This wrong-headed silliness from Susan Hill in The Guardian today:
A hundred different people would give you a hundred reasons why short stories do not sell well. Mine are that, ultimately, the story is less satisfying than the novel, lacks the depth, variety, richness and multilayers of meaning and reference. The short story can do much but still not as much as the novel. It is a small, highly polished jewel and can be flawless. There are some masterpieces. But the operative word is still "small".
There is an urgency to the short story that can’t exist in the novel. People talk about the confines and the narrow scope of the short story as opposed to the novel; it’s not a confined form and comparing it to the novel is like comparing it to the poem. I have found depth, variety, richness and multilayers of meaning and reference in so very many many short stories.
I don't know whose short fiction Susan Hill is reading, but here are a few to try:
Edna O’Brien, Flannery O’Connor, Michéle Roberts, Claire Keegan, Seán O’Reilly, Mike McCormack, Richard Ford, Mary Morrissey, Anne Enright, Colum McCann, John Updike, Emma Donoghue, Manuel Munoz, Raymond Carver, Éilís Ní Dhuibhne, Helen Dunmore, Tim Winton, Rose Tremain, Ernest Hemingway, Mavis Gallant, Michael Trussler, Robert Olen Butler...just to name a few of the more famous practitioners.