I'll warn you first that I'm reviewing early and haven't read every story in the collection. Normally, I wouldn't dare review a product if I didn't have the full range of interaction with it. But with fiction I think it's notable and appropriate to offer a review if much of it is so banal and expected that one can't muster the desire to keep reading.
I'm an aspiring writer, which I know doesn't mean jack and/or squat. It does mean I read a lot, though. I would go so far as to say I RELY on The Best American series as a sort of textbook (and thankfully it's also often entertaining on levels that range from 'amazing craft' to 'that was fun'). It's THE way to understand the contours of the contemporary short-fiction world as well as basically setting the 'you must be this good' bar for writers wanting all the fame and riches writing short fiction can offer (not much, you?).
This collection? I was eight (8!) stories in before I found one that truly engaged me and MADE me keep reading (the mark of a good story, in my opinion). It's pretty hard for me NOT to keep reading in such a collection, as I'm a firm believer that one can often learn the most from stories one may not 'like' very much. So, even when I don't 'like' a story as a reader, I still finish it as a writer, ya dig? But there a handful of stories in this anthology that were so awkwardly un-engaging I couldn't keep reading. It HURT to keep reading. The first story, for instance, is from The New Yorker (meaning it HAS to be good, right?) and reads like a senile grandparent rambling about the past, but it isn't even our grandparent telling the story, so why would the reader really care for this personal-history lesson? Oh really, grandma, the theater you say, fascinating... and with paragraphs half a page long.
The stories felt like the kind of stories rewarded in fiction workshops. Well crafted, proper language, seeming by all accounts to look like a story. But many didn't feel like stories, didn't make me a part of a new world or pull me into a character's experiences or truly bring about a new insight in me. They felt like manuscripts you read because you have to for class, and then are technically sound enough there isn't much to critique there, and most people don't want to say 'this story was just boring' so everyone nods and says 'pretty good, pretty good' and the next day it's forgotten.
It seems to me there are two directions guest selectors of The Best American Series can take. Route 1) put in a ton of the expected fare from The New Yorker because they must be good to be in The New Yorker, right? 2) Actually scour the short stories from the year and try to find those gems that are truly innovative, engaging and memorable. In my opinion, Alice Sebold simply picked all the 'must be good' stories from the year and didn't really ever question whether they were actually good. Nothing wrong with this. Some people will be pleased because in many ways the stories are good (I mean, half of them were from The New Yorker, so they've GOT to be good, right?). The selections just felt safe and expected, though, which in the fiction world, to me, translates to banal and unmemorable. I guess I just prefer when editors find the more cutting edge stuff, the fiction we haven't quite seen before, the stuff that we may not even realize as we read it that in a few years we'll look back and treasure the stories as not just another anthology, but an event in our lives. I can't imagine a single story in this collection doing that for me.
To make a long review even longer and broader in scope, I don't blame Sebold for the selections. I think a better method for selecting stories is by committee, as having one author selecting seems to lead to an unreliable process when one is supposed to be selecting the best. Also, I think the sad truth is that short fiction is in a tough place. All these collections end up with stories so out-of-place bad or boring that one scratches their head, not being able to find any rationale for their inclusion--though 99% of the time they're from a has-to-be-good top literary journal--that even the tried and true 'it's just all so subjective' nonsense doesn't seem valid. And a lot of what I keep seeing published by the heavy hitters is the safe, expected fare that of course then gets re-published in these anthologies in an endless cycle of nobody seeming to question if the fiction they're being fed is actually good or not. The short-fiction world at large feels stagnant, like everyone is just doing what they've always done and what they think they're supposed to do.
To me, that's exactly what The Best American Short Stories 2009 feels like: safe, predictable, expected. Not a bad idea for dinner with the in-laws. But for fiction, especially what's supposed to be the best, it's disappointing. A shrug-worthy story is usually worse than if a writer or selector for The Best American takes chances that don't end up working out; at least then it's often memorable and interesting in the crash and burn. Instead, this anthology is just a huge shrug. Finish a story, finish the anthology, shrug and the stories are forgotten... which to me is not the mark of the best of anything, much less fiction.