Folio Society to sponsor new £40,000 literary prize

Books will be nominated by a one-hundred strong Academy of "ideal" readers.

On Wednesday evening it was announced that the Folio Society will take responsibility for funding a new £40,000 fiction prize. Previously referred to as the "Literature Prize", the Folio Prize aims to "recognise and celebrate the best English-language fiction from around the world," distinguishing itself from the Booker and Costa Book Awards by accepting nominations from countries outside the UK and Ireland.

Nominations for the prize will not come from publishers and agents, as is traditional with literary prizes, but from a one-hundred strong academy of "ideal first readers": the first attached to a major book prize. The Folio Prize Academy will be a fluid collective of writers and critics, out of which six judges - three from the UK, two from outside, with no more than three members of the same gender - will be chosen each year to carve out a shortlist of eight books.

The novelists Nicole Krauss, J M Coetzee and Salman Rushdie will join essayists Geoff Dyer and Pankaj Mishra, alongside critics such as New Yorker fiction editor Deborah Treisman and Granta editor John Freeman, as members of the Academy chosen for their "commitment to excellence in fiction".

The impetus for a new literary prize emerged amid the controversy surrounding the 2011 Booker Prize, when the judges suggested "readability" and a novel’s capacity to "zip along" as deciding factors in their selection process. "When we first announced our intentions a year and a half ago, we were surprised by the coverage and noise generated by our single speculative press release," Andrew Kidd, Managing Director of Aitken Alexander Associates and Folio Prize founded told those gathered at the British Library for the announcement. "What it suggests is that storytelling still matters, and so we find ourselves here."

He stressed they would not be searching for "difficult or obscure" books. "Many, if not most great books go down easily," he added. "That said, the Prize will not apologise for getting excited about books that might appear daunting at first, but that go on to reward dedicated readers by reflecting the world back at them in an entirely unexpected way."

The Folio Society was founded in 1947 with the intention of creating "editions of the world’s greatest literature in a format worthy of the contents". The publisher, which produces illustrated and hard-bound editions of classic texts, markets itself as a celebrant of the books as objets d’art. Philip Pullman, a member of the Academy, said: "I think their sponsorship of this new prize is a recognition that while literature can become manifest in many different forms, the book - the codex - is at the heart of what we understand literature to be." The Folio Society will produce a deluxe, reimagined edition of the winning book each year, in collaboration with its existing publisher.

The six academicians chosen to be judges will be announced in July this year. The shortlist will be announced next February, with the first winner being declared in March 2014.

Nicole Krauss, one of the Folio Prize academicians. Photo: Patric Shaw.

Philip Maughan is a freelance writer in Berlin and a former Assistant Editor at the New Statesman.

Davide Restivo at Wikimedia Commons
Show Hide image

Scientists have finally said it: alcohol causes cancer

Enough of "linked" and "attributable": a new paper concludes that alcohol directly causes seven types of cancer.

I don't blame you if you switch off completely at the words "causes cancer". If you pay attention to certain publications, everything from sunbeds, to fish, to not getting enough sun, can all cause cancer. But this time, it's worth listening.

The journal Addiction has published a paper that makes a simple, yet startling, claim: 

"Evidence can support the judgement that alcohol causes cancer of the oropharynx [part of the throat], larynx, oesophagus, liver, colon, rectum and [female] breast"

So what's especially significant about this? 

First, scientists, unlike journalists, are very wary of the word "causes". It's hard to ever prove that one action directly led to another, rather than that both happened to occur within the same scenario. And yet Jennie Connor, author of the paper and professor in the Preventive and Social Medicine department at the University of Otago, New Zealand, has taken the leap.

Second, alcohol not only causes cancer of one kind – the evidence supports the claim that it causes cancer at seven different sites in our bodies. There was weaker evidence that it may also cause skin, prostate and pancreatic cancer, while the link between mouth cancers and alcohol consumption was the strongest. 

What did we know about alcohol and cancer before?

Many, many studies have "linked" cancer to alcohol, or argued that some cases may be "attributable" to alcohol consumption. 

This paper loooks back over a decade's worth of research into alcohol and cancer, and Connor concludes that all this evidence, taken together, proves that alcohol "increases the incidence of [cancer] in the population".

However, as Connor notes in her paper, "alcohol’s causal role is perceived to be more complex than tobacco's", partly because we still don't know exactly how alcohol causes cancer at these sites. Yet she argues that the evidence alone is enough to prove the cause, even if we don't know exactly how the "biologial mechanisms" work. 

Does this mean that drinking = cancer, then?

No. A causal link doesn't mean one thing always leads to the other. Also, cancer in these seven sites was shown to have what's called a "dose-response" relationship, which means the more you drink, the more you increase your chances of cancer.

On the bright side, scientists have also found that if you stop drinking altogether, you can reduce your chances back down again.

Are moderate drinkers off the hook?

Nope. Rather devastatingly, Connor notes that moderate drinkers bear a "considerable" portion of the cancer risk, and that targeting only heavy drinkers with alcohol risk reduction campaigns would have "limited" impact. 

What does this mean for public health? 

This is the tricky bit. In the paper, Connor points out that, given what we know about lung cancer and tobacco, the general advice is simply not to smoke. Now, a strong link proven over years of research may suggest the same about drinking, an activity society views as a bit risky but generally harmless.

Yet in 2012, it's estimated that alcohol-attributable cancers killed half a million people, which made up 5.8 per cent of cancer deaths worldwide. As we better understand the links between the two, it's possible that this proportion may turn out to be a lot higher. 

As she was doing the research, Connor commented:

"We've grown up with thinking cancer is very mysterious, we don't know what causes it and it's frightening, so to think that something as ordinary as drinking is associated with cancer I think is quite difficult."

What do we do now?

Drink less. The one semi-silver lining in the study is that the quantity of alcohol you consume has a real bearing on your risk of developing these cancers. 

On a wider scale, it looks like we need to recalibrate society's perspective on drinking. Drug campaigners have long pointed out that alcohol, while legal, is one of the most toxic and harmful drugs available  an argument that this study will bolster.

In January, England's chief medical officer Sally Davies introduced some of the strictest guidelines on alcohol consumption in the world, and later shocked a parliamentary hearing by saying that drinking could cause breast cancer.

"I would like people to take their choice knowing the issues," she told the hearing, "And do as I do when I reach for my glass of wine and think... do I want to raise my risk of breast cancer?"

Now, it's beginning to look like she was ahead of the curve. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.