I read a new interview with Morrissey last night and can't find it

[Anonymous]

That explanation still wouldn't account for why the omitted text was inexplicably restored in later editions. Did he and his lawyers just decide, "f*** it! Might as well put it back!" after wasting time and energy pursuing the matter? What would be the point? Furthermore, if this were the case, why wouldn't his lawyers demand that the relevant portion of the book be removed entirely? There was still much for the press to extrapolate from the edited text, it was just made a little more ambiguous. He still would have gotten some phonecalls and knocks on his door. If this was a legal issue and the edits were made as a protective measure, it was lazy and shortsighted to say the least. It just seems highly unlikely compared to the alternative.

It was probably a request and not a demand made to peipnguin and not to moz. Perhaps they said OK its not a very relevant portion but reversed that when it became an issue, the deletion, in the reviews and press of what was then and now a very hot selling book. Nothing is legally binding until they go to court

 

[Anonymous]

Moz is gayer than Gay Gayerson, gayer than IKEA on Superbowl Sunday, gayer than Freddie Mercury in a pink speedo, gayer than Liberace's Christmas tree.

 

[Detritus]

WHO CARES??? It's his life. He can write, edit, delete as he wants. Why does he have to answer to you? Is he personally accountable to every fan? His personal life is exactly that personal. What he reveals and his reasoning is his alone. For f*** sake. Being famous is a drag. Do you want someone examining every decision you make? Dissecting it to smithereens? Let it go. Jake knows and Moz knows.

Perhaps speculating on the motivation behind it is pointless, but editing one of the most revealing parts of his book without explanation was bound to generate discussion among fans and in the media, something of which I'm sure Morrissey was acutely aware. In fact, one could even argue that it happened by design. Any way you look at it, it seems daft to expect it to go unquestioned. Considering Morrissey was game to discuss it in an interview and offer explanation, it doesn't seem like he's too hung up about it being a topic of interest. We know there's an embargo on Smiths reunion questions when he is interviewed; if he really didn't want to discuss it, he simply wouldn't.

Furthermore, this type of holier than thou spiel about speculation on Morrissey's personal life---specifically his sexuality---is comical when he himself makes a bigger deal out of it than any fan does. It likely wouldn't be such a topic of interest if he didn't draw so much attention to it himself. Cultivating a persona of sexual ambiguity, carefully never saying something too definitive, and when he does it is cleverly rendered suspect by contradictory claims (he was very fond of doing this earlier in his career). The use of provocative homoerotic imagery, keeping people guessing. Pulling stunts like editing the book. You're kidding yourself if you think he doesn't deliberately invite this speculation. This game he plays is a key factor in how he has consistently maintained such a level of intrigue and mystique over the years.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps speculating on the motivation behind it is pointless, but editing one of the most revealing parts of his book without explanation was bound to generate discussion among fans and in the media, something of which I'm sure Morrissey was acutely aware. In fact, one could even argue that it happened by design. Any way you look at it, it seems daft to expect it to go unquestioned. Considering Morrissey was game to discuss it in an interview and offer explanation, it doesn't seem like he's too hung up about it being a topic of interest. We know there's an embargo on Smiths reunion questions when he is interviewed; if he really didn't want to discuss it, he simply wouldn't.

Furthermore, this type of holier than thou spiel about speculation on Morrissey's personal life---specifically his sexuality---is comical when he himself makes a bigger deal out of it than any fan does. It likely wouldn't be such a topic of interest if he didn't draw so much attention to it himself. Cultivating a persona of sexual ambiguity, carefully never saying something too definitive, and when he does it is cleverly rendered suspect by contradictory claims (he was very fond of doing this earlier in his career). The use of provocative homoerotic imagery, keeping people guessing. Pulling stunts like editing the book. You're kidding yourself if you think he doesn't deliberately invite this speculation. This game he plays is a key factor in how he has consistently maintained such a level of intrigue and mystique over the years.

i dont think him to hung up on it but i also dont think he cultivated the persona either. he was asked the question and questions as far back as the first smiths album and i think his answers just spawned the line of thought. that said i also dont think that part of the book the most revealing or important part either. maybe im just the odd man out of the fan base on this though

 

[Anonymous]

i dont think him to hung up on it but i also dont think he cultivated the persona either. he was asked the question and questions as far back as the first smiths album and i think his answers just spawned the line of thought. that said i also dont think that part of the book the most revealing or important part either. maybe im just the odd man out of the fan base on this though

I don't think it was that revealing either. Everyone knew about Jake. The part where he wanted to have a child with a woman was revealing. Everyone is saying that that was his token female story to say he's not gay, but his LA lost years sound like happiest and most content period in his life. I was shocked by that bit. It was written as a wild pationate period. It was a calm loving period that everyone is dismissing as fake.

 

[Jamie]

that said i also dont think that part of the book the most revealing or important part either.

Perhaps not. But I think it would be short-sighted to not be aware that such revelations would catch the eye of not only some of his die-hard faithful but that of the casual reader. You can be sure that there were plenty of "lapsed" fans and people who know him only from the cliched media representations of "Morrissey" who bought a copy. And I daresay his sexuality was of compelling interest to many of those readers. If he didn't consider this, he was incredibly naive. Frankly, I don't buy it. He has been a savvy marketer of his persona for over 30 years. I think Detritus hit the nail on the head.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think it was that revealing either. Everyone knew about Jake. The part where he wanted to have a child with a woman was revealing. Everyone is saying that that was his token female story to say he's not gay, but his LA lost years sound like happiest and most content period in his life. I was shocked by that bit. It was written as a wild pationate period. It was a calm loving period that everyone is dismissing as fake.

That was my thought to. He say so himself.

"Suddenly my life jumps, and the past is not me. The prevalent complaint of boredom subsides as whatever is sought is found."

"Sweetzer is giving me a matter-of-fact life, so softened that Tina and I discuss the unthinkable act of producing a mewling miniature monster. Had I ever previously known such a thought? Lounging with incomprehensible joy in my own bed I am now a symbol of rest instead of panic, as the swooning view of West Hollywood rooftops from my bedroom window ushers the sun in every morning without fail. The questioning and the discontent are left to brood elsewhere –with someone else. My mind is open and happy, inscrutably grown-up and running my own life."

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think it was that revealing either. Everyone knew about Jake. The part where he wanted to have a chilbookwith a woman was revealingMorrisseyeryone is saying that that was his token female story to say he's not gay, but his LA lost yconsideredsound like happiest and most content period in his life. I was shocked by thatfirst at was written as a wild pationate period. It was a calm loving period that everyone is dismissing as fake.

And why is it dismissing as fake? Because people are blind or jealous or because what Detritus wrote work perfectly in this part of the book too...Personally I think Morrissey wrote a masterpiece, truth and fake at the same time and if he ever desired to avoid to be considered as a sarcastic person he could simply have to add just something more as the first meeting, or some funny conversation. Sorry if I think Morrissey is a brilliant writer.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps speculating on the motivation behind it is pointless, but editing one of the most revealing parts of his book without explanation was bound to generate discussion among fans and in the media, something of which I'm sure Morrissey was acutely aware. In fact, one could even argue that it happened by design. Any way you look at it, it seems daft to expect it to go unquestioned. Considering Morrissey was game to discuss it in an interview and offer explanation, it doesn't seem like he's too hung up about it being a topic of interest. We know there's an embargo on Smiths reunion questions when he is interviewed; if he really didn't want to discuss it, he simply wouldn't.

Furthermore, this type of holier than thou spiel about speculation on Morrissey's personal life---specifically his sexuality---is comical when he himself makes a bigger deal out of it than any fan does. It likely wouldn't be such a topic of interest if he didn't draw so much attention to it himself. Cultivating a persona of sexual ambiguity, carefully never saying something too definitive, and when he does it is cleverly rendered suspect by contradictory claims (he was very fond of doing this earlier in his career). The use of provocative homoerotic imagery, keeping people guessing. Pulling stunts like editing the book. You're kidding yourself if you think he doesn't deliberately invite this speculation. This game he plays is a key factor in how he has consistently maintained such a level of intrigue and mystique over the years.

Thank you. I wrote about this too much in this thread already and I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this or has a rational view about it. He is more concerned with it than anyone else as you say, and the idea that everyone that calls him out on it needs to be validated by him is funny, insulting, and ridiculous all at the same time. I have never been attracted to him, but I felt that the way he expressed his attraction to others was, at the time, almost exactly what I was going through. "When you're dancing and laughing and finally living, here my voice in your head and think of me kindly." I do for the most part. He just needs to grow up. As some other poster said recently, he went from living with his mother to being a pop star in a short period of time, and he's been allowed to avoid becoming a functioning adult in many ways. I don't know why I got angry or expected anything different but I'm sure it's because in my own way I am and will remain his fan, and I made the mistake many fans do of taking the words of a pop star too seriously. You described his method of operation better than I did and I don't need to say more.

 

[Anonymous]

i dont think him to hung up on it but i also dont think he cultivated the persona either. he was asked the question and questions as far back as the first smiths album and i think his answers just spawned the line of thought. that said i also dont think that part of the book the most revealing or important part either. maybe im just the odd man out of the fan base on this though

There was an interview with Dale Hibbert where he said they deliberately cultivated a gay persona in the beginning.
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/conte...morden-coffee-bar-(video)-todmordennews-co-uk

 

[Anonymous]

"Sweetzer is giving me a matter-of-fact life, so softened that Tina and I discuss the unthinkable act of producing a mewling miniature monster. Had I ever previously known such a thought? Lounging with incomprehensible joy in my own bed I am now a symbol of rest instead of panic, as the swooning view of West Hollywood rooftops from my bedroom window ushers the sun in every morning without fail. The questioning and the discontent are left to brood elsewhere –with someone else. My mind is open and happy, inscrutably grown-up and running my own life."

Well, yes. You forgot to add that this part is followed by "I wonder if I could ever take it as it is and just enjoy it? Well, no."

 

[Anonymous]

Well, yes. You forgot to add that this part is followed by "I wonder if I could ever take it as it is and just enjoy it? Well, no."

That doesn't change the fact that he was happy. That's his self-destructive part. He doesn't think he deserves to be happy and loved therefore he sabotages himself and his relationships. It's an ongoing theme in his songs.