Scandal & Passion

i dont understand the point of giving abuse to another person on the internet, but it always happens in these forums. It;s cowardly and gutless. you wouldn't start being like that with someone you were chatting to in a pub, but because you're behind a screen it's okay. I'm 21, younger than a lot of people who use this site, and even i know this. what's ur excuse true-to-me? is there one? or am i going to getting arrogant abuse back for writing this. mmmm, can't wait to find out....
 
I was somewhat disturbed by what seems like the revolving door that is his love/social life. Other than Linder and James Maker who are 'soulmates' for eternity, the latest squeeze is always replaceable, be it Jake Walters, or long term rent boy Peter Hogg etc etc.

Whoever is around has to contend with an army of substitutes should they get the big push off. And though he has made resolute attempts in the past not to live the rawk&roll cliched lifestyle isn't it ironic that he allegedly smashed up a hotel room on one occasion and has been rude, cruel and mercenary with ex friends/ex associates/his former musicians?

A genius he maybe, but one that is beautifully flawed and very human.
So not only it's "a proven fact" that Jake Walters was Morrissey's "squeeze", but Peter Hogg is a "long term rent boy" because Morrissey referred to him as 'a rent-a-chap' in the Kill Uncle tourbook?! Some people really don't get Morrissey's sense of humour. So I suppose Morrissey would announce to the world that he's having a sexual relationship with someone - by calling that person a 'rent-a-chap'? Yeah, that's really believable... When I believe that, then I'll also believe that gossip from some person on this forum that he has wife and kids hidden somewhere and that it all came to light during the court case hearing! :D

I've only read about 30 or so pages from Brett's book (amazon search inside book option! :) ) and it was enough to see that it's rubbish. Now you've confirmed that opinion. I can't believe that someone would consider it a serious biography, let alone mention it in the same sentence as "Severed Alliance". Are you David Brett, or does he pay you to do publicity for his books? I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so naive to believe that Brett has any kind of access to Morrissey or anyone close to him. "Inner circles", my ass. The guy so obviously didn't do any research - all he did was describe some gigs he went to, quote/summarize magazine articles and interviews - and he didn't even do that accurately, not to mention taking things out of context, or stating all kinds of dodgy and unsubstantiated gossip as if they were facts.

He gives us the gist of Morrissey's letters to Robert Mackie; thank you very much, I've read the actual letter myself, I don't need someone else retelling them badly. He retells the 1998 Uncut article by Dave Simpson, which was bad enough in itself and full of speculation and inaccuracies - but he goes even further and makes up a few 'insider quotes' himself. So we learn that this article presented Morrissey as someone who smashes up rooms, and that some 'East End insider' said Morrissey was 'evil'; except that neither of this was present in the article itself. More misquotes: "Jake dismissed him as 'the hardest character I've ever met'" says Brett. No, he didn't - according to that article, he said Morrissey was "the most interesting and fascinating character" he ever met. Then he retells "The Importance of Being Morrissey" - again, very badly,e ven though we can also see the actual documentary, so what's the point? Oh, and according to Brett, "two former lovers refused to participate" in the documentary. Logical question: how the hell would Brett know that?? Was he making the documentary, and spoke to those people, and they told him "I was Morrissey's lover, but I won't participate in the documentary"?! But guess what - journalist Jim Shelley wrote a short review/article about the documentary where he mentioned that he was asked to participate but refused. I bet that's your source of Brett's "inside info": he read that and decided to promote Shelley into "Morrissey's former lover". Well, he knew Morrissey, that's enough to make anyone Morrissey's "former lover", right?!

And then the best part: old Hollywood gossip that isn't even related to Morrissey. So, Brett informs us that Morrissey's L.A. house was once owned by Clark Gable, and he had a (late) wife who had a friend who was gay, and allegedly he used to make orgies or something, while Errol Flynn and someone else allegedly chased 'underage prostitutes of both genders' in the neighborhood... Erm, relevance?? I realize that Brett is obsessed with this kind of gossip, but I thought the book was supposed to be a biography of Morrissey?! ... Or I guess it was supposed to be another one of Brett's "proofs" that Morrissey was gay? What do you know... a wife of the guy who owned the house half a century earlier had a gay friend - it logically follows that the guy who lives in the house now must be gay!! Wow, that homosexuality really does spread like a disease, doesn't it? :p

I could right now write 20 times more informative and accurate biography than Brett. At least I would make sure my quotes were accurate, and all the sources named. Besides, I have another advantage over Brett: I actually like Morrissey and his work. (And if all you have to do to be Morrissey's biographer is to have obsessive sexual fantasies about him, like Brett obviously does, I fulfill that condition too. :D )
 
Last edited:
This book and Bret's previous Morrissey "bio," Landscapes of the Mind, should be read with a fair amount of skepticism. Whatever one says about Johnny Rogan's methods/opinions, he exhaustively logs his sources. Bret often uses hearsay but prints them like substantive quotes. Also, whatever your beliefs on Morrissey's sexuality or however (ir)relevant you deem it to be, Bret goes to frankly ridiculous extremes to find ways to "out" him. For example, he blatantly misquotes the first line of "I'd Love To" as "Gay, I lay awake..." when it is clearly "again" that he is singing. (And the lyric has been published before,too, so it's not a matter of dispute.)

I think Morrissey was referring to Rogan when he was quoted as saying he was rummaging through his "dustbin for evidence of lesbianism." He would have been more accurate in applying that witticism to David Bret.

Nice pictures in both books, mind, but the writing and research is fit for your average litterbox/birdcage.

Cheers,

Jamie
I wasn't familar with that quote about Rogan, but I know that Morrissey's statement that Johnny Rogan should die in motorway pileup came even before the book was published, and after it was, he dissed "Severed Alliance" in interviews at the time when, by his own admission, he hadn't even read one page from the book.

Q interview, September 1992 http://motorcycleaupairboy.com/interviews/1992/isay.htm

"Q: Morrissey & Marr: The Severed Alliance. Have you read it?
Well a friend of mine had a copy and I squinted at it across the room for three days and then curiosity drove me to the index. Just to see who'd blabbed.

Q: Were you shocked?
Certain things shocked me. It's promoted as the definitive story of The Smiths. Of course, the only definitive story of The Smiths is my story, if ever that's told. It seems like he - Johnny Rogan - has interviewed anybody who basically bears a grudge against me. Any of the people who've been close to me over the past decade he has not got near. So I saw more reviews and I felt very sad because they were saying, At last! Here is the truth! The level of information that this person has unearthed! Basically, it's 75 percent blatant lies. The rest is reasonably factual.
I made a statement when the book was published which said, Anybody who buys this book wants their head tested. As far as I can tell, according to sales figures, a lot of people need their heads tested. A lot of people have bought it and, of course, a lot of people will believe it. But I hope, more so, that he dies in a hotel fire.

Q: Presumably you were approached to participate in the book?
Well of course Johnny Rogan has been explaining to the press that he had a conversation with me. I've never met him and no conversation has ever taken place. One night the phone rang and he said, This is J... and I put the phone down. He wrote me a series of letters over a three-year period, all of which I scarcely opened.

Q: Did he approach your mother? The book isn't too flattering about her.
Yes, he did. But she didn't speak to him. He didn't speak to any of my family. He spoke to people on the periphery of the whole thing and he spoke to Johnny Marr. Later, after the interview had taken place, I spoke to Johnny Marr about it and he regretted having done the interview enormously.

Q: Did your mother read it?
No. Suffice to say, if she had such things as a bargepole..."

Definitely not one of Moz's wiser public statements. How could he know how much info in the book was true, if he had only looked in the index? Most people interviewed in the book didn't actually seem to bear any grudge against him. And Rogan "didn't speak to anyone" from Morrissey's family?! If he'd read a page or two, or even Acknowledgements, he would have known that his father, Peter Morrissey, and his paternal aunts, Ann, Ellen and Patricia, were interviewed for the book, and that two of them (Patricia and Ann) received thanks for providing the old photos from the family albums.

It really seems like Morrissey was hostile merely because Johnny Rogan was doing reseach and attempting to interview as many people who knew Morrissey. Yes, Morrissey isn't perfect, and one of his flaws is the paranoia he displays sometimes. I would say that it's very likely that he didn't say anything about Brett's books and didn't care either way for the simple reason that Brett didn't do any research and was never going to present any kind of actual new information.
 
well argued and intelligent - the complete opposite of the original poster. your skills in debate are ones i am very jealous of
 
It's just about readable once, however the book's downfalls are:

1) Bret's constant and irrelevant use of the French language.
2) The constant and irrelevant discussions on "Barbara".
3) Bret's obsession with Morrissey's sexuality (of which he seems convinced Moz to be gay).

Other than the above, the book is OK, nothing more ...
 
It was going cheep so I bought a copy and read it. I found it interesting, but took what I read with a pinch of salt. The only person who can truly tell their own story is the person themselves. Speculation on his lovelife was similar to what is sometimes discussed on this site so I discounted that simply as David Bret wanting to pretend he knew. I also figured that comments on his family life couldn't be that accurate seeing as Bret wasn't part of it. I think this kind of book is usful in giving you a general overview of a person, but you must always remember that, unless you know them, you don't really know anything.

As for if Morrissey is a nasty person or not - are we not all nasty at times? I can't imagine anyone getting through life without pissing a few people off. Especially if you are the sort of person who speaks their mind, which is how I imagine Moz to be.

I'm sure he'd have some choice things to say to me should our paths ever cross as we hold very different opinions on many topics... I might think Jamie Oliver is a twat, but I don't class him as a murderer!
 
Tony Richardson lived in Morrissey's L.A. home as well. More proof LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom