Shirley, you jest?: Shirley Jackson and the short-story format

I'm thinking Shirley Jackson just, plain and simple, was not a great short-story writer, The Lottery aside. Reading through "The Lottery and other Stories," it's clear she was a good writer - and so are thousands of students in grad programs today. But her stories, mostly tales of sad New York singles who've never made it in their chosen professions and who are unlucky in love and who seemed to be facing with stalwart equanimity a life of loneliness, just don't seem to break a lot of ground. They're very often a pretty intriguing situation - a character sketch, a bit of milieu - that never develop into a full and moving story. I realize that many writers then and today specialize in vignettes - little wisps of a story that offer only a mood or a sensibility but not an arc of story, depth of character, of clearly defined conflict or action - think of the stories of Salinger and, maybe even more so, of Hemingway - but Jackson's don't have that elusive quality. It's as if she's trying to tell a traditional story and can't quite bring it off. I know she wrote quite a few novels and several memoirs during her too-short lifetime, and I remember being absolutely terrified by The Haunting of Hill House, so she obviously had talent in the traditional development of plot, but I think the story was not her most comfortable genre. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm missing something very subtle in her style, but the stories don't capture the dark and macabre qualities that made much of her writing famous in its time.