Patrick Neate: Like 99.9% of the population (in fact, probably the whole UK population, less literary editors of broadsheet newspapers), I haven't read most of the Booker longlist, but it looks like a pretty interesting bunch to me. The books on it I have read (Skippy Dies, The Betrayal and The Stars in the Bright Sky), I loved, and there are plenty of other writers (Mitchell, Carey, Levy, Galgut etc) whose previous work has knocked my socks off. Best of all, there are a couple of writers who are new to me – Tom McCarthy, Emma Donoghue. Of course, a few big names (Martin Amis, say, and Ian McEwan)are missing. But the very fact they are "big names" ensures I'm not going to miss them. After all, it's not like their work needs the oxygen of publicity. In fact, it's arguable that's the very last thing it needs.
Robert McCrum: I think it's good to look at the prize – as you've done – from the point of view of what used to be called the common reader (aka the British reading public). For them, the issue is: what's new and interesting? On that basis, this is not a bad list, and will expose readers to some interesting new novels. For me, Booker's problem – not a bad one to have – is its high profile. It is so much the premier prize, it is seen as providing a litmus test for British and Commonwealth literary culture as a whole. As such it gets asked to give an end-of-term report on new books by the likes of William Boyd and Ian McEwan – and, inevitably, Martin Amis.
PN: "Seen as providing a litmus test" by whom? The "common reader" doesn't think, "Gosh! Look at the Booker list: what a bad year for British and Commonwealth literary culture!" Rather, he (or more likely "she") sees a new name or two placed front and centre in the local Waterstones and decides whether or not the titles, covers and blurbs beneath the strap "shortlisted for the Booker" appeal. At a time when the noble art of browsing a bookshop appears to have fallen out of fashion, this is all the more reason to cheer when any longlisting, shortlisting or, indeed, winner comes out of left field.
RMc: Yes, the Waterstones browser will see "shortlisted for the Booker" and be impressed, but he/she will also be aware that there is a group of "names" – senior writers who are still at work – and we, the punters, want Booker to give us a read-out on that.
Last week the critic Gabriel Josipovici dismissed the "big names" of the postwar British literary tradition as "limited, smart alecky, arrogant, and self-satisfied", but I dispute that. Amis, Barnes, McEwan, Naipaul and Rushdie have produced a bibliography of the imagination whose influence has gone round the world. Booker, which is also global, needs to acknowledge that.
Perhaps it is impossible, even meaningless, to compare the latest Rushdie novel with Christos Tsiolkas, but if Booker does not make the attempt to survey the scene, who else has the authority?
PN: You say it is impossible, even meaningless, to compare the latest Rushdie novel with Tsiolkas, but that is what the judges have to do. I'm glad they've gone for Tsiolkas. It's about a barbecue, isn't it? It sounds fun. And it's not Rushdie. Personally, and I say this with all humility and fully acknowledging his status as one of the finest postwar writers, I rather gave up on Rushdie after Fury, and that was a decade ago. Fortunately for Rushdie, I'm probably in a minority. His reputation is secure and his numerous fans will carry on reading his books. But if, say, Rushdie had bumped Tsiolkas (or McCarthy or Donoghue or Murray) from the list, it would have deprived the UK reader the chance to enhance or reject a new reputation. So I say, read the book about the barbie!
RMc: Isn't it better for the "new voices" to be challenged by the "old guard", grizzled reputations and all? I say, let's have a clash of generations. The integration of cultural innovation with cultural continuity is bound to be a messy, Darwinian process. But why the hell not? It might even be entertaining. Booker judges should take their onerous responsibilities seriously, but shouldn't they have some fun en route to the Guildhall?
PN: Of course I have no problem with the "old guard" and the "new voices" going head to head. But I also have no reason to suspect the Booker judges made their selection based on anything but literary merit, do you? If they have gone out of their way to select "new voices", I imagine Howard Jacobson, pushing 70, must be giggling into his cornflakes.
RMc: Who knows how the Booker jury operated this time? It's interesting to speculate. Each year one hears some judge or other protest his/her devout belief in "literary merit", but the smell of many shortlists is too often of compromise, cowardice and crowd-pleasing. And to introduce an old note of dissent, the real problem with Booker in an age of global fiction based on the Anglo-American tradition is its absurd omission of American writing. This looked odd when the prize was set up in 1969. Now it seems bonkers.
PN: I agree. That said, off the top of my head, I'm not sure I can think of an American novel that clamours for inclusion.
RMc: The prize has also had some notorious blind spots. Nothing for Beryl Bainbridge; nothing for William Trevor. In good years, I think the prize has contrived to provide a really useful snapshot of the way we (might) read now. In less vintage years (and 2010 may be one of those) it comes up with a fuzzy Xerox.
PN: William Trevor! Well, there you go. Any argument for the merits of the Booker is ended by his name. For me, the rather sad thing about the Booker is its limited impact on popular culture. If it's really literature's premier prize then surely it should be enjoyed by a broader audience?
Instead, serious literature is seen as hifalutin and exclusive. Can I blame the "old guard" for that? Perhaps I can. Back to Rushdie. Midnight's Children is a novel of extraordinary imagination and erudition that anybody might enjoy. Fury, by comparison, is arch and spiky and seemingly deliberately verbose. Sometimes, one can't help but suspect that the big guns of the older generation write at one another and expect the rest of us to watch, rapt.
Two novels I have read: The Da Vinci Code and Skippy Dies. I would happily bet that the majority of people who bought the former would enjoy the latter every bit as much if it was put in front of them in the right way. I don't want to dumb down literature, but how I'd love to smarten up popular culture! And this is what the Booker should do – provide the oomph, the glitz, the X factor… I'll wait for Simon Cowell's call!
RMc: But let's not despair. This is only the longlist. We can hash over this ground again with the shortlist. That will be the test of this jury. I'll see you on TV.