Why did Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84 fail at the end?
On page 474, Murakami, in his own piece of fiction, seems to give himself a critique of 1Q84:
The work is put together in an exceptionally interesting way and it carries the reader along to the very end, but when it comes to the question of what is an air chrysalis, or who are the Little People, we are left in a pool of mysterious question marks. This may well be the author’s intention, but many readers are likely to take this lack of clarification as a sign of authorial laziness.
Indeed, I couldn’t agree more. In this three-volume set, the third volume was repetitive, uneventful, and basically squandered the suspenseful plot and all great ideas from the previous two volumes. The story simply flatlined and many characters were left in limbo.
Then again that is Murakami. He doesn’t write plot or character, but for mood.
The conclusion itself (last two chapters) was gratifying, and overall, despite the mass of unanswered questions, I did enjoy being hurled around Murakami’s mind.
If you’ve never read his work before, I would suggest starting with Norwegian Wood followed by Kafka on the Shore.
