Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the judges' approach argue that a prize longlist should reward the quality of the writing on the page rather than an author's fame or track record, and that genuine literary judgement sometimes means overlooking big names in favour of less predictable or newer voices such as Rebecca Perry. They would say that Mary Beard's panel deserves credit for reading widely across 163 submissions and resisting the pull of media expectation, since a longlist that simply confirmed pre-season favourites would offer little real critical value and would make the prize feel like a formality rather than a genuine act of discernment.

The case against

Those uneasy with the omissions would argue that leaving off widely admired, critically substantial writers such as Maggie O'Farrell, Ann Patchett, Deborah Levy and Julian Barnes risks looking like novelty for its own sake, or an attempt to generate headlines through surprise rather than through sound literary judgement. They would contend that readers and the wider literary culture rely on major prizes to recognise sustained excellence, and that repeatedly bypassing proven, widely respected novelists invites reasonable doubt about whether the selection process is weighing merit fairly or simply chasing distinctiveness.