1. Just like the original Godzilla, who was imbued with ultra-powerful destructive capabilities after a test bomb was launched offshore by the Americans in the 1954 original film, Nakata can not only talk to cats but make mackerel fall out of the sky. Although he makes it work for him, why do you think Murakami has given him this ridiculous skill? Do you think Murakami is referencing Godzilla here? How? And more importantly why?

5. What in the world comes out of the body of Nakata? And why?

6. Why does Murakami create so much ambiguity in this novel? What is he trying to tell us here about these people, this story, ourselves, life? Is it effective? Support your answers with ample examples from the text.

Question 1. Godzilla vs.Nakata

Since this course begins with Gojira/Godzilla, and Kafka on the Shore is next in succession, I am assuming that is no accident... On some deep level it does seem that Murakami is making a statement about nuclear weapons. Rice Bowl Hill with the phantom B-29 in the sky, Nakata altered by the experience there, and Hiroshima gets a brief mention in the text; very subtle references but plausible. There's nothing directly mentioned of course, but that itself is a statement. The fact that tens of thousands died in Japan when the US dropped two atomic bombs is certainly still a part of that country's collective consciousness. Interesting too that Japan would have the Fukushima nuclear plant accident nine years after this novel.

I find the act of comparing Godzilla and Nakata amusing, to the point that I hope it was the author's intent- a lampoon. It could be seen as a parody- Godzilla with his bursts of flame from the mouth and strength enough to level Tokyo, contrasted with Nakato the cat-whisperer and raining-fishmonger. (Holy mackeral Batman!)  But whether with humorous intent or not, a connection can be made between Godzilla and Nakata. But it's one of Murakami's riddles. Did he imply one or not?

Question 5. What in the world comes out of the body of Nakata? And why?

Just a stab at it, because obviously this is extremely open to interpretation: Nakata happened to be on Rice Bowl Hill, and at that time an alien/parallel-universe/ghost entity entered his body and mind. And he became a sort of cocoon, or host-body for it. It was such an invasive presence that Nakata's own intelligence suffered, yet he gained some supernatural abilities in trade. I don't think Murakami intended this worm (or much anything else) as literal, but instead as a metaphor for corruption, or even radiation-poisoning. Whatever the specifics, a large worm exiting a dead man's mouth is coming from the dark side. Another theory that comes to mind is that it required Nakata, a pure human, and his more worldly yet humble friend Hoshino to be able to bear this evil attachment and prevent it from doing harm. (Sort of like Frodo and Sam taking the Ring to Mordor in The Lord of the Rings). Once Nakata was dead, the parasite needed to go back where it came from.

Question 6. Ambiguity in the Novel (and in life).

Murakami's methods throughout this novel are mystifying, and some of it is deliberate ambiguity on his part. From the interview provided for our further reading, he explains that "Kafka on the Shore contains several riddles, but there aren't any solutions provided. Instead several of these riddles combine, and through their interaction the possibility of a solution takes shape. And the form this solution takes will be different for each reader". That to me is strong evidence that Murakami set out to make this novel a puzzle, and it is extremely effective at that. It is my personal opinion that all the ambiguity began wearing thin as the novel continued, however. Too much of a good thing, and it became more of an "oh no, here comes yet another weird part". I was also disappointed at what seemed a rather perfunctory ending- just tying up some loose ends and sending Kafka out as an enlightedned young man. I would have preferred things more unresolved, because this is what Murakami had sone so well up to that point- show that life really is mostly ambiguous and puzzling.

The ambiguity also reflects the qualities of dreams, which the author also admits are a big influence on his writing. (I would suspect that Murakami keeps a dream journal, from which some of his ideas come). I think he is metaphorically implying that "life is a dream", but he goes beyond that trite aphorism in his own unique way. We spend about two hours nightly doing so, and that is 1/12 of our existence; a substantial portion. Our lifespans are so short in the grand scheme, and therefore fleeting like some half-remembered dream. The text supports this ambiguity-dream connection throughout: advertising icons appearing in human form (Johnny Walker & Colonel Sanders); talking cats; the visits from the living 15 year-old ghost of Miss Sakei; the strange eye movements of the children on Rice Bowl Hill; and many others. We never really know what happened on the hill, or who murdered who, or whether Kafka found his mother and sister. The novel does effectively demonstrate how many unanswered questions life can have.