Kelly Link isn't interested in stories that have "a point" or that tie up all the loose ends -- you will be left in the dark. That is the point. (Is this sometimes hard for me to accept as a reader? Maybe. I struggled a little with this. I understand how it could get frustrating. This is a me problem, though, not a problem with the writing.) There is a line in "Lull" that I think describes her style: "There shouldn't be a moral although we should be able to think back later and have some sort of revelation."

Magic is a good way to describe these stories. The magic in them lies in their complexity; there is just so much to think about, so many ways to read the same story, so much happening in each line. I have never read something more clever in my entire life, and I'm frustrated because I can't articulate why. "Lull," "Some Zombie Contingency Plans," and "Magic for Beginners" round out my top three. (Can we talk about "Lull" for a second? Holy shit, y'all.) I liked "The Cannon," though I really had no idea what that was about at all -- the ending was satisfying, and I couldn't even tell you why. (In case you haven't gotten it yet: Link is the smartest writer I have ever read from, and I really could not tell you why I know this; I just know it. I will figure it out, one day.)

My one criticism of Link's writing is that it makes some subjects "cute" that maybe should not be. Take "The Faery Handbag," for example -- I read this as a literalization of emotional baggage and trauma that's impossible to articulate. It was deeply clever, and the easiest for me to get a grip on, so my reading experience was far more pleasant with this than other stories. Still, it made the darker aspects of this just feel cute. Rhetorically, I'm not sure about that. The same goes for "Stone Animals": look at the bunnies! It just felt a little like skirting around the hard things.

Anyway, TL;DR: You're going to be confused, and you're going to like it.