"Smith vs. Smith: Reading the Morrissey and Marr Memoirs" by Simon Goddard - Pitchfork

dont think it could ever be much of a contest.the first sixty pages of autobiography you forget its a singer that's wrote this,its an accomplished piece of storytelling about homelife, and character, and place,and before anybody weighs in I'm certainly no expert.
 
The title is just kinda a cheeky joke as he doesn't really pit them against one another so much as he just critiques the same memories/story side by side. It's weird but when you read them both, both biographies, they don't really seem to contradict one another or even involve each other that much. It's a bit weird honestly the way them seem to purposely avoid each other so much in both there stories. I did agree that Morrisseys story read like a smiths song which was pleasing and the dickens reference of streets streets was neat. It's also kinda funny the way that the marr morrissey meeting in the pub was talked about so much here and everywhere but morrissey wrote a while ago that Johnny had brought up reformation. I had mostly forgotten he mentioned that. I also thought it kinda notable and maybe a bit strategic that marr writes suddenly were talking about reformation. Makes me wanna retread it as suddenly I brought up reformation
 
Pretty much spot on assessment. Marr's book is dull. Morrissey's is a much better read until it becomes obsessed about the court case. Ironically, it'll probably take a Joyce or Rourke book to get a genuine insider view
 
Pretty much spot on assessment. Marr's book is dull. Morrissey's is a much better read until it becomes obsessed about the court case. Ironically, it'll probably take a Joyce or Rourke book to get a genuine insider view

Agreed that it'll probably take a Joyce or rourke book to get the skinny on the smiths and the morrissey marr relationship but Marrs and Morrisseys books weren't the story of the smiths especially Morrisseys even though that obviously is gonna play a part in each persons life story. morrisseys book was about he the man/artist and focused on his feelings and life in and out of the smiths above giving us a lot of history about the band. I could have used more insight into his feeling when creating the songs but he's been pretty tight lipped over the years about the subject of his writing so I didn't really expect that to change. Even when he was talking about the smiths it really focused on his inner narrative and how he felt about people and situations rather than what was happening with the band or the music. It was about him first and the music second which is also I think what put some people off it. The biggest complaint I read was that it didn't focus on the smiths story or there music enough. Marrs book read more like a superficial history of the music he made but I agree with the author of the article that it lacked the emotive insight or detail to make that kinda story a really interesting read. Drama also would have worked but I'm glad he avoided that
 


Interesting comments under this tweet, especially by some Johnnymarrvelous. This person is exactly like some Moz fans who are being accused of being uncritical or sycophants :lbf: Besides Simon Goddard sounds rather disappointed than vitriolic. He clearly states that Marr has wonderful qualities but that they just don't transpire in his book. There are so many beautiful, complimentary articles on Johnny out there. You have to search for the bad ones. I don't wish Johnnymarrvelous the experience of us Moz fans who have to search for the good ones.
 
As always, not sure if I missed somebody else posting this, so apologies if I did.

Goddard compares Autobiography with Set the Boy Free and comes out in favour of the first, mainly because of style. And it might just be that some hurt shines through from Johnny's "all existing Smiths books are lies except maybe Fletcher's" statements. But it's a balanced article.

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1381-smith-vs-smith-reading-the-morrissey-and-marr-memoirs/
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link and his comments about Johnny's book are pretty accurate imo. He doesn't pull any punches but Johnny's book should have been so much better.
 
He doesn't pull any punches but Johnny's book should have been so much better.
True. I was also somewhat disappointed from the blandness of some anecdotes. The ones we know from Fletcher and Rogan where you come across the bit and think oh yeah, this is where the rep punches the wall and then it's left out and the story feels neutred, non-committal.
 
I think he was disappointed in the lack of depth and substance from set the boy free rather than its style.
 
dont think it could ever be much of a contest.the first sixty pages of autobiography you forget its a singer that's wrote this,its an accomplished piece of storytelling about homelife, and character, and place,and before anybody weighs in I'm certainly no expert.


...and then a chapter later, and for the rest of the book, that style is gone.
 
...and then a chapter later, and for the rest of the book, that style is gone.

There are beautiful sentences throughout the book. The following part Goddard quotes comes later in the book.

"No matter how high-speed the train, the frozen recollection in the window is the collapsed countenance of your own face staring back at you, unchanged, questioning, questioning, questioning like a second you—an inner you, representing the superiority of reason, reminding you that there is nowhere to run.”
 
'Autobiography' does start wonderfully, but it becomes increasingly aimless in the 2nd half, and when it comes to the Smiths Morrissey seems only interested in bashing Rough Trade over chart positions, and obsessing over the court case. Sure - style-wise it trumps 'Set the Boy Free' easily, but I found Johnny's book a more focused book and an interesting story in its own right. They are fish and foul - there is really no need to compare them.
 
I loved both books, I think they both have their own virtues and I enjoyed them a lot so no complaints at all.
 
'Autobiography' does start wonderfully, but it becomes increasingly aimless in the 2nd half, and when it comes to the Smiths Morrissey seems only interested in bashing Rough Trade over chart positions, and obsessing over the court case. Sure - style-wise it trumps 'Set the Boy Free' easily, but I found Johnny's book a more focused book and an interesting story in its own right. They are fish and foul - there is really no need to compare them.

Nah it told a lot about how he felt during that time. The story of him on tour in the roach motel, the joe moss bit, the part where Mrs. Shaw tries to get at him through the window to the part where he has his experience with the scary vagabon. It just doesn't focus on the smiths or there music as much as people wanted it at times me included. There is a fair amount of Geoff bashing, which I found amusingly worded, though and of course the court case. It was interesting to hear marr say in his book that he and Joyce had an agreement and to then read here someone pointing out that at the time of the case he said he couldn't remember. At the end of the day Marrs book felt a bit more like a coffee table book, something to flip through, and that it could have been made up of old interviews he's already given. Might have been better that way imo . while Morrisseys book didn't deliver the the inside story of the smiths or really even his thoughts on the music itself but it did portray an interesting insight to the man himself and it was full of funny moments and beautiful sentences. I agree that it seems like the skinny on the smiths story lies in rourkes bio which seems almost inevitable at this point. I'd say Joyce as well but with everything that's happened I don't think people would believe his story
 
I am shocked by how nasty Foddard is about the Marr book. Wow, try to get another interview with him any time in the future. It sounded more like Morrissey was reviewing his own book vs Marr's. The author seems very bias! Marr is a much less complicated person and you would expect that he would not use the same flowerily language. Morrissey has always lived in his own wonderful world and his writing reflects that. Johnny is just Johnny. I thought the article was going to really compare actual facts not be a review of who wrote the better book. I think they both have their place and I enjoyed them both. I am pro Morrissey and Marr and "I can have both"!
 
He does more than just criticize Marrs style of writing which I don't believe he goes on to much about but he does talk about it not being very detailed or substantive book which I think has been mostly the common consensus of readers. He does praise Morrisseys style a lot though
 
Goddard is really hitting the nail on the head here:

Towards the end of Autobiography Morrissey makes it unambiguously clear he will never reform the Smiths when, first litigant drummer Mike Joyce, then Marr, knock for second helpings. “Johnny, too, tells me that he is ready for a re-formation.” But what Morrissey dismisses in a single bite, Marr makes a needless feast of as his book’s apostle-teasing Big Reveal. In late 2008 they meet in a pub outside Manchester, when “suddenly we were talking about the band reforming.” “It could be good,” Marr continues in typically frostbitten fashion, “and it would make a hell of a lot of people very happy.” Excluding, that is, the singer. Both men make defiant virtue of their post-Smiths successes, but it is Marr who reveals himself as infinitely needier of his old group’s oxygen to keep him in public view.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom