Other questions:
- How would you describe the structure of the book to someone who might be interested in reading it?
- Throughout the book, we will see the same events told from different points-of-view (for instance, the handkerchief that Kiyoka Izumi gives to the driver of the van to wave out the window). It would have been easy enough to edit out these repetitions. Why did Murakami leave them in?
- Only Part I, which interviews the victims, was originally published in Japan. After some critics panned the book, Murakami interviewed several cult members (for Part II) and republished it. (Both parts were published in the English translation.) Why do you think Murakami at first didn't want to interview the terrorists?
- The subtitle is "The Tokyo Gas Attack and the Japanese Psyche." What do you think the book is saying about the Japanese psyche so far?
- The very last interview in today's reading was not really an interview, but a description of Murakami's visit w/ Shizuko Akashi, the survivor w/ the worst injuries that we encounter in the book. Since she is mostly nonverbal due to her injuries, why do you think Murakami included this visit? Why did he title it "Disneyland"? What does Disneyland symbolize to Akashi? To Murakami? In the previous reading, we encountered "the Big Lie." Murakami writes about "the Big Question" (103). What does it mean to be alive?
What questions do you have about the reading?
The structure of the book I can describe it is like a documentary or a flashback. I think Murakami did not want to edit the handkerchief part because maybe Mr. Toyoda was probably a famous person and it would change something in the story later on. He did not want to interview the terrorists because they were bombarded with different profiles and not having anything to do with the media. I think what it is saying is that it's dangerous and it can harm other people. He titled it Disneyland because it was not easy to travel there and that people who lived in Tokyo was that going to Disneyland was an adventure. What it means to be alive is just live your life the best way you can and don't let nobody stop you from that.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan: Some of your responses are good. Look at your last two sentences. I don't think these statements are supported by the reading. Check it out again.
DeleteFor the structure of how Murakami creates the book in, he begins to provide a small biography on Soichi Inagawa before switching to a 2nd person point of view to give the reader a glimpse from the victim's position of experiencing the sarin attacks in the Japan subway stations. Before Murakami goes into depth with telling Inagawa's story, he provides some personification and characteristics that describes his appearance. He starts off with this description first about Inagawa so that the reader can have an idea as to what Inagawa's state of being was like before he experienced any symptoms of the poisoning. I also believe that there's a possibility that the statements made by Inagawa is not fully factual because sometimes the author can fabricate some parts of a victim's story (not saying that Murakami actually has done just that) just to gain some exposure, but also, the reader has to be mindful of how the victim may have felt while becoming brave enough to share his story with Murakami. Inagawa (based off of the narrative in the book provided by Murakami) seemed very apathetic about his experience, because his main focus was just to get to work on time, partially ignoring his surroundings. Also, based upon the discussion I've heard in class from a classmate, Inagawa may have been fearful at the time of telling his experiences to Murakami, but probably showed more of a passive-aggressive type of emotion so that he wouldn't have to relive those moments as he spoke about it. More likely, it could have been possible that he was afraid on the inside but was still brave enough to tell his experience without signifying any type of emotions.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right. The amount of emotions he had showed the reader that he was almost robotic in a way. Not showing any signs of emotions but brave enough to put it into words to give us some incite on his experience just a glimpse of it to get a small taste of what really happened.
DeleteI agree with you since he showed a lot of sad emotions while he was explain what was happen in the train station during the gas attack.
DeleteQuestions I have concerning the book so far:
ReplyDelete1) What was the Aum cult's actual motives in wanting to attack their own people?
2) Why is diversity considered to be an inapplicable thing when it comes to communication between individuals in Japan? In other words, how does the lack of communication deter helping others in times of need, such as the sarin gas attack?
3) What if one of the members from the Aum cult decided to back out of the propaganda of injecting sarin gas into the floors of the subway? What do you think the consequences would be?
Hi Shiann: These are great questions. I just want to respond to the first: It IS baffling about what their motives are. I think we'll get a closer look at this (though not a complete explanation) in the second part of the book where Murakami interviews some cult members.
DeleteThe writer didn't really care much about the attack in the subway. He said that he heard sirens and didn't care to look. I understood that maybe he didn't care much of death. Maybe he was scared but then again if he was he wouldn't have said anything at all. The reaction he had when he explained what was going on with the people who were affected by the attack in other words, when you were hit with the gas bombs your eyes will feel heavy then slowly shut until it goes dark.
ReplyDeleteHi Xavier: The writer wasn't in the subway on that day. These are all interviews he had w/ different victims.
DeleteThe structure of the Underground is a biography. The writer conducts interviews with the victims of the gas attack . He wanted to inform the reader that it can be an ordinary day and a terrorists attack can happen at anytime. We need to pay attention to what is going on around us. Mr Marakami choose to write nonfiction instead of a novel because he wanted the reader to understand the severity of terrorist attacks. The novel would not depict any emotion if he told the story himself . To really understand the depth of what happened (gas attack) it has to be told from a personal experience. I think to be alive you must have hope that everything will be ok.
ReplyDeleteBeing alive is being present, doing ,seeing ,experiencing new things in Life
ReplyDeleteI agree with this description of being alive. So many people in life like to put on a front of living their best life. This book and many other stories depict being alive as living in the moment and enjoying all the little things life has to offer. This description of living life reminds me of the the poem "The Red Wheelbarrow" where William Carlos Williams says that so much depends on a red wheelbarrow that is glazed with rainwater and next to the white chickens. In reality, not much depends on this image, but it is such a little thing to enjoy in life that so much depends upon it because we must enjoy those little things to live our lives to the fullest.
DeleteI agree with the description of being alive since you have to enjoy any moment in your life. You have to enjoy all the wonderful things in this world. That the effort you make is not only work and save money but also to share with your family.
DeleteHe asks this question in his profile of Shizuko Akashi who suffered severe brain damage in the attacks. Is she not alive since she can't experience "new things"? Or maybe I don't understand this definition of being alive...
DeleteTo be alive means to be here, doing things that make you happy, going for the job you want , having fun .Being around people that makes you feel alive, Learning new things in life, traveling, and enjoying every moment you spend doing something in life . To Murakami Disney land represent to be free and healthy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, ¨Underground¨, Murakami explains us the tension that people lives while this things happens. Some people were lucky to survive during the gas attack. He was experience the dessesperation of the people that were in the subway. During the interviews, he realize the fustration of some people that lose their families. People were trying to help each other. It was a difficult situation that the Japanese were living at that time. They could not believe that a person from their own country was attacking them.
ReplyDeleteI would describe this book as an interview with victims of a horrible event. This would be like a book made about the victims of the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing or a terroristic event that still continues to plague the lives of the living. This might be a book for those suffering from PTSD and want to see how others may cope. I would also describe this book as one citizen describing an event from the inside that shook his country.
ReplyDeleteThe author intentionally left in the repetitions to have the reader see different points of view of the same event. This way, the reader can see how one persons’ actions affect the others. How the woman is arguing with the tv crew to take the men to the hospital and the driver of the van then tells his story about the same moment in time. This type of storytelling gives for a more rounded and in-depth view of the scene.
What I can only guess is to why Murakami did not include anything from the Aum cult: He wanted the story to be based on the survivors and not about the group or their fanatical ideologies that culminated in these people perpetrating this crime. He might not have wanted to be near them and talk to them as well. Imagine that you are going to interview with El Chapo and that your distant relatives were harmed by cartels. I would feel a mix of emotions; primarily that of disgust. Why would I then want to be around someone like that even if it meant I could find the truth?
This is a really good response, Ashley, esp. the line: "I would also describe this book as one citizen describing an event from the inside that shook his country." This strikes me as getting at the heart of the matter. I remember 9/11 like it happened just a few years ago, but I was living in NE. I had the feeling that I was both IN this event and OUTSIDE it.
DeleteI think the book is trying to convey that the Japanese were affected by this greatly. There were major reforms on how to respond to events similar to this. The people were much more aware of their surroundings after the event. This is very similar to the people in New York City after the events of 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI believe this interview was a part of the book, was to illustrate the most horrific result (aside from death) that had befallen the victims of the attack. While the worst thing that happened to a person this far was Nishimura still suffered from headaches. This extreme (the interview with Akashi), really shows the toll it takes on the individual and the family. Disneyland represents freedom to Akashi. No more tubes, no more therapy, no more being trapped in a hospital. This is what going from the brink of death to living life means. For Murakami, it represents hope. That people can overcome adversity no matter how trying the circumstances are. Being alive means the fight for survival. The fight that only the individual can fight. The people that were hospitalized for days or months fought as hard as they could to live. It also means that there are people willing to do what it takes to take it away from others. That their lives come before the non-believers.
Another good response. I think that hope is definitely a big part of being alive. A person who is in a vegetative state, we could argue, is not aware of being so. Therefore, we might question if she is "alive." However, Akashi, despite all of her disabilities, clearly still has hope and desire.
DeleteThe book is reading as a document. I would describe the book as an interesting book since the author begins with a background and then he begins to explain what happened at the train station. People should read this book since the author proves this reality through interviews with people who were in the scene. I think that Murakami did not want to interview the terrorists first since perhaps they were not going to give a correct answer to what happened at that time. They were going to lie because they were not going to know why they did it and what led them to cause this catastrophe. I think that the book on the Japanese psyche so far suggests that many people who were on the scene were traumatized since they cannot forget what happened. In the interviews some people did not want to tell what happened, for them it was very difficult this situation. It was difficult to believe since a normal day where many people were going to do their daily routines and these things happens. This event marked the life of the Japanese as the least imagined person caused a great tragedy. The word being alive means a lot since thanks to God nothing happened to you, you can continue to realize your goals and dreams. You can also go out, enjoy, share with your family since you don't know what can happen tomorrow with you. One day you can be fine and the next day you can't, so never leave things for the next day if you can do it today.
ReplyDeleteSo, why do you think Murakami, primarily a fiction writer, would be drawn toward this nonfiction project? Do you see elements of the book that seem like fiction? Why do you think he didn't just choose to write a novel about these attacks?
ReplyDeleteI think as a fiction writer, Murakami knows how to frame a scenario such that it neatly portrays a story with a plot line, characters, etc. I know that the process of writing this nonfiction project did require a lot of editing and shaping to become a more cohesive story, but I don’t think he intended for this to be fictional because, from what I understand, there was a bigger mission to explore something about his society, the Japanese Psyche, after casually looking through a magazine one day and reading a letter by a woman whose husband, a victim of the gas attack, found himself gradually shunned to the point of feeling forced to leave his workplace, a double violence Murakami called it. I think he was interested in the questions raised by the attack and curious about finding the answers.
Other questions:
How would you describe the structure of the book to someone who might be interested in reading it?
I would describe this book as a collection of testimonies by the victims of a gas attack, organized by route on the Tokyo Metropolitan System, followed by interviews of people in the cult responsible for the attack. Each person interviewed describes their experience of the day of the attack, in their words, mostly without input from Murakami. He wanted to understand how an event like this could happen, and perhaps help explain what the Japanese media could not at the time.
Throughout the book, we will see the same events told from different points-of-view (for instance, the handkerchief that Kiyoka Izumi gives to the driver of the van to wave out the window). It would have been easy enough to edit out these repetitions. Why did Murakami leave them in?
I think the repetition of events was necessary to the story, it helped corroborate the other interviewee’s recollections, but also I think it adds something in terms of how memories of trauma are formed, as some of the victims had admitted their memories were sometimes difficult to recall under extreme stress (unsure yet if that was intentional).
Only Part I, which interviews the victims, was originally published in Japan. After some critics panned the book, Murakami interviewed several cult members (for Part II) and republished it. (Both parts were published in the English translation.) Why do you think Murakami at first didn't want to interview the terrorists?
It’s not clear to me yet, I think there was a lot of public anger toward the perpetrators of the attack, but I also am under the impression that there was a real social stigma to talking openly about an event like this. It seems, from the stories told by the victims themselves, they harbored no hatred, which is interesting. Murakami also was very aware of how readers could perceive the book, and expresses a self-consciousness about how it could be received, but is willing to take on a project like this seemingly out of a necessary sense of duty to understand.
The subtitle is "The Tokyo Gas Attack and the Japanese Psyche." What do you think the book is saying about the Japanese psyche so far?
Again, not entirely certain, I would need to read on to feel I’ve fully grasped the message about the Japanese Psyche. It seems that although there was an effort to live in a modern, urban society (at least in Tokyo) life was also regimented in certain ways, which perhaps played a role in the sort of apathy of passersby in the midst of an emergency, described by interviewees with a sense of shock or disappointment.