Fuminori Nakamura’s ‘Last Winter, We Parted’ blurs reality, invention |

Fuminori Nakamura’s ‘Last Winter, We Parted’ blurs reality, invention


“Last Winter, We Parted,” the third novel by Japan’s Fuminori Nakamura to appear in English, is crime fiction that pushes past the bounds of genre, occupying its own nightmare realm.

The book begins with its narrator, an unnamed writer, interviewing a convicted killer in a prison visiting room; like Hannibal Lecter, the murderer is emotionless, nearly inhuman, speaking from behind a sheet of “transparent acrylic glass.”

His crime, which involved burning two women alive so he could photograph their dying, is inspired by Ryunosuke Akutagawa’s 1918 story “Hell Screen,” a classic of Japanese literature, “the tale of a crazed painter, who watches as his own daughter literally burns to death, and then he paints the scene.” More than once, Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” comes up: “After he completed his nonfiction novel,” an editor explains to the writer, “he couldn’t write another decent piece of work.”

The point — indeed, the driving concept of this sharp and disturbing novel — is that there is an irresolvable gap between life and artifice, especially in regard to creativity. “Why, when a ‘subject’ is right in front of us,” the killer wonders, “are we only capable of recognizing, of grasping, that one small part we see?”

And yet, lest this make “Last Winter, We Parted” sound derivative, it is dark and edgy, original and bold.

Nakamura is highly regarded in Japanese literary circles; he has won the Oe Prize and the Akutagawa Prize. He’s also published 10 novels and three story collections since 2003, a pace that suggests the pressures of the marketplace.

Such tensions — between the zone of the interior and external expectation — converge in “Last Winter, We Parted,” which deals with, among other subjects, the challenges of making art, real art, in a culture in which it is difficult to feel anything. It’s no coincidence that one of the novel’s subplots involves a shadowy group known as K2, made up of men who have commissioned life-size dolls of their departed loved ones — sisters, lovers, fetish objects — as a way of delaying, or denying, the inevitability of loss.

At the center of this is the writer, who has been pressed into working on a book he does not want to write. His role is to uncover what has happened, to parse the line between reality and imitation, although the more we read, the more we realize he is being played from every side.

Intercut with his account are archival documents — letters, transcripts, diaries, descriptions of films or images — that deepen, rather than clarify, the mystery. These include texts written by the murderer and others (including the Twitter feed of one of his victims), a device that allows their voices to infiltrate the narrative.

“For most people,” the killer writes, “things are only ever permissible inside their own mind. The palatable dark places. Shady areas beyond censure. If people can accept those kinds of things, don’t you think they’d want to read about whatever that might be for you?”

Nakamura is playing here, of course, commenting on the book he is writing by having his character comment on the book within that book, the book his narrator is unable to finish, confounded as he is by the story he is trying (not) to tell. This is the part of the pleasure of the novel, that it offers not one but a series of overlapping sensibilities, telling us not only what took place but also why. Nakamura’s purpose is less investigative than psychological, an exploration of those “palatable dark places” that exist in everyone.

What Nakamura’s characters seek is authenticity, even as it eludes their grasp. “His desires were all imitations of someone else,” someone observes of the murderer. “That is to say, there was nothing inside him.” His actions, then can be read as increasingly desperate attempts to connect.

The same might be said about any of the others: the writer, who becomes increasingly enmeshed in his subject’s life, to the point of neglecting his responsibilities; the killer’s sister, who is menacing and desolate; the editor, who has motives of his own.

“Within the monster I had become,” Nakamura writes, “the part of me that retained a trace of humanity may have dimmed any memory as a means of protecting myself. Then again, I may just be maintaining a certain outward appearance. But, you know, that’s a lie.” In the end, this turns the story inward, like an ouroboros devouring its tail.

“I decided to create the ‘novel,’ ” the editor insists. “… It would be a strange mix of archived materials and fiction chapters.” That he is (again) referencing the work we’re reading is the point. By making it seem as if this were a true story, or based on a true story, Nakamura further effaces the line between reality and invention, suggesting that, on the inside anyway, they are one and the same.

David L. Ulin is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.