List of the Lost - discussion thread (spoilers)

Microwaves certainly existed and were available for home use by 1975, but in 1971 only 1% of US households had one, rising to 25% by 1986. So in 1975 not many people would have had one.

However, the narrator is not a character in the story, so could be talking from now, looking back.

yeah kenmore made them i think
 
Microwaves certainly existed and were available for home use by 1975, but in 1971 only 1% of US households had one, rising to 25% by 1986. So in 1975 not many people would have had one.

However, the narrator is not a character in the story, so could be talking from now, looking back.

I don't think that really works as an excuse. If you clearly have a narrator looking back from the future or your writing in a deliberately offbeat style then maybe. But it's not OK to just have King Arthur looking like he'd been playing Minecraft all night or whatever.

On the other hand, though, I think microwaves were quite common in restaurant kitchens in the '70s.
 
I don't think that really works as an excuse. If you clearly have a narrator looking back from the future or your writing in a deliberately offbeat style then maybe. But it's not OK to just have King Arthur looking like he'd been playing Minecraft all night or whatever.

On the other hand, though, I think microwaves were quite common in restaurant kitchens in the '70s.

They weren't as uncommon as people are making them out to be. As to narration hell galopegos by vonnegut is narrated by a ghost of all things
 
Thanks for your thoughts, IR. It's nice to have someone else who has read the book contribute to this discussion.

The part of your post in bold raises an interesting point. I think for many fans, just having access to Morrissey's unfiltered thoughts and creative vision is more than enough to find the book enjoyable. They may not care about its structure or execution. This is fine, to each their own, and better still if they find something of value to take away from it.

I agree that there are some salient points made in the book about the human condition, and in particular the negative repercussions of homophobia and sexual repression within law and society. It's also utterly fascinating as a roman a clef. Having said that, I think the book falters considerably in the execution of its narrative for reasons I have already outlined in this thread, which prevented me from really enjoying it.

I was harsh after my first read-through, but having read it again, these problems (self-indulgence and excessive exposition, lack of direction and character development, author grandstanding) are all common to first time novel writing attempts, and perhaps Morrissey should be cut some slack for this reason. Of course, had he allowed editorial oversight, many of these problems would have been alleviated considerably.

I just finished reading List of the Lost for the second time.
The book IS Morrissey, lightly disguised under slight elements of fiction.
Anyone who does not like this book, does not like Morrissey himself.
I feel this is the closest we will get to understanding who he is.
Yes, these are strong words indeed, I know.

Critics schmitics, I am not interested in scrutinising every word, sentence and paragraph from a technical perspective.
This would be tantamount to dismissing someone's serious and compelling message on the basis that spelling and/or punctuation were not quite up to scratch.
 
Last edited:
I just finished reading List of the Lost for the second time.
The book IS Morrissey, lightly disguised under slight elements of fiction.
Anyone who does not like this book, does not like Morrissey himself.
I feel this is the closest we will get to understanding who he is.
Yes, these are strong words indeed, I know.

Critics schmitics, I am not interested in scrutinising every word, sentence and paragraph from a technical perspective.
This would be tantamount to dismissing someone's serious and compelling message on the basis that spelling and/or punctuation were not quite up to scratch.

Dear Sir - yes.
 
I just finished reading List of the Lost for the second time.
The book IS
Anyone who does not like this book, does not like Morrissey himself.
I feel this is the closest we will get to understanding who he is.
Yes, these are strong words indeed, I know.

Well, in recent years many of us learnt not to like Morrissey. Thanks to the man himself.
 
I just finished reading List of the Lost for the second time.
The book IS Morrissey, lightly disguised under slight elements of fiction.
Anyone who does not like this book, does not like Morrissey himself.
I feel this is the closest we will get to understanding who he is.
Yes, these are strong words indeed, I know.

Critics schmitics, I am not interested in scrutinising every word, sentence and paragraph from a technical perspective.
This would be tantamount to dismissing someone's serious and compelling message on the basis that spelling and/or punctuation were not quite up to scratch.

Agreed! Agreed! Agreed!
 
Read it a few days ago when work was quiet for a few hours. Jesus Christ. I'm currently in the process of writing a very ranty and kinda vitriolic blog post about it. Not usually my style, but I found it to be such a terrible read that I can't bring myself to be balanced about it. Hard to believe that the man who once wrote 'Girl Least Likely To', a song about terrible writing, could willingly produce something like this. "And an explanation- it drains me"... GWTT over and out.
 
The book IS Morrissey, lightly disguised under slight elements of fiction. Anyone who does not like this book, does not like Morrissey himself.

It's certainly true that I don't like 2015-era Morrissey the person, as portrayed in his boorish statements on True To You, etc.. However, he remains a great vocalist, and is still capable of occasionally crafting a great song. However, I think it is possible to think poorly of an artist as a human being, and still very much enjoy their art. 'List of the Lost' however, is too smothered in it's author's tiresome opinions. It's not even 'Morrissey, lightly disguised'. Every character is blatantly his mouthpiece, and exists only to spout his views.
 
It's certainly true that I don't like 2015-era Morrissey the person, as portrayed in his boorish statements on True To You, etc.. However, he remains a great vocalist, and is still capable of occasionally crafting a great song. However, I think it is possible to think poorly of an artist as a human being, and still very much enjoy their art. 'List of the Lost' however, is too smothered in it's author's tiresome opinions. It's not even 'Morrissey, lightly disguised'. Every character is blatantly his mouthpiece, and exists only to spout his views.

many novels are like that. in almost all novels that are not just recordings of historical context every word is the authors mouthpiece and opinion. some are just more conflicting than Morrisseys outlook or more uncertain than he is about what he thinks.

as to the person just shouting hateful things, we don't care but thanks for making sure we all know. it sounds pompous and narcissistic to go out of your way to make sure fans know what that you dislike him but whatever
 
It's certainly true that I don't like 2015-era Morrissey the person, as portrayed in his boorish statements on True To You, etc.. However, he remains a great vocalist, and is still capable of occasionally crafting a great song. However, I think it is possible to think poorly of an artist as a human being, and still very much enjoy their art. 'List of the Lost' however, is too smothered in it's author's tiresome opinions. It's not even 'Morrissey, lightly disguised'. Every character is blatantly his mouthpiece, and exists only to spout his views.

You're right, it definitely is possible to hate or disagree with an artist and to enjoy their work, and it's interesting to consider an artist in comparison to their art. In some ways I feel that present day Morrissey mimics his art very well - flashes of brilliance here and there but nothing too consistent, and a strong insistence to do things his own way strictly. I enjoyed World Peace as an album, but I wouldn't pick more than four songs from the deluxe to play to friends as something to show them. I heard lot of the songs as either very dark or very light, very prescriptive or very interpretable - I think it's when he manages to mix everything, dark and light, metaphor and meaning, that the public as a whole flock to him. List of the Lost is very consistent with modern day Morrissey to me, some great passages and some duds, story line potential and a total lack of storyline.

Ultimately he encapsulates human kind to me, the good and the bad, the bitter and the happy.
 
This book it's really good. I am going to try more books. I think Morrissey might get more at risk kids into reading if he keeps writing books this good.
 
many novels are like that. in almost all novels that are not just recordings of historical context every word is the authors mouthpiece and opinion.

Err...not really. Have you read many books of fiction? Characters are usually rounded, and varied, and have degrees or subtlety, and they don't all share the author's world view, and speak in their voice. They convince as 'real' people, and are discernibly different from one another. In Moz-world, a jaded US athletics trainer in the 1970's coaches his team with such dialogue as “You backslide like factory-farmed pigs . . . whose primal screams ignite no humane response from their human killers,” and then has a bit of a muse on how evil judges and the British Royal Family are.

Even the 'hero' and 'villain' of the piece are essentially identical, both being repressed homosexuals who rage about how society expects them to find women attractive (when not internally raging against the police and judges and the meat industry and...you get the idea).

Look at the dialogue between Ezra and his girlfriend, as they lob and return sentences to each other. They don't even have a conversation, with different points of view, as real people do. They are just mouthpieces, spouting statements on which they both agree. "Why isn't James Baldwin president?" "Yes, and isn't Thatcher a bitch?" "Yes, and the police and judges are vile as well'. "Hey - don't forget the meat industry!"

There is no subtlety here. No shades of grey. No characterisation at all, beyond one:
In Morrissey-world, absolutely everyone is Morrissey.
 
The older I get, the more I notice that the gap between my taste and opinions and those of other people gets deeper and deeper. Makes me kind of irritated and sarcastic, but also lost somehow.

To cut it short, i am on page 65 now, Diggs enters the story, Harri dead and buried, and the pitiful Dickensian motherly type in the toilet giving her speech. It took me awhile to enter the story, the beginning felt bumpy, in need of getting used to, but there was a moment when suddenly the clouds disappeared and the story, at least for me, was gaining speed. I think it was the murder in the forest. I had problems getting hooked to the idea of this four-man-relay-team, being described lovingly and admiringly like a new porsche by someone who is only used to driving a beetle. Reminded me a bit of this old Greek myth mentioned in Plato's symposium told by aristophanes about the spheric human beings that once included two parts united rolling happily through the world, but then were split up by the gods for whatever reason, and from then on had to look for the beloved other part, mostly in vain.

anyway, i cannot understand some of the reviews i've read, mainly because i am not a native english speaker, but nevertheless i was able to make sense of the plot after a while. so what's going on here? there was one reviewer trying to sum up the story, very sketchily indeed, as if coqueting with his inability not being able to grasp the plot, talking about "someone dying" when actually referring to the murder in the forest which was, for me, the easiest part to read by now. i expect more from professional literary reviewers, honestly. are these guys just mediocre, second-rate critics with no liberal arts education nowadays, no patience at all? it's a shame.

the kind of wooden utterances of the characters remind me indeed of the gothic novel á la mg lewis and walpole. they also show that humans are unable to communicate meaningfully, they deliver speeches, verbally compete, outwitting others, give orders, listen and die. i can see the criticism here.

anyway, just my 2 shits. i need to finish reading the novel first before i can say more about it.

nice post.

yes ive read many works of fiction many designed for different points and effects. many just for trashy fun as well. i think ive now got six book cases each with five shelves all full of almost nothing but fiction. do you think morrissey the wretch. do you think him the teachers the students shout things to. these are characters that i dont think represent moz. if you mean are all of the four main characters moz then i can see that being true but to say hes everybody is to mispeak i think or mistype in this situation. also many young people in there own clicks with there own girlfriends often do share many of the same opinions. its very typical and usually what can bring them, young people, together as they are to young to have developed an appreciation for opinions not there own or at the very least the confidence to put aside those differences. its what can make young people so mean to others strange to themselves so seeing those people agree so readily especially a young romantic couple seems more natural than not.
w
many books, novels with political social views make speeches all the time as they put the politics above the story line narrative and are still enjoyed and celebrated. sometimes novels try and balance the story with point to varied success. when reading a farewell to arms i think its very fair to say that the main character acts anything but abnormal human or natural but that was kinda the point. it was an exercise in seeing how far one could take pragmatism before they became inhuman. the main characters last lines are anything but normal or like what you would be expected and most of the other main characters are just constructs to that follow to very degrees the philosophy of pragmatism to see how they contrast with each other and which one the reader empathizes with to see maybe how far they themselves would take it.

"The older I get, the more I notice that the gap between my taste and opinions and those of other people gets deeper and deeper"

its natural as everything in the universe pulls apart, and is getting farther apart in all directions both from the force of a supposed bang and the black wholes pulling everything back in on itself.

as to the person talking about disagreeing with the artist while still like the work, i think it true that hes most celebrated when he manages to put all of these elements together but it can also get boring as a creator to do that or to attempt it as a lot of times extremes are fun and interesting as well as self revealing. the temptation to go into extremes must be very tempting especially as you get older and feel time piling up behind you and care less and less about maintain praise and success as you cant take it with you. experience you can still enjoy in the now
 
Back
Top Bottom