Deleted/Jake portions of "Autobiography" reinstated for US paperback edition

Was it really just three sentences that were removed? I didn't read the US edition, but I was under the impression that Jake had been removed from it completely—including the outing with Chrissie Hynde, etc.

0

I can't believe people still think he's straight or asexual.

0

well here goes buy number three. made sure to get first editions of both versions and it looks like ill have a third now. wonder if thatll make the original hardback us edition a collectors item since the next printing of the us version will be the newest one. i doubt it but people pay money for things i dont understand sometimes so maybe

0

Originally Posted by Chickpea

Was it really just three sentences that were removed? I didn't read the US edition, but I was under the impression that Jake had been removed from it completely—including the outing with Chrissie Hynde, etc.

Jake wasn't edited out of the book completely, as some articles reported, but his section of the book was significantly altered, and in certain instances--as with the Chrissie Hynde anecdote--he was excised completely (the Creem photoshoot and trip to Dublin are missing, for example). What was one of the most beautifully written and moving segments of the book lost a lot of impact because key lines and passages were omitted. A few of the edits seem very trivial, which makes the motivation behind them all the more perplexing. This whole debacle is very odd.

Morrissey's explanation that it was all done to protect Jake from further press scrutiny doesn't make sense; the damage had already been done, and he must have understood that these changes would generate even more controversy and draw more attention. Furthermore, Jake is credited with providing the photo of himself that appears in the UK paperback edition. He knew he'd be mentioned in the book and must have anticipated to some extent what he was in for (or maybe I'm being too presumptuous).

Now, the missing pieces of text are suddenly being restored? It's baffling.

0

Originally Posted by Chickpea

Was it really just three sentences that were removed? I didn't read the US edition, but I was under the impression that Jake had been removed from it completely—including the outing with Chrissie Hynde, etc.

I thought the beautiful I became a we sentence was hacked too. I can't check, I bought the English one.

0

Originally Posted by Detritus

Jake wasn't edited out of the book completely, as some articles reported, but his section of the book was significantly altered, and in certain instances--as with the Chrissie Hynde anecdote--he was excised completely (the Creem photoshoot and trip to Dublin are missing, for example). What was one of the most beautifully written and moving segments of the book lost a lot of impact because key lines and passages were omitted. A few of the edits seem very trivial, which makes the motivation behind them all the more perplexing. This whole debacle is very odd.

Removing those passenges was such a shame because I agree, his writing about him and Jake was so beautiful.


One thing that stuck out to me: When his manager saw the Creem photo and told Moz "A man doesn't rest his head on another man'a stomach". My heart really ached for him.

0

Originally Posted by Detritus

Jake wasn't edited out of the book completely, as some articles reported, but his section of the book was significantly altered, and in certain instances--as with the Chrissie Hynde anecdote--he was excised completely (the Creem photoshoot and trip to Dublin are missing, for example). What was one of the most beautifully written and moving segments of the book lost a lot of impact because key lines and passages were omitted. A few of the edits seem very trivial, which makes the motivation behind them all the more perplexing. This whole debacle is very odd.

Thanks for clarifying! I own the US version, but never bothered reading it because I'd already read the UK edition by the time it was out. I agree that those portions of the book are among the most beautiful and genuinely touching.

I doubt we'll ever know the full reason why the change was made in the first place—I imagine it's a private matter between Morrissey and Jake, because I just cannot fathom a publisher requesting the deletion.

0

i would think it the publisher. morrissey doesnt strike me as a guy whod take the time to write something, especially about this, if he didnt want it in. i would say the publisher was afraid of possible lawsuits that even if theyd win would be a drain. thats my guess

0

Originally Posted by Chickpea

Thanks for clarifying! I own the US version, but never bothered reading it because I'd already read the UK edition by the time it was out. I agree that those portions of the book are among the most beautiful and genuinely touching.

I doubt we'll ever know the full reason why the change was made in the first place—I imagine it's a private matter between Morrissey and Jake, because I just cannot fathom a publisher requesting the deletion.

You're welcome.

I agree that we'll probably never know the full story. Morrissey did provide an explanation for the changes in a recent interview, but as I mention in my edited post above, it doesn't quite add up. Though it's not anyone's business but theirs, speculation is bound to occur, especially over something so curious.

0

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Removing those passenges was such a shame because I agree, his writing about him and Jake was so beautiful.


One thing that stuck out to me: When his manager saw the Creem photo and told Moz "A man doesn't rest his head on another man'a stomach". My heart really ached for him.

Well... The manager wasn't wrong really, was he? He should have said "A straight man doesn't rest his head on another man'a stomach". Surely a simple fact.

0

Originally Posted by Johnny Barleycorn

Well... The manager wasn't wrong really, was he? He should have said "A straight man doesn't rest his head on another man'a stomach". Surely a simple fact.

Well, since he didn't say that, he was in fact wrong. Categorical, generalising and wrong.
What are you on about...?

0

Originally Posted by Johnny Barleycorn

Well... The manager wasn't wrong really, was he? He should have said "A straight man doesn't rest his head on another man'a stomach". Surely a simple fact.

Please tell me you're joking.


And being straight has nothing to do with Morrissey.

0

The bits the dumb ass should have deleted were the Kristeen Young parts, they made him look stupid at the time, now they make him look very stupid

0

My understanding is that Morrissey was following Jake's wishes. Jake contacted Moz and told him he was being hounded by the press. But if you looked on Jake's Twitter at the time he was posting a lot of Smiths Morrissey references, he doesn't seem to mind making some kind of a deal out of it and I suspect it can't have done his career any harm when he was first starting out.

0

Who knows how it happened. Honestly, it could have been a miscommunication between Moz and Jake that's since been resolved, or overprotectiveness on Moz's part…any number of things. I truly believe it's between them, though, and not the publisher's doing—especially given Morrissey's recent comments (as mentioned by Detritus and jdbabz). They're obviously still on good terms, and I think it's safe to say Jake is just fine with the recognition given tweets like these…

0

Originally Posted by jdbabz

My understanding is that Morrissey was following Jake's wishes. Jake contacted Moz and told him he was being hounded by the press. But if you looked on Jake's Twitter at the time he was posting a lot of Smiths Morrissey references, he doesn't seem to mind making some kind of a deal out of it and I suspect it can't have done his career any harm when he was first starting out.

It was nothing to do with Jake. Jake was revelling in the attention online. Meanwhile look at Morrissey's reaction. The press immediately picked on his homosexual relationship with Jake, and he suddenly went apeshit, issuing his ridiculous "I'm not a gay, I'm a humasexual' statement on True To You. I think the edits to the US version were to try and stop the same thing happening in the US. Once the admission was out there, he suddenly felt he'd gone too far in revealing himself, and ran back to his closet in fear.

0

Whether a straight or 'whatever sexuality you are' man rests his head on another man's stomach is neither here nor there and does not classify the sexual orientation of either person. When I go to a Moz concert I stare at Moz for the entire concert and barely look at the other players. Does that mean I am not straight? Does the fact I would prefer to google photos of Moz instead of Beyonce mean that I am not straight? Does having a glass of wine at dinner instead of beer mean I am not straight? That manager sounds like a total fool and an ignoramus. People shackle themselves with rules. People like that should be anonymous victims in a SAW movie.
I thought the lines in 'autobiography' about Jake were well written and enriched the book. I'm glad to see them included in paperback edition of the book, but ultimately what difference does it make?

0

I wish all lines were omitted from his pompous book. He should stick to writing lyrics and signing. (You're entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine).
In any case, I'm glad there was a mention of Jake because, as someone else wrote, I can't believe people actually buy into the whole "asexual" persona.

0

Originally Posted by ACTON

Whether a straight or 'whatever sexuality you are' man rests his head on another man's stomach is neither here nor there and does not classify the sexual orientation of either person. When I go to a Moz concert I stare at Moz for the entire concert and barely look at the other players. Does that mean I am not straight? Does the fact I would prefer to google photos of Moz instead of Beyonce mean that I am not straight? Does having a glass of wine at dinner instead of beer mean I am not straight? That manager sounds like a total fool and an ignoramus. People shackle themselves with rules. People like that should be anonymous victims in a SAW movie.
I thought the lines in 'autobiography' about Jake were well written and enriched the book. I'm glad to see them included in paperback edition of the book, but ultimately what difference does it make?

Nice comments and very true.

Regardless what happened this is good news. Although unfortunately I went and got the hard cover from a book store last year. I'd like an exchange, thanks.

0

Originally Posted by ACTON

Whether a straight or 'whatever sexuality you are' man rests his head on another man's stomach is neither here nor there and does not classify the sexual orientation of either person. When I go to a Moz concert I stare at Moz for the entire concert and barely look at the other players. Does that mean I am not straight? Does the fact I would prefer to google photos of Moz instead of Beyonce mean that I am not straight? Does having a glass of wine at dinner instead of beer mean I am not straight? That manager sounds like a total fool and an ignoramus. People shackle themselves with rules. People like that should be anonymous victims in a SAW movie.

Great post, Acton, thank you. I think we make far too much out of what category a person fits into sexually. Of course it matters when it comes to civil rights, and I don't want to diminish that, but really…there's not a lot of point in trying to define sexuality, especially based on physical affection, which can and should transcend sexuality. There was a lot of upset when Morrissey used the world "humasexual" to describe himself, but it's not confusing to me at all. You like what you like, and that's not always the same thing…and it's not even always tied to gender. Nearly every man I've befriended who self-identifies as straight also likes to look at Morrissey (Who doesn't like to look at Morrissey?!), and many of them have affectionate or sexual feelings for him as well. It's really not strange at all, and I think it's due in large part to Morrissey's longstanding ambiguity and unwillingness to categorize himself sexually. I don't think that's avoidance or denial, it's just the way things are for many, many people.

Originally Posted by ACTON

I thought the lines in 'autobiography' about Jake were well written and enriched the book. I'm glad to see them included in paperback edition of the book, but ultimately what difference does it make?

For me, the difference it makes is in the beauty of the words he used to describe their relationship. It was very moving to read about the closeness he felt to Jake, and what it meant for him to open his life to another person in that way for the first time ("for the first time in my life the eternal ‘I’ becomes ‘we’ as, finally, I can get on with someone"). Let's face it, a lot of us have invested ourselves emotionally in Morrissey's life over the years, and I think most of us want the best for him (and for ourselves, by extension). Having that tiny sliver of awareness of his life in those days is comforting in the most personal way.

0