Anyone else read this? What a charming book. The Japs have done it again

You can draw as many parallels as you like, but what you apparently can't do is empathize with anyone that doesn't share your neuroses

Yeah, you're definitely just protecting your own values here. So what if she lives a life of low ambition? Your only argument for why this is bad is an ex nihilo assertion that she's lying to herself.

The counter reading is that it's totally fine to take her statements at face value and accept that she finds fulfillment in a life of solitude and simplicity

>Take it at face value even though it runs counter to everything people desire?
Yeah. That's literally the main theme of the book, retard.

You're filtered, anon. The connection you're drawing between this book and No Longer Human is superficial and you're completely ignoring the fact the MC is fulfilled by the role she's chosen for herself and hindered by the social expectations of others. Your read is literally what's being criticized in the book and I find it shocking how you can be so completely and utterly filtered.

You talk a big game on human relationships for someone incapable of empathizing with others. Anyway, everything I could say in response here would be repeating myself re: you projecting your values on someone else. I guess I might also add how disgusting I find it when people try so hard to convince happy individuals that actually they're repressed and need help

This guy is like the autism of the MC mixed with the resentful self-important pseudness of the incel she takes on as a pet, kek. He's so filtered it's almost astounding.

>The point is, it’s contrived and rooted in the problems of the atomisation of the modern capitalist model
The problem is you're a pseud who can't come up with his own take on a book, anon. Stop projecting.

>this kind of person can be neglected
She isn't neglected. She's suffocated by social relationships/expectations and the main driver of the plot is her trying to escape them by playing along with them. She doesn't understand their value because they simply aren't valuable to how she lives her life. She's hyperconformist in a way others themselves subconsciously idealize, as reflected by her dedication and personal fulfillment in a menial job, but not for the motivations they project onto her; she doesn't want to rise in social status and attain fulfillment in things she (ironically compared to the standard person) sees as superficialities. By forcing her to conform to social expectations they dehumanize her individuality--thats a big part of where the comedy in the novel comes from. She has a deep and fulfiling relationship with the convenience store itself, it is her husband/child and not a substitute for them, and that's something the people around her (and readers like yourself) can't understand.

Do you realize the outlook you're adopting is what the book satirizes or is it like when you thought "symbol hunting" had to involve symbols and not simply reading something into a book that isn't there? Your take misses the mark so much that it's almost impressive.

Holy projection, kek. We all get filtered sometimes, anon. Stop acting like a petulant pseud and just accept you didn't understand the book. It's how you grow as a reader and, quite frankly, you need to develop some character.

You seem awfully upset that people disagreed with your take on the book and were able to provide better ones, anon. You brought the wrong ideas to the table while you were reading it and ended up missing out on what the author had to say (i.e. the point of reading a book). As such, you brought superficial criticism that's boring and contrived instead of broadening your prospective. You're a bad reader and your behavior after having others point this out to you reflects that you're probably a bad person as well.

>talks about prose
Pseud confirmed and now we can laugh at you for referencing "muh prose" in translations, kek. You're a true retard, anon. Work on yourself.

>doesn't know what "prose" means
Here's where I could get pedantic like you yourself did earlier but I'd rather just call you a retard and ask that you not associate yourself with people who appreciate Mishima.

NTA but I want to thank you for the literary theory reqs you just dropped.

>wants us to listen to his opinions on literary criticism
>was completely filtered by Convenience Store Woman
You're all the worst aspects of LULZ rolled into one poster. Kek.

>Barthes, someone who is specifically famous for not giving author intent the pedestal that you two in this thread have been doing.

Jesus fucking christ. No one is talking about Death of the author here!!! No one is talking about her intention. I specifically mentioned affective fallacy where you believe you can read anything you want into a text. Only pseuds who know nothing about literary theory think barthes’ death of the author essay means you can read whatever you want into it. Have you even read that essay?

And by the way, it didn’t start with barthes you dolt. It goes all the way back to the intentional fallacy and the formalists New Critical school.

Oh my god, what’s that word for someone so stupid they don’t even onow they don’t know.

Sorry, you tried to bring up theory and then revealed how little you know and now you’re just trying to cope. I mean, who goes from barthes death of the author in one post to using the author’s bio in the next? Stick to your marvel movies, mr. redditor.

Has to be. Can’t believe I wasted my time on this.

If you followed my actually point all the way through (who can even be bothered with how many posts this is taking), you will remember that I was originally saying that the author may well have intended to portray the book in the light that others agree on, but that her attempt to do that rings false because her own convenience store job was clearly not enough meaning because she used it to launch her writing, which is part of the human feeling that needs to be expressed outwardly to people.
Her act is a direct contradiction of the conclusions of the protagonist and a good reason why I found it so revolting.
It’s not about intent but about the juxtaposition of how I’m reading it in the first place as a contradiction against the takeaway from the protagonist.

Which is why I see it as a darker book than most. It is all a consolation from the character.

Anon, you're retarded. Murata liked working in a convenience store and continued to do so until her fame lead to a stalker and forced her to quit. The MC gains fulfilment from working in the store and it comes to represent things traditionally associated with personal fulfillment. The store functions like a fulfilling relationship and is not just a substitute for one and this is juxtaposed against the social expectations others project while not even being conscious of their value. You can comment about capitalism but the thrust of the book is more complicated than simple ideas of commodification and depersonalization--the MC is depersonalized by social expectations and the tragedy would be her not choosing to go back to the aspect of her life that gave her a sense of purpose and meaning.

You were filtered by the book because you didn't take the opportunity to rethink your understanding of the concepts you brought to the table. That makes your criticism not only contrived but rather boring. On top of that you're also an idiot who couldn't have a conversation with people who disagree with you or defend your ideas without crying victim--youre a pathetic person and it's sad to see someone who thinks they take reading seriously but doesn't actually get any personal benefit from it. You suck, anon.

>Fundamentally insane.
It's certainly not normal but the negative pathologies she experiences come from aspects of the social world she sees as meaningless. Wearing her smock reflects the best aspects of herself whereas civies are a uniform (she merely copies what others wear to fulfill the obligation of being a social animal). Work for her is trying to make it seem like she's buying into the rat race others take for granted; if you view things from her perspective there isn't any value in social contrivances and they're absurd. Marxist labels like alienation don't cleanly apply--she defines herself through her relationship with the store and who is anyone to tell her it's a worthless pursuit when it not only fulfills her but is also an outlet for a larger sense of belonging? Her individuality is threatened by the outside projections of others telling her what she should strive toward when the fact is she's happier than everyone else with far less concern (albeit the impositions of others are a large concern for her and drive the novel). She not only lives in a small world but thrives in it.

>You were trying to flex with a word sale of read this
That wasn't me.
>prose has many facets
Shut up, pseud. One argument over semantics because you're a retard trying to save face is enough. You were filtered by Sayaka Murata. That on its own is enough to disregard everything you want to misguidedly regurgitate but the fact you're acting like a petulant crybaby because the only person convinced of your intelligence is yourself seals the deal. Stop embarrassing yourself and just go read a book you won't understand, kek.

That doesn’t work*

>It’s called a literary reading
It's called symbol hunting, i.e. you make up a theory that's not supported by the text by grabbing onto a few things here and there and forcing them into an interpretation that doesn't work. Take any literature class above level 100 and you'll learn about it.

It’s not symbol hunting, I used no symbolism whatsoever.
The type of psychological disorder displayed in the book is not something that needs to be interpreted by an egg and the moon rising or something.
It really is telling though that someone writes a feel good story from a mentally ill perspective in this day and age and people try their hardest to see the positives in it.
It is a repulsive read in so many ways.

symbol hunting != symbolism

>It’s not symbol hunting, I used no symbolism whatsoever.
Retard.

You're being autistically pedantic over "symbol" and missing the forest for the trees. It explains why you're so filtered by the book though.

I'm calling you a retard because you're demonstrably retarded. That statement is partially based on the fact you're clearly filtered by the book and also based on the fact you got pedantic over the word "symbol" instead of recognizing the criticism of your take fits.