Well, the Nobel Prize for Literature has been announced, and favorite Haruki Murakami did not win. French author Patrick Modiano, not well known in the U.S., did. Congratulations to him.
Murakami has a new short story in the recent New Yorker (Oct. 13, 2014), the title of
which, "Scheherazade," immediately attracted my attention, having
recently read the new translation of 1001
Nights by Hanan Al-Shakyh and Marina Warner's wonderful study, Stranger Magic: Charmed States and the
Arabian Nights.
Murakami's story is about a guy who cannot, for some
undisclosed reason, leave his house. A nameless woman is assigned (but we do
not know by whom) to come to his house regularly to bring him food and
supplies. She also has sex with him and tells him stories; thus, he calls her Scheherazade.
The main story she tells him in the story we are reading is about her breaking
into the home of a boy with whom she was obsessed while in high school, (she is
middle-aged now), fantasizing about him, stealing trivial items, and leaving
other items in their place.
Because the story provides no background for why the man
cannot leave the house or who is responsible for sending the woman to attend to
his needs, the reader is apt to focus on these mysteries. Indeed, New
Yorker editor Treisman begins her interview in her weekly online feature by
asking Murakami if he knows why the man cannot leave the house.
If this were the account of an actual event or even a
realistic story, the question might be legitimate. However, since Murakami does not reveal in
the story why the man is confined to the house, he can quite rightfully reply
to Treisman: "I don't know the exact circumstances that brought about the
situation." Murakami says what caused the man's situation is not
important. A fan of Kafka, he might have said it is no more relevant to the
story than why Joseph K in Kafka's The
Trial is arrested; it just is a given of the story that makes the story
possible. In some ways, we are all locked in.
Treisman also asks Murakami why he ends his story without
letting the reader hear the end of the story Scheherazade is telling the
man. Murakami says this is one of the
most basic techniques of storytelling since the beginning of storytelling. Many of the stories in 1001 Nights end only as an introit to another story within a story
until the reader gets drawn so far into stories within stories that reality
(whatever that is) is left so far behind one wonders if such a thing ever
existed. But readers want realism and
closure, some contact with what they think is the "real world," as if
their notion of "reality" is the only notion possible. This desire
for closure even leads Treisman to ask Murakami if there will be a sequel--a
device that Hollywood movie makers use to satisfy audiences' need for the illusion
that that stuff on the screen keeps on happening even after they leave the
theater.
I have only found one reader on the Internet who has read
the story and commented on it—the indefatigable Betsy Pelz over on the Mookseandgripes.com
website—a valuable site I have read with pleasure the past several years. And sure enough, Ms. Pelz spends much of her
discussion pondering what the guy is doing confined in the room and who is
sending that woman over to tend to his needs.
Is the man a criminal, a political prisoner? She asks. Is
the woman a prostitute, a sex surrogate? How does the woman manage the very
practical matter of getting over to the guy's house so regularly without
disrupting her own marriage? Ms. Pelz even suggests that the woman might be
hired by the mob to keep the man prisoner. Frustrated by finding no answers,
Ms. Polz develops her own fantasy solution that the man is actually the young
boy the woman had an obsession about when she was a teenager—that he is
actually now her husband and they are playing some sexual fantasy game by which
she keeps him interested in her even though she is no longer young.
Perhaps concerned that such a reading might trivialize the story as
just an old Ladies Home Journal
"Can this Marriage Be Saved?" piece, Ms. Pelz also suggests that the
story has a social context, claiming, "The story addresses the kind of
challenge a man faces in highly gendered societies such as Japan, where this
story takes place and where the ideal for men is to be strong and silent."
I am not particularly attacking Betsy Pelz's reading of this story. She
certainly has the freedom to read it any way she wishes. I suspect that most
readers will have the same reaction to Murakami's "Scheherazade,"
especially if they are not as familiar with the history of storytelling
beginning with 1001 Nights as
Murakami is. Indeed, Treisman's
questions in the Murakami interview suggest that she is anticipating the
typical reader response of trying to "normalize" this story, ground
it in "realistic" motivation and "social" context.
But as Murakami's coy responses that he does not know what
brought about the situation the man is in and his acknowledgement that he is
using one of the most basic techniques of storytelling "handed down the
millennia" suggest that "Scheherazade" is a story that can only
be understood within the context of storytelling.
"Scheherazade" begins with an acknowledgement that
this is a story about the ambiguous world that story creates: "Habara didn't
know whether her stories were true, invented, or partly true and partly
invented. He had no way of telling. Reality and supposition, observation and pure
fancy seemed jumbled together in her narratives." Stories that begin with some variation of
"Once there was a man who…" often end with the reader asking the
teller, "Did that really happen?"
My children often would ask me after I told them a story, "Is that really true,
Daddy, or just a story?"
Murakami's narrator says that regardless of whether
Scheherazade's stories were true or not, she had a gift for telling stories
that touched the heart, stories that left the listener enthralled," able
to forget the reality that surrounded him, if only for a moment." Indeed, this is one of the primary effects of
reading 1001 Nights.
The man in the story is puzzled by the fact that "their
lovemaking and her storytelling were so closely linked, making it hard to tell
where one ended and the other began." He has never experienced anything
like this. He is tightly bound to her,
but he does not know why, for the sex is so-so and he doesn’t love her. Indeed, the woman performs each sexual act as
if completing an assignment in a businesslike manner. Although their sex is not obligatory, it
could not be said that their hearts are in it. Although the sex is not entirely
businesslike, it is not passionate either.
Much of "Scheherazade" deals with the story the
woman tells the man about her breaking into the house of the boy she was
infatuated with while in high school.
She goes to his house when no one is at home and goes up to his room,
sitting in his desk chair, picking up objects he has touched: "the most mundane
objects became somehow radiant because they were his." She describes
herself as a "Love Thief," feeling that if she takes something, she
must also leave something. It is a reminder of the inextricable connection
between story and sex that she takes one of the boy's pencils and leaves one of
her tampons. She scribbles things in her notebook with the pencil, smells it,
kisses it, even puts it in her mouth and sucks on it.
She creates such a fantasy world that it no
longer bothers her that in "the real world" the boy doesn't even seem
to be aware of her existence. Murakami is exploring one of the most powerful
aspects of love and sexual obsession that runs throughout 1001 Nights—that it is not the "real world" that matters—not
even the "real" physical body of the other—only the powerful
obsession that creates an alternate world. The fact that pornography focuses on
physical events is what makes it so boring.
She continues to make trips to the boy's house, leaving
strands of her hair, but also leaving the tampon, which the boy has never found
because it was her first "token."
Leaving "tokens" is very common in the 1001 Nights stories; simple objects become transformed into magical
emblems of the obsession that drives the story. Marina Warner talks a great
deal about the importance of magical objects or tokens in her study Stranger Magic. All storytellers are
aware of the metamorphosis of simple objects into sacred metaphoric ones. I
have mentioned before Raymond Carver's comment about how ordinary objects
become transformed in short stories.
A shift takes place after the girl takes one of the boy's
soiled t-shirts from the laundry hamper and the mother discovers that someone
has been breaking in the house and changes the door locks. The girl does not need the boy, only the
token of the shirt. When she puts her nose into the armpits and inhales, it is
a as though she is in his embrace. This
"as if" is, of course, a key element of all storytelling. After she
tells the man about the t-shirt, she asks to have sex with him one more time,
and this time, instead of it being businesslike, it is violent, passionate and
drawn out, and her climax is unmistakable.
Indeed, when she is having sex with the man this time, she is in her
imagination having sex with the boy, and it is this imaginative sex that is
central to the story.
When the girl stops the break-ins, her passion for the boy
begins to cool. She says that although
the fever was passing, what she had contracted was not something like sickness, but rather the "real
thing." If a therapist or practical
realist told the girl what she has been feeling was not the real thing but only
an imaginative thing, such a judgment would just reflect a misunderstanding of
what passion or desire or love or sex really is--always an imaginative thing.
At the end of his story, Murakami plays the little
storytelling game so common in 1001
Nights, when the woman tells the man, "To tell the truth, the story
doesn't end there. A few years later,
when I was in my second year of nursing school, a strange stroke of fate
brought us together again."
The man wants to hear the rest of the story (as does the
reader), but fears he may never see Scheherazade again and may never have the
shared intimacy of sex with her again. "What his time spent with women
offered was the opportunity to be embraced by reality, on the one hand, while
negating it on the other. That was
something that Scheherazade had provided in abundance—indeed her gift was
inexhaustible." Indeed, this is the gift of the storyteller, the key to
the treasure. And as John Barth's genii
reminds us, "The key to treasure is the treasure."
I hope Betsy Pelz will forgive me for using her discussion
as a sort of straw man to emphasize what I think is a very important point
about the short story as a genre—that to understand a particular story the
reader must have some understanding of the nature of story and storytelling,
especially the fact that good short stories are most often about some universal
aspect of human desire and that "realism" is never an adequate means
by which to understand them.
11 comments:
The fact that stories do not need to have an ending or explained to death is what is so appealing about them. If one wants closure, they should read Nesbo or Grisham not Murakami and Kafka. The world is divided in two: movie people and story people. Just let the story flow over you; don't be so reality bound.
This is an incredible analysis. Thank you.
Thank you.
It is true that you cannot help but wonder about the reason the man is not allowed to leave the house. The story made me think of Julian Assange, who has effectively been imprisoned in the Ecuadorean Embassy since 2012.
I wondered if the reason the man couldn't leave the house was that he was ill or incapacitated in some way. The woman is his carer/helper. From the way the story is told and ended, I thought the man was the boy she had fantasised over at school, now an adult. 'A strange stroke of fate brought us together again...' I guess the former soccer-loving boy had an accident, and needed a carer.
I thought so too, until as I read this article and remembered that Habara mentions she's four years older to him.
where do story happen? what is the setting of the story scheherazade?
I am ashamed to say that I read this analysis so late after it was written, but I am also very fortunate since this is a story that I have included in my reading list for the Short Story course I teach this semester. I read it when it first appeared and then bought the collection by Murakami (Men without Women), and read it again. To be honest, I never wondered why the man could not leave his house. It just did not matter; these are the decisions fiction writers take in order to make the story´s unfolding possible. Whatever his condition, his homebound situation allowed her to come into the picture, and with her came storytelling. Maybe the interest lies in exactly that: what makes storytelling possible? It is a reminder of the void it fills, the comfort it provides, the paths it opens. I love your work Dr. May, and your books have helped me structure my lessons.
Thank you very much for your comments "Unknown." I like what you say here. I apologize for "laying off" my work on the blog. I am glad it still gets considerable reads. I may be able to come back to the blog some time, but I just turned 80 last month and am spending more time with my wife, children, grandchildren, garden, and chickens. It is a good life.
Of course, the reader is waiting to see what the end of the story will be. She/He wants to know why the man is under "house arrest," who is
the woman's employer, and so on. As these questions remain obscure, the reader is at first disappointed and then reassured: such is a masterpiece.
Resenha maravilhosa, love from Brazil!
Post a Comment