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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

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.

I understand why people seem to think that reference to himself (Rogan) as a recipient of information might be percieved as an attempt to insert himself somehow into the 'story' of the bands formation and history but I have to say that while reading the book that never even occured to me. I read such references as the author explaining where his information had come from, thus giving it credence. Maybe this is something that I'll pick up on more as I progress through the book.

Thanks

S

[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.

Ouch!! The M3 pile up comment has a humorous quality as it's so extreme, but this is not exaggerated and is much more damning. Hard to see how Rogan can laugh this one off or turn it into a source of pride!

[Anonymous]

I understand why people seem to think that reference to himself (Rogan) as a recipient of information might be percieved as an attempt to insert himself somehow into the 'story' of the bands formation and history but I have to say that while reading the book that never even occured to me. I read such references as the author explaining where his information had come from, thus giving it credence. Maybe this is something that I'll pick up on more as I progress through the book.

Thanks

S

Sounds like Rogan himself again trying to paper over the cracks. Oh no, it can't be, as he signs himself S.

[Anonymous]

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.

Morrissey still, accurately, called him an imbecile.

[Anonymous]

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 means that the person told him directly and he did not hear it from somebody else. Big difference. We all know the "broken telephone" game from which we learned that the more people are involved in telling a message the more room there is for the message being blurrerd. Of course numerous people who use this website have shown that they are too eager to tell lies right from the start, but that's a different story.

The original book got me fascinated by Morrissey, because it quoted him as having said many things that I had said before but never heard anybody else say apart from a woman whom I had met in London that year and who is not a Morrissey fan at all. I asked her later. I regret however that I put many things that are written in the book aside as "Rogan has issues" and they later turned out to be very relevant. It taught me how you can only fully assess and grasp some information if you get involved in some way, be it as audience or message board user. Those who only read will never know what it is like to be attacked by his fans for no reason other than they themselves being arseholes and it is so easy to sit in your room and phantasise about what isn't.

[Anonymous]

It means that the person told him directly and he did not hear it from somebody else. Big difference. We all know the "broken telephone" game from which we learned that the more people are involved in telling a message the more room there is for the message being blurrerd. Of course numerous people who use this website have shown that they are too eager to tell lies right from the start, but that's a different story.

The original book got me fascinated by Morrissey, because it quoted him as having said many things that I had said before but never heard anybody else say apart from a woman whom I had met in London that year and who is not a Morrissey fan at all. I asked her later. I regret however that I put many things that are written in the book aside as "Rogan has issues" and they later turned out to be very relevant. It taught me how you can only fully assess and grasp some information if you get involved in some way, be it as audience or message board user. Those who only read will never know what it is like to be attacked by his fans for no reason other than they themselves being arseholes and it is so easy to sit in your room and phantasise about what isn't.

Well thanks to addled from Accrington for that. I just think from the Preface's talking about his own book ad infinitum - which sounds like he's stroking himself under the table - to the bringing of himself into the story at every possible opportunity, when the context is already clear or it's something trivial and so doesn't need authentication - it's me me me me me me.

[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.

LOL. An imbecile without even a minimum of intelligence - that's one contact with Morrissey Rogan hasn't been trumpeting!

[Anonymous]

Well thanks to addled from Accrington for that. I just think from the Preface's talking about his own book ad infinitum - which sounds like he's stroking himself under the table - to the bringing of himself into the story at every possible opportunity, when the context is already clear or it's something trivial and so doesn't need authentication - it's me me me me me me.

I think you totally overstate this, it’s pretty common in many other books I’ve seen and it’s not that important anyway. I’ve just read from Chapter 1 to page 160 so far (taking a break). Within those pages there are, as far as I can see, only 3 references to ‘me’ used and that covers approx 60,000 words! There’s no ‘I’s at all – not one! It’s all ‘he says’, ‘he recalls’. Skimming ahead to the next 100 pages I see some changes to the original book tense from ‘he says’ to ‘he told me’ mainly in relation to people like Scott Piering, Tony Wilson and Rob Allman – maybe that’s because they’ll all been dead for many, many years. Marr too sometimes, but probably to distinguish that these are quotes that were given to the writer over 20 years ago to avoid confusion about how they might be interpreted. Not that this matters a jot in any case. I think you miss the crucial point which is the author’s distance during the telling of the story, which has nothing to do with the Preface. In other Morrissey books the writer is right there in the story much of the time: Len Brown in Meetings tells us about his own life and the story of his brother: Bret talks about Morrissey and royalty and mentions in the middle of it all how he (Bret) received a letter from the Queen Mother!; Simpson tells us a lot about his feelings, how he lived in Manchester etc... Just saying, Severed Alliance (good or bad) doesn’t do that in the actual chapters. There’s no ‘Here I am at Morrissey’s school walking around the corridors ...’ type of stuff – it’s the interviewees who tell the main tale, despite what you say.

[Anonymous]

I think you totally overstate this, it’s pretty common in many other books I’ve seen and it’s not that important anyway. I’ve just read from Chapter 1 to page 160 so far (taking a break). Within those pages there are, as far as I can see, only 3 references to ‘me’ used and that covers approx 60,000 words! There’s no ‘I’s at all – not one! It’s all ‘he says’, ‘he recalls’. Skimming ahead to the next 100 pages I see some changes to the original book tense from ‘he says’ to ‘he told me’ mainly in relation to people like Scott Piering, Tony Wilson and Rob Allman – maybe that’s because they’ll all been dead for many, many years. Marr too sometimes, but probably to distinguish that these are quotes that were given to the writer over 20 years ago to avoid confusion about how they might be interpreted. Not that this matters a jot in any case. I think you miss the crucial point which is the author’s distance during the telling of the story, which has nothing to do with the Preface. In other Morrissey books the writer is right there in the story much of the time: Len Brown in Meetings tells us about his own life and the story of his brother: Bret talks about Morrissey and royalty and mentions in the middle of it all how he (Bret) received a letter from the Queen Mother!; Simpson tells us a lot about his feelings, how he lived in Manchester etc... Just saying, Severed Alliance (good or bad) doesn’t do that in the actual chapters. There’s no ‘Here I am at Morrissey’s school walking around the corridors ...’ type of stuff – it’s the interviewees who tell the main tale, despite what you say.

It looks like Rogan's tried to creep back into the room and tidy away the evidence. Who else would dig this up months after it's gone cold, count words in the book, and point the finger like a 5 year old child at the way the others talk about themselves? This just underlines what it's trying to deny - that in Rogan's world it's me me me me me.

[Anonymous]

LOL. An imbecile without even a minimum of intelligence - that's one contact with Morrissey Rogan hasn't been trumpeting!

'Accurately?' How do you know? I don't think so. The quote you're referring to comes from an article from a French magazine which was (to say the least) very badly translated into English, and then quoted in Bret's book (if you choose to take that as reliable, then I rest my case). Morrissey was quoted as using the word 'intelligent' where he may well have said 'insight'. For 'imbecile' read 'fool' or 'eejit' or a dozen other more innocuous synonyms - or none of the above. Whatever else, it's a very poor source and just another cheap shot by a 'rival' author. Apart from that, isn't it a shame that some of these lengthy interviews that he did aboard were never heard on tape (so that we could hear what he actually DID say).

[Anonymous]

'Accurately?' How do you know? I don't think so. The quote you're referring to comes from an article from a French magazine which was (to say the least) very badly translated into English, and then quoted in Bret's book (if you choose to take that as reliable, then I rest my case). Morrissey was quoted as using the word 'intelligent' where he may well have said 'insight'. For 'imbecile' read 'fool' or 'eejit' or a dozen other more innocuous synonyms - or none of the above. Whatever else, it's a very poor source and just another cheap shot by a 'rival' author. Apart from that, isn't it a shame that some of these lengthy interviews that he did aboard were never heard on tape (so that we could hear what he actually DID say).

Hiya Johnny! Jeez - is this guy self-obsessed or what!! Still brooding over a comment posted back in August. Anonymous - yeah, right. Like some ordinary punter is gonna check the French of an obscure magazine from the 1980s and just happens, like Rogan, to have a grudge against Bret (hear the resentment in that 'rival').

This is so embarrassing - watching the author desperately trying to explain away a put down under the cloak of anonymity. It's like a politician after an election trying to make out that losing loads of votes is actually a good result. Pathetic. He called you an imbecile without even a minimum of intelligence. Get over it, Johnny.