Showing posts with label Pat Barker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pat Barker. Show all posts

Monday, July 2, 2018

What it is like to win the Booker prize, by Margaret Atwood, Hilary Mantel, Peter Carey and more

Hilary Mantel, Marlon James, Anne Enright
Julian Barnes. Margaret Atwood and Howard Jacobson

What it is like to win the Booker prize, by Margaret Atwood, Hilary Mantel, Peter Carey and more


As the Man Booker prize turns 50 and readers vote for their favourite ever recipient, novelists reveal the highs (and lows) of winning ‘the Oscar’ of the literary world

Saturday 30 June 2018



Hilary Mantel: ‘You could spend years floating around showing off’

Wolf Hall (2009) and Bring Up the Bodies (2012)




Hilary Mantel

It’s a measure of the status of the prize that you wake up in a different world. Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies had way outsold my previous books even before the shortlist. But after the wins, overseas deals multiplied rapidly and the effect bounced along to my backlist. So your previous career is recast, and all your work re-evaluated – both in a marketing sense, and a literary sense.
The prize has been nothing but good to me, but I can see that it might be destabilising. Big opportunities open up. It would be possible to spend years floating around the world showing off, and to become a professional winner instead of a professional writer. I imagine also that panic could strike. Luckily for me, I was held safe, because I was committed to a trilogy. So neither in 2009 or in 2012 did I have to ask myself, “What do I do now?”
Having been a judge as well as a contender, I know about the vast burden of reading, the chancy and nervous nature of the process, and how much depends on the dynamics of the final meeting. It may be skill that gets you to the shortlist stage, but we winners should remember that we have had a bit of luck, too. It’s important to get back to your desk, sit down in a spirit of humility, and – if you aim to flourish after the prize – learn all over again how to fail.


Julian Barnes: ‘I felt a general soppy warmth towards everyone’

The Sense of an Ending (2011)




Julian Barnes

I’ve always believed that literary prizes should be for the encouragement of the young, and the consolation of the old. In the middle stretch, you should just get on with it. So winning the Man Booker in my mid-60s was indeed a consolation – also a relief (I’d been shortlisted in each of the preceding three decades), but mainly a simple pleasure. I knew there was no danger of it changing the way I might write, and little (I hoped) of it going to my head. My old friend Ian McEwan warned me a few days afterwards: “By the way, you’ll find that from now on you’re no longer ‘the novelist Julian Barnes’ – you’ve been transformed into ‘the Booker prize-winning novelist Julian Barnes’.” This has indeed proved the case, but it’s hardly much of a burden.

The highlights of that evening in 2011? A kind friend assuring me as I sat down to dinner: “We’ll love you just as much if you don’t win.” (And me asking her jauntily two hours later, “So do you love me more now?”) My (female, British) publisher jumping into my lap a few milliseconds after the announcement. My (male, American) publisher instantly tapping into his iPhone instructions to up the print run for the forthcoming American edition. Then a general soppy warmth towards everyone in the Guildhall: the judges, my fellow shortlistees, waiters, interviewers – even the journalist overheard before the press conference boasting to a chum that “I’m going to ambush him with The Martin Amis Question”. Nothing could shake my absurd, if logical, good humour. I was overfamiliar with the downside of not winning the Booker, and could see no downside at all to finally winning it.



Margaret Atwood: ‘I had a contest with Beryl Bainbridge – who could be nominated most without winning’

The Blind Assassin (2000)


It was an evening with especially good flower arrangements in 2000, the year I won. I’d been nominated for The Handmaid’s Tale (too feminist), Cat’s Eye(too provincial) and Alias Grace (too colonial), and it seemed that I was in the Beryl Bainbridge category – always a bridesmaid but never a bride. In fact she and I had a contest going, who could be nominated the most without winning? When I actually did win, my first thought was “My new shoes are too tight”, because now I would have to walk in them to get photographed and so forth.
I probably shouldn’t have said that my earliest literary influence was Beatrix Potter – however true – but as I wasn’t expecting to win, I had no speech prepared. I was of course thrilled and grateful, but also I was simply relieved: I would not have to return to Canada to a reproachful but gleeful media chorus of “Atwood Fails to Win Booker”, as if it were a horse race. It’s much more like Best Pumpkin in Show: the pumpkin does nothing.



Howard Jacobson: ‘I lost friends when I won’

The Finkler Question (2010)




Howard Jacobson

If there’s such a thing as a Man Booker experience I’ve drunk deep on it. Overlooked, infuriated, longlisted, shortlisted, victorious, overjoyed. I lost friends when I won. Not for winning but for reneging, as they saw it, on my earlier infuriation. Naive of them. If you are angry with a prize that doesn’t seem to value the sort of novels you write you are bound to change your tune when it does.
I got lucky with the judges – three women and two men of rare discernment and a sense of humour. Of course I thought myself deserving, but justice is no more than the dice rolling in your favour. Losing had been equally arbitrary.
Winning opened doors I thought were shut forever. Overnight, offers came in from foreign publishers, even publishers in Israel who until then had largely ignored my work on the grounds, they told my agent, that it was too Jewish.
How Jewish is too Jewish? There’s an argument that the fathers of the novel are Homer and the Old Testament, the Old Testament being responsible for the jokes. That being the case, all novels are Jewish in the disputatious, dialogic sense. If I didn’t expect The Finkler Question to win – and my mother was so convinced it wouldn’t I suspect she went to William Hill and bet against it – that was because I feared it was too overtly Jewish. Which goes to show you never know. Thus my only advice to aspirants to the prize: don’t try to write a Man Booker book. Leave it to the dice. And remember to be graceful in victory. We need all the help we can get.



Anne Enright: ‘I thought the camera was on Ian McEwan’

The Gathering (2007)




Anne Enright

One of the most useful things said to me after the Man Booker came from my medical sister, who looked at me with a cool, diagnostic eye and said, “I usually advise people not to make any major decisions until six months after a life changing event.” I didn’t know my life had changed, I just knew that it was hard to get back to the desk. This was not part of the fantasy of the night, of course. I saw the cameraman lining up a shot on me and thought he was aiming at Ian McEwan, who was sitting over my left shoulder. When the announcement came, I expected a name, but the chairman of the judges read out the title of a book, and it took me a long second to realise that I had written this book. I told all this to a local audience in Dublin the other day and they just loved it: the fantasy of being the chosen one is incredibly strong. But if I am proud, it is of one fact: The Gathering is not just one of the minority of books written by a woman to claim the prize, it is also one of the very few to have a female narrator – perhaps five out of the 50 – and I am happy to have beaten those odds.


Peter Carey: ‘Nothing prepared me for the apocalyptic flashbulbs’

Oscar and Lucinda (1988) and True History of the Kelly Gang (2001)






Peter Carey. Circular panelist byline.DO NOT USE FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE

When I was shortlisted for Illywhacker in 1985 I had never read in public in my life. I was terrified that I would win and therefore have to make a speech. For two days I calmed myself by imagining Doris Lessing or Keri Hulmewould win. That worked, for my nerves, and for Keri Hulme as well.
When, three years later, I was shortlisted for Oscar and Lucinda I was a different man, not quite ready to punch the air or throw myself on the floor, but confident I would not lose my voice if called on to speak.

What I said is fortunately forgotten but I accepted the nice cheque and slipped it in my rented tux. It was only after this, when I had the money in my pocket, that I discovered there was something ahead, more overwhelming than a speech.
Oscar and Lucinda had been my fourth publication. I had already done many interviews, I thought. I had been photographed more than was decent. But nothing in my previous life prepared me for what followed. I mean my body had known nothing like these apocalyptic flashbulbs, relentless probes, strobes, questions left, right and over there. I was over the moon. I said I was. I was proud. I said that, too. Others were proud, my whole country even. What did I feel? What did I think? Was I happy? In those hours of media triumph and celebration, while my publishing life changed for ever, the cruellest trick of all was how numb I felt. I had to wait three days, for a stranger to hail me in the arrivals hall of Sydney airport, to really feel the thrill: “Good on you, mate. Well done.”

Marlon James: ‘I had to be marched back to my seat’

A Brief History of Seven Killings (2015)





Marlon James

I really didn’t think I was going to win. So much so that I didn’t even write a speech. I was so convinced another book was the winner that right before the announcement I set off to the bathroom, only to be met by two near panicking members of the dinner staff who had run after me. They marched me right back to my seat. The journalist beside me knew I had won and tried to impress on me that I really should write a speech, to which I politely but firmly said no.

I was stunned when Michael Wood called my name. You really do slip outside yourself for a second, the way you do with any extreme experience, whether fear, pain, joy or heartbreak. I bumbled through a speech where I think I mentioned my father way too much, and then told people all the reasons why my book was not easy. I wonder if “not easy” referred more to the writing of it than the reading of it.
Hilary Mantel wrote a brilliant and hilarious article about not winning awards, which I had read at least three times, mostly in an attempt to get accustomed to not winning. I watched clips of Maggie Smith playing an actor who did not win the Academy award. Because honestly, I never win anything. You try not to be bitter about it, but who are we fooling? “It was an honour to be nominated” can sound as hollow as you think it would.
Except that it’s not hollow. No disrespect to the winners at all, but my most surprising reading experiences have come from the shortlist (Monica Ali, for example) and the longlist, (Timothy Mo, for example). So I had come to a quite beautiful moment of acceptance that I was about to join some truly esteemed company. But then I won.



Pat Barker: ‘It’s more like an Oscar than a literary prize’

The Ghost Road (1995)





Pat Barker

Does the winning author ever know the result before it’s officially announced? Not in my year, though there was a clue: the cameras seemed to be focusing more on the winning table. I remember saying to my publisher, “I think we’ve done it!” After that, my memories are a blur of radio and TV interviews and a bank of cameras with flashing blue lights and voices calling out of the darkness, “Look this way!” “Over here!” You feel like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
Winning the Booker changes everything. In its power to transform a career it’s more like winning an Oscar than another literary prize. I was always aware of the luck element. A different set of judges might well have chosen another book. The question is, how do you react to your sudden (though shortlived!) fame? Embrace it, wallow in it or run away from it as fast as you can? I ran. As soon as I could, I went home and settled down to being the unsuccessful author of the next book. Though even that wasn’t easy. You’re always aware that the next book will receive more critical scrutiny than any previous book has done and that can be inhibiting. But even sitting in front of a blank screen tearing my hair out I was always grateful to have won.
In recent years I’ve become more aware of a downside to the Booker prize-winning label. Too many intelligent, enthusiastic readers take it as a sign the book will be above their heads, and yet many of these books – the shortlisted as much as the winners – are brilliantly accessible. “Give it a go,” you want to say, “You never know, you might be missing a good read.”


John Banville: ‘The notion I might win made everyone try not to laugh’

The Sea (2005)






John Banville

On the day of the award in 2005, I flew into London from Philadelphia at 6am. I had long before arranged to be in America at that time, as no one, especially myself, had the slightest expectation that my novel would even reach the shortlist. When it did get on, it became imperative that I attend the award dinner, in the fear that if they knew I would not be coming the jury would take offence – though even the notion that I might win made everyone put on a straight face and try not to laugh.
I came back to the UK alone, with a return flight to New York arranged for the next day at 10.30am – bad taste for a loser to hang about any longer than necessary. But what, I wondered, could I possibly do with this day, a whole day, on my own in London? I determined that I must not drink – I had made a great mistake in that regard when I was on the shortlist in 1989 – so I simply strolled about the city in the October sunshine, looking in the shop windows at all the things I would no more be able to afford tomorrow than I was today.
As the afternoon grew late, and the dreaded dinner hour approached, I found myself in St James’s Park, standing by the little lake there, idly watching five pure white waterbirds fighting with a duck over a crust of bread. The duck won. I took it for an omen, and went off to put on my black tie.


Penelope Lively: ‘The prize is nicely unpredictable – it may be you’

Moon Tiger (1987)







Penelope Lively

At lunchtime, on the day of the Booker dinner, my husband said: “I don’t think you’re going to win, but, just in case, perhaps you’d better think of something to say.” Wise words, as it turned out. I wasn’t the favourite, so the advice I would give to anyone shortlisted would be the same: the Booker is nicely unpredictable, so it may turn out to be you, even if they are all saying that is unlikely. And remember, anyway, that there is no such thing as a best book, merely one on which a group of people have been able to reach agreement.
Life after the Man Booker meant a couple of years and more when it was difficult to do what I wanted to do, which was get on with some writing. There was much book-related travel, too much time in airports, too many events. All that is 30 years ago now, and in a way I am quite grateful for the travel: it means that one of the satisfactions of old age is the thought that I shall never see Heathrow again. I have had all the travel I want or need.
Once the searchlight is turned on others, your take on the Man Booker is that of any reader – the revelation of books you might not otherwise have come across, and will now read. That is the value of the shortlist (longlist, too) – a swathe of books are highlighted for readers. For me, though, there are also the ones that got away that should have won. Two, to my mind: Adam Thorpe’s Ulverton and Carol Shields’s The Stone Diaries.


Ben Okri: ‘The hunger and the dreams are still there’

The Famished Road (1991)






Ben Okri

You take a young poet and novelist flaming with hunger and obscurity and dreams, you put him through the rigours of the short-story form, you unleash him on a novel he had been secretly writing for years, and you gift him with a strange magical night at the Guildhall in October 1991, and what do you get?
You first get shock, surprise, retreat, delight, celebration, partying, making up for the hunger years, excessive travel, an explosion of readership, the opening up of the magic casement of African writing, a very English lingering backlash, many beautiful friendships, an initial stunned hiatus in writing followed by a steady, quiet harvest, opportunities for constant literary and spiritual growth, much conflicting criticism, an ebb and flow of fortunes, some smouldering resentment, the curious compliment of being plagiarised, publication in many languages, undue expectation followed by a rush to declare disappointment, many St Sebastian-like arrows patiently and humorously borne, love and kindness directed at me from ever renewing sources, and an abiding, never faltering gratitude for the fact that regardless of how my books are received or not received the flame and the hunger and the dreams are still there, enriched by that destiny-altering night at the Guildhall in 1991.


DBC Pierre: ‘I bet a tenner on myself as if I were a horse’

Vernon God Little (2003)







DBC Pierre

For a participant, one thing the Man Booker prize is strange for is that your days of feverish writing can be two or more years behind you. There’s an extreme Doppler shift: you didn’t write the book with a view to later competing with others. You suddenly find yourself not only in competition but given odds at the bookies (I put a tenner on myself as if I were a horse – you just have to). As if runners ran a race against themselves, and judges were convened years later in a different place; or you worked up the strength to lob a bowling ball up an alley over the horizon, and by the time you got over the rise you saw that agents and publishers had kept the thing rolling on. The night itself is numbing. The shortlist is the realistic prize. I don’t know how possible it is to find a single winner among artworks. From the perspective of the dinner table on the night you quickly realise the show’s set up for TV. I remember being told to expect one of five roving cameras in my face as the winner was announced. Those are the cameras that catch your reaction when someone else wins. Only five of them, as the winner will go to the stage. I spotted the cameras early. Watched them wait for the announcement; and lived a very long split-second as I realised none were coming to me 



Sunday, March 17, 2013

Granta's class of 2013 / Picking the 20 best young British novelists

Granta list1983





 Granta's first Best of Young British Novelists list, 1983. back row (l to r): William Boyd, Adam Mars-Jones, Julian Barnes, Pat Barker, Clive Sinclair. Middle row: Buchi Emecheta, AN Wilson, Ursula Bentley, Christopher Priest, Maggie Gee, Ian McEwan, Martin Amis. Front row: Shiva Naipaul, Kazuo Ishiguro, Philip Norman, Graham Swift, Rose Tremain and Lisa St Aubin de Teran. (Two winners were missing from the photograph: Alan Judd and Salman Rushdie.) Photograph: Camera Press/Snowdon

Granta's class of 2013: picking the 20 best young British novelists


Howls of outrage are bound to accompany next month's unveiling of Granta's list of top 20 young writers. Here a former Granta editor and veteran of the 2003 judging panel reveals how the list takes shape

Alex Clark
Sunday 17 March 2013 00.05 GMT


T
en years is a long time in the literary game: it can easily take someone until then to finish writing a decent novel – although that's less and less likely to wash with contemporary publishers. But a decade is also more than enough time for a writer's fortunes to change dramatically.

Take Hilary Mantel. In 2003 she was a highly respected novelist and critic, the author of such enthusiastically reviewed novels as Eight Months on Ghazzah StreetThe Giant, O'Brien and A Place of Greater Safety, the epic fictional portrayal of the French revolution published a decade previously that had probably been her most widely read novel. In the spring of 2003 her extraordinary memoir, Giving Up the Ghost, came out. But Beyond Black, her macabre novel of psychic shenanigans in the home counties, was still two years away; and we would have to wait several more before Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies would scoop two Man Booker prizes and transport Mantel to the highest echelons of writerly fame. Ten years ago she was the very emblem of the seriously talented and audacious female writer who was somehow rarely mentioned in the same breath as the holy trinity of Amis, Barnes and McEwan. Now, she cannot express a mildly contentious view in a literary journal without waking to find an outraged press pack camped on her front lawn.


Both scenarios are mad, and flipsides of the same issue. The pigheaded undervaluing of certain writers and the overnight obsession with others suggest problems with scale and perspective; problems that are perhaps related to Jonathan Franzen's analysis of the trappings that come with mega-successful authorship. The money, the hype, the limo to the Vogue shoot, he wrote, might once have been the perks; these days they're supposed to be the prize itself. Such baubles are, he regretfully maintained, "the consolation for no longer mattering to the culture". In the interests of accuracy, I should point out that Franzen has softened his pessimism a little in subsequent interviews, and one might also retort that the work obviously does matter; people are surely reading The Corrections and Wolf Hall and Freedom and Bring Up the Bodies, not simply waiting for Franzen to appear on Letterman or Mantel on Loose Women. But he has a point. When, these days, a writer becomes well known, when they are successful, when they are said to have "broken through", what does that actually mean?

In 1983, when Granta magazine published its first ever list of the Best of Young British Novelists, it meant something slightly different. That's not to say that the waters were crystal clear, nor that the literary arena was immune to the very idea of celebrity or to the lure of Franzen's consolation prizes. And no enterprise of this nature ever takes place in a vacuum. Work by the first 20 BOYBN created the seventh issue of Granta. Its inaugural issue had been entitled "New American Writing", its second "The Portage to San Christobal of AH", the title of a novella by the French-born, Austrian-descended polyglot George Steiner which appeared alongside pieces about Don DeLillo and William Styron and an interview with John Barth. The issue after that had been called "The End of the English Novel". You get the picture.
Such determined iconoclasm was perhaps unsurprising, given that Granta had been founded by an American, Bill Buford, and one with a nose for an attention-grabbing editorial statement to boot. Now, in the midst of these celebrations of writing from elsewhere, he launched a sort of home talent show, adapting an original initiative from the British Book Marketing Council (allow me a brief and probably deeply unfair diversion: have four words ever so readily summoned up the image of a committee meeting with green cups and saucers and a plate of Peek Freans?). Buford's boldest innovation was to insist that his bright young things be, well, young, imposing an age limit of 40 on candidates.
Then he slapped the work of, among others, Martin Amis (with an extract, of course, from Money, the era-defining novel that would appear the following year), Graham Swift, Kazuo Ishiguro, Pat Barker, Ian McEwan, Rose Tremain and Salman Rushdie between vibrant covers that depicted two fountain pens clashing against an exploding Union flag. He must have known that this kind of thing would be dynamite; the book was called Best of Young British Novelists 1.
Buford's confidence was not misplaced. Every decade since 1983, Granta has produced its 20-strong list of 20- and 30-somethings (although there's no lower age limit, I don't believe a teenager has ever been included). In the mid-90s, the brand was clearly thought to be so successful that it diversified, and there have now been two instalments of Best of Young American Novelists. And since the beginning of this decade, there have been two more additions to the stable: 2010's Best of Young Spanish-language Novelists and last autumn's Best of Young Brazilian Novelists. In one sense, the Spanish-language issue is the most barrier-breaking list to date; bringing together writers from nine countries, its editors argued in their introduction that "the literary homeland, as this collection shows, is the language itself". No wonder they bent the rules to allow themselves 22 writers; they also lowered the age-limit to 35, meaning that all the shortlisted writers had been born since 1975, the year that Franco's death wrought seismic changes in the Spanish-speaking world.




But back to the Brits and, as the sharper among you will have realised, to this year, when the once-a-decade alarm clock is primed to ring again. On 15 April, Granta will announce its fourth list of future fictioneers. The judges – the magazine's publisher, editor and deputy editor, Sigrid Rausing, John Freeman and Ellah Allfrey respectively, novelists Romesh Gunesekera and AL Kennedy and literary journalists Gaby Wood and Stuart Kelly – will have done their work. (This is not quite true of Kelly, who is doing double duty this year on the Man Booker prize jury. He deserves a gong and a lifetime's supply of coffee.)
No sooner have they put their reading specs to one side and allowed themselves a celebratory amontillado, however, than another task begins; that of soaking up the flak. It may come in the form of straightforward disagreement or be of the more politely framed "I beg to differ" variety; it may focus on an outrageous inclusion who has no business even putting pen to paper or on an absent writer who immediately conjures a heart-rending image of genius unrewarded. It may take issue with the whole enterprise. But flak there will be – because there is no list compiled in the whole of contemporary culture that doesn't provoke dissent. And that, in part, is the whole point.
Ten years ago I was on the panel, alongside the chair, Ian Jack, then the editor of Granta, the aforementioned Hilary Mantel, the Observer's literary editor, Robert McCrum, and Nicholas Clee, then the editor of The Bookseller. A very quick word about Mantel, whom I remember – no surprise here – as an exceptionally astute reader and the keeper of more detailed and more illuminating notes than the rest of us put together (no offence, everyone else). But aside from that, an obvious question arises. Why wasn't she a BOYBN?
As is so often the case, it's a matter of the stars aligning. In 1983 Mantel had yet to publish a novel; in 1993, when she had published five, she had just passed 40. Judging that second BOYBN list was AS Byatt, one of this country's greatest novelists; her date of birth meant that she wasn't eligible for even the first list. In 2003, one of those just outside the cut-off date was Ali Smith; there can be little doubt that she would have been included had she been born a while later. I cite these examples not to denigrate either the lists or those on them but simply to underline the fact that they are inevitably snapshots, vivid but partial pictures of a constantly evolving culture.
I cannot pretend, even for the sake of drama, that the creation of that third list was a fraught affair; the general sensibilities and tastes of the panel were too much in accord for trouble, and there were no particularly confrontational or maniacally idiosyncratic temperaments to accommodate. There were, of course, disagreements, and there were also a couple of crises in the form of much-admired writers who turned out, for one reason or another, to be ineligible. But the key to harmony is more than anything else a question of numbers: life is made far easier when you are choosing 20 "winners" rather than one.

I suspect most of the BOYBN panels have had a roughly similar experience: the first five, 10, even dozen places fill themselves pretty quickly with writers whose talents would make their omission merely bizarre, sometimes because of the sureness and quality of their early writing, sometimes because they have, by a comparatively young age, built up an impressive body of work – and sometimes both. But then come the writers who make the endeavour come alive; those in whom one can discern a flash of brilliance and originality that compel you to take a punt. The development and durability of a literary career is an unknowable thing; hence we are keener than mustard to try to divine it.
In 2003 much was made of the fact that we had included two writers whose first novels had yet to be published; Monica Ali and Adam Thirlwell. In both cases, typescripts had arrived late on in the proceedings, unaccompanied by anything much in the way of extraneous information. I recall losing myself in Brick Lane, becoming utterly absorbed in the tragicomedy of Nazneen and Chanu, feeling that I had rarely read a first novel so assured and fresh. Thirlwell's Politics was a different affair: it was explicit, sure, sexually and sexily, but it also seemed to have its roots in Europe, not Britain.
There was much discussion about both – but the fact that neither novel had been published was not a factor. When the list came out, this unavailability was held, by some, to be a weakness, almost a deception, even though it was very short-lived; Brick Lane and Politics were not in the early stages of gestation, and both were published soon afterwards. So the injury was not to the reader; was it, therefore, to the critics and journalists, who were somehow shut out, the evidence necessary to grant or withhold approval denied them?
Whether or not BOYBN 4 includes any as-yet-unpublished writers, the critical landscape has changed vastly in the past three decades. For a start, what Buford seized upon as a firecracker in 1983 is now a more commonplace feature of book promotion. Lists are ubiquitous, and perhaps none more so than those that promise newness or, even better, youth: the New Yorker's 20 American writers under 40, the annual announcement of Waterstones's 11 best debut writers, the less codified lists produced by all newspapers and magazines at frequent intervals. Their popularity might derive from a residual desire to believe in an authoritative critical consensus (although this seems less plausible by the day) or from a more pragmatic need to discover new work or from the understandable, if somewhat self-defeating, impulse to have something to rail against. But their co-dependent relationship with the publishing and bookselling industries mean that they are unlikely to disappear any time soon.

Meanwhile, the way we read is changing – with the probable consequence that the way writers write will change too. Overstating this is unwise; the fact that Jennifer Egan releases a story as a series of tweets, for example, doesn't mean that Karl Ove Knausgaard doesn't write a series of six autobiographical novels that run to thousands of pages. Just because a self-published author hits the jackpot doesn't mean that another writer won't collaborate with an editor to work painstakingly through numerous versions of a book. But it does mean that things are freeing up: that the idea of what constitutes a "literary" novel is changing, that genre writing is becoming less marginalised (look, for example, at the success enjoyed by the graphic form in this year's Costa Book Awards), that the career trajectory of a novelist is even less predictable than it ever was, if such a thing is possible.
Against that backdrop, one should embrace the Best of Young British Novelists and other entertainments of its ilk with a sense of adventure and discovery, rather than as the latest reiteration of a tired orthodoxy. Let's face it: a list is a silly thing. It is designed, as Adam Thirlwell wrote in a piece for Granta ahead of its Spanish-language special, to self-destruct; as an entity in itself, it can't last much longer than the present moment. "And so," he added, "although every novelist wants to be included on a list – sure you do, sure you do – the unread novelist also knows that the deeper history of the novel takes place in the future: where you float free of lists entirely, and enter the stratosphere."
Granta's fourth Best of Young British Novelists list will be announced on 15 April, followed on 16 April by publication of Granta 123 (£12.99), featuring work from all 20 writers.