direct section of the text, I noticed such a big difference between the personalities of Miyake and Keisuke. Miyake spends his whole life planning and thinking about the future, specifically death. He says he thinks about his death all the time. He seems too preoccupied with this to do anything especially rewarding to society. Not saying that he is wasting his life away, because he has touched the lives of others like Junko and that’s what really counts, but he does not have a job and it doesn’t seem as though he is an active member of society. He seems to go through life in a very passive way. On the other hand, Keisuke seems to be the opposite. He goes through life trying to embrace every moment. He came to this town to surf and live out his dreams. I am sure he recognizes his past, and perhaps sometimes has thoughts about his future, but he likes to live for the present. He is basically only concerned with what is going on right in that particular moment of time. He says, “What’s important is now. Who knows when the world is gonna end? Who can think about the future?” Of course no one really knows when his or her life is going to end, but Miyake lives his life trying to understand and figure out. I think that this causes a problem for Junko. She is very close with both of these people, who extremely different views of life. I think she is caught in the middle and does not exactly know where she fits in. She lives with Keisuke but their relationship seems to be more surface level. I don’t think she lives as spontaneous and in the moment as he does. It seems as if her and Miyake connect on a deeper level of knowledge and understanding…and this ultimately leads to her comment about not being able to live together, but being able to die together.

... --audj, Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:32:41 -0400 reply
I find this book a little terrifying and disturbing all at once, mostly because of the recent earthquake in China, the hurricanes, and also because of the tsunami. The cover, the stories…all of it is reminiscent of even more recent disasters. I think the thing that struck me the most was the idea that this disaster was a central theme for all the stories. I know that’s a simple thing to say, but for Japan, this was a much worse version of our 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. We get upset about 3,000 people dying at once, when the death toll in China is well over 79,000. Can you imagine? That’s a large city that has just vaporized. The death toll in Kobe was 6,433 — a loss of a small town. This book really caught my attention, so I started looking information up. I found out that not only did it kill that many people, it also sucked up ten trillion yen or 2.5% of all of GDP at the time. I think translation probably doesn’t do this text justice. Japanese is such a beautiful language. (I took three years in high school.) Japanese has a tendency to roll off the tongue, glide through the air, and slide through your ears and into your brain where its short syllables and long sentences are consumed. When translated, it sounds ineffectual and choppy. I guess I’m a purist — I even watch anime in Japanese because the voice acting is about a million times better. Honey Pie is my favorite story. I love little kids. I’m 12 years older than my little brother, so I like being around preschool age kids because it reminds me of him when he was younger. I find the story a little disturbing though because of the imagery of The Earthquake Man. My brother, after 9/11, had dreams people were throwing him out of a really tall building. He would tell me that all the people were jumping, but he was up so high he couldn’t see the ground. When he wouldn’t jump, the people would pick him up and throw him out the window. He had those dreams for months after it happened. Honey Pie seems to be a bit of a biography. A short story writer who lives in Kobe — it sounds like Haruki Murakami. I like the love story in this piece. My stomach knotted all up when Takatsuki told Junpei he was in love with Sayoko and was going to have her. One of things about the Japanese translation, too, was the sort of fight that Takatsuki and Junpei have the day Sala is born. I don’t think it was as much a fight in Japanese as it was just a statement of facts. I don’t think Sayoko and Takatsuki were very much in love. It just seems like they didn’t have much in common except for Junpei. I love the happy ending. He finds a story, a family, and a new life all in one night.

brieanne --Michelle, Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:51:05 -0400 reply
I found this book to be very confusing to me. Each individual story was easy to read and was interesting but left me hanging. I also could not figure out how in the world these stories were related. The book is called, “After The Quake.” The only relationship I could find between these stories is that they all mentioned the earthquake in Kobe Japan. The first story mentioned the earthquake a good bit but the rest of the stories only briefly mentioned it. I could not figure out why the author would want to end every story up in the air. After Tuesdays lecture I kind of had a better understanding of what his purpose was. I guess I can understand in way he probably wanted to give the same effect of how an earthquake would interrupt your life. I found his choice of characters interesting as well. Most of the characters have a sense of emptiness to them. Some of them also have mysterious personalities. They are dark and don’t really reveal much about their pasts. In the second story Miyake is very mysterious to me. When he is asked about the earthquake he has a strange reaction. He also has a strange reaction when Junko asked him about his wife and kids. The author doesn’t tell us much about the reason behind his reactions. The only thing that I could figure is that maybe after the earthquake hit he was unsure of the fate of his family. It sounded to me that one of the reasons that he up and moved away was because he found it easier to deal if he didn’t know what happened to them. He made it sound like they were in an area that didn’t get hit. I don’t think that is the case because I don’t know why he would leave if his family was still there.

Casey Tominack-After the Quake --ctominac, Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:47:10 -0400 reply
I would like to direct my response to a passage that occurs on page 9 of the story titled, “Ufo in Kushiro.” On his flight to Hokkaido, Komura reads a newspaper and is taken aback by the severity of a recent earthquake. He could not help but think of his wife as he read the articles, wondering “why she had followed the TV earthquake reports with such an intensity, from morning to night, without eating or sleeping?” and “what she could have seen in them?” The difference in the way Komura saw the events compared to his wife demonstrates the way in which people see what they want to see during traumatic events, or natural disasters. Events such as the earthquake are an abrupt change of reality--what used to be a safe place in the world has suddenly evolved into one of the most dangerous and feared places to be. During this time, it is important to realize that there is not one correct, or standard, way of responding. Some people respond immediately (such as Komura’s wife did), whereas others, such as Komura, have delayed reactions. Those who have delayed reactions may experience them as a result of denial. But, no matter when the reactions occur, or how intense they may be, few people are unable to resist news coverage at some point--often times intentionally, but other times there is so much coverage that it is simply unavoidable. The question is, though, (same one Komura wondered) why is it that some people see such horrific images, but still cannot turn away or resist them? This is a difficult question, indeed--there is not really one definite explanation. Some people may watch in order to digest the event, others view the images and stories in the same fashion they would a good movie--so addictive they are afraid to miss anything. Nevertheless, people will react differently to traumatic events. In some way, whether intense or moderate, the event will overwhelm a person’s ability to cope. Perhaps this thought can be linked to other thoughts later in the book that make some sort of reference to death. Does a traumatic event leave people fearing death? This idea makes sense--people watch and read and realize that people have died. They could find it difficult to believe that they are alive, and may worry about what the future holds for them. In addition, individuals will have a difficult time understanding why they themselves, or others, are experiencing such unfamiliar effects and problems (such as they way Komura and his wife do not understand one another’s reactions). This, in turn, can lead to feelings or detachment, alienation, and disconnection from the world around them (Komura’s wife). But as Komura and Shimao agreed, “No matter how far you travel, you can never get away from yourself” (12). Komura and his wife both had a difficult time having loving feelings and expressing their emotions--as she said, living with Komura was like “living with a chunk of air.” She, on the other hand, remained in a sort of trance and experienced extreme emotions immediately. To change the subject matter somewhat, I ran across a survey conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine. It found that US adults watched TV for 3-5 days after 9/11 (avg. 8 hours). Those who watched the most, had more substantial stress than those who watched periodically. This is important issue and basically the topic of my response--how much is too much? And, how does it effect the intensity of our emotions? There is no control over the content and form of the information transferred by the media; however, as I mentioned at the beginning, we can choose how we want to perceive what we see--deny it or become engrossed in it?

Charlotte Harris --charris3, Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:22:30 -0400 reply
In reading the book After the Quake there was one quote that could have covered how everyone was feeling about earthquakes. It is “strange and mysterious things, though, aren’t they- earthquakes? We take it for granted that the earth beneath our feet is solid and stationary. We even talk about people being ‘down to earth’ or having their feet firmly planted on the ground. But suddenly one day we see that it isn’t true. The earth, the boulders, that are supposed to be so solid, all of a sudden turn as mushy as liquid. I heard it on the TV news: ‘liquefaction,’ they call it I think. Fortunately we rarely have major earthquakes here in Thailand” (76). That quote is the message that most of the characters in the story are trying to get across in their stories. They think that a one point in time that they live normal lives and that all is good. Then the earthquake comes and changes all of it. They start thinking when is the next coming? What am I to do? They were thinking similar things as to what we think of after a hurricane hits. Most people think that nothing can really happen to them they think that everything is solid and sturdy and will be there forever, like friends and family, houses. People’s lives changed in the time following the earthquakes. They became in such disbelief that they weren’t sure what to do. The other thing that stuck me the most was the frogs on the cover of the book. I was wondering why they had frogs on the cover of the book that was about earthquakes. But after reading the story of “Super Frog Saves Tokyo” did it make sense to me. In that story frog kept telling Katagiri, the other character, about a big earthquake coming that worm was going to create. So the way it helps us relate to the cover is that the frog is heading towards the hole, white circle, as to where it could lead to being under the ground to where he can then kill worm. The other way I looked at it was that the white circle with after the quake written on it was simply saying that since the earthquake our lives have just become smaller and that they are empty, they also don’t want anything to disturb them either. Over all I thought this was a really good book. I thought that some of the endings were a bit odd or left something off. It seemed like oh I’m tired of writing lets just write a conclusion instead of telling us a finishing as to what happened to them.

Kristina Gifford --Kgifford, Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:21:47 -0400 reply
We have had to read many different things for this class and most of them I loved, but this book was just weird for me. It could be because I’m sick and just not making complete sense of it, but I just don’t see the point to stories about super frogs and menopausal doctors with white stones in them. I am very confused about this book. I remember someone in class saying that it was more about people realizing the frailty of life after an earthquake but how does the super frog that gets eaten by worms, a boy dancing in a baseball field, or a perfect bonfire fits into the whole thing.

The stories in the book all connect to the earthquake in someway or another but I do not understand why the stories do not have points. We read about a boy trying to find his father but ends up dancing in a baseball field instead. We have also read about a woman doing nothing for a week but swimming except for getting her fortune told by and poor village woman and finding out she needed to prepare herself for death. Both of these stories and the rest really do not seem to have a point to them. They are about people who do not like their lives and live completely lonely. They have no aim in their lives and it is just depressing.

This book was an easy read. I read it in a couple of hours. I think it may have been the easiest one to read yet, but I just cannot convince my self to like it. It was too depressing and everyone seemed pointless to me. I am not criticizing the writer. Actually, I think he is a great writer. He was able to create pictures of what he described in his book and he used a language that made each story an easy read. He incorporated wonderful details into his stories, but the stories themselves did not satisfy me, especially, the story about super frog. It seemed more like a dream one of my little brothers or sister would wake up shaking from in the middle of the night after watching a scary movie. It seemed to fit a child’s imagination more than an adult writers.

Overall, I would say this book was not something I would go back and read again. It just puzzled me too much. I might give the writer another chance because he is a great storyteller. It’s just his stories that I did not like all that much. Then again, it could be just that I am not thinking too clearly considering I have the flu, its after midnight and I am barley able to read and write let alone think. In general, I complement the writer but not his stories if that makes any sense at all.

AFter? the Quake --cjoseph1, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:08:36 -0400 reply
To start off, I like the language that Murakami uses throughout his stories. He speaks through an easy to understand, very fast flowing dialogue. Id like to focus on a couple quotes from around pages 26 and 27 in Landscape with Flatiron. As Keisuke and Junko walked in the frigid february night to the bonfire on the beach, Junko makes the comment "Whats so special about Pearl Jam?.... Bonfires have had fans all over the world for fifty thousand years" Keisuke then goes on about how what is important is now, and "the only thing that matters is whether I can get my stomach full right now and get it up right now. Right?" Alot of people evidently have been having trouble seeing how these stories relate to the Earthquakes, and I feel like those lines encompass this. All our lives we spend planning; we go to high school so that we can get to college, college so when can get a job, job so we can retire, etc. We're set in these universal schemas that do have some relevance, but seem to miss the point to some degree. This is only because we never know when a life altering tragedy could occur; earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, wh

Katie - After the Quake --kamos, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:14:14 -0400 reply
I must admit that in reading the first few stories in After the Quake, I was a little disappointed in the fact that each ending left somewhat of a void. I wanted to know what happened with Komura, Miyake and Junko, Yoshiya, Satsuki, Mr. Katagiri, Sayoko, and Junpei because each of their tales were so different and strange. I then came to realize what Shimao said at the end of UFO in Kushiro, “‘But really’, she said, ‘you’re just at the beginning.’”, was true for every character in the book. The earthquake’s role, however terrible in real life, is to show that the lives of many people, as well as the ones in Murakami’s stories, were directed on a new path ever since the tragedy. Each of the characters began contemplating and understanding new things about themselves and the world around them that they never would have unless something came along to shake them up. The endings of the stories were no longer disappointing after understanding this because I realized that there could be no more of the story told – the characters are waiting or plotting just what it is they’ll do next. I also feel that After the Quake is somewhat reminiscent of the endings to the stories in Resistance by Barry Lopez, because like those stories, the people in After the Quake are waiting to take the next step, whatever it may be.

“Honey Pie” is a tale that I feel had the most satisfying ending due to the fact that Junpei says that in the morning he will ask Sayoko to marry him. The reader understands what Junpei has been through in not taking the chance to tell Sayoko that he loved her when he had the chance so long ago, and in the end, I for one was very confident that in the morning all would go as planned.

I also think that it is important to appreciate Haruki Murakami’s way of writing, however disgusting at times some readers might find it to be. In my favorite story of the book, “Super-Frog Saves Tokyo”, it is clear to see Murakami’s magical way of describing events. On page 113, as Frog is dying/dispersing/disappearing, Murakami writes, “His two big eyeballs fell from their sockets onto the floor, where they were devoured by black bugs with strong jaws. Crowds of slimy worms raced each other up the walls to the ceiling […]?”.Such a description is as easy to picture as it is to almost smell and hear.

Many of the stories, such as “Super-Frog Saves Tokyo”, are ones that are worth reading over again to find deeper meaning in, which is something I’ve not had time to do. I know that there must be more to the story than the fact that a giant frog man, who enjoys tea and quotes notable literary figures, comes to a man and asks him to help save Tokyo from a giant worm. I also feel that there is something I’m not quite getting in the things that Frog says, although I was really interested when Frog, on page 110, says of imagination that, “It is there that we experience our victories and our defeats.” To me, this is a complex idea that I feel I’ve yet to fully unpack.

AFter? the Quake --cjoseph1, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:37:02 -0400 reply
To start off, I like the language that Murakami uses throughout his stories. He speaks through an easy to understand, very fast flowing dialogue. Id like to focus on a couple quotes from around pages 26 and 27 in Landscape with Flatiron. As Keisuke and Junko walked in the frigid february night to the bonfire on the beach, Junko makes the comment "Whats so special about Pearl Jam?.... Bonfires have had fans all over the world for fifty thousand years" Keisuke then goes on about how what is important is now, and "the only thing that matters is whether I can get my stomach full right now and get it up right now. Right?" Alot of people evidently have been having trouble seeing how these stories relate to the Earthquakes, and I feel like those lines encompass this. All our lives we spend planning; we go to high school so that we can get to college, college so when can get a job, job so we can retire, etc. We're set in these universal schemas that do have some relevance, but seem to miss the point to some degree. This is only because we never know when a life altering tragedy could occur; earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, whatever it may be. But there is also a negative side to Keisuke's reasoning as well. Living moment to moment without a care in teh world is a great theory. But what about when said tragedy strikes? Then it seems as if people are stuck within that moment because of that mentality (stuck in front of the TV for weeks on end, for example). We get so caught up in our planning for the future that one instance can stop time and tear apart our life's schedule. But on the other hand, we view time as a series of moments while living in the present without a feel for what teh future holds. So when something horrific does happen, we get stuck in this moment to moment mentality from which we cant escape.This is why balance is a necessity; we must have a balance between living for the moment and viewing where we are going. Because what happens if the moment we are in is abruptly destroyed (i.e. by an earthquake)? I do agree what is important is now, but if what is only important is now than what happens when life on Earth is finally boiled due to our thinning ozone from burning fossil fuels, or when a nuclear bomb finally wipes out more than just one country. The moment mentality has no way to cope with such situations, because such situations would/will happen due to forces that have been at work for decades. Everything is a byproduct of something else; a good example is New Orleans. which floods because they build weak barriers to keep out water for a town built 20 feet below sea level (damn French!) Things happen for a reason, and it seems that the moment perspective may eliminate the human condition as a causation for such events.

Breanne Alioto Response --bre4nne, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:13:09 -0400 reply
One story that particularly had an affect on me in After the Quake, was Thailand. Thailand was about Satsuki, a single successful doctor who took a four-day break to go to a conference. She reminded me of myself in a few senses, because she overreacts to things. For example, how she got all worked up when the turbulence happened on the airplane, I myself am the same way. We find out later that this hyper activeness is perhaps because she is afraid to accept the fact that she will one day die. This again reminds me of myself because death happens to be my biggest fear. We find out that she was once married, and cheated on and never had a chance to have children. We also find out later that the fact that she didn’t have children is weighted in the back of her mind. When she meets her driver, Nimit, he brings her to many realizations about her life. At first, I thought that perhaps Nimit had an infatuation with Satsuki, but realized later that he just had this intense respect for her and the way she lives her life. He brought Satsuki to come across many conclusions about her life. We also find out how the earthquake ties into Satsuki’s life through her discussions with Nimit. When he brings up the earthquake, in her head she begins to talk about “him”. And how she wished “him” had died in the earthquake. I assumed that she was referring to her x-husband. The most interesting part of the story for me was when Satsuki went to see the dream predictor. The dream predictor told her that she would see a snake in her dream, but not to be afraid to grab it with both hands and let the snake eat the rock that is inside of her. This we later find was to symbolize Satsuki embracing death and accepting it for what it is. Then, at the end of the story, Satsuki is riding in the airplane. Only this time, things are quite different for her. She sits back in her chair, closes her eyes and says to herself that she is ready for her dream to come. This is Satsuki’s way of accepting her death and the fact that she cannot live forever. And also the idea, that she cannot regret what she didn’t do in life, but embrace the things she did do. This story I felt really also tied into the earthquake because of its discussions of death. So many people died in the earthquake, and many of them probably were not as prepared to die as Nimit or Satsuki is now. I think the moral of the story is the idea that we all need to accept that we may die any day, not to fear it and to go on living like we were dying, because inevitably we all are.

Autumn Means --ameans, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:28:15 -0400 reply
The one quote from Murakami’s After the Quake that really confused and intrigued me was that passage from the story Landscape with Flatiron that specifically mentions the title of the story. We did not discuss this section of the story in class, but I feel like it must be significant. The mere fact that the story’s title is derived from this passage is evidence that the ideas expressed here are support for a major theme Murakami is trying to present in the story. The passage starts on page 42, when Miyake sits down on the beach next to Junko and she thinks that he looks more tired, old, and wasted than usual. She then asks him what kind of pictures he’s been painting, to which he responds that it would be difficult to describe to her. She asks him about the last thing he painted and he tells her that he calls it “landscape with flatiron” and that it’s just an iron in a room. She asks him why that was so hard to explain. On page 43, Miyake: “Because it’s not really an iron.” Junko: “The iron is not an iron?” Miyake: “That’s right.” Junko: “Meaning it stands for something else?” Miyake: “Probably.” Junko: “Meaning you can only paint it if you use something else to stand for it?” Then, Miyake nods in silence. I think that this passage is perhaps meant to sum up the ways Miyake and Junko feel about their lives and their fears; at the same time, I feel like maybe this passage also lends some insight into the main characters’ fascinations with the bonfires. In this case, the bonfire would be the iron in the painting. It represents something else for Miyake and Junko – something beyond just a fire on the beach. For each of them, it represents something they feel their lives lack at this point. For example, Miyake is guided in life by the belief that he knows in advance that he’ll die locked in a refrigerator. This fear of his, that haunts him even in his dreams, starts affecting his life and confining him. He no longer owns a refrigerator and must buy all of necessary items in small quantities, to be consumed right when he purchases them so they don’t perish. He has also moved to a remote location, away from his wife and children perhaps because he feels that his preoccupation with his fear of dying makes him an unqualified husband/father. In this sense, he is restricted by his fears and longs for freedom from those fears; the organic nature of the flames of the bonfire suggest freedom and represent, for Miyake, the freedom he feels he’ll never attain. For Junko, the bonfire represents something else. She ran away at a relatively young age because she was not satisfied with her home life, and felt she lacked loving family relationships. The fact that she lives alone, a great distance from her biological family, never having contact with that family must be difficult for Junko. This feeling of not having a real family she can turn to must control her life and emotions to some extent; perhaps this is why she feels empty. The bonfire, for Junko, then represents a family. On page 32 – “Junko never said much in the presence of the fire. She hardly moved. The flames accepted all things in silence, drank them in, understood, and forgave. A family, a real family, was probably like this, she thought.” I think the passage that mentions “landscape with flatiron” is supposed to make the reader realize that both Miyake and Junko are using the fires as abstractions for their ideals.

SUPER FROG SAVES TOKYO --lgilkeso, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:00:40 -0400 reply
“Super Frog Saves Tokyo” is the short story that sticks out the most in this book. The story is very abstract but makes some very real points. Human naturally want to blame someone or something for anything bad that happens. Natural disasters never go without people blaming other people. This particular story strikes me as very funny. The Kobe earthquake was the worst natural disaster in Japan and in and of itself is not funny. The thing that makes this story funny is the idea of this evil, enormous worm getting upset and causing this horrible disaster. It’s even funnier that a super frog emerges as the protector of Tokyo and has come to save the day. Frogs are generally not thought of as strong creatures. Then again worms are not exactly thought of as evil, world-ending creatures either. So why did Murakami choose these two seemingly gentle, harmless creatures to battle it out and fight over the fate of Tokyo? The frog stands over six feet tall and worm is comparably just as large. This story is opposite of most super hero stories in the fact that the super hero openly admits to needing help by an ordinary man in his attempt to save Tokyo. At the end of the story, we learn that the man got shot before he was supposed to go save Tokyo with Super Frog. The Frog, simply called Frog, was a very interesting character. He is scary and gruff at first. Then he turns into a being in need of friendship and is actually quite caring by the middle and end of the story. Back to the question of why were these usually docile animals used as such powerful beings in the story? Perhaps there is a relationship between the animals and the ordinary man chosen to aid in the saving of his city. The man chosen is an ordinary, single man. Maybe Murakami uses this ordinary man and these ordinary creatures to illustrate the drastic effects the Kobe earthquake had on everyone. Personally I have a different theory. After the Kobe earthquake and before the complete finish of this book a group of people sprayed lethal chemicals in an attempt to kill many Japanese citizens. True these people were radicals and after they attacked, there was nothing ordinary about them. Before they attacked the perpetrators of this offense the people that committed the crime were ordinary people. They went to the supermarket, filled their cars with gasoline, and went to the movies like most of the other Japanese natives. The law enforcement officers in Japan are also normal, everyday people that have families and lives outside of law enforcement. Perhaps Murakami used the ordinary worm and frog as super creatures in order to illustrate that ordinary people battle everyday with each other. The worm is evil because he is slimy and sneaky, which is how many children and some adults would describe criminals and the people commit fanatical crimes in an attempt to kill thousands of people. The frog is an ordinary creature chosen in this fictional story to save Tokyo. The frog I feel is symbolic of the law enforcement officers that are ordinary people until they go on duty and when they put on their respective uniforms they become seemingly larger than life. The battle between the two is also representative of something bigger. The true battle is between the evil people that choose to spray lethal gas into crowds of people and the law enforcement trying to stop them from killing. The ordinary man that was chosen as Frog’s sidekick is symbolic of those people affected indirectly the people spraying the lethal gas.

Will Good-ufo in kushiro --wgood, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:14:09 -0400 reply
I thought the first story of “After the Quake” by Haruki Murakami was pretty interesting. After the part were his wife left him it got kind of mysterious. His boss gave him a package to deliver but would not explain what was in the package. It made me think the package was some sort of metaphor describing Komura’s recent marriage problems and his new life. It later turned out to be exactly that. Then he got to Hokkaido, where he was greeted by his bosses sister and her friend. He noticed that they recognized him and not the package. This made me think the boss had a hidden agenda behind the trip. The girls seemed awful friendly to just be taking a package. They took him out to eat, got him a room, and made him take a bath. The room they got him was a in a sex hotel. As soon as I heard that I knew the bosses plan for Komura was to get him laid. It seemed like the real purpose of the trip. Another thing that I noticed threw out the story was the way the author made the characters westernized. The main character was a hot shot business man who always wore a suit. The only character that wasn’t was the wife, which could have been the reason she left him. She was most comfortable with her parents who ran an inn in a smaller town. The two girls he met on his trip always said like before speaking. The one girl drove a Subaru. They talked about bears a lot. I could be wrong, but I didn’t think there were a lot of bears in china. I just thought it was weird that a story based out of Asia and the characters were strongly westernized. It was never clear why his wife left him, but it seemed to me to be a direct result of the earthquake she was so concerned with. He did not think so, but she described how she wasn’t getting anything out of the marriage. I think that the reason she left was because the earthquake made her realize that life is short and you have to do what you want to do. She went back to what made her really happy which was living at home.

sam cole --scole, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:24:36 -0400 reply
In the story UFO in Kushiro which is written right after the earthquake Kobe had hit Japan. Komura’s wife is glued to the television watching all the footage of the destroyed cities. This reminded me of how a lot of people acted after the events of September 11, I think to many people were glued to the tv just reliving the events over and over. In the story it shows you how when people realize that life is so short they start to live it more fully. I think that is why Komuras wife leaves him, because she realizes that she is not happy with her present life, and if she dies tomorrow she does not want to die with that life. In the part of the book where Shimao crawls into bed with Komura it is very evident of the fact that they both think they could die tomorrow Shimaro says “you need to lighten up andearn to enjoy life a little more. I mean, think about it: tomorrow there could be an earthquake” Then after having tried to have sex with Shimao a few times and failing he gives up. The reason he can not have sex with her is because he can not stop thinking about the earthquake, and all the damage it had caused. The thought of the earthquake is affecting him in all areas it is not only laking him live like there will be no tomorrow but it is even interfering with his sex life. This is one thing I can not imagine is being in bed with a women and thinking about scenes from September 11 or and other horrific event. Through the story it doesn’t seem like Komura ever starts to live his life there will be no tomorrow. But at the end of the story Shimao asks if Komura feels like he has come a long way and Komura says she thinks he has then Shimao says “Your just at the beginning” I think she means that he has just learned to start living his life differently.

After the Quake: cglover --cglover, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:36:41 -0400 reply
One theme of After the Quake which was brought up in the presentation Tuesday, and which I found to be particularly interesting refers to the comment made by a critic at the beginning of the book which states, “Both mysterious and yet somehow quite familiar.” I never paid attention to this before that class, but this statement clarified the way I felt towards this text. I loved how in almost every story, I could relate to the individual characters and place myself in their position. These were familiar people to me only through reading a short text. Yet, the mystery and almost abstractness of Murakami in almost every story left the endings open to creativity with each reader.

For example, in “Landscape with Flatiron,” Junko and Miyake are sitting by the bonfire towards the end of the story. The two are relating their uncertainties and personal problems to each other in the way they view their lives. When searching for a solution to Junko’s problem of “being empty,” Miyake suggests that they could die together and Junko agrees to it. Now there is an underlying sense of sarcasm in this statement I believe, yet Murakami leaves the reader not knowing the extent of Miyake’s seriousness. So while Miyake is trying to figure out how they will die together, Junko wants to sleep and asks Miyake to wake her when the fire goes out. Miyake then states, “When the fire goes out, you’ll start feeling the cold. You’ll wake up whether you want to or not.” I found this statement to be very abstract in its nature. Firstly, the feeling of overwhelming cold is usually associated with death, which is an interesting association to the previous discussion of dying together. When Miyake speaks of her waking to the cold, is he being literal in the fact that the extreme cold of the outside will simply wake her from her sleep, or will she be waking up to the afterlife and the cold that some feel it brings? The true mystery here lies in the fact that the story ends on this note. You never know whether she wakes up or not. You never know whether they die together after all. I do not believe that Miyake would simply let her die and freeze to death, but at the same time it seems as though Junko is already dead to herself due to her feeling of emptiness, which could also represent the cold he speaks of.

Finally, I really like how this book is centered on a major disaster, yet the disaster itself holds somewhat of a distance to all the stories. Every main character throughout the book is really not directly tied to the earthquake in Kobe. It’s the people in their lives who are directly affected, and it is those people who directly affect the main character. For instance, in “UFO in Koshiro” Komura’s wife is the one who is directly affected by the quake since she zones out for days in front of the television watching coverage of the event. Yet, this sparks something in her which causes her to leave Komura and directly affecting his life and the events that end up taking place in the story. Another example would be in “All God’s Children Can Dance,” since Yoshira’s mother is the one who is directly influenced by the quake since she does relief work and is constantly gone. If she had not been off doing this, Yoshira probably would have never associated his dancing on the pitcher’s mound with the trembling of the earth’s surface and his movements stirring up earthquakes. All in all, I enjoyed this book because I almost felt as though I was a part of the book also.

Thailand --ryrivard, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:43:26 -0400 reply
One passage in Thailand bothers and doesn’t make much sense to me. "Living and dying are, in a sense, of equal value," Satsuki hears in a dream (pg. 87, the end of that middle section, in italics). But this an odd response, by the author, to tragedy. Instead of valuing life, which is what has been lost in the Kobe, which is the tragedy, he responds by suggesting that dying is the most important thing. How? By ending life? Then what is the tragedy of the earthquake, if both are of equal value, and both are either equally bad or equally good then wouldn't there be no tragedy or any sort and what Murakami is reacting to is a sense of outrage over nothing. Yet he is outraged, yet he is confused, and he doesn't seem to believe his own words. There are, of course, differences noted in several large studies between Asiatic and Western attitudes, they have incredible respect for elders and an different take of the nature of a good life, but it doesn’t seem that death and life can ever have equal value because life is the only time which we perceive and through perception we find value and in death we do not perceive and there can be no value. Several paragraphs before, on pages 86-87, Nimit, the chauffer, says “you must prepare yourself to face death,” which further belittles whatever Murakami seems to be saying. If, in life you ought to prepare to die, would in death you prepare to live? Even if Murakami really believes this, some philosophers have suggested that eastern philosophies that seek to deny death, for example by reincarnation, are merely denying death and reaffirming the incredible value of life.

Jennings (Jay) Lyons --jlyons5, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:35:51 -0400 reply
The story titled “Super-Frog Saves Tokyo” by Haruki Marakami is an interesting story that leaves a reader wondering “what the heck is going on here?”. The story is revolve around the main character uncertain if what he is experiencing is “real” and if he trust his eyes or him memory. Katagiri has his home invaded by a giant frog that likes to be called simply “Frog”. This is where the first uncertainty Katagiri has. “Is the giant frog real?, Why is he here?, and Why me?” are all question circling through Katagiri’s mind all at once. All of which Katagiri subsided, because he we was a man highest trust worthiness and courage. So, Katagiri decided to be brave and trust his eyes and the story of Frog.

As the story progresses, Katagiri finds himself in another account where he takes another leap-of-faith to believe what he sees and is told. Katagiri is told and absurd sounding story about a huge worm living underneath the ground, that likes to be called simple “Worm”, that has extreme sensitive anger built up; and on at exactly 8:30 AM on February 18th, 1995, Worm is going to unleash his anger and create a vast devastating earthquake right under the Shinjuku branch of the Tokyo Security Trust Bank. Frog then asks Katagiri if he will trust his word and help him save Tokyo by fighting Worm to prevent the earthquake. Being the kind of guy Katagiri he goes against his natural instincts to say “is not real, this can’t be happening” by saying he’ll comply with the Frog’s wishes to save Tokyo though in saving Tokyo it will contain no glory.

So, the story progresses and Katagiri is arises to the ultimate “What just happened? Was that real?”. Katagiri was on his way to meet Frog to save the Tokyo he encounters a man in the street with a gun that shoots him, which leads him to pass out. Later he was found unconscious and was taken to the hospital, where he wakes up and has the ultimate battle with his mind on what he believes. When Katagiri first wakes up he believes exactly what he remembers, that he was walking on the street and he was shot in his right shoulder and that he passed out and has awaken in what he thinks is a hospital bed. Katagiri believes this story at first because he can’t move his right shoulder and it was exactly what he “thinks” he saw just before he passed out. When he awakes, Katagiri is updated by a nurse that he was not shot and he just found unconscious and brought to the hospital. This version was much different then he remembers seeing. Obvious from this point Katagiri knows he can’t believe his eyes because he didn’t actually get shot. This puts everything Katagiri has experienced the last few days in a new perspective. What can he believe? Is Frog actually real? He saw Frog. He heard Frog croak, but what can he believe.

The ending of the story leaves the reader wondering “What was the story all about?” Did any of it happen or was it all a dream? The reader doesn’t know anything because it ends with Katagiri falling in a peaceful deep sleep.

After the Quake --mscott, Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:55:45 -0400 reply
After the Quake is incredibly thought provoking. During the group discussions the topic of epiphanies arose. Some characters in the book have an epiphany—others do not. The most interesting idea that was discussed was the statement that the author may have been trying to convey the idea that epiphanies can’t be forced—they happen or they don’t happen. When Komura loses his wife and is accused of being little more than a chunk of air one would think this would be fantastically disturbing. However, he handles the situations as if something good happened—he takes the entire ordeal very casually. Possibly his desire to get away was his coping strategy—maybe he was hoping for a fabulous event to change his life—to force him into an epiphany. The package is particularly interesting in the story. The box is seemingly empty—a chunk of air. When his curiosity peaks, he questions the content of the box. Shimao jokingly answers that the box contains what he had lost. This implication—though she seems to be joking, is rather haunting. Still, however, there is no epiphany. The character knows only that he has lost something. I definitely think he is empty—possibly attempted sexual advances toward Shimao. So, the reader is left with a broken character—no pretty package. And the reader is not left with the reassuring thought the character has reached some fabulous epiphany that will lift him. He’s just stuck there. I admire Murakami for not giving his character the magical “I just had the most wonderful thought that will rescue me from this mess and give me a tan and maybe even a tighter ass” pill. Sometimes, shit happens—and sometimes you don’t get up gain. I like that the epiphany didn’t come. Maybe he needs to drink a few more beers and possibly get laid a few more times—then again, maybe things will never change.

Brittany --bpeters, Sun, 23 Oct 2005 00:09:08 -0400 reply
After the Quake by Haruki Murakami weaves several tales that all involve the aftermath of the devastating 1995 earthquakes in Kobe, Japan. One of the more potent tales, “UFO is Kushiro”, definitely struck a chord with me. In the story, businessman Komura’s wife leaves him abruptly after the Kobe earthquakes, and returns to her mother’s home, from where she sends divorce papers. Somewhat heartbroken, Komura accepts a co-worker’s offer for a vacation in Hokkaido in exchange for the delivery of a small package. In the course of his time there, Komura realizes something about himself, something that is never revealed to the reader. This was a shocking ending to the story, as Murakami had told it in a mostly straightforward style, the only mystery being the question of why Komura’s wife had left him. He had woven in vague references, such as Keiko and Shimao’s constant references to the bear story, but these were all explained in the end and the reader eventually understood what had been going on. The story seemed rather cut and dry, and almost boring at times, but the end was so incredibly vague, and definitely made the reader think about what went on in the story, and even want to go back and reread to find clues as to what Komura realized about himself. The epiphany moment is kept subtle, and could be missed easily, but leaves so much to think about after reading. Just as he becomes so angry that he wants to hit Shimao, he comes to a realization about his true nature that Murakami doesn’t share with us. One of the biggest questions was how the earthquake fit into all this, and how it is pertinent to the disaster itself. It could be that the disaster was necessary to his discovery of his true self, as his wife left him after endlessly watching news coverage of the Kobe earthquake. This could lead the reader to believe that maybe within the news coverage and devastation his wife watched on television, Komura’s wife saw something that revealed Komura’s true nature to her, and therefore left him. “UFO” is a thought-provoking tale, and only one of many within this wonderful book.

Steve Sinning --ssinning, Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:05:05 -0400 reply
After the Quake, written by Haruki Murakami, provides six short stories based around the events following the 1995 Kobe earthquake. While the title of the book clearly indicates that the stories occurred after this devastating disaster, I feel as though the quake isn’t as significant in the stories as it should be. For example, in the first story, “UFO in Kushiro,” a wife leaves her husband after continually watching news coverage of the earthquake. Other than a small note, that indicates that the husband has nothing to give the wife, the author gives no reason for her sudden departure. Because she watched the earthquake on television for six straight days, the reader can assume that the earthquake had something to do with her leaving. Murakami doesn’t directly comment on how the earthquake changed the wife. The beginning description of the wife directly compares to a comic strip in In the Shadows of No Towers. In the strip, a guy sits in front of the television watching different news stories after 9/11. The last strip shows his wife pulling him to bed as he babbles outrageous ideas about the attacks. In both instances, the media, after a disaster seemingly changed people. My problem with this collection of short stories involves the actual earthquake. For a book named after an earthquake, I would think the earthquake would play a more significant role in most of the stories. In my opinion, the author is trying to let the reader form his or her own opinions about how disasters subtly affect the lives of everyday people. I believe there is a way for authors to let the readers form their own opinion, while still presenting the reader with the authors own beliefs. I think Spiegelmen did an excellent job of this in his collection of strips; and In my opinion, this is where Murakami fails for me.

Amanda Drake --adrake, Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:29:21 -0400 reply
After the Quake is a surprising fast read. It makes me almost wish it wasn't, because just as I'm getting attached to the characters and wanting to know more the stories abruptly cut off. I also agree with the comment above. From the title and the back cover of the book I was expecting the stories to be about survivors of the earthquake and maybe about how they are rebuilding their lives and their new perspectives on life, etc. Instead I find six stories where the earthquake is casually mentioned in passing. I guess the earthquake was just a simple way to connect all the stories. Murakami's style is very intriguing. Something persistant in almost all the stories is his use of vulgar language or suggestions, or at the very least, the loose mentioning of sex/erections. It almost seems unnecessary and in the excess at times. Maybe Murakami was a pervert haha. Out of the stories I think Landscape with Flatiron was my favorite. Komura, from UFO in Kushiro, was my favorite character but his story lacked the same depth I found in Landscape. The abrupt ending in Flatiron seemed a little less rigid and more understanding as to why it would end like that. I like the way it left me wondering what was going to happen next, whereas with UFO I was left thinking "What just happened?" and almost as if I'd wasted my time reading the story by coming to such a dead end. I love the way Junko relates to the fire and the way the bonfire and the feelings it brings about becomes the center of the story. I can relate because I know the feeling of staring into a big bonfire in the middle of the night. The sense of calm and stillness, but also that sense of a whimsical sadness brewing just under the surface. I wonder if Miyake did something that resulted in their deaths after the fire went out? I think maybe he did and I like that the story gives me room to make my own speculations. In regards to the other stories, Yoshiya's incesterous relationship with his mother intrigued me and was something I wish would have been elaborated on more. There seems to be a lot of deep rooted issues with that, all the way through his childhood. It is weird that his mother is so christian and reformed by the lord, but yet walks around her house naked and sleeps with her teenage soon likeso. All these characters are so complex and I hate that their lives were cut so short by Murakami's hand, never really given the chance to develop out. Important factors are just casually mentioned and then hastily cut off. All of them leave me confused and asking questions. Was that his father that he followed onto the field? What in the world does the size of his penis have to do with anything?! Was that a necessary addition to this story? I was also very intrigued by Komura's relationship with his wife, as his friends and family were. I too noticed the parallels to Spiegelman's news junkie comic strip in her and could relate to her obsession to know everything and be constantly aware of changes. And who in the heck were those two girls? and how did they know it was him getting off the plane that they were suppose to be meeting, having never meet him before? It's all so weird and random. Murakami's style is very unique and unusual. I guess all I can do is wonder what the heck and keep reading. Never has a book provoked such thoughts and outright frusteration at my inability to find out more.

Sarah Haas --sbaldwin, Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:17:04 -0400 reply
Sarah: Good point about an earthquake - it affects many, and in fundamental but perhaps not obvious/simple ways. So, the emptiness so many of these characters feel is the crack or void left by the quake - perhaps, as it remains mysterious. I take the lack of resolution/epiphany to tie to the lack of grounding in a quake - nothing firm left to stand on at the end of these stories. Good point about the characters in "Flatiron": Junko is caught between Miyake and Keisuke. If the first is death-obsessed and the second lives for the moment, she wants to know which to choose, wants an answer - and it's this that she's looking for deep in the fire.

audj --sbaldwin, Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:45:03 -0400 reply
Why does it require loss to make us realize commonality? I mean, why does something have to disappear - life, a city, a people - for us to realize what was there and what we shared? We have one answer - of course, trajedy alerts us, wakes us up, makes us empathic; but this only begs the question of 1) why aren't we this way anyhow? 2) why is it that disappearance is needed? Or rather, in Murakami's terms, why is it that the emptying out caused by the quake is necessary for these characters to seek out - and perhaps know - who they are? Like the question in the first story: what would be within us if something was there? Only when it's gone, if it ever was there?, do we start to think of it. Another thing I hear you mulling over is the size and range of these global trajedies. Truly we're inoculated and protected here in the US. But the difference is perhaps only in degree? I imagine that the Earthquake Man, or someone similar, visited plenty of Americans in the last several years.

brieanne --sbaldwin, Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:50:48 -0400 reply
Brieanne: You're raising quite legitimate questions about what a story should do. Let's say we expect some kind of resolution and satisfaction - it may be happy or sad, it may be quite minor, but something. The suspension here is disturbing, especially because the stories don't feel random - they do set up situations and trajectories of plot and character, but not resolution. We can ask: is this wrong? We can also ask: why do this? If it makes us feel uncomfortable, is this the goal? And if so why? Or: what can we use that discomfort to reflect on, what does it show us? Now, in addition we've the problem of the quake. As you note, few of the stories are directly about the quake, or rather, they all mention it directly but don't represent the experience of it - rather, they specifically represent the experience of being away from the quake, being distanced from it. And yet all these characters feel the quake, are moved and changed by it. So, there's exploration of how such an event transforms us even if we don't experience it directly. You can imagine analogies to our own experiences...

Casey Tominack-After the Quake --sbaldwin, Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:48:47 -0500 reply
Casey: What are we to make of Komura's wife - watching and watching and then disappearing...? I think you're right that it points to the range of reactions to trauma. Is hers a kind of limit reaction, an extreme? The question of why some turn away and others pay attention is important. It seems to me this goes to the way the event is turned into an image - one that may turn the event into nothing but surface, or may somehow capture the event. The image fascinates in different ways. We can see Komura's emptiness and journey as one response to the image: he turns away and doesn't watch, but is emptied out beause of this. We could wonder what happened to the wife - does she go home? Are we to assume she really disappears in some supernatural way? I think it would be useful to look at all the interruptions of these images in to all the stories, and to track the different reactions for what they tell us.

Charlotte Harris --sbaldwin, Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:01:35 -0500 reply
Charlotte: Liquifaction is an appropriate word for what happens here. Characters lives turn to liquid. To some degree, reality turns to liquid, as does our expectations about the reality in a story. Liquification all around! Yet, the liquification has a real origin - the earthquake - so there's an interesting relation between the loss of reality and underlying realities (the earth). Also, thanks for discussing the cover of the book: the cover is always worth considering.

Kristina Gifford --sbaldwin, Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:21:47 -0500 reply
Kristina: Of course, it's reasonable not to like some writing. One thing to do, to make the reading worthwhile even if you don't like it, is to get at what's missing for you. For example, clearly "All God's Children" is about his emptiness and lack of certainty in life, particularly about his father. So, in your first paragraph, are you asking why does he dance, what's the significance of that for this problem that the story is posing? That is, is your discomfort with the story about how to reconcile what happens? You're saying you don't see the point to this. So, one answer might be 1) what kind of point do we usually expect and why does Murakami not deliver it? 2) or, is there another point here? Now, most of the stories do seem to have rather simple points, in a fairly staightforward way, don't they? Take "Thailand": yes, she swims, then her fortune is told and she learn that she has a stone inside her with something written on it, and finally that she needs to have a dream to somehow remove this stone. We can take this literally (she has a stone inside her) but we tend to assume it's somehow coded (stone=something else...). That seems a fairly clear story and point, but does beg the question of what the stone means (what the something else is) and also the question of how this is resolved - it's not, since we're left hanging, we don't know if she has the dream or not. So, perhaps this is what you mean? 1) That the stories have a certain irreducible ambiguity in what their symbols represent; 2) that they do not deliver clear answers/conclusions?

Katie - After the Quake --sbaldwin, Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:02:22 -0500 reply
Katie: Interesting to think of all these characters "at the begining." We can imagine being on a new path due to the earthquake; but is there a sense that they're all, always at the beginning - as if we're always improvising, always trying to figure things out? I like the comparison to Lopez's Resistance. I think it's true: like the characters there, these characters are on the way to somewhere and something else. It's like the end of super-frog - the death - there's a sense of the tragic, but it's also a very organic death, more life created from it. It's a disgusting death, but also absurd, comic-book like. There's a sense, for me anyhow, of the way tragedy and defeat are followed by more life. That seems to be one of the points of the story.

AFter? the Quake --sbaldwin, Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:41:31 -0500 reply
Craig: The language is clear and easy; full of pop references, but of very specific sorts - music, especially jazz and rock, literature, film, and mostly Western not Japanese; the language is also deceptively spare, in the sense that it offer minimal dialog and description but in a very precise and pointed way. I like your formulation that we spend our life planning - quite true. "Landscape with Flatiron," like several of the other stories, presents characters in the midst of a highly managed and planned life, but faced with the possibility of leaving, changing, altering, dropping out. The question of the story is whether we can discern something worth our action - whether looking into the flame will show us anything. Clearly, living for the moment is not Murakami's answer, but he's not giving us a simple alternative either.

Breanne Alioto Response --sbaldwin, Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:40:01 -0500 reply
Breanne: It's reasonable to compare the reactions and actions in the story to your own. Given that you see her anxieties like your own, what can you say about what eventually happens in the story? There is a question of accepting our mortality, certainly. What would that make the stone that's inside her? It's written on - does this mean we see it as a tombstone? Perhaps... but ok, what would the dream mean? And, if the dream means something like this acceptance of our mortality, what does it mean that she doesn't yet have the dream at the end of the story? Why does Murakami end it this way?

Autumn Means --sbaldwin, Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:14:03 -0500 reply
Autumn: I agree totally that the passage you've chosen is key. "You can only paint it if you use it to stand for something else." Doesn't this capture something about the stories in the book as well? The characters, events, language, always seems to stand for something else - but what? We're left with that sense that it does stand for something else, but not a sense of what. There's a sense of the bonfire as a kind of general sign for this extra quality, a sign for what all of them lack and refer to. Of course, when asked about all this Miyake only nods in silence. So, we don't get what it stands for only, that it stands for something else... I suppose there's the question of whether such a situation is satisfying or not. The fire is the answer, but in a deferred way.

SUPER FROG SAVES TOKYO --sbaldwin, Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:39:03 -0500 reply
Lauren: I agree that the story is funny - absurdly so. Worm is horrific and funny at the same time; Frog is too, in his own way. I think you're exactly right that it's a kind of inversion of the superhero story. Now, how tightly can we read this vis a vis the terrorist gas attacks? Certainly this story is dealing with other threats post-quake, and it posits a kind of malevolent evil threat - rather than indifferent the natural disaster we take the quake to be - on the other hand, it's fairly non-specific. It could refer to any future disaster. So, we might say it gravitates to tragedy of any sort. But one thing that's telling, that pulls it towards the sarin gas attacks, is the normalcy of our hero, since those attacks were so directed at the normal people and at the normalcy of Japanese culture.

Will Good-ufo in kushiro --sbaldwin, Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:34:00 -0500 reply
Will: (By the way, there are a lot of bears in China, but the story is set in Japan.) You've done a good job sorting out some of the events of the story, making it clear and cohesive. I'd say you reduce the weirdness of the story: in many ways it's quite straightforward. Yes, certainly, the boss sent him away to relax and possibly (probably?) set him up with the sister and friend. What do you think of the weirder aspects of the story, for example, what do you think of all the talk of emptiness? And why the bit with the box?

sam cole --sbaldwin, Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:23:03 -0500 reply
Sam: From your response, you find the earthquake worked in a very similar way on the Japanese as 9/11 did on Americans. Why do you think Komura's wife responds so differently? What is Murakami saying by having such different reactions? Also, if the story is offering an answer to trauma of something like "live life fully," is this a good answer or not? (Clearly, America didn't think it was a good answer, as we felt we needed to attack other countries in response.)

After the Quake: cglover --sbaldwin, Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:14:28 -0500 reply
Chris: Yes, you're exactly right about the mystery of "Landscape with Flatiron." It is suspended in that final line. Overall, you do a great job explaining some of these stories. I'd like to hear more on how you are part of the book. What about it resonates for you? For instance, is there a particular character or situation that seems familiar? Also, how do you think he achieves that, given that it's set in a fairly distant culture?

Thailand --sbaldwin, Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:06:25 -0500 reply
Ry: Where do you see that Murakami's response to the quake is to value life? He seems to emphasize the frailty of life. He presents the idea of grabbing onto life as one possible response to this frailty, but not the only one, certainly not the one he's proposing. So, I'm not convinced. Perhaps if you brought in some evidence that this is Murakami's claim... In turn, given this, why then the statement "Living and dying are, in a sense, of equal value"? What has Susuki learned, then?

Jennings (Jay) Lyons --sbaldwin, Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:23:08 -0500 reply
Jay: Yes, the story slips between the real and unreal - it's never quite clear. Why do you think frog insists on being called just frog - people keep calling him Mr. Frog, etc. Is this just humor or what? It suggests a kind of logic is at work, but one we just can't grasp. And, similarly, there is just "Worm." I suppose this suggests something almost elemental - a force, a spirit rather than a person (or a worm). So, perhaps a suggestion that these are in someway the forces behind what we see and the events of our world - frog and worm. But frog doesn't really offer answers. Instead we get the ambiguity - the sense, for example, that Katagiri either was unconscious and dreaming or did actual somehow fight worm.

After the Quake --sbaldwin, Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:41:11 -0500 reply
Melissa: I like your formulation that epiphanies can't be forced - they happen or they don't. This suggests a kind of attitude towards reality that requires us to forgo thinking we can control or dominate or even predict. I agree that the box may be empty - even if we take accept that it contains what he lost. If what he lost is emptiness, then this is perhaps a kind of improved situation for him, though it may be that emptiness is only replaced by more emptiness? The last line of the story, that he's only at the beginning - could this always be the situation? Always at the beginning?