Rating: 
Summary: Yes, reviewer from Florida--where's "The Lottery"?
Review: I know, I know, we WILL be arguing about the selection here for years to come. Nonetheless, how can the work which generated the most mail that The New Yorker has ever received, and probably harrowed up the feelings of the greatest number of academic and general readers of any story, how, I repeat, can Updike justify leaving it out?
Rating: 
Summary: "Of The Century" creates a problem
Review: I respect and totally understand that this is the editors' choices of the best stories in America from 1915-2000. Notice that there is no Salinger, a writer Updike did not appreciate. There is also very litte meta-fiction. For this, many reviewers dislike the book.However, I commend Updike for presenting a collection of stories that not everyone already knows. People wanted to see "The Lottery." Why? Everyone knows it. I wanted to see Salinger's "For Esme-With Love and Squalor" or "A Perfect Day for Bananafish." But why? Everyone knows those stories already. Granted, I'm generalizing a bit, but I think Updike and Kenison did a great job of finding stories that may not be known yet needed to be read. It was probably a terrific headache to have to say "No" to many excellent stories. I don't blame Updike and Kenison for that. This is not the definitive anthology and reviewers need to quit treating it like it is. This is a taste of our country, and with that in mind, it does its job, with or without our favorite stories.
Rating:
Summary: "Of The Century" creates a problem
Review: I respect and totally understand that this is the editors' choices of the best stories in America from 1915-2000. Notice that there is no Salinger, a writer Updike did not appreciate. There is also very litte meta-fiction. For this, many reviewers dislike the book. However, I commend Updike for presenting a collection of stories that not everyone already knows. People wanted to see "The Lottery." Why? Everyone knows it. I wanted to see Salinger's "For Esme-With Love and Squalor" or "A Perfect Day for Bananafish." But why? Everyone knows those stories already. Granted, I'm generalizing a bit, but I think Updike and Kenison did a great job of finding stories that may not be known yet needed to be read. It was probably a terrific headache to have to say "No" to many excellent stories. I don't blame Updike and Kenison for that. This is not the definitive anthology and reviewers need to quit treating it like it is. This is a taste of our country, and with that in mind, it does its job, with or without our favorite stories.
Rating: 
Summary: A Review
Review: I used to go to the library and read the old annual Best American Short Story collections. There was something almost religious about picking up a copy from 1927 and reading a story by a then unknown kid named Ernest Hemingway in that old type-face, or the Faulkner stories in just about every annual volume during the 1930s. The bios of these writers at the back of the old copies when they were unknown writers was so innocent and naive. Modern critical theory has influenced my perception of so many of these writers, and that is shame. The stories collected in this Best American Short Stories of the Century are taken from the the annual volumes. There are stories representing each decade from the teens to the 90s. There are classics, and there are surprises. My favorite is Ann Beattie's "Janus." It is subtle and masterfully written. I've owned this book for two years, and I read it from time-to-time. Some stories I've read four or five times. Some I haven't read at all. And it's a book that it's okay to do that with, I think. The Fitzgerald story "Crazy Sunday" was something of a nice surprise, and indeed, that kind of surprise seems at the heart of what Updike and Kenison were aiming to realize. How to make a Best of the 20th Century anotholgy exciting, you know? Considering they could only take stories from the annual Best of American Short Story anothologies, they did that well, I think. Martha Gellhorn's "Miami--New York" was insightful. The John Cheever, Raymond Carver, and Joyce Carol Oates stories are great classics. I enjoyed Donald Barthelme's "A City of Churches" and Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried" -- stories ranging from the humorous, to the heartrending. If I could make one suggestion regarding Best American Short Stories, it would be this: I think it would be interesting if every few years they allowed a so-called popular writer to read as guest editor. These stories end up representing a kind of intellectual clique. And it would be interesting to see what a guest editor like John Grisham or Stephen King would add to the mix of our nation's collective stories.
Rating:
Summary: How appropriate he would edit this book: thank you, John!
Review: I will actually begin reading this book this weekend. My only question before beginning: Did John Updike's own work make it in? After all, here is the greatest writer of short stories in American history. What a shame if he felt compelled to leave himself out for ANY reason.
Rating:
Summary: Some of These Stories Really are Great
Review: Let's face it, superlatives sell. Who is going to buy a short story collection entitled: "A Collection of Well Written Stories from a Bunch of Different People, from 1915 to 1999". Not catchy and you can't dance to it. Another fact--there is no way that you could put together a collection of the greatest American short stories from the 20th century and have everyone agree on it. That being said, this is a very good collection of stories. I will admit, some bored me, some I really didn't like, but there is a lot in there and on the whole I think it's a worthwhile read. Some of the stories blew me away--particularly Alice Elliot Dark's In the Gloaming. Some, I couldn't even finish. As a whole, I am very glad I read them. This collection introduced me to a number of writers I had never read before, some I haven't read in a while, and some I read anytime anything new comes out. Of the stories I enjoyed (and that's most of them), I am appeciative of Updike's including them. This collection, while it has a few weak links, is strong and makes for enjoyable reading.
Rating:
Summary: Some of These Stories Really are Great
Review: Let's face it, superlatives sell. Who is going to buy a short story collection entitled: "A Collection of Well Written Stories from a Bunch of Different People, from 1915 to 1999". Not catchy and you can't dance to it. Another fact--there is no way that you could put together a collection of the greatest American short stories from the 20th century and have everyone agree on it. That being said, this is a very good collection of stories. I will admit, some bored me, some I really didn't like, but there is a lot in there and on the whole I think it's a worthwhile read. Some of the stories blew me away--particularly Alice Elliot Dark's In the Gloaming. Some, I couldn't even finish. As a whole, I am very glad I read them. This collection introduced me to a number of writers I had never read before, some I haven't read in a while, and some I read anytime anything new comes out. Of the stories I enjoyed (and that's most of them), I am appeciative of Updike's including them. This collection, while it has a few weak links, is strong and makes for enjoyable reading.
Rating:
Summary: Quintessentially Updikesque.
Review: Mr. John Updike is my favorite, literary artist! Eschewing William Gass's invectiveness against the Pulitzer, John vicariously courted the Nobel through Bech. Back is Bech/Whatda heck?/Pay now his due/Long overdue. Before and after winning the Nobel Prize in 1965, the late physicist, Richard P. Feynman, eclisped his peers as John Updike does his in our time. Never egregious, Updike's imperfections are the magnum opera of other revered yarn weavers. Muhammad Ali nursing a cold floated and stung still. No matter, controversy would dog whomever hangs her jingles or his danglers on the line to brave the game of winner-loses in picking an all-star cast of centennial, short story spiders. Errors of omission and inclusion may be decisive in accepting or rejecting statistical hypotheses but not so with acclaimed authorial judgement. Possibly, Updike's lingering sense of cleric fairness persuaded him to sample evenly among the decades. He illustrated grandmasters; each ensconced in the pantheon of American literature, with how they ingeniously contrived their worlds in mesmerizing words. He articulated his criteria and fulfilled them with aplomb. Bravo!
Rating:
Summary: No Wolfe? Updike can't get over his inferiorities...
Review: nor the superiority of the milleniums best journalist/novelists. Tom Wolfe, be glad you're not lumped in with these. Where's the Katherine Anne Porter--her best, "Jilting of Granny Weatherall."
Rating:
Summary: Why Updike?
Review: Of all the writers that could have been chosen to edit this collection why did it have to be that John Updike, one of the most over-rated writers of the century, ended up being the one chosen for the task? Is it any wonder that this collection, despite a few worthy inclusions, turned out to be unchallenging, predictable and pandering? I concede that the material Updike had to choose from may not have been the best, the Best American Short Stories series regularly celebrates mediocre mainstream sensibilities. Even so, at one point in his introduction Updike lists a number of stories he eliminated off hand, the majority of which are superior to any number of the stories that are included. To me, the most glaring omission is "Emergency" by Denis Johnson which was published in the 1992 collection (edited by Robert Stone, whose "Helping" also deserved inclusion). For those who don't know, Updike presumably among them, Denis Johnson is the finest writer in America today and "Emergency" is the high point of his short but shockingly brilliant collection "Jesus' Son", arguably the finest piece of writing by any American author in the past 25 years. The least Updike could have done was swallow his pride and left his own story, "Gesturing", on par with the overall mediocrity of the collection, out and given the spot something much more challenging, poignant and fulfilling. That said there are some good points. "The Killers" is probably the best story Hemingway ever wrote. "Greenleaf" is a great story but I would have prefered to see O'Connors "A Good Man is Hard To Find". "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" is chilling. "Gold Coast" is a tremendous piece of writing, as is "The Shawl". I was truly amazed that Donald Barthelme's "City of Churches" managed to get by Updike's predictable eye. "I Want To Live!" by Thom Jones is one of the more empathetic stories in recent memory. The highlight of the whole collection "The Things They Carried", Tim O'Brien's indescribable masterpiece of war-based realism, in that field, however, I consider O'Brien's own "How To Tell A True War Story" superior. Unfortunately, that story was somehow excluded from yearly collection edited by Mark Halpern, one of the low points of a series which has more than its fair share.
|
