Okay guys,

It's seven in the morning in the land of the midnight sun. I cannot
sleep so here are my musings on "The Best American Short Stories:
2010" edited by Richard Russo that I have just finished.

This collection is by definition eclectic. I found it annoying. It is
somehow difficult to switch between different styles, personalities of
authors, their approaches to telling a story. It feels, pardon the
term, promiscuous.

The language of all stories is precise, polished and beautiful. I am
jealous.  Moreover, in his introduction, the editor stated that he
appreciated when the author's command of the language was used to move
the story forward rather than to show off. It felt this way to me as
well.

Many stories, though, irritated me for the lack power in them. The
authors added short descriptions to their stories at the end of the
book: how they come up with the stories, how they work on them, what
they wanted to tell. It was an interesting glimpse into creative
process. However, it did show why there often was no punch to a story:
it never meant to be.  To a lot of authors, a short story is a kind of
literary still life: a pretty composition with characters, background
and a few colorful vignettes. The stories are seldom drawn from the
authors' personal experiences. They sound fake. The authors proudly
talked about how to came up with the characters, how they borrowed
particularly sexy lines. It was offputting.  A couple of stories had
sci-fi elements in them. I guess, due to my early-in-life overdose of
sci-fi, they read particularly phony. 

I think it is just not my cup of vodka. I like the stories raw,
relationships effed up and hopeless or at least grim, future --
uncertain, hope -- ephemeral, life -- deadly. Few of the stories can
be compared to any in "The Drown" or "Boys and Girls Like You and Me"