A Necessary Review Of Morrissey's Mind-Bendingly Bad Novel, List Of The Lost - Balls.ie

Preface:
On the most recent edition of The Reducer, we branched out beyond our football remit to encompass List of the Lost, Morrissey's shockingly putrid novel. (Yes, that Morrissey). Co-host Seamas O'Reilly enjoys a lonely reign as a kind of Morrissey Fiction Laureate, having previously written a review of the novel that was longer than his college dissertation. With his benevolent permission, we are reproducing that review in full below. The review was first published in October 2015 on his personal website Shocko.info.

Excerpt:
"In common with every other gangly, box-limbed dork with a library card, my adolescence was defined by these kinds of notions. This time of my life was underscored by a steady click-track of mortifying pretension, and memories of all this pomposity and sexual frustration kept flooding back as I read Morrissey’s List of the Lost. Firstly, because the book is about a group of teenage friends but also, sadly, because this novel is so cosmically off-putting and pretentious that even my fifteen-year-old self would have balked at its contents.

Like everyone else, I read the reviews and thought, at the very least, this would be an interesting read. This was not the case. But I should admit that some of the mentions it received were so savage, I half-thought there had been a healthy degree of needless exaggeration. It was with this small hope that I read the one review that wasn’t fully negative. It was on the back of the book."

A 47 minute podcast discussing it is also included - here's a direct link:
Episode 20 - Morrissey's Novel, List of the Lost.
https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/force-cdn/highwinds/reducer/morrissey_final_.mp3

A very long deconstruction/article of LOTL and similar audio of said:
https://www.balls.ie/the-reducer/morrissey-novel-390800

Not sure why this appeared today after almost 3 years since release though?
Regards,
FWD.
 
I found the novel to be a fun interesting read. Morrisseys always has trouble with image and expectations of him and when he didn’t give people the David copper field like novel that people expected they got frustrated. I find a lot of people’s reactions similar to the sex scenes criticism. The sex scenes got a lot of flack because they weren’t sexy and that’s what people expect out of a sex scene but were they really supposed to be
The sex scenes got a lot of flack because they were unintentionally hilarious and anatomically impossible.
 
(Give up Ketamine Sun, you wouldn't know a literary troll if one bit you in the arse and I have zero interest in you anyway...plus you have no idea who you're talking to. I could be Morrissey. In fact, in typical Morrissey fashion, I am going to resume totally ignoring you...but thanks for writing my ip down, I like commitment!)

I think Shakespeare is easier to read than Morrissey because it's hard but at least you know at one point the sentence is going to end and you will be able to go to the loo.:thumb:
 
I read it. It was awkward but not unreadable. Its sloppy and trying to be literary in a Moby Dick sort of way. It was full of allusions and subtext in a way Samuel Beckett would love. It lacked plot and realism, though, while overdosing on homoerotica.
It lacks cohesive structure and "common grammatically correct" sentences "approved by auto-correct suggestion programs on Word". But, it was very readable. I didn't see any non-English words. I understood it all, though sometimes I had to re-read a sentence. I also sometimes have to re-read a sentence in other books, including my Doctor Who novels that are one step above kids books. That doesn't mean they are un-readable.
What is unreadable? Jack Kerouac is unreadable in some of his poems where he made up words and was so drunk he couldn't put words together that formed meaning.
I don't understand what people mean by unreadable. I think this is more reflective of the readers and the state of 2018 literature than the book.
I mean, we say Moz here is unreadable, YET Shakespeare or Chaucer by these same critics would be counted as readable. Both wrote in olde English, a defunct language with words no longer in existence and meanings completely different! But, is Shakespeare easier to read? But, who calls Shakespeare unreadable? Nobody. But, how many of you say it's easier to read and are being honest? These critics would likely say Shakespeare is easier and make up an weak reasoning on how he is art but Moz isn't and thus its different, but words are words and Moz could be art if we declared him that. I've seen people call F.S. Fitzgerald unreadable. He's not. He's a hack of his time and writes in a style of early 20th century literature destroyed decades ago as being too literary, florid. While would these critics say On The Road is unreadable, even though the closing paragraphs of "don't you know God is Pooh Bear" is absolutely as meaningless or full of meaning as Morrissey's book? Yet, On The Road is considered one of the most influential books.
I think not the problem it is unreadable. I think the problem is that contemporary literature considers short, sweet, direct, perfectly constructed sentences good literature and anything pre-Hemingway as old and difficult. While if you read enough short sweet sentences then to read Moby Dick is impossible and Moby Dick becomes unreadable. I think if you read enough sentences that leave nothing to the imagination, then reading a book that asks for an investment is a chore.

I think the problem also is that those reading the book will use any excuse in the book to knock Moz down one more peg. Personally, I would love to talk to him about the creation of the book. I think that would be an interesting interview. I've got a music blog. I'd be happy to facilitate.

I've been wanting to vent this for awhile!

I read a lot of book reviews/commentary on forums like reddit etc, meaning can and readers opinions and not pro critics opinions, and people’s expectations/wants of literature is usually face palm inducing. The Hemingway point is considerable and common among much of the opinions I read. Most people want figures they can relate to and like with story’s that build to a satisfying climax and clear resolution. Essentially the novel version of a popcorn movie
 
The book reads like an aliens interpretation of how human beings interact.
 
Most people want figures they can relate to

Well that's what some people are used to, so it's only natural they're surprised and lose interest when all of a sudden it's about a bunch of athletes...

You know the saying, "tell me about me, it's the only thing that interests me"? In the present case it's 100% true.:)
 
they got the flack by people who have become sexually callous because of watching too much tasteless, repetitive, misogynist and brutal pornography which they consider great sex as they can wank off to that.

Well, either that, or it got flack by people familiar enough with human anatomy to know that women do not usually possess detachable breasts capable of 'barrel-rolls'. :p
 
Well, either that, or it got flack by people familiar enough with human anatomy to know that women do not usually possess detachable breasts capable of 'barrel-rolls'. :p
I think this novel finally confirmed that Morrissey has never, ever had sex with a woman (nor has he even considered the most rudimentary mechanics involved in doing so).
 
Well, either that, or it got flack by people familiar enough with human anatomy to know that women do not usually possess detachable breasts capable of 'barrel-rolls'. :p

Only if those people were expecting realism and not exaggerated ridiculousness
 
The book and author deserves one star (at least) for Bulbous Salutation alone.

Once you start saying as part of your own vocabulary you'll never go back I promise you that. Hard on, Wood, Boner are all in the trashcan of course slang to never be heard or spoken ever again.

It's that good.
 
The problem with the book appears to be that Morrissey wrote it drunk and didn't edit it while sober—or at all.

I haven't read the entire thing for context, but how is he rambling about Ronald Reagan as President in a novel set in 1975?

The writing just gives off a toxic vibe. The atmosphere is lifeless. Every character is Morrissey. I can't believe it's really as bad as it is!
 
The problem with the book appears to be that Morrissey wrote it drunk and didn't edit it while sober—or at all.

I haven't read the entire thing for context, but how is he rambling about Ronald Reagan as President in a novel set in 1975?

The writing just gives off a toxic vibe. The atmosphere is lifeless. Every character is Morrissey. I can't believe it's really as bad as it is!

It's possible that he did quite a lot of work on it, that it's full of "haha, yes, that's much better" changes that made it even worse.
 
It's possible that he did quite a lot of work on it, that it's full of "haha, yes, that's much better" changes that made it even worse.

This is also true, with these additions likely coming while drunk as well. I'm not trying to hate on Morrissey here. If anything, his being drunk throughout the process is kind of a mitigating factor, so I hope that was the case.

Aside from that, the tangential diatribes like the Bonanza section seem like they were just thrown in, and that bit in particular, from what I've seen, has a different tone as if it was added to make the book longer. For all we know, Morrissey wrote much or part of the book years ago and just threw in some of his more current diatribes in a clunky manner after the fact.

Who knows. It would be interesting to know the real process though, and if there really was one in any kind of organized sense. The book just doesn't seem to make any kind of sense on any level, and even with all the random stuff he threw in, it's still only 118 pages. It's like he couldn't be bothered actually writing a novel in its own right.

They should never have let List of the Lost in its current state be published. I hate to say that Morrissey or anyone could never succeed as a novelist, but it takes a lot of work to become proficient at the form. Clearly he didn't have the right mindset, technique, or discipline to put together a good final product.
 
This is also true, with these additions likely coming while drunk as well. I'm not trying to hate on Morrissey here. If anything, his being drunk throughout the process is kind of a mitigating factor, so I hope that was the case.

Aside from that, the tangential diatribes like the Bonanza section seem like they were just thrown in, and that bit in particular, from what I've seen, has a different tone as if it was added to make the book longer. For all we know, Morrissey wrote much or part of the book years ago and just threw in some of his more current diatribes in a clunky manner after the fact.

Who knows. It would be interesting to know the real process though, and if there really was one in any kind of organized sense. The book just doesn't seem to make any kind of sense on any level, and even with all the random stuff he threw in, it's still only 118 pages. It's like he couldn't be bothered actually writing a novel in its own right.

They should never have let List of the Lost in its current state be published. I hate to say that Morrissey or anyone could never succeed as a novelist, but it takes a lot of work to become proficient at the form. Clearly he didn't have the right mindset, technique, or discipline to put together a good final product.
I agree with much of that, Derek. What I cannot understand is how he was allowed to publish it without editing (and it clearly wasn't edited - there are too many basic grammatical errors, never mind all the other stuff). Presumably he made this a condition and after the success of Autobio they thought it worth the risk. I would love to have been in the Penguin offices when the manuscript first hit the desk...
 
The problem with the book appears to be that Morrissey wrote it drunk and didn't edit it while sober—or at all.

I haven't read the entire thing for context, but how is he rambling about Ronald Reagan as President in a novel set in 1975?

The writing just gives off a toxic vibe. The atmosphere is lifeless. Every character is Morrissey. I can't believe it's really as bad as it is!


I haven't purchased or read the novel (yet) so I don't know what the rambling about Reagan is, but Reagan ran for President in 1975-76 before running again next time around.
 
The critic has to educate the public; The artist has to educate the critic.
Oscar Wilde.
 
I agree with much of that, Derek. What I cannot understand is how he was allowed to publish it without editing (and it clearly wasn't edited - there are too many basic grammatical errors, never mind all the other stuff). Presumably he made this a condition and after the success of Autobio they thought it worth the risk. I would love to have been in the Penguin offices when the manuscript first hit the desk...

Indeed. If the editor had worked on just about any other book by a well-known writer, he or she would have almost definitely lost their job.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom