When I was asked to be a judge on the Granta Best of Young British novelists, I thought it would be a doddle. Then I realised that I had just turned 40, and most of the writers I've spent the last decade enthusing about (the likes of China Miéville, Nick Harkaway, Scarlett Thomas, Sophie Hannah and Rana Dasgupta) were of an age with me – and therefore ineligible.
Judging this list is, in some ways, a far more difficult job than judging the Man Booker. With the Man Booker we have a very clearly defined brief – choose the best book, on and only on its own merits. With Granta's BOYBN we had clearly defined rules – under 40, British, and novelist, none of which I find unproblematic – and a set of coalescing, coinciding and sometimes contradictory ways of evaluating. Were we looking for promise or performance; potential or realisation? When an author had published several works, were we looking for a refinement and honing and deepening of craft, or the daring to change, to experiment continually, to reinvent with each book? When an author was at the start of her or his career, were we willing to overlook initial flaws because of a present dynamism, or were we unbedazzled by present shininess, suspecting it lacked depth and persistence?
The answers to which are a series of affirmative yeses. I'm glad that there isn't a unifying aesthetic that all 20 of the authors we chose share. It is perfectly possible – indeed, it's fundamentally necessary – for a critic to be able to appreciate the "big bow-wow strain" of Walter Scott as well as the "little bit (two inches wide) of ivory on which I work" of Jane Austen. It is unashamedly the first best of British-Hyphen novelists, and even within "British" fiction, it seems as if writers are keen to explore the specificities of regionalism rather than the bland Tescopolis. The list shows that the novel can be both realist and metafictional, post-colonial and domestic, avant-garde and traditional.
During the judging process, I spent some time wondering "why was I chosen to be a judge?" This, in turn, made me think about the critical position I've developed over a decade of reviewing books. What has most impressed me in world fiction is the way in which an awareness of genre intersects and interacts with a knowledge of contemporary theory (my wife sometimes chides me for wanting a literature that is half Judge Dredd and half Jacques Derrida). Contemporary American fiction has plenty of practitioners in this vein: Junot Díaz, Lydia Millet, Shalom Auslander, Karen Russell and many others. Contrary to Damien Walter's view of the list, I'm proud that we have genre-inflected writers represented – Helen Oyeyemi, Ned Beauman, Sarah Hall, Joanna Kavenna, Steven Hall – and I should mention that I was as impressed by Naomi Alderman's Doctor Who novel, Borrowed Time, as by her brilliant evocation of early Christianity, The Liars' Gospel. What I dislike is mannered "fine writing", of which we were sent a great deal.
Whom do I regret not appearing on the list? Well, I wasn't the only judge impressed by Tom Rachman's The Imperfectionists, and I was keen on Edward Hogan's Blackmoor (but not The Hunger Trace )and Peter Hobbs's The Short Day Dying (but not In The Orchard, the Swallows). As a wild card, I'd recommend readers to look at the work of Iphgenia Baal, whose The Hardy Tree is like Iain Sinclair's wayward, smart-mouthed niece: perhaps more conceptual art than prose fiction, but exhilarating nonetheless. And it's, to me, a bit of an off-piss that Hannu Rajaniemi was deemed ineligible over nationality.
Jericho’s never been one about ego, despite what his character says. He is more than willing to put over young talent; just ask Dolph Ziggler and Fandango. He even lost at WrestleMania XXVIII and Extreme Rules to CM Punk in the early days of CM Punk's 434-day WWE Championship reign.
He’s great in the ring and greater on the mic. As a Superstar who won’t hold any titles in the near future, Jericho can be featured on the mid-card of pay-per-views to put young talent over. The WWE roster isn’t as deep as it once was just a few years ago. The WWE’s use of Jericho to elevate the young talent so that they are ready to take over once the part-timers leave is a smart move.
There are plenty of Superstars that Jericho can feud with regardless of how long he sticks around. I, for one, would love to see him go one-on-one with Seth Rollins. A war of words between Jericho and Damien Sandow would be epic as well. Even a match with a heel Ryback wouldn’t be too bad.
Superstars always seem to have some of their best matches against Jericho—Rey Mysterio, CM Punk and Shawn Michaels just to name a few. Now, it’s time for Jericho to use his talents to provide some more great matches with new opponents.
Jericho is currently touring with Fozzy in Europe. According to the band’s website, they won’t be back until the end of April. However, this would be enough time for Jericho to reignite his feud with Fandango and give him another signature win at a pay-per-view.
If Jericho does decide to take a longer break after the May pay-per-view, expect him to be back for SummerSlam, an event that he’s missed only once in the last four years.
Most likely, The Rock and The Undertaker won’t be there, and possibly neither will Triple H or Brock Lesnar, so the WWE will need the star power of Jericho. A signature win over Jericho at a “big four” pay-per-view could do wonders for a young star.
No one is sure how much longer Jericho will be around, but the WWE should make sure they get everything out of Jericho that they can.
Even with the extended time off, Jericho proved he still can go in the ring. Once that day comes when he is just a shell of himself, Jericho will always look to perform to the best of his ability. And, lucky for us fans, that day is a long ways away.
No comments:
Post a Comment