Scan barcode
deeerj's review
1.0
These stories were universally "slice of life" stories without much plot/climax, etc. Many of the stories were pretty depressing, much alcoholism, etc. I enjoy reading as entertainment, so would have liked some mystery or humor in at least a few of the stories in this collection.
bjones0107's review
3.0
I typically read speculative fiction. That is, stories centered on characters in extraordinary situations, the times or the technology used to illustrate either the macroscopic view of humanity as a cynical waste or an affirming animal, or focused pieces that highlight the power of family, friendship,and the perils of temptation, set against myriad backdrops of technology and the supernatural.
Literary fiction is much the same, save that it removes the technology and supernatural, and places things in the real world, where the writer's imagination is limited by the concrete. This both gives the writer room to expand on character and limits the availability of plots. That being said, this particular collection focuses a lot on character pieces.
Nearly every story has a lot of room taken up by exposition, flashbacks that highlight character traits and motives while taking time, sweet, lengthy time, with the plot. All of the stories take the microscopic road, analyzing character against dysfunctional family, loss (both physical and emotional), loneliness, and nostalgia. It has its highlights and lowlights, but the collection as a whole, while superior in story quality (this is, after all, the BEST short fiction) fails to deliver enough story diversity, choosing to play it safe and present yarns that are, for the most part, safe choices that become repetitive in style the further one reads.
Lowlights:
"Limestone Diner"-An abundance of overwhelming, colorful, fruity, fizzy, describingful adjectives.
"Some Other, Better Otto"-Sharon and Portia are fantastic characters, the most interesting by far. And they are physically present in this bloated tale of family dysfunction for maybe a fifth of its length. Honorable mention: William
"Written in Stone"-Let's all reflect on a broken marriage for a while and have some food.
Highlights:
"Tooth and Claw"-An offbeat tale by the king of offbeat literary writers, T.C. Boyle, about a lovesick loner who wins a serval in a game of dice
"All Saint's Day"-A story about an exorcism, and the power of the human will as demonstrated by precocious children. The most surprising story in the bunch.
What You Pawn I Will Redeem-Sherman Alexie rocks.
Docent-A tour (literally) through the Lee Chapel at Washington and Lee University. The most experimental story (narratively speaking) of the bunch.
The Walk With Elizanne-John Updike's story of reflection on the innocence of youth and the realities of age will make you giddy for your memories and excited at the prospect of relationships as they evolve throughout the decades.
Literary fiction is much the same, save that it removes the technology and supernatural, and places things in the real world, where the writer's imagination is limited by the concrete. This both gives the writer room to expand on character and limits the availability of plots. That being said, this particular collection focuses a lot on character pieces.
Nearly every story has a lot of room taken up by exposition, flashbacks that highlight character traits and motives while taking time, sweet, lengthy time, with the plot. All of the stories take the microscopic road, analyzing character against dysfunctional family, loss (both physical and emotional), loneliness, and nostalgia. It has its highlights and lowlights, but the collection as a whole, while superior in story quality (this is, after all, the BEST short fiction) fails to deliver enough story diversity, choosing to play it safe and present yarns that are, for the most part, safe choices that become repetitive in style the further one reads.
Lowlights:
"Limestone Diner"-An abundance of overwhelming, colorful, fruity, fizzy, describingful adjectives.
"Some Other, Better Otto"-Sharon and Portia are fantastic characters, the most interesting by far. And they are physically present in this bloated tale of family dysfunction for maybe a fifth of its length. Honorable mention: William
"Written in Stone"-Let's all reflect on a broken marriage for a while and have some food.
Highlights:
"Tooth and Claw"-An offbeat tale by the king of offbeat literary writers, T.C. Boyle, about a lovesick loner who wins a serval in a game of dice
"All Saint's Day"-A story about an exorcism, and the power of the human will as demonstrated by precocious children. The most surprising story in the bunch.
What You Pawn I Will Redeem-Sherman Alexie rocks.
Docent-A tour (literally) through the Lee Chapel at Washington and Lee University. The most experimental story (narratively speaking) of the bunch.
The Walk With Elizanne-John Updike's story of reflection on the innocence of youth and the realities of age will make you giddy for your memories and excited at the prospect of relationships as they evolve throughout the decades.
lagobond's review
2.0
This anthology would have been more aptly named "Stories About Depressed, Lost, and Lonely People." Hell, why not: it's 2020 after all.
What You Pawn I Will Redeem: 5 (moving, poetic, eye-opening)
Tooth and Claw: 1 (horrid, pointless)
Written in Stone: 3.5 (nuanced, thoughtful and thought provoking)
Accomplice: 3.5 (slow start, but inspiring once it gets going)
Screenwriter: 2.5 (depressing, with some tender, lyrical notes)
Breasts: -10 (misogynistic, brutal, ugly)
Some Other, Better Otto: 4 (hard to read, but an incredibly accurate depiction of what depression and ruminative self-doubt feels like)
Grace: 3.5 (similar to Otto)
The Tutor: 1 (pointless mental masturbation)
... and I'm realizing I don't want to read any more of these. I should have stopped after the first story by Sherman Alexie, because that was great... and the rest was just a bunch of stories, nothing I would consider The Best of anything. There were a couple good stories, and a couple truly awful ones, and a bunch of forgettable ones. And to be honest, the awful writers left far more of an impression than the good ones did. Other than "What You Pawn I Will Redeem," there was nothing in this book that I would have regretted not reading. I'm willing to risk missing out on a possible second gem, because I can't make myself slog through more of the mediocre depressing stuff. So I will call this a DNF at page 232.
What You Pawn I Will Redeem: 5 (moving, poetic, eye-opening)
Tooth and Claw: 1 (horrid, pointless)
Written in Stone: 3.5 (nuanced, thoughtful and thought provoking)
Accomplice: 3.5 (slow start, but inspiring once it gets going)
Screenwriter: 2.5 (depressing, with some tender, lyrical notes)
Breasts: -10 (misogynistic, brutal, ugly)
Some Other, Better Otto: 4 (hard to read, but an incredibly accurate depiction of what depression and ruminative self-doubt feels like)
Grace: 3.5 (similar to Otto)
The Tutor: 1 (pointless mental masturbation)
... and I'm realizing I don't want to read any more of these. I should have stopped after the first story by Sherman Alexie, because that was great... and the rest was just a bunch of stories, nothing I would consider The Best of anything. There were a couple good stories, and a couple truly awful ones, and a bunch of forgettable ones. And to be honest, the awful writers left far more of an impression than the good ones did. Other than "What You Pawn I Will Redeem," there was nothing in this book that I would have regretted not reading. I'm willing to risk missing out on a possible second gem, because I can't make myself slog through more of the mediocre depressing stuff. So I will call this a DNF at page 232.
melissajo's review
3.0
Like most short story anthologies, this is a mixed bag. My favorites were the ones by Sarah Shun-Lien Bynum, Edward P. Jones, R.T. Smith, Mary Yukari Waters, and John Edgar Wideman.
seebrandyread's review
2.0
As I've worked my way through the Best American Short Stories series, I've noticed that the chosen editor colors my expectations and acceptance of the collection. If I like the author's work, I'm skeptical of the stories they've chosen and vice versa. I love Lorrie Moore's short stories, and I think she's an even more fitting editor because short stories are what she's mainly known for. I had very high expectations for this edition. Unfortunately, I was disappointed.
On the shelf, the 2004 edition is noticeably larger than the others, at least the other ones that I own. I think a part of me thought that meant more stories in the collection even though I know that only 20 stories are chosen each year. Hence my first disappointment: Almost all of these stories are very, very long. Some of my favorite stories are 20-30 pages long, but when I read BASS I want diversity, diversity in length, subject matter, voice, authorship, etc. I don't know if there are "official" rules for when a story goes from being a story to a novella, but there are a couple in this collection that toe the boundary.
Moore explains in her introduction that she went into the selection process blind, but she did come across stories she'd already read which leads me to suspect that she subscribes to the New Yorker since nearly half of the chosen stories we're first published there. I'm sorry, but you're more likely to remember a story if you've read it more than once.
I think the author pool is reasonably diverse, though seasoned veterans Alice Munro, Annie Proulx, and John Updike all make appearances. But for me, only 3 of the stories made an impression and only one of those for the writer's skill as opposed to the outlandishness of plot. Munro's "Runaway" appears here, the story that became the titular story of perhaps her most famous collection.
The most interesting lesson I took away from this collection is that the work an author loves and the work an author produces may be very different things. This isn't that shocking a concept, but I was still jarred by how different Moore's work is from the work she admires. I will try to go into future editions with fewer expectations of transference and more expectations of sharing in something.
On the shelf, the 2004 edition is noticeably larger than the others, at least the other ones that I own. I think a part of me thought that meant more stories in the collection even though I know that only 20 stories are chosen each year. Hence my first disappointment: Almost all of these stories are very, very long. Some of my favorite stories are 20-30 pages long, but when I read BASS I want diversity, diversity in length, subject matter, voice, authorship, etc. I don't know if there are "official" rules for when a story goes from being a story to a novella, but there are a couple in this collection that toe the boundary.
Moore explains in her introduction that she went into the selection process blind, but she did come across stories she'd already read which leads me to suspect that she subscribes to the New Yorker since nearly half of the chosen stories we're first published there. I'm sorry, but you're more likely to remember a story if you've read it more than once.
I think the author pool is reasonably diverse, though seasoned veterans Alice Munro, Annie Proulx, and John Updike all make appearances. But for me, only 3 of the stories made an impression and only one of those for the writer's skill as opposed to the outlandishness of plot. Munro's "Runaway" appears here, the story that became the titular story of perhaps her most famous collection.
The most interesting lesson I took away from this collection is that the work an author loves and the work an author produces may be very different things. This isn't that shocking a concept, but I was still jarred by how different Moore's work is from the work she admires. I will try to go into future editions with fewer expectations of transference and more expectations of sharing in something.
lmrajt's review
4.0
I love Lorrie Moore and I love her taste in short stories. Witty, dry, subtly heartbreaking. Loved almost all of 'em.
More...