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.

 

[Anonymous]

I am at a loss to explain this ludicrous decision. It reminds me of that time--don't remember the details but am sure it happened--where Morrissey took action to force a media outlet to retract its statement that he had come out as gay. This was in the You are the Quarry era, or after. The way it looks right now to me, it's pathetic, to be honest. I am willing to be educated about the real story behind these edits, but find it difficult to conceive of a good excuse for all the reasons discussed above.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, so all that “I” became “we” is now its just “I” again.

He will always be an "I", he doesn't trust anyone, if you show him kindness he doesn't know what to do.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Somewhere someone mentioned an interview from 2000ish where he said he had no relationships and was calling him out on being a hypocrit. Morrissey has a right to protect those he loves from us assholes without being a hypocrit.

Up to a point, but the best way to protect a loved one is surely not to write about him and them excise the very same person from history a few weeks later. It bears the hallmarks of a Stalinist purge. I wonder if Morrissey really grasps the nature of the internet? Perhaps he thinks there is no way for a person in the States to discover these revelations. It's the Streisand Effect all over again.

Thirty years ago the British government banned a book called Spycatcher by a former intelligence officer on grounds of national security. It was published IIRC in the USA and Australia and a few other territories. Back then, pre-internet, the ban was effective. It seems to me Morrissey is trying to rewrite his own, already admitted, history, which is quite bizarre. That it is about his sexuality, a topic he has already been seen to be strangely nervous about, indicates once more his sensitivities, not those of the publisher. I'm assuming Morrissey would not be the only gay in the USA. If you relied on the US media as a guide you'd assume it was the national pastime.

If he's that worried he should write some of those types of letters that used to appear in the back of Playboy. "Me and the day I f***ed all the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders at once." Even something that fabricated wouldn't look out of place in Autobiography. He hasn't just blurred the lines between truth and fiction. If you believe some of the stories challenging his side of the story he's pulled entire sections out of thin air. Danny Kelly, for example, seems very, very confident he'd win if they ever went to court. He even seems to know the person Morrissey has confused him with.

People bought the book on the understanding it was a factual representation of his life. Virtually every week since publication a story appears which (let's be nice) contests his recollection. Is this book a fact or a fiction, and if it is both what is the split?

 

[miss anna]

It has nothing to do with any perceived American reaction to homosexual content.

It has everything to do with slander laws.

It is easier for people who appear in a book to bring charges against someone they feel has slandered them or sullied their reputation is some shape, matter or form.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Firstly, the word for written material is 'libel' not 'slander'. Secondly, as I think someone pointed out before, libel laws are infinitely more stringent in the UK than the US. If there was such a problem the book would have been withdrawn from UK bookshops. I don't believe this is an issue at all.

 

[Anonymous]

He will always be an "I", he doesn't trust anyone, if you show him kindness he doesn't know what to do.

Exactly.

 

[Anonymous]

Up to a point, but the best way to protect a loved one is surely not to write about him and them excise the very same person from history a few weeks later. It bears the hallmarks of a Stalinist purge. I wonder if Morrissey really grasps the nature of the internet? Perhaps he thinks there is no way for a person in the States to discover these revelations. It's the Streisand Effect all over again.

Thirty years ago the British government banned a book called Spycatcher by a former intelligence officer on grounds of national security. It was published IIRC in the USA and Australia and a few other territories. Back then, pre-internet, the ban was effective. It seems to me Morrissey is trying to rewrite his own, already admitted, history, which is quite bizarre. That it is about his sexuality, a topic he has already been seen to be strangely nervous about, indicates once more his sensitivities, not those of the publisher. I'm assuming Morrissey would not be the only gay in the USA. If you relied on the US media as a guide you'd assume it was the national pastime.

If he's that worried he should write some of those types of letters that used to appear in the back of Playboy. "Me and the day I f***ed all the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders at once." Even something that fabricated wouldn't look out of place in Autobiography. He hasn't just blurred the lines between truth and fiction. If you believe some of the stories challenging his side of the story he's pulled entire sections out of thin air. Danny Kelly, for example, seems very, very confident he'd win if they ever went to court. He even seems to know the person Morrissey has confused him with.

People bought the book on the understanding it was a factual representation of his life. Virtually every week since publication a story appears which (let's be nice) contests his recollection. Is this book a fact or a fiction, and if it is both what is the split?

"People bought the book on the understanding it was a factual representation of his life. Virtually every week since publication a story appears which (let's be nice) contests his recollection. Is this book a fact or a fiction, and if it is both what is the split?[/QUOTE]"

Yes they got all excited and queued up at midnight, stayed up into the early hours to read it and now the pieces are being put together to reveal its just a load of made up crock-a-shite-cock-and-nonsense. Pingu Classic !!!!!
So glad I didn't buy it

Benny-the-Butcher

 

[Anonymous]

FUSE: 5 intimate lines that were inexplicably cut from the U.S. version of Morrissey's 'Autobiography'

He is clever. The 5 cut sentences highlight just how sexual and close their relationship was.

Interesting that in 2010 he ridiculed a conversation about partners discovering each other in such a fashion. He replied to the conversation with an interview with Linder Sterling saying that it is strange that people don't know how to have sex anymore these days, that he prefers horses and that women have headlights, which was a pretty unnatural description of breasts. I guess it is typical for Morrissey's double tonguedness. Just as in this typical gay cultural way he described his schools as the most violent and grim places, when he then moved on to fiddle around with his best friend and years later puts a microphone cable around his own neck on stages and his fans applaud him and find the indication of those sucidal tendencies sexy to the extend that they claim on the internet to get hard ones from seeing it. Why then include this section in the book where the teacher supposedly doesn't care about a girl wanting to kill herself in class? Future scholars will have a lot to do when they'll contrast this work against what he put out in music, interviews and stage performance.

Morrissey does not tell the truth in interviews. I used to assume this initially, but most things don't add up. If you drop this idea, you'll very soon get a more accurate picture. I also used to assume that he tells stories in songs, inspired by others, that he for example sang about James Makers homosexual experiences and not his own. Nowadays I am convinced that Jake wasn't his first homosexual experience and he clearly stated this in an early penpal letter as has been pointed out numerous times. I initially thought that Morrissey often says the opposite of what he meant. So neither the assumption that Morrissey tells the truth in interviews nor that he sings about his life will get you anywhere. He is also a master of omission. You have to put the pieces together yourself. I first thought that with the autobiography this isn't necessary anymore, but even here you have to add the information from elsewhere. I recommend however, to just get a proper university education in a useful subject and then go on to make a million with a good cause, vegetarian restaurant for example, instead of waste your life with analyzing Morrissey. I had luckily done this before I encoundered the Morrissey myth. (Just noticed that I need to stress now that I am not BrummyBoy.)

 

[Misguided Angel]

From what I interpret, Morrissey has not had a easy road from the start. He is a very sensitive person that people are drawn to. He may use lies to create distance to protect himself. If you watch interview, especially the early ones, they ask the most invasive questions. Jake seemed to protect him. I hope he has one person around him that he can rely on, I think he needs that. Maybe it's Linder.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

I don't think the edit has anything to do with fear of offending conservative Americans, as one person suggested. It seems it has to do with being traumatized when labeled homosexual by the press when the paperback was released. He did a mini-panic... posting the humasexual comment on TTY... a little PR work, of sorts. So, in order to avoid a repeat, he has simply edited that fact from the hardback edition book. It is a shame, I agree. Sad that he still cares that others may label him gay. It is absurd in this day and age. Plus the damage was done already. The cat is out of the bag. Just makes him look silly editing his homosexual affair out of his autobiography.

Why is Morrissey so ashamed of being gay? He can throw terms like fourth sex, asexual, celibate, and humasexual out there to get people off the trail. But it doesn't change who he is. He is a gay male.

Would Oscar Wilde behave this way if he were alive today? I don't think so. I think he would wear his 'gayness' on his sleeve. Be proud to be gay. And let everyone know it.

Just trawling through the thread lol. I never thought he was afraid of being labelled gay, more that there is no worth in labels referring to sexuality. He's never made any secret of his affairs with men or his sexuality although he undoubtedly keeps his private life private as it should be. His lyrics certainly don't hide that he's had affairs with men, it's just the relevance given to labels that he's uncomfortable with.

I feel much the same way, when that diver came out the other day, on the one hand it was positive that everybody just seemed to shrug, possibly because it's obvious he was gay anyway, but also a bit sad that someone feels the need to declare their sexuality. At some point hopefully we reach the stage that it doesn't matter enough to comment.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Just trawling through the thread lol. I never thought he was afraid of being labelled gay, more that there is no worth in labels referring to sexuality. He's never made any secret of his affairs with men or his sexuality although he undoubtedly keeps his private life private as it should be. His lyrics certainly don't hide that he's had affairs with men, it's just the relevance given to labels that he's uncomfortable with.

I feel much the same way, when that diver came out the other day, on the one hand it was positive that everybody just seemed to shrug, possibly because it's obvious he was gay anyway, but also a bit sad that someone feels the need to declare their sexuality. At some point hopefully we reach the stage that it doesn't matter enough to comment.

Well I'm sure that will eventually be the case. The Tom Daley coming out was ludicrous in as much as Daley seemed surprised he was an homosexual, while everyone else was not. He's patently as gay as a tangerine.

As for Morrissey a desire to keep your private life private loses credibility if you publish a five hundred page tract about it.

 

[Peterb]

I don't understand why so many are suprised at the need for people to make formal annoucments of their sexuality.
Despite massive steps towards acceptance of differing sexuality we still live in intolerant times.
Homosexuals are still victimised.
These public proclamations, I believe are crucial for us to move forward.
Unfortunately, the likes of Morrissey who feel so special that they cannot admit to a label, will not be part of this.
What's wrong with labels anyway? They don't tell the whole story but can be useful.
If you ask me, Moz has an ego the size of a planet.

 

[malvachat]

The whole is he gay/not gay?
Is a total irrelevance to me.
I love the music.
I like and agree with some of his thoughts.
NOT all.
As I'm sure he'd feel the same about my thoughts on things,or more likely not care one bit.
But I also understand that to some,his influence on them,is more to them.
Some of it healthy,some not so healthy.IMHO.
But most of all,I don't care about what people think about my thoughts.
Why??
Because they are mine and I own them.

 

[mozmic_dancer]

Did it occur to anyone that Morrissey omitted the passages in order to protect Jake and not himself?

At least, that's what he may be thinking. It's one thing to make proclamations about yourself, but it another thing when
you do it to others.

Could this be another example of Morrissey's pattern of one-sided relationships? He's always saying he falls for people
that don't necessarily feel the same way about him.

 

[realitybites]

He is clever. The 5 cut sentences highlight just how sexual and close their relationship was.

 

[realitybites]

Just trawling through the thread lol. I never thought he was afraid of being labelled gay, more that there is no worth in labels referring to sexuality. He's never made any secret of his affairs with men or his sexuality although he undoubtedly keeps his private life private as it should be. His lyrics certainly don't hide that he's had affairs with men, it's just the relevance given to labels that he's uncomfortable with.

I feel much the same way, when that diver came out the other day, on the one hand it was positive that everybody just seemed to shrug, possibly because it's obvious he was gay anyway, but also a bit sad that someone feels the need to declare their sexuality. At some point hopefully we reach the stage that it doesn't matter enough to comment.

I disagree that there is no worth in labels. Labeling someone can be destructive. Lead to all sorts of negative self-fulfilling prophecies. But when a person chooses to adopt a label for the purposes of self-identifying, group affiliation, or for political purposes there is nothing wrong with that.

Maybe they see a benefit. It is like Dawkins and his Out campaign. He encourages atheists to be proud to wear the atheist label. It takes the secrecy and shame out of being an atheist and normalizes it. And makes atheists/atheism visible--a viable alternative to religiosity. I think the gay identity/label has and does the same for homosexual men and women. Maybe one day neither of these labels will be useful or needed. But we don't live in that world right now. Self-labeling can be a weapon against bigotry.

No one should be forced to adopt a label, of course. But if one doesn't believe in gods, one is and atheist. And if one is sexually attracted to the same sex, one is gay. A rose by any other name...

I can't know what Morrissey thinks and feels. I only have his music and book and interviews to help me figure him out. From everything I've read, I'm just not embracing the idea that he is in any form or fashion sexually attracted to women. He is NOT bisexual, in the way I understand bisexual to mean. I don't believe his relationship with Tina was sexual. I'll say it again, she reads like a mother, a big sister, a friend. Not a lover.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand why so many are suprised at the need for people to make formal annoucments of their sexuality.
Despite massive steps towards acceptance of differing sexuality we still live in intolerant times.
Homosexuals are still victimised.
These public proclamations, I believe are crucial for us to move forward.
Unfortunately, the likes of Morrissey who feel so special that they cannot admit to a label, will not be part of this.
What's wrong with labels anyway? They don't tell the whole story but can be useful.

 

[hand in glove]

The whole is he gay/not gay?
Is a total irrelevance to me.
I love the music.
I like and agree with some of his thoughts.
NOT all.
As I'm sure he'd feel the same about my thoughts on things,or more likely not care one bit.
But I also understand that to some,his influence on them,is more to them.
Some of it healthy,some not so healthy.IMHO.
But most of all,I don't care about what people think about my thoughts.
Why??
Because they are mine and I own them.

I agree.

Did it occur to anyone that Morrissey omitted the passages in order to protect Jake and not himself? At least, that's what he may be thinking. It's one thing to make proclamations about yourself, but it another thing when
you do it to others.

Could this be another example of Morrissey's pattern of one-sided relationships? He's always saying he falls for people
that don't necessarily feel the same way about him.

No, sadly no one here (other than a few) thinks about these things. Unfortunate, really.

 

[realitybites]

The whole is he gay/not gay?
Is a total irrelevance to me.
I love the music.
I like and agree with some of his thoughts.
NOT all.
As I'm sure he'd feel the same about my thoughts on things,or more likely not care one bit.
But I also understand that to some,his influence on them,is more to them.
Some of it healthy,some not so healthy.IMHO.
But most of all,I don't care about what people think about my thoughts.
Why??
Because they are mine and I own them.

Then why share your opinion at all? Seriously.

 

[Anonymous]

I disagree that there is no worth in labels. Labeling someone can be destructive. Lead to all sorts of negative self-fulfilling prophecies. But when a person chooses to adopt a label for the purposes of self-identifying, group affiliation, or for political purposes there is nothing wrong with that.

Maybe they see a benefit. It is like Dawkins and his Out campaign. He encourages atheists to be proud to wear the atheist label. It takes the secrecy and shame out of being an atheist and normalizes it. And makes atheists/atheism visible--a viable alternative to religiosity. I think the gay identity/label has and does the same for homosexual men and women. Maybe one day neither of these labels will be useful or needed. But we don't live in that world right now. Self-labeling can be a weapon against bigotry.

No one should be forced to adopt a label, of course. But if one doesn't believe in gods, one is and atheist. And if one is sexually attracted to the same sex, one is gay. A rose by any other name...

I can't know what Morrissey thinks and feels. I only have his music and book and interviews to help me figure him out. From everything I've read, I'm just not embracing the idea that he is in any form or fashion sexually attracted to women. He is NOT bisexual, in the way I understand bisexual to mean. I don't believe his relationship with Tina was sexual. I'll say it again, she reads like a mother, a big sister, a friend. Not a lover.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. Why would a friendship be daunting. He's describing unconditional love. It's not lust or obsession it's love. He also described it as the happiest time of his life and "whatever is sought" is found. I think Tina is his soul mate. "The life I now lead is not the same as I've always lived" It reads as he was shocked that that sort of relationship was possible because he's never had it before. Friends don't soften you love does. It is totally possible he doesn't like women but fell in love with this one. It's possible the Jake portion was edited to emphasize his realationship with Tina. That's ongoing " to this day" and lifetime constant" and how can she be token Tina when she's the only person in the book that's in the acknowledgements. Linder is a dear friend and she wasn't thanked. James Maker is a friend and he wasn't thanked. You're ignoring these bits to prove your point of view.

 

[realitybites]

Did it occur to anyone that Morrissey omitted the passages in order to protect Jake and not himself?

At least, that's what he may be thinking. It's one thing to make proclamations about yourself, but it another thing when
you do it to others.

Could this be another example of Morrissey's pattern of one-sided relationships? He's always saying he falls for people
that don't necessarily feel the same way about him.

If he was worried about protecting Jake--this is assuming Jake is not a big boy and needs protecting--he wouldn't have included the passages in the original text. He got permission to use a photo from Jake, so I am sure that Jake was also aware that the nature of the relationship was going to be disclosed.

The sycophants never fail to spin it into the Moz-can-do-no-wrong corner. He did it for compassionate reasons. Please. It was self-serving. To right a faux pas wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

Without more information to go on, the edits to the autobiography appear cowardly and desperate.