well, it certainly is a "boy-ish" way of looking at it. I never saw a girl with quiffs and sideburns, though.

I think, however, that the bulk of the Morrissey-mania really started in the post-Smiths era. As if those who missed the Smiths experience were feeling obliged to make up for it by delving into the "attested matter of musical history". To me, it's not so much facts that matter(ed), it's the atmosphere, the ethics and aesthetics of The Smiths, "the band who says no". They were really very fresh at that time. Young and eager. "The ghost of troubled Joe".
Back in the early 80s, it was all rather natural, the Smiths were frequently interviewed, they released singles, had airplay and whatnot. You accumulated factual knowledge just by being attentive. And the interviews then were about what The Smiths were about, and not about some LA cottage Morrissey's supposed to live in. They made sense. People were still eager to know what lurked behind the marine blue morrissey glance.

The Smiths die-hards I know from that time are now either trapped in one of life's warp zones (kids, career, car and comfort) and certainly resent the time when life was still young and exciting. That's true. Most of those between 30 and 40 do, however, even if you were a Level 42 fan.

And the other ones aren't desperate at all, and see The Smiths only as a creative beginning. The statement, very strong at that time, that you, the social nerd, brought up in silence and social exclusion, filling a lifetime with books and music, were right to make your point. About what you thought that mattered. Some of us still do. And don't regret a single second of it all.

So, "failed doing what"? Failed to become mainstream, cynical and respectable? Fair enough; it would be a sad thing if we would have failed to keep The Smiths's spirit alive...