Curious discrepancies between the Penguin UK/Putnam US editions of Autobiography

An anonymous person writes:

I picked up my copy of the American edition of Autobiography today and started reading through it, and when I reached the part of the book where Jake is introduced, I noticed that his picture was missing. I didn't really think anything of it, but then I realized that his section of the book is heavily edited, with certain paragraphs detailing the relationship truncated considerably and some lines and anecdotes omitted entirely. What's really strange is how trivial some of these changes are; for example, in the UK version of the book, Morrissey describes a night out with Jake and Chrissie Hynde at a Battersea pub, but in the American version it is only Morrissey with Chrissie.

This part of the book contains the only editorial differences between the UK/US editions I've noticed so far, though I haven't read through it all so there could be more. However, I find these changes very odd and they stymy the flow of Morrissey's prose somewhat, to the extent that it actually lessens the emotional intensity of what I consider to be one of the most moving sections of the book. I'm wondering if the press frenzy that followed the publication of the book made either Jake or Morrissey uncomfortable, which led to these revisions. Obviously, this is purely conjecture as there's no way I could possibly know for sure. I just can't really think of any other explanation.

Has anyone else noticed this?

---

UPDATE Dec. 4:

joe frady also adds:

The British Hard Version is similarly trimmed. No 'walked in and stayed for 2 years, or 'I becomes we'. No British Airways brothers/lovers anecdote, whole Dublin/Dr Anthony Clare/Sherborne episode excised, no tea in the bath, someone to answer the telephone, etc. No teenage pic neither. And he drinks only with Chrissie in the British Flag pub.

---

Media coverage:

• MORRISSEY’S GAY RELATIONSHIP REPORTEDLY EDITED OUT OF US COPIES OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY - FACT Magazine. Link posted by wemissumoz.
• Morrissey - Morrissey's Male Lover Edited From U.s. Book Release - WENN / ContactMusic.com
• 5 Intimate Lines Cut From U.S. Version of Morrissey's Book - Fuse. Link posted by an anonymous person.
• Morrissey's Intimate Relationship With Another Man Reportedly Removed From U.S. 'Autobiography' - Huffington Post. Link from Lee.
• Morrissey’s Relationship With Jake Walters Omitted From American Release & British Hardcover Editions of His Autobiography - 2020k. Link posted by 2020k.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

No, there is no plot. Just Geezer picking another fight with yours truly... grasping at straws in order to find any leverage. She can't start her day without first having a good sparring match.

The poster assumed people think the edits are due to the publisher fearing the book would not be well-received in a conservative (bigoted) American market. I don't think anyone is claiming this is the reason for the edits--certainly that has not what has been argued in this thread. This was what my reply to him was about. Not her delusional, twisted interpretation.

If I had a dollar for every time your posts said "I think this" and "I am the type of person who does that" I'd be a rich woman. Maybe the poster was chiming in his opinion on American bigotry, why did they necessarily have to be hanging on your every word? The discussion is about MORRISSEY AND HIS BOOK, not the people talking about Morrissey.

 

[Online narcissists]

So he removed some of the best passages of the book to appease a group of bigots in the US who would never have bought his book anyway...

See what happened here? Kalmsa expressed Kalmsa's opinion.

The poster assumed people think the edits are due to the publisher fearing the book would not be well-received in a conservative (bigoted) American market.

And what happened here: realitybites weirdly assumes that no, Kalmsa must have been commenting on other users' opinions. Her grounds for thinking this? One can only guess it's because she simply expects people to be commenting on the opinions of herself and other STAR Solo users, rather than expressing their own, original thoughts.

I don't think anyone is claiming this is the reason for the edits

Kalmsa just did.

--certainly that has not what has been argued in this thread.

It is what Kalmsa argued in this thread.

This was what my reply to him was about.

Everyone understands what you said. You're having trouble understanding everyone else.

Not her delusional, twisted interpretation.

Her point was clear and, as best I can tell, accurate.

 

[realitybites]

If I had a dollar for every time your posts said "I think this" and "I am the type of person who does that" I'd be a rich woman. Maybe the poster was chiming in his opinion on American bigotry, why did they necessarily have to be hanging on your every word? The discussion is about MORRISSEY AND HIS BOOK, not the people talking about Morrissey.

Oh for Pete's sake, you could have avoided all this drama by simply addressing his/her question/point, now couldn't you have?

But it isn't about that is it, now? Tosser!

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Oh for Pete's sake, you could have avoided all this drama by simply addressing his/her question/point, now couldn't you have?

But it isn't about that is it, now? Tosser!

I know you fancy yourself as the self-appointed moderator of the intellectual solo think tank of progressive ideas, but do you have to pretend to be British too?

You said nobody was talking about bigotry. He was talking about bigotry. I just pointed that out. I will stop doing that now as it's not sinking in.

(I said "fancy" ironically.)

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

You did not say some homosexuals were misogynists. You said



You are drawing a connection between being homosexual and being misogynistic since it stems from psychological issues that are somehow unique to being homosexual. You than followed this up with a random story about two gay men you allegedly knew (I bet you have a lot of black friends too!) which started with a list of random description of unrelated negative traits (unemployed, addicted to ketamine, BAD CREDIT!) followed up with how they loathe attractive woman which isn't unusual in "their community."

Once again this isn't just saying there are gay men who misogynists, because there are misogynists in every group of people. Misogyny is common amongst gay men and it is because of psychological issues that stem from their own sexual orientation. It doesn't matter that you don't think this is true of all gay men it's still homophobic because you are drawing a connection between being gay and hating women.

And as far me changing your words to find something you didn't say that would be more offensive that wasn't the point of my statement. My point was that if someone said "Person X hates woman, as do many black people. It has to do with their psychological issues and their self-loathing" and then when called out on their racism told a weird story about how they knew two black people, one of which was unemployed and addicted to drugs, and they both hated attractive women I suspect some people who don't think your statement is homophobic would think that this statement would be racist. I doubt you would be one of them since I am certain you are if nothing else consistent.

As far as your final comment, I am not in anyway implying that somebody who displays misogynistic and is gay should be excused. Misogyny is repulsive and individuals who engage in it should be called out. That has zero to do with what you said or the reactions you've gotten. Though I suspect this is probably lost on you.

- - - Updated - - -



That is a perfect description of Johnny's comments and what's wrong with them.

Ah, so I didn't say all then? Why do I get the distinct impression much of your week is consumed by taking offence where there is none and reporting it hither and thither?

 

[realitybites]

I know you fancy yourself as the self-appointed moderator of the intellectual solo think tank of progressive ideas, but do you have to pretend to be British too?

You said nobody was talking about bigotry. He was talking about bigotry. I just pointed that out. I will stop doing that now as it's not sinking in.

(I said "fancy" ironically.)

You're not clever, just fat.

 

[Playcat2000]

You're not clever, just fat.

You crack me up!

 

[realitybites]

You crack me up!

Thanks Playcat.

 

[Anonymous]

The trouble with this Morrissey-is-gay thesis is that it seems to rely on dismissing Tina as a "token" relationship. I've heard of sham relationships and pretend relationships and relationships entered into because of social pressure. But what's the idea in this case? Is Morrissey supposed to have hooked up with Tina in order to restore balance to the universe or something?

Tina is just a silly Morrissey anagram play on words for ANTI !
Sorry if I've spoiled it for you.


Benny-the-Butcher

 

[realitybites]

"a lot of mixed marriages; fags with dykes" - Andy Warhol

Are you saying you think Tina is a lesbian? Could explain why she was spotted with Moz in a strip bar. And also the short haircut. I think you may be onto something. Seriously.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you saying you think Tina is a lesbian? Could explain why she was spotted with Moz in a strip bar. And also the short haircut. I think you may be onto something. Seriously.

Oh G-O-D!!!! You're logic is fecking flawed. Leave the woman alone. First she's his imaginary friend. Then she's planted to make female fans happy. Now she is a lesbian. Why not take it as it is? Straight women go to drip clubs ALL THE TIME. Get the feck over it.

 

[realitybites]

Oh G-O-D!!!! You're logic is fecking flawed. Leave the woman alone. First she's his imaginary friend. Then she's planted to make female fans happy. Now she is a lesbian. Why not take it as it is? Straight women go to drip clubs ALL THE TIME. Get the feck over it.

Of course straight women go to strip clubs all the time--they are called the employees.

I am just asking questions. We don't have answers, so we still have unanswered questions. Get it? You can take things at face value. That is what most simpletons do. They follow the rules, stay in between the lines, and don't make noise. If you are happy with the narrative that has been put worth, so be it. But please don't tell us not to exercise our critical thinking skills when we deem it appropriate to do so. There are holes... major holes in the story. The Jake edits aren't helping, now, are they?

 

[Playcat2000]

Of course straight women go to strip clubs all the time--they are called the employees.

I am just asking questions. We don't have answers, so we still have unanswered questions. Get it? You can take things at face value. That is what most simpletons do. They follow the rules, stay in between the lines, and don't make noise. If you are happy with the narrative that has been put worth, so be it. But please don't tell us not to exercise our critical thinking skills when we deem it appropriate to do so. There are holes... major holes in the story. The Jake edits aren't helping, now, are they?[/QUOTE]

Speaking of that, I’m not happy that Morrissey succumbed to the pressure of rewriting his own story.

 

[realitybites]

Of course straight women go to strip clubs all the time--they are called the employees.

I am just asking questions. We don't have answers, so we still have unanswered questions. Get it? You can take things at face value. That is what most simpletons do. They follow the rules, stay in between the lines, and don't make noise. If you are happy with the narrative that has been put worth, so be it. But please don't tell us not to exercise our critical thinking skills when we deem it appropriate to do so. There are holes... major holes in the story. The Jake edits aren't helping, now, are they?

Speaking of that, I’m not happy that Morrissey succumbed to the pressure of rewriting his own story.

Society's pressure? Publisher's? Tina's? Jakes? Who do you think wanted the edits and why?

 

[malvachat]

You're not clever, just fat.

Well my dads bigger than yours yah boo.

 

[realitybites]

Well my dads bigger than yours yah boo.

I don't know about that. My dad is a famous porn star.

 

[Chip]

Ah, so I didn't say all then? Why do I get the distinct impression much of your week is consumed by taking offence where there is none and reporting it hither and thither?

I don't know. I am not a psychologist. Nor do I know what goes on inside your head. I also have no idea what the first part of your post was supposed to mean even though I've read it several times.

I do know this--multiple people have found your two post to be homophobic and several people have taken the time to carefully explain to you why. You are either unable to comprehend or just unwilling to understand them.

It's very similar to that time you wished a deranged psychopath would kill Morrissey and than kept pretending like everyone had misunderstood you or you had in fact not said what you said. You seem to have difficulty holding yourself accountable for your actions.

You also go off chasing various hobgoblins that aren't related to the thread. You do this a lot. I never have any idea whose it going to be next (the imaginary political correctness lobby? the British Socialist Workers Party?), but it almost certainly somehow involves The Guardian newspaper.

I also find your trite invocations of an imaginary political correctness lobby really hysterical since you are the only person on this board who resembles anything like that. Since after all that is what you want Morrissey to be shot by a psychopath for--not being politically correct.

Of course, you'll never see this, but the irony isn't lost on me nonetheless.

 

[Anonymous]

Society's pressure? Publisher's? Tina's? Jakes? Who do you think wanted the edits and why?

I believe Morrissey wants the edit. I don't believe it was society pressures. With the edit it is a romantic relationship with Jake. I believe he wrote 457 pages and journalist focused on passages about Jake and it annoyed Morrissey. He edit it to take focus off that relationship. Not because he's ashamed because he want it to be judged as a whole life. Not his first love. I wouldn't like it if I wrote autobiography and people only reviewed it based on 3 pages of a relationship ended 20 years ago. When first read it I came thinking Jake was a arse. The Dublin bit that was taken out made Jake sound insensitive and mean.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

I don't know. I am not a psychologist. Nor do I know what goes on inside your head. I also have no idea what the first part of your post was supposed to mean even though I've read it several times.

I do know this--multiple people have found your two post to be homophobic and several people have taken the time to carefully explain to you why. You are either unable to comprehend or just unwilling to understand them.

It's very similar to that time you wished a deranged psychopath would kill Morrissey and than kept pretending like everyone had misunderstood you or you had in fact not said what you said. You seem to have difficulty holding yourself accountable for your actions.

You also go off chasing various hobgoblins that aren't related to the thread. You do this a lot. I never have any idea whose it going to be next (the imaginary political correctness lobby? the British Socialist Workers Party?), but it almost certainly somehow involves The Guardian newspaper.

I also find your trite invocations of an imaginary political correctness lobby really hysterical since you are the only person on this board who resembles anything like that. Since after all that is what you want Morrissey to be shot by a psychopath for--not being politically correct.

Of course, you'll never see this, but the irony isn't lost on me nonetheless.

 

[malvachat]

I don't know about that. My dad is a famous porn star.

Really???
What a strange thing to say.
Have you taken up the family trade?