I am not predisposed towards magazines. They have too many advertisements and those that don't, like Bitch and Adbusters and The Walrus, I let my subscriptions lapse with a stack of issues I never even got around to starting. I cherry pick my way through The Economist most weeks, half-finishing articles and sections. I've never read every article in their China section. I don't think I've read their Obits in ages. So even the magazine I "read", I don't really read. Something about magazines and their stories just doesn't gel with me.

But, break outside your comfort zone and all that. A Best-Of Collection means I won't have to be wading through the trash, thought I. It's curated, to use web 2.0 (or are we on 3.0 now? n.0?) lingo. Such a collection will inspire me to explore more long-form journalism. My horizons will be expanded and I will be all the richer.

Except, well, not really.

There's nothing wrong with any of the stories in The Best American Magazine Writing 2015. They aren't riddled with typographical errors or unsubstantiated claims. They aren't unnecessarily fanciful or overwhelmingly dour. They are perfectly adequate technique pieces. I could imagine journalism students dissecting them in little work groups and giving powerpoint presentations afterwards.

But I can't say that, with the exception of Brian Phillips' The Sea of Crises, about Sumo wrestling and Yukio Mishima, that I enjoyed reading any of these articles. That I felt that feeling you get after reading something that knocks your mind into the next level, like an energized electron. Most of the time, I just felt annoyed. Or forgetful. Three times now I've looked at the table of contents, baffled by Love and Ruin. Three times I couldn't remember what that piece was about, including about half an hour after I read it. I think I've finally got it down though. Love and Ruin is about Afghanistan.

But annoyed. For example, the initial essay, Ta-Nehisi Coates' The Case for Reparations. I found the argument muddled and unconvincing even though I am pretty much for reparations (or at least, as the article points out, I am completely open to studying the possibility of reparations via studies that are continually voted down by congress or the senate or whatever it is in the US that vote on these sorts of things. I'm Canadian so that whole governmental process is somewhat mysterious to me). The winning essay didn't convince someone who already believed in the possibility. Things like this annoy me. The articles instantly stopping when, I guess, they've gotten to five thousand or seventy-five hundred or whatever their word limit is, rather than letting the piece be as long as it needs to be, annoyed me. Having to read three short articles on art criticism, written for other art critics, so me having really no clue what was being talked about, annoyed me. Having to read four hundred pages on my iPad rather than my kobo and getting eye strain and headaches annoyed me (although, that really isn't the fault of the essays in this book, more the publisher. I hate reading on my iPad).

So The Best American Magazine Writing 2015 did not change my opinion of long-form magazine journalism. I'm just going to go back to flipping at random through The Economist's articles on the bathroom floor while waiting for Tesfa to get out of the tub. Maybe, when I stupidly request to review The Best American Magazine Writing 2016 next fall, that will be the collection that inspires me to love this type of journalism.

But probably not.

The Best American Magazine Writing 2015, Sid Holt editor went on sale December 15, 2015.

I received a copy free from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. ( )