"The Severed Alliance" by Johnny Rogan - 20th Anniversary Edition out now

People keep talking about his OCD style as though it was a good thing! My problem is that Rogan is such a BORE ("Much that reads like accountancy here") and boring people have a King Midas effect - everything they touch becomes boring too.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

The preface made me want to barf. He writes with such an inflated sense of self-importance. Me me me me me me me.

Well, what do you expect? It's a PREFACE about the history of/reaction to the book. The author is absent from the chapters that follow, maybe far too much detached - not enough me, me - so the opposite of what you're complaining about!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Not so. The political/economic upheavals, civil war, De Valera's Gaelicization policy, the redevelopment of Dublin and movement of families to houses in Crumlin all had an effect on the Morrissey family culminating in emigration to Manchester.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Well, yes, we're talking about mass emigration here. It had a profound effect on families throughout Ireland. Plus, it's ludicrous to suggest, as the previous poster did, that it's 'high school textbook' (spot the out of place Americanism!) in origin. No such books exist that combine a social history of Crumlin/Dublin, complete with first hand testimonies and reminiscences of growing up there, alongside economic/political discussion of material some actually taken from the private sessions of the Dail. Hardly standard school textbook stuff is it? If it wasn't for this complex history there'd be no Morrissey/Manchester connection and, ultimately, no Smiths.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Every quote in the book is fully credited and dated in the new edition.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Untrue. You've just browsed the preface. He doesn't mention himself in ANY of the 29 chapters in the book as far as I can see....

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Well, what do you expect? It's a PREFACE about the history of/reaction to the book. The author is absent from the chapters that follow, maybe far too much detached - not enough me, me - so the opposite of what you're complaining about!

Won't the real Johnny Rogan please stand up?

Un-frickin-believable. The guy is till trying to convince himself Morrissey saying his book is shit is some sort of accolade!!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Well, what do you expect? It's a PREFACE about the history of/reaction to the book. The author is absent from the chapters that follow, maybe far too much detached - not enough me, me - so the opposite of what you're complaining about!

Not enough "me me"?!! What a joke! It's me me me me me me me throughout. In all the interviews and reported comments Rogan is always trying to put HIMSELF in the limelight.

I've been reading the 20th Anniversary Edition. I wasn't aware it was coming out and never read the original Edition so I came to it open minded. Although I saw The Smiths many times (yes, I am that old) ranging from a few times at the Hacienda through to The Palace Theatre in Manchester. As much as I loved the band I wasn't obsessed with them, I was just gutted when they split.

When the original was released I didn't bother with it but only because by then I'd become sick of people (most never having seen them) idolising the band etc.

Browsing the shelves in a bookshop the other weekend I noticed the new edition, flicked through it and decided to get it. This was with no expectations and without realising there had apparently been so much bad blood following the initial edition. I have to say that I'm enjoying it - it's a decent read at a decent pace. I thought I knew a reasonable history to the band but hearing about an unexpected gift for athletics and Mozzer's dad being a good footballer are little insights that I hadn't expected and help paint a pciture of the man as a boy. There is historical background and reference but most biographical books will have this and in my opinion for this type of book it only needs to be sweeping in nature. It simply helps put things in context.

I am still relatively early on in the book as I read a few pages each day mainly but I have to say, taking the book for what it is, I'm enjoying it. I didn't come to it expecting a psychological profile of the characters - more just a good account of how the band came about, what it went through and how (why) they split. So far I'm getting that.

I have to say that coming to this board I was surprised by the negativity being shown. That's not to criticise those who have a reasonable or qualified opinion but it seems that many haven't read the book and are passing on the negativity almost second hand as in expressing a view because thats the general consensus of opinion. If someone is interested in the book I'd say give it a try (get it from a library so there's no investment risked on it).

Not trying to get anyone's back up here or indeed promote the book - I was just surprised at the way the book is perceived.

Cheers

S

I suspect the reason that so many people have expressed negative views about the book is because so many people don't like it! I also bought the book (not cheap) and have genuinely tried to read it, but it is one yawn after another. Rogan's main problem - apart from being self-obsessed - is that he can't tell the difference between what's interesting and what isn't.

Thanks for that insight. I can see you feel very strong about the book from your use of exclamation marks to punctuate your comment but I am disappointed that you didn't support the comment with examples. You claim Rogan is self obsessed - where is that illustrated (apart from in the preface). You say it was one yawn after another and that is a matter of tasts so I wouldn't ask for an that to be illustrated but the issue of being self obsessed is something I have seen crop up repeatedly so could you highlight where this happened?

Thanks

S

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Un-frickin-believable. The guy is till trying to convince himself Morrissey saying his book is shit is some sort of accolade!!

Not true. You're another one of these anti-Rogan trolls skimming the preface and hoping it will give you an idea of what follows in the book. If you bothered to read even the whole preface -- let alone a chapter or the book itself -- then you'd know that the case he's making isn't "Morrissey shitting on his book as an accolade" as you claim, but more of the fact that Morrissey himself can't seem to make up his mind whether he supports the book or is indeed against it, replete with proof-proven annecdotes supporting Rogan's argument

Originally Posted by Thesmithsmorrissey

Not true. You're another one of these anti-Rogan trolls skimming the preface and hoping it will give you an idea of what follows in the book. If you bothered to read even the whole preface -- let alone a chapter or the book itself -- then you'd know that the case he's making isn't "Morrissey shitting on his book as an accolade" as you claim, but more of the fact that Morrissey himself can't seem to make up his mind whether he supports the book or is indeed against it, replete with proof-proven annecdotes supporting Rogan's argument

What are, "proof-proven annecdotes"?

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Thanks for that insight. I can see you feel very strong about the book from your use of exclamation marks to punctuate your comment but I am disappointed that you didn't support the comment with examples. You claim Rogan is self obsessed - where is that illustrated (apart from in the preface). You say it was one yawn after another and that is a matter of tasts so I wouldn't ask for an that to be illustrated but the issue of being self obsessed is something I have seen crop up repeatedly so could you highlight where this happened?

Thanks

S

You're right. The main part of the book - the whole Smiths story - is told as reportage. There's no authorial new journalism style insertions or wasted personal stuff. Nor is there an attempt to ingratiate himself. Oh, and he doesn't once refer to Morrissey as Moz or Mozzer!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

What are, "proof-proven annecdotes"?

*anecdotes

He talks about the claims Morrissey has made in regards to certain bits of information Rogan divulged being untrue and then provides proof via interview transcripts and things Morrissey has said in interviews basically proving that Morrissey has never read the book, just heard bits and pieces of it and drawn his own conclusions. He also goes into what exactly he said to the NME in the run-up to the first publication that set Morrissey off and led him to make the "death in a pile-up" remark. Then he talks about how Morrissey cited the book during the court case in an attempt to convince the jury that he and Marr were the band, essentially saying the text was the gospel on the Smiths

just read the book. You'll see

or at the very least, read the entire preface. Then chastise Rogan if you wish. At least everything after that will be about Morrissey and the Smiths

Back in the day I purchased both the paperback and hardback editions and thought they were good read
Rogan obviously had access to the Robert Mackie letters before Mackie published them and also seemed to have access to diaries(?) of Morrissey from his teens
Bit over bearing in parts but was first book to really get into real story of band
Not going to buy revised edition - will just read preface in local book store

Is there any point paying the extra fiver for the new version or is there not that much different? Just reading it for the first time and wondering whether it's worth the extra money.

Originally Posted by Thesmithsmorrissey

*anecdotes

He talks about the claims Morrissey has made in regards to certain bits of information Rogan divulged being untrue and then provides proof via interview transcripts and things Morrissey has said in interviews basically proving that Morrissey has never read the book, just heard bits and pieces of it and drawn his own conclusions. He also goes into what exactly he said to the NME in the run-up to the first publication that set Morrissey off and led him to make the "death in a pile-up" remark. Then he talks about how Morrissey cited the book during the court case in an attempt to convince the jury that he and Marr were the band, essentially saying the text was the gospel on the Smiths

just read the book. You'll see

Morrissey pointed to the book's title in court to show that the band was essentially Morrissey and Marr, not 'essentially saying the text was gospel'. No comment on the book itself, which he hadn't read - which is the best advice i've heard about it.

When I read the book years ago I thought the style was lame but I was grateful for some of the information, as no other book on The Smiths existed. I agree however with the repeated complaint that it's me me me all the way thru - not just in the navel gazing Preface (a most unappetizing activity, judging from the photo of himself he treats us to in his other book on Morrissey!), but also in the way Rogan always tries to bring himself into the frame, like a high school name-dropper, showing us himself in receipt of the information, rather than just giving us the information itself. And now even the information is old.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Thanks for that insight. I can see you feel very strong about the book from your use of exclamation marks to punctuate your comment but I am disappointed that you didn't support the comment with examples. You claim Rogan is self obsessed - where is that illustrated (apart from in the preface). You say it was one yawn after another and that is a matter of tasts so I wouldn't ask for an that to be illustrated but the issue of being self obsessed is something I have seen crop up repeatedly so could you highlight where this happened?

Thanks

S

It's the constant stream of "as so and so said to me" "as X later told me" "when I spoke to ABC" etc that curdle in the gullet. All these "I"s and "me"s are an illustration.

It's funny, what Rogan tries to hide in poring over the M3 pile-up comment - and trying to turn it into some sort of accolade - is the rest of what Morrissey said about him. Talking about Rogan as "one who writes lies" he says "I could discuss this with him, but why should I? I'm not afraid of confronting anyone, but not just any imbecile. I insist on at least a minimum of intelligence!" That Morrissey called Rogan an imbecile, without even a minimum of intelligence, is not ambiguous and not an accolade. I agree with Morrissey.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

It's funny, what Rogan tries to hide in poring over the M3 pile-up comment - and trying to turn it into some sort of accolade - is the rest of what Morrissey said about him. Talking about Rogan as "one who writes lies" he says "I could discuss this with him, but why should I? I'm not afraid of confronting anyone, but not just any imbecile. I insist on at least a minimum of intelligence!" That Morrissey called Rogan an imbecile, without even a minimum of intelligence, is not ambiguous and not an accolade. I agree with Morrissey.

Funny then that he DID approach and speak with him during the court case about the legal action, the Andy Rourke note etc. And several years later attempted to contact him about something via Len Brown.