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:


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Hmmm. I wonder if Morrissey and Jodie Foster are close. She can't seem to come out either, even though it's been known for years that she's gay. But come out and say it? Pssssh. Why do that? *eye roll*

How many of you realize it is illegal to be gay in 77 countries? It *is* important for gay folk to come out. There *is* no shame in homosexuality, no matter what anyone says. This is why we must come out. To remove shame. Morrissey isn't interested, because he's only interested in himself, his own inflated sense of self-importance. He doesn't do/say anything unless it benefits him directly.

Morrissey has spent a lifetime giving nods to gay men he idolizes and dropping hints in songs. Piazza Cavour is a gay hookup spot in Rome. Pasolini was a gay man. James Dean was known for his relationships with men as well as women.

I'm quite sure Morrissey *can* have both, but his lyrics alone point to a man who is very much more interested in men than women. Just because he had/has a relationship with a woman named Tina doesn't make him heterosexual! It sounds like they have an open arrangement, an 'uncluttered commitment'. His lines in Autobiography that point to such extreme misogyny is very similar to what I've encountered in past friendships with gay men. It's a misogyny based on disgust, of shaming. Methinks it's a form of projection. Female fans can fawn over his clothing, his gray hair and swoon, but he thinks our genitals are disgusting.

As a gay woman, I find it enraging and humiliating when people cannot/will not come out. It further stigmatizes who we are and who we love. Removing the intimate lines regarding Jake further shames him. This 'humasexual' line is equally embarrassing. If Morrissey doesn't want to be labelled, why make up a new one?! If it looks like a duck...

But hey. At the end of the day, there will be people equally split on both sides. Those who are convinced Morrissey is gay, and those who are convinced he is not. This omission is insulting and points more to a man who is increasingly self-indulgent as he ages. Shame, shame, shame.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Hmmm. I wonder if Morrissey and Jodie Foster are close. She can't seem to come out either, even though it's been known for years that she's gay. But come out and say it? Pssssh. Why do that? *eye roll*

How many of you realize it is illegal to be gay in 77 countries? It *is* important for gay folk to come out. There *is* no shame in homosexuality, no matter what anyone says. This is why we must come out. To remove shame. Morrissey isn't interested, because he's only interested in himself, his own inflated sense of self-importance. He doesn't do/say anything unless it benefits him directly.

Morrissey has spent a lifetime giving nods to gay men he idolizes and dropping hints in songs. Piazza Cavour is a gay hookup spot in Rome. Pasolini was a gay man. James Dean was known for his relationships with men as well as women.

I'm quite sure Morrissey *can* have both, but his lyrics alone point to a man who is very much more interested in men than women. Just because he had/has a relationship with a woman named Tina doesn't make him heterosexual! It sounds like they have an open arrangement, an 'uncluttered commitment'. His lines in Autobiography that point to such extreme misogyny is very similar to what I've encountered in past friendships with gay men. It's a misogyny based on disgust, of shaming. Methinks it's a form of projection. Female fans can fawn over his clothing, his gray hair and swoon, but he thinks our genitals are disgusting.

As a gay woman, I find it enraging and humiliating when people cannot/will not come out. It further stigmatizes who we are and who we love. Removing the intimate lines regarding Jake further shames him. This 'humasexual' line is equally embarrassing. If Morrissey doesn't want to be labelled, why make up a new one?! If it looks like a duck...

But hey. At the end of the day, there will be people equally split on both sides. Those who are convinced Morrissey is gay, and those who are convinced he is not. This omission is insulting and points more to a man who is increasingly self-indulgent as he ages. Shame, shame, shame.

Morrissey has never said he's heterosexual. No one is claiming he's hetro. He has said he can be attracted to both sexes. Sexuality isn't black and white. Some people's lives are tidy and easily explained. Some are not.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Morrissey isn't interested, because he's only interested in himself, his own inflated sense of self-importance. He doesn't do/say anything unless it benefits him directly.

To be honest, I find it strange that you say something like this. I've seen about 3 posts written by you. One of them was about animal welfare; it was so cruel that I actually felt disgusted for a couple of days. Prior to that, I'd thought that people in minorities would somehow know better. Naturally, I was wrong. (Of course I may mistake you for somebody else. In this case, I'm sorry.)
But let's not talk about this; this is ridiculously off-topic.

This 'humasexual' line is equally embarrassing. If Morrissey doesn't want to be labelled, why make up a new one?! If it looks like a duck...

I like the word. I believe that's really the way he identifies himself. Let him be what he is.

I don't really want to start a conversation. This is literally all I had to say. I am an idiot. So... my apologies and so long o/
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Hmmm. I wonder if Morrissey and Jodie Foster are close. She can't seem to come out either, even though it's been known for years that she's gay. But come out and say it? Pssssh. Why do that? *eye roll*

How many of you realize it is illegal to be gay in 77 countries? It *is* important for gay folk to come out. There *is* no shame in homosexuality, no matter what anyone says. This is why we must come out. To remove shame. Morrissey isn't interested, because he's only interested in himself, his own inflated sense of self-importance. He doesn't do/say anything unless it benefits him directly.

Morrissey has spent a lifetime giving nods to gay men he idolizes and dropping hints in songs. Piazza Cavour is a gay hookup spot in Rome. Pasolini was a gay man. James Dean was known for his relationships with men as well as women.

I'm quite sure Morrissey *can* have both, but his lyrics alone point to a man who is very much more interested in men than women. Just because he had/has a relationship with a woman named Tina doesn't make him heterosexual! It sounds like they have an open arrangement, an 'uncluttered commitment'. His lines in Autobiography that point to such extreme misogyny is very similar to what I've encountered in past friendships with gay men. It's a misogyny based on disgust, of shaming. Methinks it's a form of projection. Female fans can fawn over his clothing, his gray hair and swoon, but he thinks our genitals are disgusting.

As a gay woman, I find it enraging and humiliating when people cannot/will not come out. It further stigmatizes who we are and who we love. Removing the intimate lines regarding Jake further shames him. This 'humasexual' line is equally embarrassing. If Morrissey doesn't want to be labelled, why make up a new one?! If it looks like a duck...

But hey. At the end of the day, there will be people equally split on both sides. Those who are convinced Morrissey is gay, and those who are convinced he is not. This omission is insulting and points more to a man who is increasingly self-indulgent as he ages. Shame, shame, shame.
Great post. You are so right.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

To be honest, I find it strange that you say something like this. I've seen about 3 posts written by you. One of them was about animal welfare; it was so cruel that I actually felt disgusted for a couple of days. Prior to that, I'd thought that people in minorities would somehow know better. Naturally, I was wrong. (Of course I may mistake you for somebody else. In this case, I'm sorry.)
But let's not talk about this; this is ridiculously off-topic.

I like the word. I believe that's really the way he identifies himself. Let him be what he is.

I don't really want to start a conversation. This is literally all I had to say. I am an idiot. So... my apologies and so long o/

Are you talking about this thread? If so, I think you need to grow a spine.

You are erroneously claiming that a gay person must tow the far Liberal Left party line when it comes to animal rights, or they are a hypocrite. Ridiculous
 
Last edited:
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Hmmm. I wonder if Morrissey and Jodie Foster are close. She can't seem to come out either, even though it's been known for years that she's gay. But come out and say it? Pssssh. Why do that? *eye roll*

How many of you realize it is illegal to be gay in 77 countries? It *is* important for gay folk to come out. There *is* no shame in homosexuality, no matter what anyone says. This is why we must come out. To remove shame. Morrissey isn't interested, because he's only interested in himself, his own inflated sense of self-importance. He doesn't do/say anything unless it benefits him directly.


My sentiments, exactly.

Morrissey has spent a lifetime giving nods to gay men he idolizes and dropping hints in songs. Piazza Cavour is a gay hookup spot in Rome. Pasolini was a gay man. James Dean was known for his relationships with men as well as women.

I'm quite sure Morrissey *can* have both, but his lyrics alone point to a man who is very much more interested in men than women. Just because he had/has a relationship with a woman named Tina doesn't make him heterosexual! It sounds like they have an open arrangement, an 'uncluttered commitment'. His lines in Autobiography that point to such extreme misogyny is very similar to what I've encountered in past friendships with gay men. It's a misogyny based on disgust, of shaming. Methinks it's a form of projection. Female fans can fawn over his clothing, his gray hair and swoon, but he thinks our genitals are disgusting.

This is cringe worthy. Couldn't have said it better myself.

As a gay woman, I find it enraging and humiliating when people cannot/will not come out. It further stigmatizes who we are and who we love. Removing the intimate lines regarding Jake further shames him. This 'humasexual' line is equally embarrassing. If Morrissey doesn't want to be labelled, why make up a new one?! If it looks like a duck...

But hey. At the end of the day, there will be people equally split on both sides. Those who are convinced Morrissey is gay, and those who are convinced he is not. This omission is insulting and points more to a man who is increasingly self-indulgent as he ages. Shame, shame, shame.

Bravo to you! Excellent post. Glad to know I am not the only person on this forum who shares these opinions.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

My sentiments, exactly.



This is cringe worthy. Couldn't have said it better myself.



Bravo to you! Excellent post. Glad to know I am not the only person on this forum who shares these opinions.

I do not share the same views.... sorry ladies.... as much as you want - he likes a little t and a as well. Just telling like he said it ...
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

I do not share the same views.... sorry ladies.... as much as you want - he likes a little t and a as well. Just telling like he said it ...

Just make sure there is a spew bucket nearby, in case his nausea gets the better of him. :D
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Are you talking about this thread? If so, I think you need to grow a spine.

You are erroneously claiming that a gay person must tow the far Liberal Left party line when it comes to animal rights, or they are a hypocrite. Ridiculous

Oh crap.

You're reading too much into it. I have no idea what the far Liberal Left party line for animal rights is. You're the only one talking about hypocrites.

It simply makes me sad when people who should know what oppression is only care about it when it's hurting them. I hate when black people are against gay rights. I hate when gay people are against animal rights. And so on.

Am I saying that black people or gay people have more responsibility than others when it comes to moral questions? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. I'm not trying to say that the reason for my sorrow or frustration is rational at all. It is not. People being ruthless assholes always makes me sad. For some reason or another, it is especially sad when it's someone who should know how tiring it is to try to the change the world for the better.

Let's leave this at this. I don't have any argument to rationalize. That's why this conversation is pointless: I don't claim to be right about anything. Compassion is great, lack of it sucks. As simple and irrational as this.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Oh crap.

You're reading too much into it. I have no idea what the far Liberal Left party line for animal rights is. You're the only one talking about hypocrites.

It simply makes me sad when people who should know what oppression is only care about it when it's hurting them. I hate when black people are against gay rights. I hate when gay people are against animal rights. And so on.

Am I saying that black people or gay people have more responsibility than others when it comes to moral questions? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. I'm not trying to say that the reason for my sorrow or frustration is rational at all. It is not. People being ruthless assholes always makes me sad. For some reason or another, it is especially sad when it's someone who should know how tiring it is to try to the change the world for the better.

Let's leave this at this. I don't have any argument to rationalize. That's why this conversation is pointless: I don't claim to be right about anything. Compassion is great, lack of it sucks. As simple and irrational as this.

She knows what human oppression is. She stated as much in that Niagara Falls thread. Did you actually read her posts? She doesn't think animals are humans. Apples and oranges. She doesn't afford them the same consideration. I DID understand what you meant. You weren't willing to except her opinions at face value. You had to hold her to some higher moral standard, as if she needs to be a spokesperson for all oppressed beings including non-human animals because she is gay. And you used it as a red herring to distract from her other points. Even if she oppresses animals, it does not negate her other claims about Moz and his homosexuality and misogyny. Not even in the slightest.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

She knows what human oppression is. She stated as much in that Niagara Falls thread. Did you actually read her posts? She doesn't think animals are humans. Apples and oranges. She doesn't afford them the same consideration. I DID understand what you meant. You weren't willing to except her opinions at face value. You had to hold her to some higher moral standard, as if she needs to be a spokesperson for all oppressed beings including non-human animals because she is gay. And you used it as a red herring to distract from her other points. Even if she oppresses animals, it does not negate her other claims about Moz and his homosexuality and misogyny. Not even in the slightest.

"She doesn't think animals are humans." She must be really smart then.

I don't think that animals are humans; I don't think that black people are white people; I don't think that gay people are straight people. And yet we all deserve to be treated with respect. Questions about human rights are difficult. Questions about animal rights are difficult. There are no simple answers. But if somebody thinks that factory farming is okay because animals are not humans, then, well... I'm sorry, but to me that is a sign of an ugly soul. Or perhaps it's just someone who's never had a pet.

"You had to hold her to some higher moral standard, as if she needs to be a spokesperson for all oppressed beings including non-human animals because she is gay." Why are you explaining this to me? I understand this very well. Read my second post again. I'll repeat: Am I saying that black people or gay people have more responsibility than others when it comes to moral questions? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. I'm not trying to say that the reason for my sorrow or frustration is rational at all. It is not. --- I don't have any argument to rationalize. That's why this conversation is pointless: I don't claim to be right about anything. Compassion is great, lack of it sucks. As simple and irrational as this.

There's no reason to let me know what an idiot I am. I already said it in the first post: I am an idiot.

Why did I write what I wrote in the first place? It is a complicated question. After all, maybe I shouldn't have said anything. But this is how humans function.

Maybe it's because I'm young and seriously unhappy with the world. All forms of oppression and injustice sadden me. Sometimes even the most ridiculous things are enough - I mean, how the hell can the comments of one single person on a Morrissey fan forum actually make me 'feel disgusted for a couple of days'? I don't know. But they did. I'm weird that way. And now I saw LazyDyke again, talking about how self-centered Morrissey is. And - well, here we are.

I don't really have a problem with the points she made in this thread. They do make sense.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

"She doesn't think animals are humans." She must be really smart then.

I don't think that animals are humans; I don't think that black people are white people; I don't think that gay people are straight people. And yet we all deserve to be treated with respect. Questions about human rights are difficult. Questions about animal rights are difficult. There are no simple answers. But if somebody thinks that factory farming is okay because animals are not humans, then, well... I'm sorry, but to me that is a sign of an ugly soul. Or perhaps it's just someone who's never had a pet.

She didn't say that she agrees with factory farming, though. I don't think she even mentioned those two words in that whole thread.

"You had to hold her to some higher moral standard, as if she needs to be a spokesperson for all oppressed beings including non-human animals because she is gay." Why are you explaining this to me? I understand this very well. Read my second post again. I'll repeat: Am I saying that black people or gay people have more responsibility than others when it comes to moral questions? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. I'm not trying to say that the reason for my sorrow or frustration is rational at all. It is not. --- I don't have any argument to rationalize. That's why this conversation is pointless: I don't claim to be right about anything. Compassion is great, lack of it sucks. As simple and irrational as this.

OK.

There's no reason to let me know what an idiot I am. I already said it in the first post: I am an idiot.

I am sorry. That was uncalled for.

Why did I write what I wrote in the first place? It is a complicated question. After all, maybe I shouldn't have said anything. But this is how humans function.

Maybe it's because I'm young and seriously unhappy with the world. All forms of oppression and injustice sadden me. Sometimes even the most ridiculous things are enough - I mean, how the hell can the comments of one single person on a Morrissey fan forum actually make me 'feel disgusted for a couple of days'? I don't know. But they did. I'm weird that way. And now I saw LazyDyke again, talking about how self-centered Morrissey is. And - well, here we are.


You have the right to express yourself here and elsewhere. Do not apologize for doing so.

I don't really have a problem with the points she made in this thread. They do make sense.

OK.:)
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Morrissey has never said he's heterosexual. No one is claiming he's hetro. He has said he can be attracted to both sexes. Sexuality isn't black and white. Some people's lives are tidy and easily explained. Some are not.

No shit sexuality isn't black and white. That's why a gay man *could* have a sexual relationship with a woman. That doesn't change a thing. He's still GAY.

And no life is tidy and easily explained. Please.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Anonymous.

You're calling me out because you think, as a dyke, I should fit inside YOUR definition of 'oppression'? And I'm self-centered?

My views on animals and vegetarianism have NOTHING to do with how Morrissey edited his book. My views on animals and vegetarianism have NOTHING to do with how I feel about the man's behaviour and his attitudes towards women. You don't like me because you were disgusting by something I said in a topic that's well over A YEAR OLD.

Nice red herring.

If you don't think Morrissey is self-centered, then this conversation has to end.

Your ideas about 'oppression' and 'compassion' are your own. You don't know me. Yet you decided to be disgusting by what a total stranger said on the vast interwebs. And to bring it up over a year later.

You will NEVER know me otherwise. I could spend hours discussing my views on animals, compassion, vegetarianism, being an omnivore (omg look at that! not a 'carnivore' you say?!?!) etc. We may even agree on such matters! But since YOU brought it up...

Where did I EVER say factory farming is okay? Do you imagine that omnivores LIKE what goes on inside conventional farming? And that is why we eat meat? Because we like the terrible things that go on? Do you think it's necessary to find it so abhorrent (and I have no doubt, most do) that the only way out is to give up meat and animal products completely?

Well, I don't. But in my mind, eating meat/animal cruelty practices/factory farming etc are complex topics. These are in some ways black and white, but not many.

I find so many vegetarians/vegans are so obsessed with their idea of 'compassion' towards animals, that they end up treating their fellow human beings who don't think the same way like complete and utter shit. Some compassion, huh? Do you only afford compassion to those whom you feel deserve it? Or those who agree with your views? Being young affords such ludicrous amounts of angst, and self-righteous, self-indulgent, know-it-all, got-this-world-all-figured-out opinions and behaviours.

Goodnight, Anonymous.

PS. Re: my supposed 'three posts': I don't frequent this place often at all, because the sheer magnitude of denial, worship and cult-like behaviour towards The Great Morrissey is really disturbing.

PPS. I will sound like an old fart saying this, but when/if you decide to start a family, ever...and you're in your 30s or 40s, and you have a mortgage... you will know what your ideals truly are. You will have shed childish ways, thoughts and ideals. You will see the world so very differently. At least, I hope so.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

Anonymous.

You're calling me out because you think, as a dyke, I should fit inside YOUR definition of 'oppression'? And I'm self-centered?

My views on animals and vegetarianism have NOTHING to do with how Morrissey edited his book. My views on animals and vegetarianism have NOTHING to do with how I feel about the man's behaviour and his attitudes towards women. You don't like me because you were disgusting by something I said in a topic that's well over A YEAR OLD.

Nice red herring.

If you don't think Morrissey is self-centered, then this conversation has to end.

Your ideas about 'oppression' and 'compassion' are your own. You don't know me. Yet you decided to be disgusting by what a total stranger said on the vast interwebs. And to bring it up over a year later.

You will NEVER know me otherwise. I could spend hours discussing my views on animals, compassion, vegetarianism, being an omnivore (omg look at that! not a 'carnivore' you say?!?!) etc. We may even agree on such matters! But since YOU brought it up...

Where did I EVER say factory farming is okay? Do you imagine that omnivores LIKE what goes on inside conventional farming? And that is why we eat meat? Because we like the terrible things that go on? Do you think it's necessary to find it so abhorrent (and I have no doubt, most do) that the only way out is to give up meat and animal products completely?

Well, I don't. But in my mind, eating meat/animal cruelty practices/factory farming etc are complex topics. These are in some ways black and white, but not many.

I find so many vegetarians/vegans are so obsessed with their idea of 'compassion' towards animals, that they end up treating their fellow human beings who don't think the same way like complete and utter shit. Some compassion, huh? Do you only afford compassion to those whom you feel deserve it? Or those who agree with your views? Being young affords such ludicrous amounts of angst, and self-righteous, self-indulgent, know-it-all, got-this-world-all-figured-out opinions and behaviours.

Goodnight, Anonymous.

PS. Re: my supposed 'three posts': I don't frequent this place often at all, because the sheer magnitude of denial, worship and cult-like behaviour towards The Great Morrissey is really disturbing.

PPS. I will sound like an old fart saying this, but when/if you decide to start a family, ever...and you're in your 30s or 40s, and you have a mortgage... you will know what your ideals truly are. You will have shed childish ways, thoughts and ideals. You will see the world so very differently. At least, I hope so.

You know what... I actually agree with nearly everything in this post. You seem like a very nice and intelligent person. I don't know what else to say: I'm sorry. I was a moron, and it feels surprisingly good to realize that.
 
Re: US version of autobiography censored??

No shit sexuality isn't black and white. That's why a gay man *could* have a sexual relationship with a woman. That doesn't change a thing. He's still GAY.

And no life is tidy and easily explained. Please.

That's your experience and your opinion and I respect that. That's not everyone's experience and opinion and you should respect that. I'm a gay male and I believe morrissey when he says he's not gay. I believe him because I have friends that feel the same way. Their lives would be easier if they could classify themselves as hetro or homo but they have been in love with both sexes. Bisexual is not acceptable to the straight population or the gay population. It does exist. And your comments are damning to those who are in between. You're so angry at morrissey for not coming out. He's been out he has stated again and again and again that he has loved and has been in relationships with males and females. It would be so much easier if he said he was gay. He can't classify himself because it's not tidy. It's none of our f***ing business who he f***s. That's between him and his male or female partner. You want a gay role model turn to Boy George - George Michael - Neil tennant - Ricky Martin - Elton John. Moz isn't it. I'm good with that. I love his voice and his lyrics and his passion and I appreciate what he's sacrificed to give the world those things. I appreciate his integrity I dont agree with everything he says but I respect that he stands up for what he believes in no matter what shite he gets for it. You think someone like that would be afraid to say he's homosexual if he was in fact homosexual? Wake up! Think outside of your little world. We're not all the same. Thats what makes us interesting. If we all had the same experiences and beliefs life would be so boring we'd all hang ourselves by age 8.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom