For some reason Murakami's 'Kafka on the Shore' didn't resonate with me like some of his other books. It could be that it was overly surreal with all characters and events being completely passive, and that any attempt to explain or elaborate on any of the fantastical happenings by the characters only led to further vagueness. I know this is characteristic of Murakami but it just didn't feel right in this story. There was no overall purpose for the events that happened or the way they happend. There were also several instances of deus ex machina like Toro appearing out of nowhere to explain to Hoshino what to do - I find these bothersome.
I suppose it came across as if Murakami just wrote and wrote and ended up with enough material to patch together into a novel. Where he sort of figured things out or looked for plausible explanations as he continued writing rather than having any clear indication of what to do or where to get to. He has mentioned this to be his style once in an interview and I simply think he carried it through all his subsequent drafts rather than leave it in the first or second draft. The result is a story that could use more focus and perhaps an active side character... just an opinion.
Still an entertaining read with the occasional philosophical insights that get you thinking about the big questions.