Award-winning British journalist and author Yomi Adegoke, who was a guest at the Festival of World Literature, explores the power of the internet in shaping private and public narratives in her debut novel The List. She examines how it can elevate an individual, yet just as swiftly and ruthlessly bring them down. Adegoke offers insight into the difference between online identities and real life, provoking an important question about how we would act in certain situations—until we find ourselves in them. What happens when, just weeks before her wedding, feminist journalist Ola discovers that her fiancé, Michael, is on a list accusing him of violence against women?
The book, which spent weeks on the Sunday Times Bestselling list and received praise from prominent figures such as Bernardine Evaristo, delves into ethical issues that make us reflect on the interconnectedness of what we believe and what we claim to believe. How quickly are we willing to click ‘like’ or ‘share’ on a story we’ve only glanced at on a screen? The novel raises more questions than it provides answers, which I find particularly important for books to do. That's why it was a great pleasure for me to have an extensive conversation with the author, and even in our two-hour discussion, I could barely fit in all my questions.
Where did the idea for this novel come from? How long did the novel take to develop?
Part of the reason I decided to write the book is because as a left-wing, intersectional feminist, I felt that certain conversations I wanted to have were only being had by a certain type of person. It seemed like the only ones talking about the ethics or flaws in the kind of accountability that book looks at—like anonymously accusing people online—were mainly right-wing individuals or men who didn’t want abusive men to be held accountable for their actions. The internet, of course, is a very flawed system. Initially, as a journalist, my knee-jerk reaction was, "If you’re accused of something, you’ve probably done it." But over time, I realized that this conversation is much more complex. However, when I tried to discuss these complexities, it seemed like the only people questioning this justice system were right-wing or anti-feminist. I was like, I can't be the only "progressive" person that wants to talk about this.
Then I found women who felt the same but didn't feel they could say it publicly. I get it, because when I first started having these anxieties and thoughts around it, it was like 2018, so the #MeToo movement had just started. Men had not been held accountable for so long, and the systems meant to protect women, like the police and the legal systems, had failed them. So, when women found a way to create some form of accountability, I didn’t want to point out the ethical flaws in the system immediately. But as time went on, I began to see that there were some glaring issues with this form of accountability—not because women lie, but because people lie, and people lie online. We all know that. The internet has taught us to question anonymity because it’s often weaponized. When you're on chat sites and messaging sites, you're taught immediately, this probably isn't who they say they are. It felt like that part of the discourse was just erased. I wanted to put my head above the parapet and say “I'm a left-wing feminist person who does have issues with this”, so that hopefully some other people who are politically like me would also feel more safe airing those opinions.
When thinking about the content or form of the book, did you initially use your previous experience as a journalist?
When I first thought about it, I was going to write a non-fiction long read. My original impulse around 2017-2018 was I'm going to write this as a journalistic piece and I'm going to interrogate the ethics of it by interviewing victims essentially, who have been on the wrong end of this form of justice. But, as I mentioned earlier, I felt it was too soon to point out flaws in a conversation that had just started. Years passed, and then the lockdown happened. With nothing else to do, I thought, "Why not write this as fiction?" I figured the stakes were low. If I write this as fiction, if I don't like it, if it doesn't do well, there's so little to lose because it's lockdown. So, I just experimented. The first draft I wrote was horrible, I tried to write it as a play. Then the second version started as a fiction work. Like many female writers, I was concerned that I wouldn’t be taken seriously and that I would be pigeonholed into writing chick lit. But then I interviewed Kylie Reid, the author of Such a Fun Age, it was longlisted for the Booker Prize, a book that is a brilliant meditation on class and race in America. It dealt with serious issues while being funny and light. Her advice was that not every book has to be overly serious or devoid of humour—you can do both. I think that's when I found my voice, being able to take my journalistic voice, which has always been quite serious, but never completely serious. I like books that are a mixture of levity and seriousness, and I like books that have a bit of humour and a bit of zeitgeisty. Also, being a journalist, I am quite interested in the moral greys of the story. I felt comfortable in that because good journalism, to me, never tells anyone what to think. Good journalism is just presenting ideas and allowing people to draw their conclusions.
Ola, as a feminist journalist, is confronted with contradictions between her ideals and her own life choices. How important was it for you to portray this kind of complex inner conflict, especially in today’s society?
I found it a lot of fun. I found it really interesting, and quite confronting for myself. With Ola, I wanted to present a character who is deeply committed to her feminist beliefs—not just because it’s her job as a feminist journalist, but because it’s who she is. She holds those ideals close to her heart. That being said, I think a lot of us who are feminist and left-wing and anti-racist, anti-capitalist and all these things, I think what is different now compared to back in the day is that we are not just accountable to ourselves and our peers within our friendship groups. We're accountable to literally millions of strangers because once you put out there publicly online that this is who you are and this is what you think, it becomes difficult to change your mind publicly. If you decide, actually, "yeah, I thought that when I was 19, but I'm 29 now and I think I've changed my mind". That's not encouraged or necessarily even believed. We have conversations about people pretending to be something online that they're not, but they're very surface-level (catfishing, filters). But I'm talking ideologically. The vast majority of people are in some way hypocritical when it comes to the beliefs that they hold.
What I wanted to do with Ola is really represent that well-meaning person, politically, that does believe in the things that they're espousing online. But the minute that what they are talking about arrives on their doorstep, suddenly the goalposts shift. When the man you love is accused of the unthinkable, suddenly it goes from he needs to be put in prison immediately to hang on, we’ve got to hear him out, so I really enjoyed writing it. I think it makes us feel very uncomfortable about ourselves because most people like to believe that they are exactly who they say they are online but I think no one is.
The interesting moment for me was when Ola figured out that she wants a romantic wedding. It doesn't make her less of a feminist if she wants to do that.
Yes, exactly. Some things we want in life don’t necessarily align with feminist ideals, and that’s okay. I’m not hugely traditional, but there are things I want that don’t fit neatly into feminist ideology. For example, I don’t like to pay on dates. I could twist that to fit feminist praxis by saying there’s a pay gap because I am a woman, but the truth is, it’s not really a feminist position. I've been really privileged and lucky in my work. I'm either going to learn to grow out of that or I am going to be a flawed person that has a position on one thing that isn't feminist. Because the internet has forced us into these camps of right and wrong and black and white, people are very afraid to admit they have positions that aren't perfect. But I think it’s important to be honest about those imperfections because we’re all on a journey of learning and growth. But the internet is, "no, you can’t be on a journey". You have to figure everything out.
I think the fact that you admit you are on a journey is commendable. It was really interesting for me to read Ola's and Michael's stories in parallel. Why was it important to present both perspectives in this way?
When I first started writing it, it was just Ola's perspective. I was really interested in what it is to be a woman that is connected to a man that's accused of something terrible, whether that's as his mum or his sister or his wife or his friend. I think that's not really seen as part of the story. Like normally if a man's accused of abuse, of course, understandably the focus is the perpetrator, which is the man. But then I've always been interested in the women that, whether they choose to stay or leave, whether they choose to support them or not. I think often especially if they have questions, they are immediately seen as complicit and they're immediately seen as victim blaming or being part of the problem essentially. Especially as a feminist woman whose whole career is tied to being this perfect feminist woman. I can't remember what the catalyst was for Michael's inclusion. I had no intention, honestly, originally of writing from his perspective. I guess to see what the other side of the story would be. It was less of an intentional thing and more that, I was enjoying writing from Ola's side but it just, it really did feel like something was lacking.
From your interviews, I got the impression that people often equate you with Ola. Why do you think people keep searching for authors in their fiction?
They really do. I think they definitely do it more to women. Many debut novels have a certain level of autofictional quality because it's easier to write what you know. I’ve been very transparent about the fact that, like Ola, I got my start on Twitter and worked at a women’s magazine. I did wonder, what would happen if someone like me, with the morals and values I hold, found themselves in Ola’s situation? Some women authors get this way more than I do, but where people go wrong is that rather than saying, "you know what, there's probably part of her life experience and personality in this character", they say, "you are this character." I'm obviously not, otherwise I couldn't have written this book. I think someone like Ola has a very rigid way of thinking. She has a very online way of thinking and I'm very critical of that. So, I think that's the weird thing with Ola, I feel like she's almost opposite to me. I'm a woman, I'm a feminist, but I am someone who has a level of nuanced thinking. Ola's downfall is so bad partly because she almost thought she was too perfect to find herself in that situation. Michael, on the other hand, is more aware of his flaws, much like I am, and he struggles with mental health, which I’ve also been open about before.
Regarding the list in the book, what was your thinking behind creating it with different layers of accusations?
I wanted to acknowledge that lists like the one in the book exist for a reason. I understand the need for anonymity. I understand when so many systems have failed you, you feel the only way you could receive justice and recourse is through the internet. But I also know how flawed these lists can be. Even in my kind of wanting to explain why I think those kinds of lists are important, I end up deviating from the question, because I'm always trying to make sure it's so clear that I'm not anti those lists. I think a lot of people get, if you're critical of those lists, it means that you don't want them. No, I just think we need to find a way that is less potentially destructive, right?
Aside from anonymity being weaponised online, another flaw of that approach is, and again, it’s weirdly controversial, is the scale of abuse that we're dealing with. There are some out and out forms of abuse. There were no negotiations and there's no confusion: racism, sexual assault. You get what I mean? It's very clean cut, clear cut rather. I remember reading an anonymous list circulated in the industry, where a man was accused of kissing someone without their consent. Initially, you think he’s awful, but then the person released a statement, or said in an interview, essentially, when the further context emerged, it turned out they had misread the vibe on a date and backed off when the person didn’t want to be kissed. If we start to conflate that with sexual assault, you get into a really slippery slope. The issue is complex because some people pretend to misread signals, and many men need to be more emotionally and socially aware.
One major flaw of these lists is that different behaviours get lumped together, and that’s the reality of those lists, they say we’re listing "bad men". I was very intentional about that. Michael wasn’t accused of rape, but people assume he was. But I don't blame them for thinking he was because he was on a list. He was accused of physical assault, but by being on the same list as men accused of rape and far worse, it’s enough to make people think he's guilty of those things too. That's why I had the scene in the book where his friends are saying "Oh my God, you're on a paedophile list." And he's not a paedophile, but it's like, just by being on a list with men who have been accused of interacting with young women, it's enough to say you are that. I felt like it's important to represent the reality of these lists, which is often we are going to put all different kinds of allegations about all different kinds of people in one place and none of them are verifiable. Where does that lead to? Often to chaos, because it’s the internet.
People often say you shouldn't question allegations, but on the internet, you don't even know if the accuser is a woman. I am even cautious when saying that because women are not going to randomly make up that they've been assaulted. But at the same time, human beings are human beings. I think it's very important that we don't act as though you don't put women on a pedestal that suggests that women are completely incapable of any wrongdoing because I think in some ways it's almost sexist. I think we're going to look back at this time and go that was crazy because everyone was so afraid of looking like they were doing the wrong thing that they couldn't call out stuff that was very obviously dangerous.
I think it's really important to read books like this where we can see those layers where we don't get all the answers right away. Just like in life.
That's exactly it. This guy messaged me the other day and was like, I'm really angry at Ola. He was like, maybe on chapter eight or something. She's terrible to Michael. And he said, I don't know what your intention was. I don't know if I'm meant to be angry at her, but I am very angry at her and I'm #teamMichael. And I replied to him and I said, I know it sounds like a cop out, you’re not meant to feel anything. What you feel is what you feel. You're a grown man. If you hate Ola, you're completely entitled to hate Ola. If you love Ola, you're completely entitled to love Ola. And I've had women pull me into a corner and go, I feel really bad, I really like Michael. And I've had guys that hate Michael. I'm like, you are supposed to feel exactly what you're feeling in this moment. I always felt like I'm not someone's teacher. I'm not someone's parent. I'm so bored of literature that tells you this is what a good person looks like and this is what a bad person looks like.
What an end! It really surprised me. Did you know from the beginning how you wanted to end the novel?
I'm so happy you liked it. I knew that would be divisive because it wasn't a straightforward ending. But it was the first ending I thought of, and I really wanted to end it like that. I knew how I was going to end it, but then as time went on, I actually deviated from it. I had so many completely different versions. I got really interested in stories, again looking at anonymity, but stories where you know, you get all these guys that play things like Call of Duty, and they play these Minecraft, whatever, where they were doing this thing called swatting. It was like a really crazy thing. Then I thought maybe it could be closer to home, maybe it could be with someone in Michael's friend group, maybe it could be someone in Ola’s friend group. And then, I just couldn't shake the first one. I've always said it's more about the internet than it is #MeToo. I always said I could have written this about Amazon or Yelp and written this is a book about someone sending anonymous reviews to ruin someone's business. It a lot more boring, but like I could have done that. But because I really wanted to hammer down the point that the internet is the internet, and it is so unsafe, and it is getting less safe, and less easy to believe, or less easy to distinguish what's wrong and what's not, with the rise of deepfake technology and AI.
You can so easily ruin a life if you just click of a button, and you don't have to be particularly close to the person, because that's what people say, oh why would someone do that? We live in a world of serial killers. Why would anyone do anything? People do all kinds of insane stuff. It's not implausible. I remember someone asked me that, yeah, but would someone do that? And I was like, people are ruining someone’s life as we speak. You've done this interview; you've been lovely to me. I could go home and go "so this is what people think…", and you could be the same to me. And there's absolutely nothing either of us could do about it. The only thing stopping us from doing it is being sane, kind people. That's it.
I think the layer that made the text even richer, you put them on a pedestal, and made them a public couple, with the hashtag.
I was intentional in making her a feminist with her own public persona. When someone is falsely accused, like in the book, it's not just happening to them but also to those close to them, especially in public relationships. When something like that happens, it's happening to both of you, and I don't think that's really understood. I guess also in their dynamic what I wanted to look at is how weird celebrity culture is right now. You can be a girl or guy that gets stopped by a TikToker and says something whilst drunk. It used to be 15 minutes of fame, and now it's 15 seconds of fame. Anyone can be famous, and for absolutely no reason.
I remember when blue ticks on Twitter meant something. I had one when I was like 25-26, I was a journalist, not earning that much, still living with my parents, and I was literally nobody. I just had this blue tic and it meant people interacted with me weird, because it's like they assumed I had a level of power. What I wanted to show, especially with Michael as a character, is that there's this assumption that visibility equates to power, which often isn’t true. I grew up in a roughish area and I still live there. I chose to buy apartment there and my life is very similar to how I grew up. People really assumed that I lived a completely different life to the one I live. It's a really weird time because I know so many people are like, oh, I'm invited to The VMAs and I'm invited to the BAFTAs, but at the same time, they're going there like I have to leave early because I've got to get up from my real job in the morning. And that's a new weird class thing that we don't really see spoken about.
Yeah, really interesting. I must admit I haven't really thought about it in that way. I mentioned to you that, for me, this is a book where you want to know what others think about it because it raises numerous ethical questions. What reactions did you expect?
When I started writing, I knew I didn’t want to just affirm people’s opinions. I wanted to talk about something slightly different. I was so scared at first, thinking I'd get cancelled, but as a journalist, I feel compelled to tell the truth, not just write what everyone agrees with. I was like, I've written things before that have been a bit like, I don't know, ruffled feathers. Every time I write something controversial, I shut my laptop, go to bed, put my phone on the airplane mode, I don’t even want to see my notifications the next day. But it's when you're a journalist, you're compelled to tell the truth and I don't want to just write things that everyone's going to agree with, otherwise I should be a PR person, not a journalist.
Of course, it's been a divisive book, as expected, but what I really have appreciated is that, I guess my big thing as a journalist was, I really wanted the reviews from industry peers to be good. I don’t read Goodreads, Twitter or engage with comments online, I try to stay away from it. As someone who used to write about race and racism and get booed, I never used to read those comments. I've learned very early on in my career not to engage with every comment I see, otherwise I'd go mad. I got very good critical reviews in magazines and papers which I was very happy about. Because I think that's the thing with reviewers. Reviewers are able to engage with work that doesn't necessarily affirm their pre-existing ideas or ideologies and they're still able to base their critique of it on the merit of the work. It's such a strange book because it almost pissed like everyone off. So, I got messages from feminists being like, this is so sexist and whatever. Then I got messages from men being like, this is such a man-hating thing. I was like, I think I'm onto something here. What really mattered to me was that I wrote something that people who felt that they couldn't articulate or they weren't safe to articulate their genuine beliefs about the point of time we're in.
What else was so affirming for me was the kinds of people that liked it. Yes, it's lots of black girls from inner city London. But then it's like grandmothers from Scotland being like, I've never read anything like this. It's been, actually really interesting, a lot of gay guys. I think because of the gay subplot with the footballer, they really resonate with that. But I've had survivors’ message me, I've had so many different kinds of people message me. I really hope that it encourages other writers that are maybe afraid to write things that are a little bit challenging. That's not me trying to say you should write whatever bigoted nonsense you want. It's just me saying that authenticity should be at the forefront. It's our duty as writers, and especially for me as a journalist, I think.
This is an interesting question is for me because I studied art history. You mentioned that you also studied art history. When I saw the cover with the emoji, I thought, oh, excellent. That fits the narrative so well. What do you think about your covers, especially the Croatian one?
They've been so interesting. I like this Croatian cover! I'm really picky when it comes to covers. I think this does what it needs to. There's a thing called aphantasia, where some people, if you ask some people to imagine an apple, they just see black, and other people see an apple like, in front of them, three, proper three-dimensional apple. I think on the aphantasia scale, I'm quite low on it. I struggle with seeing stuff. I didn't realize for a long time that when people read books, they're seeing a film. What do you see? Do you see a film in your head when you read?
Sometimes. More scenes that are in a different order.
So, you're probably in the middle. For me, when I'm reading, I really struggle with the visuals, which is why The List is so descriptive. If someone draws on the cover what the people look like, that's exactly what I'll see when I'm reading the book, and I didn't want people to see that. I wanted them to create their own. I like covers that are a little bit more abstract, a little bit more up to your imagination.
My favourite cover is the British cover. It took us nine months to put an emoji on the front—it was a long process. It took a really long time because I think when it comes to fiction, especially fiction by women, by black women, there were a lot of tropes and stereotypes. When it came to my book, I didn't really the direction it was going in. I wanted the book to feel gender-neutral since half of it is from a man’s perspective, and I wanted men to read it too. I was so particular that they brought in designer Luke Bird, who also did Convenience Store Woman. When he sent the emoji design, I knew immediately—it felt like finding the right wedding dress. Luke did a fantastic job. But not everyone likes it and that's totally fine to me because it's a weird cover but I enjoy it.
I also really love the Spanish cover. Which does have a picture of Michael on it, and I don't like images of the characters, but I really love it. It's like a sea of men, and you can only see the back of their heads, and then you can just see Michael in red, looking out, and I really enjoy it. I feel like I could frame it, it feels like an artwork in itself. I think what I've really enjoyed in the European covers is that, if you're a black author, writing about black people, there's no scope for the actual themes of the book to be at the forefront. All the interpretations focus more on the content rather than, this is a black woman writing about black London.
The novel will be adapted into a series. How important is it to you to be included? Are you writing something? What can we look forward to?
The deal for The List was a two-book deal. I know I'm not supposed to say this, but initially I really didn't want to write a second one. Writing The List was incredibly difficult for me and I understood the gravity of what I was writing about. I felt like I was walking a tightrope the whole time. But my agent convinced me, and they offered an incredible deal. When asked if I had other ideas, I had only one, which is just as divisive as The List. I thought, If I do this again, am I going to get cancelled? I originally considered non-fiction, but now I’m working on it as fiction and really enjoying it—I'm about ten chapters in. My editor has found it fun and very different, so I’m curious to see how fans of The List will react.
As you mentioned, I am working on the TV adaption of The List. How much does it matter for me to be involved initially? I thought not much. Previously me and my best friend wrote a book called Slay In Your Lane. We sold the rights to that and we weren't really involved in the adaption. Then the offers that were made were for me to write it. And now I'm like, clinging to it with my bare hands, because I think what I've realized it's such a specific story. I think part of the reason it's been so resonant, and it's done well, is because it's a complicated story, but it's been handled in a very specific way. I think that I have to be very careful to ensure that the adaptation deals with it in that same way. I'm executive producing it and I'm writing the pilot as we speak and I'm just hopeful that it will continue the conversation that I had to start last year. Fingers crossed!
