I think there is a value to these books in that it may encourage people to delve into a type of literature that they might not with out the "best" affixed to it. If it gets someone interested in short stories or science fiction or even food writing in a way that hadn;t before, that seems to be a huge win.
Can't you just see these books as "really good examples of___ that we thought others might like" rather than "best of", while understanding that "Best of" is much better branding and more likely to attract readers? Getting hung up on the title of a book will get you in trouble with regard to enjoying what is inside.
It's like critics who get hung up on "best film of..." and spend perennial columns talking about how such a thing is beneath them, (followed by their picks) instead of just having fun with it, and realizing that they're good opportunities for them to call attention to something that resonated with them in a personal way. It's not important that those lists are always wrong.
It's like critics who get hung up on "best film of..." and spend perennial columns talking about how such a thing is beneath them, (followed by their picks) instead of just having fun with it, and realizing that they're good opportunities for them to call attention to something that resonated with them in a personal way. It's not important that those lists are always wrong.