Not only do I enjoy his work very much, and found some of it to be extremely influential in my life (i.e. Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World) I fail to see the value add in these sorts of comments about any creator's work.
The points about his recurring themes are technically true, but it can be easily debated whether he has reason for using the same metaphors across much of his work.
In any event, to me it seems pointlessly negative to critique such a unique and influential writer with these broad strokes. The best you could hope to achieve with these sorts of comments is nothing, and the worst would be to discourage someone else from finding real enjoyment and meaning by reading him.
Specifically, I enjoyed that little essay about the origins of his writing career so much, and it ever so slightly decreased that enjoyment to turn to the comments and see immediate negativity ... so where is the net gain in that?
Edit: Spelling, and added the last sentence.
There's a similar criticism of Hemingway's works[1]: that his prose is stagnant and unchanging. But the fact of the matter is, his books are phenomenal. I still think about many of them often, and they have had a profound impact on my life. I feel much the same way about Murakami. Yes, his protagonists are often similar (say, if one compares the descriptions of solitude in home life in Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, which I'm reading now), and many follow similar themes, but regardless his books (and short stories) are a delight to read. They are full of beautiful thoughts and writing that, though similar, often build on and compliment one another.
Just my 2c.
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/18/hemingway-s...
Have you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I_Talk_About_When_I_Talk_... ?
That wiki article doesn't really do the contents of the book justice.
I am so sick of reading about your calendar/planning startup. It is a company with similar people, using similar technology, doing similar things for the same amount of money and cultural mindshare. Sure everyone likes you as you are the new kid on the block, but can you disrupt some other thing you do not enjoy for the sake of your consumer? You are really boring me.
No one ask Van Gogh to paint another Starry Night, man. (It is this quite, oft-repeated by my parents, that makes me thinks Jodie Mitchell is a true genius).
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/489495-that-s-one-thing-tha...
That's because he wasn't that famous when he lived anyway. If he had any success, art dealers would ask him to paint "another Starry night" all the time.
Besides, it's not like his work is composed of paintings entirely unlike each other. In that sense, he already has like 10-15 Starry nights.
(Constrast with Picasso, who had several entirely different periods of work).
The subtext of my orginal comment, by way of her and not voicing Van Gogh: you end up doing something different, and people only want repeats of your popular previous work, or imitations of others, anyway. (Note remixes of the song, which I embarassingly like, continue to pop-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Yellow_Taxi)
I get your point, but I think we are talking past each other.
Well, perhaps the people know something that the creator doesn't.
If you go to a Sushi place you don't expect or want them to suddenly give you a Carribean menu.
I think it's similar with artists. They tend to think that people came to them for "them" intristically, and that they should relish whatever new thing they decide to throw their way, but that's not how it works.
People came to an artist X because he/she gave them that particular flavor that they liked. Not because they just like the person or the way he thinks in general and would follow him to every and any artistic path.
One of my favorite authors Hermann Hesse has very similar themes in almost every book, with just very different remixes on the same concepts. But I love it that he kept searching for the perfect way to present those themes.
Jumping into a different world, if you look at some stand-up comedians like Louis C.K., they have a certain set that they repeat and perfect over time.
A short ebook I recently read (Hooked On You) put it nicely: "Think of yourself as a DJ building a set. The stories are the records in your record box. All you have to do is choose the right ones, and play them in the right order."
Common themes: a guy, living on his own (or with an often absent girlfriend), cooking simple dishes while drinking beer after working out. He has an ear fetish. There is a cat somewhere. Some magic realism and lots metaphors.
Conspicuous absence of bar/nighclubs, jazz, records, from that list.
I think it's one of the reasons why he won't get the Nobel Prize even though so many always list him as top contender, he's just too repetitive.
So? Unlike, say, detective fiction, literature is never about the plot, only about the way the story is told and what it carries with it.