It is always incomprehensible for me that the distinction between story and novel in Western literary world is based on the length of the work, and influenced by this sorting technique, in Western view the novel is always more splendid than story since the writer could create a more grand world. But in fact, sometimes the story with the little volume is better than a novel. For example, this novel Pachinko, I think it is completely a story, because it is lack of techniques a novel should involve. What the author does is only telling a story, and all the feelings and inspirations are generated spontaneously by the reader.
The characterization is monotonous and paradoxical. Characters are just the author’s tool, to help her express what she wants to convey to readers. They are vague and fake and once fulfilled their function, they would be discarded by the author soon. According to Lee Strasberg, a character must be full of constant vitality and have an uninterrupted process of thinking and criticizing, but most of the characters in this novel don’t meet this basic requirements.
The author is also neglectful in applying narrative techniques. She doesn’t have the ability to describe the multiple emotions or narrate concurrent incidents at the same time. Such inexpert narrative technique is not in accordance with the real life, because different reactions of different individuals should be generated simultaneity when stimulated by the same incident in real life. The absence of psychological description in some important scenes like Isak and Sunja met again after a long separation also suggested the weakness of the author’s writing techniques.
21st century literatures have not been selected and eliminated over time, so most of them are mediocre works. Only time can certify that the existing things are good.