Coming here late because I just finished Pachinko today. For me, it was a tiresome and badly edited slog. The entire time I was reading it, I kept thinking I must be missing something because the book had garnered so much critical praise, had received endorsements from so many well-regarded authors, and had become a National Book Award nominee. So it was heartening to see so many of the book’s weaknesses identifed here. It’s not just me!
I’m starting to think that any long, sweeping, family-based, historical novel that reveals true events not well known by Americans will get an unfair advantage when presented to critics and other reviewers. It’s like a multi-course vegan meal prepared for days by a famous chef, which is terribly nutritious, made of unusual, organic, non-ingredients, and presented on lovely dinnerware. Who will have the nerve to say it doesn’t really taste that good?
I agree with most of the critiques here. I was most irritated by Solomon’s devotion to Hana. I have no clue how that vignette fit into the overall narrative. It seemed as shoehorned in as the section about the gay policeman’s wife. Why didn’t the editor say no, you’ve gone too far astray, and your book is long enough?
With respect to the next choice, my book club read All the Light We Cannot See, and it engendered a great discussion.
