THERE are always ways to measure the distance between then and now. Take 1983, 40 years ago. The year Margaret Thatcher won a landslide victory in the General Election. The year New Order released Blue Monday, then the sound of the future; now the sound of heritage radio. The year Local Hero came out. It was all Bill Forsyth comedies around here back then.
And 1983 was the year of the first Granta Best of Young British Novelists list, a gather-up of the possibly great and the potentially good authors of the age. It’s a list full of familiar names now: Julian Barnes, Salman Rushdie, Pat Barker, Ian McEwan, Kazuo Ishiguro, Rose Tremain, Graham Swift and, of course, Martin Amis, son of Kingsley (see, nepo babies existed then too).
Looking back, it’s also a list that’s largely male and largely white. It makes for an interesting comparison with the latest list for 2023 which came out earlier this month.
READ MORE: Dan Willson on coming to terms with self-destructive tendencies
With 15 women, four men and one trans-masculine author (K Patrick, who is these days based on Lewis), it’s fair to say that the big picture of British literature has shifted. What we are seeing, the Guardian has suggested, is “the decline of the Great White Male and the rise of the Millennial Woman”.
It seems a fair summary, though it’s also worth noting that the Scot on the current list, Airdrie-born Graeme Armstrong, a former gang member and now author of the much-praised novel about gang culture, The Young Team, could hardly be further removed in life or fiction than the 1983 Scottish representative, William Boyd, who was born in Africa and attended Gordonstoun and Jesus College, Oxford.
Armstrong’s inclusion in the list is a reminder that diversity is not only about identity in the 21st century. It is also about class. Hasn’t it always been?
Actually, as an aside, there are four Scottish-based authors on the list.
As well as Armstrong and K Patrick, authors Camilla Grudova and Sarah Bernstein live here, which arguably makes the new list the best Scottish result since 2003, when AL Kennedy, Andrew O’Hagan and Alan Warner all made the cut (though the best Scottish performance of all came in 1993 the year the late Iain Banks, the late Philip Kerr, Candia McWilliam and AL Kennedy all made the top 20).
There is an inevitable arbitrariness to such lists. You can easily point to the writers Granta has missed over the years (Hilary Mantel’s name is flashing on and off in big, block letters at this point). And there’s no cut-off to creativity, a fact recognised by the literary agent Jenny Brown who has just launched a new prize for debut writers over 50.
And, yes, lists are marketing exercises. But there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. In an age when newspapers are cutting back on book pages, when the media in general seems less and less interested in literary fiction, anything that gets people talking about books is a good thing.
That is one of the most obvious differences between then and now. The 1983 list reminds us that Amis, Barnes et al were soon to be central figures in the culture. (Not always, necessarily, in ways they would want to be, as Rushdie continues to know all too well.) The great white male author was a trope that still had a lot of traction back then.
With the exception of such outliers as Sally Rooney - who can’t make the Granta list as she’s Irish - you can’t yet say the same about the female millennial novelist today.
But that perhaps says more about a media that remains predominantly male and middle class, one which all too often seeks out its own reflection.
READ MORE: We must never take the Belfast Agreement for granted
In the end, of course, what matters is the work. As Zadie Smith, who appeared on two previous Granta lists, has pointed out, “lists don’t make novels good: only novelists can do that.”
Someone somewhere is even now sitting at a desk, working on a book that will change how we see the world.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here