How do you feel about literary prizes after the Man Booker shortlisting? Any cynicism? Also, how do you feel that so many press releases about the shortlist highlighted the fact that you were the only woman on the shortlist?

Look, this is a gift, being able to write for a living now. It's something tremendous that's been granted to me, it's a fucking privilege really. And it's all I've ever wanted, professionally. It's rare for most people to ever get a crack at the one thing above all else that satisfies them and brings them joy and constantly challenges and engages them; I know that in my very bones and I hope I never start taking it all for granted and becoming a malcontent – please chuck a bucket of fish guts over me if that gets to be the case. Writers, if they are managing ok and aren't struggling so badly or being treated poorly by the industry, which I'm not, should never really gripe or expect or assume or get covetous of prizes. As for the short-list, yes I'm very grateful. And yes, I was the only female. Does that indicate something isn't quite calibrated right within the industry? Potentially. I'm not sure how much examination and autopsy will help solve the 2004 short-list mystery, though of course it's of interest to analyse, because it may be that all six books were independent idiosyncratic industry anomalies and maybe that's the way of it every year. Maybe next year it'll be five women and one fellow…

There's a very touching scene, when Cy watches the execution of Lula the circus elephant, that's followed by “they had molested entertainment, consumed it and driven up their tolerance for being entertained, they wanted bigger, they wanted better, more muck, more magic, and they were not getting it.”. Is that more than just a comment on the Coney Island of the novel? Is it significant that Cy returns to Morecambe Bay at the end?

Yes, the elephant is more than just a motif for Coney's demise. And I think the idea of wrong-ness was a little bigger than just the ugliness of an entertainment industry or consumerism – America of course is not the only country guilty of such things, then or now, so the abandonment of that country by Cy is not somehow asserting British superiority by any means. I was wondering how we follow on from 'Gatsby' really – the 'borne ceaselessly back into the past' comment at the close of the book – though I have far less literary dexterity than Fitzgerald. But it's about the idea that the past is influential and not disposable or replaceable. So Cyril Parks, with a big symbolic tattooed ship on his chest, goes home, and addresses his past and makes peace with his life for doing so. And again, this is also the inherent affirmation and protocol of tattooing – your marks record your life and permanently stay with you.

Would you describe yourself, or indeed The Electric Michelangelo, as feminist?

Yes. No. More yes than no. I'm not even sure what falls within and without that arena anymore. I'd describe the book as peculiar unto me and all I'm interested in, which includes a lot of women's issues, especially the body, as well as a whole host of other stuff. I'd hope to appeal to both reading genders equally.

How do you go about writing? Do you do much research beforehand? How much is it inspiration vs perspiration for you?

I'm pretty compulsive, so usually I work every day when I'm actually writing, and I try to have clear borders at the beginning and end of the day – it's a bit of a clock on and off factory mentality. And I'll either be already fired up or I'll encourage myself to get down to the graft – good and bad days like anyone else at work. Both novels are historical fiction so research has been involved. Wherever possible I try to research via people – there's a much more personal and anecdotal type of history that will out that way. I'd like to think the inspiration/perspiration scales are fairly level. I'd like to think I'm not at the mercy of a muse nor am I under orders from my own mercenary ambition, but that I've struck some kind of deal between the two. More spit and shake than formal treaty…

You've said before that Poetry is your first love. Is it possible to reconcile the form of the novel with poetry? Why have so few famous poets turned their hand to the Novel, and vice versa? Would you like to publish poetry in the future?

It is my first love. It's what I buy in the bookshops. I love hearing it read. Maniacal as it sounds I feel that I am already publishing poetry in a way. My aim just now and especially with The Electric Michelangelo is to create a hybrid of some kind between poetry and prose. And yes, I'd also like to peel them apart again too, maybe purify one day. It's all about the music and beauty of the English language, rhythm, cadence, etc etc, these things should be the currency of both poets and novelists. I'm not sure why there are strictures that seem to prevent or prohibit inter-disciplinary writing. Maybe each particular psychosis is actually quite distinct and defined in the big black journal of literary pathology…

You leave a lot of questions unanswered in The Electric Michelangelo, which has upset some critics. Did you ever think about different endings? Developing further the ultimate story of Grace?

That's probably the least of their concerns isn't it? There may have been criticism if all had alternately ended well with a happy couple under a sunset. Probably most writers entertain ideas about differe
nt endings during the process, and then settle on one. The Electric Michelangelo finishes how it finishes, and I didn't see another way for it – it ends with hope, above all else, hope. For my part, as a reader, I enjoy fiction that allows me room for personal interpretation and mystery and insolvency, somehow it seems more honest to life, so that's how I try and write too. I don't care so much for neatly tied up literature. Unless it's a bloody good poem.

Milan Kundera, speaking of the role of the novelist, said “The novelist is neither historian nor prophet: he is an explorer of existence”; would you agree? What, to you is the role of the novelist?

Some kind of unwitting but suspecting broker. Of what exactly, who knows.

You've taught creative writing. To what extent can creative writing be taught?

Raw talent and originality and self-discipline and ego and ear and intellect and invention and heart and all the other will-o-the-wisp peculiarities and qualities that make up a unique and successful writer can't be taught. Technique can be explored. Literary passion and enthusiasm can be infectious, brain muscles and imaginations can be exercised – these programs often seem to act in leiu of modern artistic movements. Creative writing teachers are often more like workshop hosts than authorities on the craft. People don't walk straight into the industry and get published after graduating – the trade is far too unconstitutional and discerning and unpredictable for that. These courses attract people who would be earnestly trying to write anyway – so what's the harm? Give them a bloody degree and let them get on with it – they may write the next best thing. But creative writing programs certainly aren't compulsory measures for a writer and they aren't the means to pedigree.

The Electric Michelangelo is published by Faber & Faber.