Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage question

Bob wrote: "One of the mysteries in the novel is who was responsible for raping and/or murdering Shiro (if it is the same person) and the answer is never explicitly given. It's possible that the murderer and/o..."

I had not considered this possibility before but agree that this helps make sense potentially of the story of the pianist. It seems that the author in this novel and others sometimes introduces ideas that don't neatly tie back into the main story. My sense was that he did this to present the story in the same way that real life sometimes happens -- many things happen and they don't fit together. This mechanism of the author also seems to be a way to make the characters and the reader question the difference between thought and reality and then challenging whether the difference is that great. When I read the book I assumed that Shiro was raped by an unrelated third party and that when the protagonist talks about how maybe he did rape her, he is really just taking responsibility generally but not culpability -- the idea that everyone on earth is responsible for all of the things that happen on earth. We are all players on the planet. I don't think the protagonist meant to say he was culpable (morally responsible) for Shiro's rape or murder, just that he was one of her friends and responsible generally for her well-being in the same way that the other friends were. But I'm very interested in your theory as a way to tie in the Haida anecdote.

There was also that mention in the last few pages where Tsukuru thinks of his father and mentions "Only now did Tsukuru realize his father might have been keeping a mistress somewhere."

That struck me as a little odd because the beginning of that paragraph was just about how his father was quiet at home and worked all the time. Someone hard working doesn't necessarily have to be having an affair. But maybe he was having extramarital affairs. Now that I think about it, along with your theory on who raped/killed Shiro, it makes sense it could be Tsukuru's father.

No, I don't think so! I believe that the rape never took place and that she commited suicide. I think the terrible truth is that nothing happened in the real world (no rape, no pregnancy) but it still had severe consequences. I think it was ever only an inner struggle. We only have the other girl´s word that she became pregnant, and it ended with a miscarrige which could not possible be checked by Tsukuru. Also, wasn´t the door and the safety chain looked from the inside in her apartment?

BTW, I read the book in Swedish, where the supposedly murdered girl´s name was Yuku... Curious about the name Shiro...

The internet IMO has gone mad on this issue. It's quite simple.

Colorless Tsukuru is a story exploring love, lust and relationships. Or for 'Colorless Tsukuru', the inability, blockade or curse which prevents him from achieving this. Murakami plays on this through out the book, and plants the seed in the beginning where Tsukuru explains that 'if I had a color in my name too. Then everything will be perfect.' This is a curse he is burdened with and helps explain the key events and ending. And the long story told by Haida about the 'death curse' is a big clue.

Please note this - what happens to the people in his powerful dreams of lust/love?

1) He ejaculated inside Shiro in his dreams. He was in love with her, but he didn't know it. = She accuses of rape, miscarriages the baby which could have been his (very Murakami to have this paranormal aspect), self-destructs and then is murdered.

2) He ejaculates in the mouth of Haida. He was in love with him, but he didn't know it. = Disappears from his life.

3) He realises that he is in love with Sara only after his pilgrimage and returning from Finland. = ... ???

In the last few pages, it leaves us with the question of whether Tsukuru, who is perhaps for the first time dreaming about Sara with real love, will see her when they meet? What happens next? Is it either:

1) Bad ending - same fates of the other two people he loved? Sara does not come? Tells him she with with that other man?

2) Good ending - Because he KNOWS he is in love before the dream, he finally settles with Sara. When calling him (2 missed calls) she wanting to tell him she's pregnant, with his baby (explains the 3 days needed), to be sure that it is his and not the other man's? And also why at this exact moment, Murakami explored Tsukuru's father and family.

I strongly believe it is option 2. Hurray for Tsukuru! :)

In my humble opinion, with all the points given, I have to add that Tsukuru also says that his dad was someone who had the head for business and the talent to obtain immediately what he needed, jettison everything he didn't, which kind of gives the trait needed for a rapist, THE I TAKE WHAT I WANT AND REMOVE EVERYTHING THAT IS IN MY WAY KIND OF DICKHEAD trait ..also Shiro's rape and death were barely investigated, perhaps, his father felt afraid that Shiro might open up about her wounds, she moved to a new city by herself, which shows a great progress for someone who was barely living at all even with the support of her friend and family , ALSO the rape did happen, Shiro was distraught, her sister was also another person who knew about it not just Kuro....and to think about something as extreme as removing her womb, doing harmful shit to stop her periods, traumatized people do that, I've been sexually assaulted, and I can't stop thinking of removing my womb so if anyone got doubt about her being raped, don't doubt that shit, she wasn't completely cuckoo to cook crazy shit up, she was teaching kids, maintaining a job and worked out with her college and highschool, she was sound enough to not have cooked up crazy stories. Also, to cover up her murder, the perp needs to be someone really rich and Tsukuru's dad is a well off person who was into real estate and capable of giving cash under the table to wrap up the murder case. Yet, there is this last point, which can either be a plus or a minus, so Tsukuru's dad smokes and tsukuru doesn't smoke at all, dude never smoked even once in his lifetime that is recorded in the book, and YUZU, who never smoked either, started smoking after her rape, or at least, in the murder scene, there were cigarettes which were apparently hers...she could've started smoking cigarettes because of trauma or to remind herself that whoever the fuck raped her also did so and to will herself to not forget that she has to get justice...but at the same time, this can go other way ,if she was raped by a smoker, she would've absolutely refrained from anything that reminded her of rape or perhaps, she was trying to steel herself up to the sick smell of cigarettes, to get herself used to cigarettes to confront her rapist..
Also, she was very specific about where and when she got raped, she told the place was Jiyugaoka in Tokyo where Tsukuru was staying, that is a condo which his father gifted to him and there are no other people with access to it besides Tsukuru and his father. Tsukuru isn't the perp. His psycho dad is. Lastly, sorry for the word vomit and I'm not saying I'm right either but this is what is logical in my point of view if I cut off all the paranormal or other dimensional bullshit. Also, his dad dies the same year that Yuzu dies, perhaps a little later than Yuzu ofc if he is the one who killed her. Also, about the door in her apartment being locked from within only, she was a type of person who wouldn't play piano to someone she didn't know, of course she won't open her door to strangers..so it has to be an acquaintance that killed her. Also, I brought up the father's death because it could be his way of removing Yuzu from destroying his family, not that he had a good one, but he had passed on his precious company to his daughter and her husband and his son was a prominent worker who build stations , so imagine if Yuzu would've spoken up, things would've gotten really sour, not that it wasn't bad enough already...but yeah, again I can be completely wrong. She could've simply been suffering strongly from mental issues and so she killed herself. Or, it could even be Aka, there is an entire thread dedicated to Aka being the rapist and killer. But for me, the dad seems like the DICKHEAD here.

weird, I was completely mistaken...how could we not see it...it has to be his dad...the cigarette has to be Tsukuru's dad. his dad died the same year that Yuzu died...he had lung cancer, however, he was a dude who smoked 50 unfiltered cigarettes a day, menthol cigarettes must have been smoked by him to make it less painful and more chilled sensation in his throat. So, he pays off the police to say that the cigarette was Yuzu's even though it's his...or again, what I am saying is complete bullshit. Oh well, anyhow, the point of it all is to have your own thoughts on the book.
hope anyone reading this word vomit, enjoyed reading Colourless Tsukuru's.

It is mindblowing! I was also looking for the answer and believe you are absolutely right.

One more point that confirms Tsukuru's father is the one is the fact that the rape happened in Tsukuru's apartment in Tokyo. But we know from other parts of the book that it is the apartment of his father originally. Therefore, when Shiro said that Tsukuru Tazaki raped her in his apartment, it is the truth.

Also, Murakami constantly puts a strong focus on Tsukuru's Tag Heuer watch. Especially on the very last pages of the book. What for? It is just a watch, why pay so much attention to it? The reason is simple, to remind us readers about Tsukuru's father. Because, as we know, there are three things Tsukuru got from him: his name, his apartment, and his Tag Heuer watch.

I’ve seen this misconception repeated in several places and as someone who just finished the book — and is currently holding a copy of it — want to clarify that Tsukuru does NOT have the same name as his father. The father is the one who chose the name Tsukuru for his son (a fact reiterated several times throughout the novel) but his own name is stated to be Toshio (“man who profits”).

This isn’t meant to wholly discredit the theory put forth in the original post — which I do find intriguing — but it does remove that particular bit of supporting “evidence.”