"Was There No One to Stop Morrissey From Publishing List of the Lost?" - John Niven of the New State

I agree that there is no real way to edit this manuscript as it stands. Certainly not to transform it from the critical kicking piece it is now into something that would have got good reviews.
 
Thanks for posting this article, Detritus.

The article encapsulates much of what I felt after I finished the book. For the handful here who keep shouting “Roman a clef! Roman a clef! Roman a clef!” like a blinking neon billboard, the usage of this mode is not proof of its quality in and of itself. It is a clumsy roman a clef and, frankly, tortuous reading. I understand that he may have used this as a device to reveal more about himself than he was willing to in Autobiography – but, as is, List of the Lost is barely passable as a draft.

To call this book a "novel" is remarkably charitable for 118 pages of the barest - and largely ho-hum - plot. The dramatic incidences read like an outline with repetitive, often anachronistic, polemical digressions clogging up any forward motion. And EVERY character is Morrissey in some capacity, to a distracting degree. By the end, I was picturing every character with his face and voice, akin to the climax of Being John Malkovich.

I have to imagine there were some remarkably uncomfortable conversations after – IF - he had his key coterie read it. And IF it truly was edited, it is shocking how poorly it was done. Tenses all over. Rapid POV shifts. Far, far too many “witty” alliterations creating dead wood in the narrative. For all the ballyhoo about them thus far, the sex scenes are by far the least of LOTL’s problems. The characters are rendered as ciphers: there is little relatable about or investable in them. He dispatches them, one by one, to such a dispassionate degree that it seems Morrissey cares less for the characters than shoving them off the stage as quickly as possible to return the spotlight back to his pet ills. And that is truly where the book hits all cylinders: observations on religion, police brutality, and the assumed normative nature of heterosexuality. If he had crafted these passages – distractingly long digressions in a narrative – he could have created a fine book of essays a la Christopher Hitchens.

Make no mistake: this book was published because it was written by Morrissey not because of its inherent quality. If I was to have blind tested it without that knowledge, I would have stopped reading well before page 50. I have had growing reservations about his scattershot public statements over the last eight or so years – but, artistically, this is the first time I’ve been genuinely embarrassed to be his fan. Caveat emptor.
 
Thanks for posting this article, Detritus.

The article encapsulates much of what I felt after I finished the book. For the handful here who keep shouting “Roman a clef! Roman a clef! Roman a clef!” like a blinking neon billboard, the usage of this mode is not proof of its quality in and of itself. It is a clumsy roman a clef and, frankly, tortuous reading. I understand that he may have used this as a device to reveal more about himself than he was willing to in Autobiography – but, as is, List of the Lost is barely passable as a draft.

To call this book a "novel" is remarkably charitable for 118 pages of the barest - and largely ho-hum - plot. The dramatic incidences read like an outline with repetitive, often anachronistic, polemical digressions clogging up any forward motion. And EVERY character is Morrissey in some capacity, to a distracting degree. By the end, I was picturing every character with his face and voice, akin to the climax of Being John Malkovich.

I have to imagine there were some remarkably uncomfortable conversations after – IF - he had his key coterie read it. And IF it truly was edited, it is shocking how poorly it was done. Tenses all over. Rapid POV shifts. Far, far too many “witty” alliterations creating dead wood in the narrative. For all the ballyhoo about them thus far, the sex scenes are by far the least of LOTL’s problems. The characters are rendered as ciphers: there is little relatable about or investable in them. He dispatches them, one by one, to such a dispassionate degree that it seems Morrissey cares less for the characters than shoving them off the stage as quickly as possible to return the spotlight back to his pet ills. And that is truly where the book hits all cylinders: observations on religion, police brutality, and the assumed normative nature of heterosexuality. If he had crafted these passages – distractingly long digressions in a narrative – he could have created a fine book of essays a la Christopher Hitchens.

Make no mistake: this book was published because it was written by Morrissey not because of its inherent quality. If I was to have blind tested it without that knowledge, I would have stopped reading well before page 50. I have had growing reservations about his scattershot public statements over the last eight or so years – but, artistically, this is the first time I’ve been genuinely embarrassed to be his fan. Caveat emptor.

This is the review I've been trying to express since finishing List of the Lost the other night. It's a weak plot (which probably could have worked if he had wanted it to) interlaced with irrelevant views and opinions. Every few pages there was a passage or a sentence or something which really impressed me, but every other sentence there were much greater problems that no occasional well-phrased line could make up for. I wonder whether he's been influenced by Kerouac's On the Road when it comes to the character and especially with the dialogue, but if he has then it really hasn't worked. I won't slate him for it like the reviews have, I just hope he tries again, is more thoughtful and restrictive on himself, and finds an editor who is comfortable offering advice.
 
I think he had a potentially great novel in him around 83-90. He was at the peak of his lyrical powers then and seemingly far less embittered about the world and his status in it. It would also presumably have been set in the UK, which would have suited him rather more.
 
This is the review I've been trying to express since finishing List of the Lost the other night. It's a weak plot (which probably could have worked if he had wanted it to) interlaced with irrelevant views and opinions. Every few pages there was a passage or a sentence or something which really impressed me, but every other sentence there were much greater problems that no occasional well-phrased line could make up for. I wonder whether he's been influenced by Kerouac's On the Road when it comes to the character and especially with the dialogue, but if he has then it really hasn't worked. I won't slate him for it like the reviews have, I just hope he tries again, is more thoughtful and restrictive on himself, and finds an editor who is comfortable offering advice.

doesnt remind me much of on the road in many ways though perhaps in some. not all fiction is supposed to be plot driven and many novels novellas are mouth pieces for the authors views which are important to them and those points not being important to the reader doesnt make it poorly written, it just makes it a book not for them. the only part of on the road i can see that might relate is that its clearly kerouac as the main character with all of his friends given very thin guises so that he could comment on how he felt about america with little plot or point. the pointless and repetitive quality of the non plot being the point as he found little quality in the party that his generation was indulging in. it was a mistake on the readers part as they read it to be some celebration of life when it was supposed to be about its pointlessness or at least about the pointless unsubstantial way they were living it. kinda like in less than zero by ellis where everyone seemed to miss the point and all wanted to be the very characters that ellis was hating on with no one wanting to be the moralistic judgmental clay. same with gatsby. all everyone remembers are the parties because they think thats the point, at least the casual reader does making the reader just the same as the people hes writing about. people are the same everywhere and throughout time
 
I think he had a potentially great novel in him around 83-90. He was at the peak of his lyrical powers then and seemingly far less embittered about the world and his status in it. It would also presumably have been set in the UK, which would have suited him rather more.

He could have done a book of poetry, like lyrics. Even a book of his existing lyrics like Paul Weller did with his 'Suburban 100' book of lyrics.
 
The problem here is no one close to Morrissey being honest with him. He's clearly surrounded by Yes Men, no one dares go against the grain. What's sad is that his reputation is at stake. People who don't really know Morrissey well have this view of him now with the lack of record deal, this catastrophe of a "novel", the World Peace record which will surely be forgotten. Honesty hurts and it's not nice. But it can also lead to growth and change and a new era. It's not too late Moz, there's still fans who believe in you and know that there's still a possibly of an amazing album being released in the future and who knows, maybe even a book that is actually worthwhile and once and for all silence the critics and non believers. I feel his music has suffered over the years. Aside from Boz the boys around him are less than average. I don't care and I don't know all I do know is I'm bored and tired and angry that no one is real anymore. No honesty. Why should we the fans accept everything with a grain of salt? We're the ones that pay his bills certainly not a record label.
Barely hanging on to hope. Moz, get it together
 
The problem here is no one close to Morrissey being honest with him. He's clearly surrounded by Yes Men, no one dares go against the grain. What's sad is that his reputation is at stake. People who don't really know Morrissey well have this view of him now with the lack of record deal, this catastrophe of a "novel", the World Peace record which will surely be forgotten. Honesty hurts and it's not nice. But it can also lead to growth and change and a new era. It's not too late Moz, there's still fans who believe in you and know that there's still a possibly of an amazing album being released in the future and who knows, maybe even a book that is actually worthwhile and once and for all silence the critics and non believers. I feel his music has suffered over the years. Aside from Boz the boys around him are less than average. I don't care and I don't know all I do know is I'm bored and tired and angry that no one is real anymore. No honesty. Why should we the fans accept everything with a grain of salt? We're the ones that pay his bills certainly not a record label.
Barely hanging on to hope. Moz, get it together

So you read the book then?
 
I won't slate him for it like the reviews have, I just hope he tries again, is more thoughtful and restrictive on himself, and finds an editor who is comfortable offering advice.

The problem is not finding an editor comfortable with the giving of advice, but finding an author who will accept the advice given.

Penguin have done themselves no favours publishing this book. Unlike Autobiography it seems to have failed to even set the tills ringing. I couldn't find it in the Amazon Top 100 books earlier and I couldn't be bothered to send out a search party. Anyone know where it is?
 
The problem is not finding an editor comfortable with the giving of advice, but finding an author who will accept the advice given.

Penguin have done themselves no favours publishing this book. Unlike Autobiography it seems to have failed to even set the tills ringing. I couldn't find it in the Amazon Top 100 books earlier and I couldn't be bothered to send out a search party. Anyone know where it is?

Last I heard was sixty bone but that was yesterday
 
Morrissey wrote the novel, was obviously happy with it to submit it. Helen Conford was happy with it. I thought it was excellent and others have liked it. Now once you start to follow the majority rule kind of thinking you end up with a dumbing down. I mean is The Sun still the most popular newspaper? Does Eastenders get more viewers than HIGNFY? Monet and Matisse used to have to give their paintings away for a meal. Bottom line, f... opinions, popularity does not equal quality.
 
Morrissey wrote the novel, was obviously happy with it to submit it. Helen Conford was happy with it. I thought it was excellent and others have liked it. Now once you start to follow the majority rule kind of thinking you end up with a dumbing down. I mean is The Sun still the most popular newspaper? Does Eastenders get more viewers than HIGNFY? Monet and Matisse used to have to give their paintings away for a meal. Bottom line, f... opinions, popularity does not equal quality.

Its also worthwhile to see what publication is reviewing . there are very few newspapers whose opinion I respect
 
1 Oct 2015. Waitrose Weekend. 'Hear It Now' Stuart Maconie

"It is a standard journalistic trope to say that a contentious work has 'polarised audiences' or received a 'mixed reception'. But that would not be true in the case of Morrissey's debut novel 'List Of The Lost'. There has been nothing mixed about the response. It has received a wholly unanimous fusillade of opprobrium, a firestorm of scathing reviews'.

Critics aren't gods, and we should never take their word as holy writ. But even hardened Morrissey apologists-of which I count myself one-seem to be having a tough time defending this new folly from pop's most capricious performer'.
 
they only dislike the publications because the gave truthful reviews. if they had praised the book they would claim to be avid readers fo the same publication.
 
So what? Seriously, so what?

that the voice and source of the critic matters to the amount of credibility i give them. i give more credence to a review that is based on a source that has a history of being knowledgeable about the subject theyre reviewing. why do think these people are reviewing for newspapers and not something like the new yorker which pays more and is more respectable. itws because they couldnt get hired there. same reason i trust a doctor at johns hopkins more so than dorchester general etc. one rag tends to review and give more reviews of populist fiction that the reads of said rag may read while the other gives more reviews designed to there readers which i think this is book is more suited to weither or not they tear it apart or not. this is why i already said i loved the times review the most even though it didnt heap praise down upon him
 
the book currently sits at...............no 216.

its gone gone gone.
 
A lot of literati snobbery and bitterness that Moz had a Penguin Classic #PayBackTime
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom