Thoughts on the Article and "Little Green Monster" - Katherine

 I felt like Murakami's response, while not dismissive, was revealing in its defensiveness. It felt like trying to seem open-minded, while still admitting to a lack of understanding, constituted a sort of evasion or an unwillingness to address the issues brought forth, other than saying that he sees there is nothing wrong with his works. He acknowledged the critique, noted that he writes from what he knows, and suggested that his female characters are idealized because that is how his male narrators see them. That explains why the roles that women play differ so drastically when they are told from different points of view in the story. In many of his novels, Murakami's women cluster around certain archetypes. As we discussed in class, that is certainly true of his male characters as well, and from the assigned reading on gay men in Murakami's works, it seems like a pattern for his mind to congregate on certain archetypes for certain genders and sexualities. So to be fair, this quirk of his does not just seem to land on women. Noting down some of the types of women commonly found in the story, we have the unattainable woman from the past, like Naoko, the warm, sexually forthcoming woman of the present, like Midori, and the mysterious, dangerous woman, like the girl who seduced Reiko. These types of characters are all defined by their relation to the male character, as if their existence, emotions, thoughts, and actions fall neatly in place according to their designated roles once he enters their lives. They are not entirely one-dimensional, and many are certainly interesting characters, but I feel like Murakami's works, in which women may have sex but are not romantic or sexual interests, represent their interiority better. 

Unrelated, but what I found interesting is that "The Little Green Monster" becomes two completely different stories depending on your interpretation. If we read it as a story of refusing unwanted advances, it becomes a story of a woman asserting her autonomy, confidence, and standing firm even in the face of a pitiful, grotesque sight. It could even be read as empowering in this way, and her actions could be interpreted as assertive, not cruel. If we read it as a story about a woman extinguishing the part of her that wants to be free from domesticity, then it becomes a tragic, stultifying story of a person trapped by fears and convention. Arguably, cruelty towards oneself is easier to do and has a stronger impact than cruelty towards others. I have still not decided which makes more sense to me.