"List of the Lost" review in the London Evening Standard

Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

I'm still waiting for my copy of LOTL to arrive, so I cannot comment on the merits of the book. At this point it does seem doubtful that I'll be able to plow through it given the density of both the prose and my upcoming schedule.

I will say this: most celebrities "write" books with the help of a co-author (who has both publishing experience and talent). The co-author guides them through the process, takes their raw material and spins it into something readable. The manuscript is then edited, further refining the text into something easily digestible, marketable, and (often) forgettable.

Some celebrities just ask their agents to find them a ghostwriter, cut a check, and essentially bow out of the process.

But not Morrissey. In his lifelong, steadfast refusal to cede any amount of control to another human being in any aspect of his life, he has bypassed all the rules and safety regulations and gone full-on DIY. I wouldn't expect anything less. The result (sadly hilarious to judge by reviews thus far) is the price you pay for extreme self-possession. This strategy seems to have worked out for him musically (although it might finally drag him down in the end), but literature is a whole different animal. Perhaps he has learned something from this experience. Perhaps this is a teachable moment. Probably not.
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

I'm still waiting for my copy of LOTL to arrive, so I cannot comment on the merits of the book. At this point it does seem doubtful that I'll be able to plow through it given the density of both the prose and my upcoming schedule.

I will say this: most celebrities "write" books with the help of a co-author (who has both publishing experience and talent). The co-author guides them through the process, takes their raw material and spins it into something readable. The manuscript is then edited, further refining the text into something easily digestible, marketable, and (often) forgettable.

Some celebrities just ask their agents to find them a ghostwriter, cut a check, and essentially bow out of the process.

But not Morrissey. In his lifelong, steadfast refusal to cede any amount of control to another human being in any aspect of his life, he has bypassed all the rules and safety regulations and gone full-on DIY. I wouldn't expect anything less. The result (sadly hilarious to judge by reviews thus far) is the price you pay for extreme self-possession. This strategy seems to have worked out for him musically (although it might finally drag him down in the end), but literature is a whole different animal. Perhaps he has learned something from this experience. Perhaps this is a teachable moment. Probably not.

Well put. This is an industry where even the editors have editors.
 
List of the Lost by Morrissey - review - London Evening Standard
High-trash fiction set to be a cult hit, says Samuel Fishwick

Has Morrissey been having us on? The former Smiths frontman’s debut novel List of the Lost has been universally shouted down but it’s so very, very bad that it’s almost good. Forget Eurovision, forget Celebrity Big Brother — this high-trash fiction is so unfeasibly awful that it’ll be a cult hit within weeks.

The plot is a glorious mess. A fumbling, febrile narrative claws loosely at the fate of a doomed schoolboys’ running relay team in Seventies suburban Boston. There’s murder, sex, and at least one ghost, interspersed with rambling polemics about meat, Churchill and women. Animals are “whacked and hacked into chopped meat whilst gazing up at their protector with disbelief and pleading for a mercy not familiar to the human spirit, ground and round into hash or stew for the Big Mac pleasure of fat-podge children,” on one bewildering detour. What’s not to like?

The language is unremittingly silly, meandering from the outrageously florid “skimble-skamble” to the downright made-up “coachy-coach”. And the sex is hilarious. Someone will have to get up very early in the morning to beat it to the Bad Sex in Fiction Award, but if you can’t raise a smile at the protagonist Ezra rolling his “bulbous salutation extenuating excitement” as his lover Eliza’s breasts “barrel-roll” above him, you need your funny bone examined.

Why Mancunian Morrissey chose an American sports team as his subject is just one small sticking point among many, given that there’s very little sense of life on the track. Presumably it’s just an excuse to nod to the physique of our four “deltoid deities” Ezra, Nails, Harri and Justy, but it jars awkwardly. Bodies are brought up routinely, with flesh and its fragility the recurring theme. Still, the relationships, such as they exist, are alarmingly 2D.

List of the Lost is not impossible to put down. It makes you want to pick it up and hurl it to the other side of the room. Still, I’ll be back, if only to mine it for more Twitter fodder. In 10 years I hope people will still be chortling at Harri’s “manly central issue” (yes, it’s exactly what you think it is). You can tell me that joke isn’t funny any more. Heaven knows I’m laughing now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

Trust me I have never heard of Samuel Fishdick but I'm guessing he is young, never read E L Doctrow and lives his life on Twitter and Facebook. When he pointed to the sex scene ( so different to any other Thank God Moz) I guessed he lacked a shepherd and took his cue from the Internet. I blame Tony Blair for making Uni so easy to attend ha ha he he.
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

Whilst I believe an editor could have helped, by toning down (or completely red-pencilling out) the distracting rants about the meat industry, Churchill etc - in one sense the novel is SUCH a stylistic mess that it's practically uneditable. There would have to be so many revisions, on a near line by line basis, that the only realistic alternative would be to hand it back to Morrissey with several pages of suggestions, and ask for a complete top to bottom re-write. For better or worse (and most people think it's for the worst), 'List of the Lost' is 100% pure, unfiltered, gibbering at the moon bonkers, late-period Morrissey. It is, perhaps, best enjoyed as a gloriously deluded train-wreck of egotism on the part of the author - to 'save' this patient would have required so much heavy surgery that the result would have been unrecognisable.
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

Not being racist but I stopped reading The Standard when the Russians took over and stopped charging for it lol, only joking. Well I stopped reading it after Victor Lewis-Smith resigned and my Journo friend reckons everyone writes reviews now for nothing (too many media students graduated) so I'll take this review with a large pinch of SALT. Advice. If you want to stand out Samuel, try bei original, the pack of hacks gets boring.
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

Whilst I believe an editor could have helped, by toning down (or completely red-pencilling out) the distracting rants about the meat industry, Churchill etc - in one sense the novel is SUCH a stylistic mess that it's practically uneditable. There would have to be so many revisions, on a near line by line basis, that the only realistic alternative would be to hand it back to Morrissey with several pages of suggestions, and ask for a complete top to bottom re-write. For better or worse (and most people think it's for the worst), 'List of the Lost' is 100% pure, unfiltered, gibbering at the moon bonkers, late-period Morrissey. It is, perhaps, best enjoyed as a gloriously deluded train-wreck of egotism on the part of the author - to 'save' this patient would have required so much heavy surgery that the result would have been unrecognisable.
But the Churchill bit made my ears prick up!
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

dont know whether to read it. is it another news paper
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

Can someone clarify when opinions became rants? It seems a passive aggressive way of belittling a view. Just my view but everyone seems to use rant just because they disagree with what is being said.
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

Well put. This is an industry where even the editors have editors.

This book is the most punk thing that Morrissey has ever done. Not the "f*** you/ anarchy" cliche punk, but the "I'm sick of how you do things, I'll do it my way" kind of punk.
 
Well I've finished it now and the first half was hard work but once you have the main characters in place it's quite an interesting read, no one seems to have mentioned what the actual 'plot' is?! It's not about a running team who murder a demon, its more Saville than that, it's about youth, prime, ageing, sex and death, the world not being fair and that the good guys very rarely win, all very Moz issues, some of the writing is great, most a mess, some of the asides just pointless and Moz just scoring points against his normal enemies...it's a Tales of the Unexpected / arthouse film short told in the most awkward way possible, I sense it's a Moz joke but only he knows the punchline and he isn't telling! a fascinating, possible cult classic, hard work to start with but quite oddly addictive when you're nearing the end, welcome to The World of Morrissey, suffer little children, Boston, 1970's, under researched stylee.
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

Trust me I have never heard of Samuel Fishdick but I'm guessing he is young, never read E L Doctrow and lives his life on Twitter and Facebook. When he pointed to the sex scene ( so different to any other Thank God Moz) I guessed he lacked a shepherd and took his cue from the Internet. I blame Tony Blair for making Uni so easy to attend ha ha he he.

Young, he does'nt read, social network...want you add another cliche' please? Were you he best student in the college, the one who learn how to write a good essay with an introduction, the central part and the conclusion with a moral and ethical meaning? this man, whoever he is, understood perfectly the spirit of the novel, it is something consciously grotesque, sarcastic, for having a big laugh and trying to see things, even sex, in a different perspective. Uni could be easy, but understanding is always hard.
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

This book is the most punk thing that Morrissey has ever done. Not the "f*** you/ anarchy" cliche punk, but the "I'm sick of how you do things, I'll do it my way" kind of punk.

i actually think it does follow a few literary traditions especially when you think of mozs fav authors even those hes mentioned in songs. i also imagine that its sorta like auto in that once you get used to the rhythm it flows much easier and is easier to read without having narrative breaks or breaks in focus so to speak
 
My instinct is to adhere to a belief that if critics are bashing Morrissey, they're probably stupid or jealous...but probably both.
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

'Probably not' thank god... lets hope not.

Excerpt from Virginia Woolf's A Letter to a Young Poet:

"Write then, now that you are young, nonsense by the ream. Be silly, be sentimental, imitate Shelley, imitate Samuel Smiles; give the rein to every impulse; commit every fault of style, grammar, taste, and syntax; pour out; tumble over; loose anger, love, satire, in whatever words you can catch, coerce or create, in whatever metre, prose, poetry, or gibberish that comes to hand. Thus you will learn to write. But if you publish, your freedom will be checked; you will be thinking what people will say; you will write for others when you ought only to be writing for yourself. And what point can there be in curbing the wild torrent of spontaneous nonsense which is now, for a few years only, your divine gift in order to publish prim little books of experimental verses? To make money? That, we both know, is out of the question. To get criticism? But your friends will pepper your manuscripts with far more serious and searching criticism than any you will get from the reviewers. As for fame, look I implore you at famous people; see how the waters of dullness spread around them as they enter; OBSERVE THEIR POMPOSITY, THEIR PROPHETIC AIRS; reflect that the greatest poets were anonymous; think how Shakespeare cared nothing for fame; how Donne tossed his poems into the waste-paper basket; write an essay giving a single instance of any modern English writer who has survived the disciples and the admirers, the autograph hunters and the interviewers, the dinners and the luncheons, the celebrations and the commemorations with which English society so effectively stops the mouths of its singers and silences their songs."
 
Re: Review of List of the Lost in the London Evening Standard by Samuel Fishwick.

Excerpt from Virginia Woolf's A Letter to a Young Poet:

"Write then, now that you are young, nonsense by the ream. Be silly, be sentimental, imitate Shelley, imitate Samuel Smiles; give the rein to every impulse; commit every fault of style, grammar, taste, and syntax; pour out; tumble over; loose anger, love, satire, in whatever words you can catch, coerce or create, in whatever metre, prose, poetry, or gibberish that comes to hand. Thus you will learn to write. But if you publish, your freedom will be checked; you will be thinking what people will say; you will write for others when you ought only to be writing for yourself. And what point can there be in curbing the wild torrent of spontaneous nonsense which is now, for a few years only, your divine gift in order to publish prim little books of experimental verses? To make money? That, we both know, is out of the question. To get criticism? But your friends will pepper your manuscripts with far more serious and searching criticism than any you will get from the reviewers. As for fame, look I implore you at famous people; see how the waters of dullness spread around them as they enter; OBSERVE THEIR POMPOSITY, THEIR PROPHETIC AIRS; reflect that the greatest poets were anonymous; think how Shakespeare cared nothing for fame; how Donne tossed his poems into the waste-paper basket; write an essay giving a single instance of any modern English writer who has survived the disciples and the admirers, the autograph hunters and the interviewers, the dinners and the luncheons, the celebrations and the commemorations with which English society so effectively stops the mouths of its singers and silences their songs."
We spent many afternoons visiting Monk's House and Charleston Farmhouse. X
 
man there must be a lot of woolf fans here

Out on the winding, windy moors.... My hounds of love cried... woof! woolf! woolf! And as the moon alone looked down, She sunk into the rivers deep, pockets full of stones, At last to rest in peace.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom