Probably shit since it's Murakami.
Worse than that, according to most Murakami fans (lol) that's his worst book.

>>7852068
why though? I'm not a huge fan of the dystopian/fantasy fiction genre but it seems to have gotten fairly good reviews. Is there any literary merit to this novel?

>>7852092
It's an interesting book. I'm chewing my way through it now. The pacing is glacial and there are some missteps with the narrative that make it hard to soldier on in places, but as a big fat piece of comfortable ambience it's a really good time. 'Literary merit' is a vague term, but despite what /lit/ says (and the fact that Ryu Murakami is still better) Haruki Murakami is a legit writer. I think part of why 1Q84 gets so much flak is because every other novel by the author features a lot of similar elements. That just means that he can (mostly) handle them expertly by now. Give it a try. Even if you don't like it you'll have learned something about your own tastes, so it'll have been worth it.

>>7852120
This is the kind of response I was looking for, thanks

>>7852064
It's long, tedious, unfufilling, but with several good nuggets that made me not regret it, much like my sex life. But seriously, it's the most egregiously bad thing he wrote, and is still a solid 7/10. I'd suggest Kafka on the Shore or Wind-Up Bird Chronicle if you want a better introduction to his best. Also it has nothing comprehensible to do with 1984, other than being set in the eponymous year.

It's okay. Not great. Not bad. Just okay.