'List of the Lost' review at The Quietus; Digested read / illustration at The Guardian

An anonymous person writes:

"Some of the most heinously overblown prose printed by a major publishing house in living memory..."

Beyond The Bulbous Salutation: List Of The Lost Reviewed by Karl Smith - The Quietus
Morrissey's debut novel is 118 pages of prose in not-ungenerously-sized type-face – but, whatever else it is, is it any good?

---

An anonymous person posted the link (original post):

List of the Lost by Morrissey – digested read by John Crace - The Guardian
‘“You’ll never prove a thing that I did with my ding-a-ling,” shouts the Dean who is frightfully mean

Illustration: Matt Blease

 

[ACTON]

Obviously this novel is too unique and challenging for the Bandwagon Critics. I read it yesterday and was very impressed.

That's the thing. People complain that many novels these days are all derivative and similar to each other, and yet when something different comes along they complain about that. I haven't read the new Moz novel yet but will definitely be reading it. A lot of people didn't like some of James Ellroy's novels due to heavy alliteration but that didn't stop him from writing some of the finest crime fiction of all time. I'd say Moz will shrug off the criticisms and will think 'sod them, what do they know?', and will be hoping that some readers like it. Some positive reviews from critics would have been nice though. Good sales could take the sting out of the reviews, but I don't know how well or not it is selling.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Have yet to receive my copy, but I'm looking forward to it. Still wondering why a bunch of college-aged teens in Boston in 1977 would be interested in Ronald Reagan. At that point he had tried twice to earn the Republican nomination for the Presidency - but failed both times. It's not clear that he would have been on their radar at all unless they were Californians. Apparently they rant about Thatcher as well--who at that time was only an MP, if my research is correct. Virtually no American would have even been cognizant of her existence in 1977.

One review suggested we examine this book without such critiques, instead accepting it as a piece composed in an alternate reality. That might be very good advice.

Americans, if you want a copy, order it from the UK now. It is not slated for a US release. At all. Per a contact at Penguin.

 

[vegan.cro]

Have yet to receive my copy, but I'm looking forward to it. Still wondering why a bunch of college-aged teens in Boston in 1977 would be interested in Ronald Reagan. At that point he had tried twice to earn the Republican nomination for the Presidency - but failed both times. It's not clear that he would have been on their radar at all unless they were Californians. Apparently they rant about Thatcher as well--who at that time was only an MP, if my research is correct. Virtually no American would have even been cognizant of her existence in 1977.

One review suggested we examine this book without such critiques, instead accepting it as a piece composed in an alternate reality. That might be very good advice.

Americans, if you want a copy, order it from the UK now. It is not slated for a US release. At all. Per a contact at Penguin.

As I said before, it is fiction, not faction, concretely, it is 'roman a clef' about Morrissey - per se.
And yes, book is brilliant.

 

[Detritus]

I'm a huge Capote fan and other rooms other voices is a very stylistic novel And for sure not my favorite. I do own a first edition of summer crossing and used it as an example of characters saying very unrealistic things which was a complaint leveled at this novel. Breakfast at tiffinies his most popular for sure has very very unrealistic characters saying some very unrealistic things. Don't care for any of the rest but here's another point, should people write novels to resonate with the public and does that make them good or well written if they do. Many things resonate with the public much more so than Vidal's novels, does this make them better written or worse and just pandering. Should people write to gain an audience and mass communicate or write for themselves. I would think you would have to define what is considered well written and hold something to that standard and that it would probably be a bunch of qualities that contrast but if a body of work meets enough of them then it can add up to worthwhile novel. Many novels resonate because they comment on social conditions but are very poorly written IMO and fade when those conditions fade from public consciousness. Sometimes great writers write very self indulgent novels that are complex and require a lot of education to understand and interpret but don't resonate at all though they are still very well written. You must define what you consider well written and acknowledge that some of those qualities contrast and not meet the elements that other great novels do but can still add up a we'll written novel

First of all, I never suggested that a writer should pander to an audience or that doing so makes a piece of writing good (in fact, Vidal was doing anything but pandering with The City in the Pillar; it's a book presenting homosexuality as normal and natural, published in 1948---career suicide material). You're right in that a book's level of cultural impact or success is not necessarily a good barometer of quality, but that's not what I meant in my post. Rather, sometimes the resonance of a story can be maximized with the "less is more" approach and keeping writing simple often achieves a better narrative flow. That doesn't mean that intellectual depth will be sacrificed or that it cannot be thought-provoking. In short, a good story need not always be a complex one.

As for Other Voices, Other Rooms, I don't think it's all that stylized, at least not compared to the work of a writer like Melville or Proust, who you cited in another thread, and certainly not to the point where the events and actions described become abstruse. Of course, so much of this particular debate comes down to personal taste and interpretation, so it's probably futile to really argue about it because there won't be resolution. I do agree though that sometimes the most rewarding novels to read are the ones that require meditation and multiple read-throughs to really digest. I'm on my third reading of List of the Lost and I'm really starting to appreciate it as a critique of heterosexism, and I've already said elsewhere that it's fascinating as a roman a clef. I still think it's fundamentally flawed in many ways. Regardless, you should probably wait until you read it before you start declaring it a misunderstood classic-in-the-making to be vindicated by time.

 

[Anonymous]

I'd say Moz will shrug off the criticisms and will think 'sod them, what do they know?'

Would the criticisms agree, though? That's a sort of interesting question...sort of...

 

[Detritus]

One review suggested we examine this book without such critiques, instead accepting it as a piece composed in an alternate reality. That might be very good advice.

This is an interesting point and one I have considered myself. The book definitely works much better if read through this lens. I'm not convinced Morrissey intended it to be read as such, though.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm on my third reading of List of the Lost and I'm really starting to appreciate it as a critique of heterosexism

It's funny how the different readers present that book. For some it's a bad heterosexual sex scene, for others it's a critique of heterosexism...

Oh wait- it's all going in the same direction. Isn't it. (exit)

 

[Anonymous]

I've enjoyed the book. I was very surprised about the only romance was between a male and female and it was written as a lovely one. I like this passage "Did you ever compliment a friend, a mere friend, on the directed desire of their eyes? Of course you didn’t. Or on their sexually agreeable smile? Of course you wouldn’t. Or on their hands –whose touch certainly does something as the waft of their passing being triggers unsuspecting impulses within unsuspecting you? The will to find all of these motions in others runs strong in our being, yet we must only ever observe without acting, and even the very words that are in themselves a form of action … must never be said. Day after day, year after year, we observe without operating, whilst the fact that we are only allowed to observe makes the will run and rise all the stronger."

AND

“Your emotional permanence is all that keeps me level. I only learned to love because you showed me that I could. Nothing else in life is enough. I will give you no trouble for the rest of our lives. I beg you to take me as I am, with the knowledge of all that’s happened. The agony will only be sharper if we separate. Unless I am with you I shall never be where I belong. Together we can recover, and we can live a happy life. There is no one but you for whom I feel this love. I’d endure any pain in order to spare you from it. Your love is beyond price. I am so heartily sorry for all that has taken place, but I am spared further self-hatred if I can turn around and there you are.”

They show a faith in love that I always believed he never had.

 

[Anonymous]

LOL
the book reads best when thought of as taking place in an alternate reality, specifically one where bad is good. LOL
that surely is the winning ticket.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

I've enjoyed the book. I was very surprised about the only romance was between a male and female and it was written as a lovely one. I like this passage "Did you ever compliment a friend, a mere friend, on the directed desire of their eyes? Of course you didn’t. Or on their sexually agreeable smile? Of course you wouldn’t. Or on their hands –whose touch certainly does something as the waft of their passing being triggers unsuspecting impulses within unsuspecting you? The will to find all of these motions in others runs strong in our being, yet we must only ever observe without acting, and even the very words that are in themselves a form of action … must never be said. Day after day, year after year, we observe without operating, whilst the fact that we are only allowed to observe makes the will run and rise all the stronger."

AND

“Your emotional permanence is all that keeps me level. I only learned to love because you showed me that I could. Nothing else in life is enough. I will give you no trouble for the rest of our lives. I beg you to take me as I am, with the knowledge of all that’s happened. The agony will only be sharper if we separate. Unless I am with you I shall never be where I belong. Together we can recover, and we can live a happy life. There is no one but you for whom I feel this love. I’d endure any pain in order to spare you from it. Your love is beyond price. I am so heartily sorry for all that has taken place, but I am spared further self-hatred if I can turn around and there you are.”

They show a faith in love that I always believed he never had.

That's lovely.

 

[Anonymous]

I've enjoyed the book. I was very surprised about the only romance was between a male and female and it was written as a lovely one. I like this passage "Did you ever compliment a friend, a mere friend, on the directed desire of their eyes? Of course you didn’t. Or on their sexually agreeable smile? Of course you wouldn’t. Or on their hands –whose touch certainly does something as the waft of their passing being triggers unsuspecting impulses within unsuspecting you? The will to find all of these motions in others runs strong in our being, yet we must only ever observe without acting, and even the very words that are in themselves a form of action … must never be said. Day after day, year after year, we observe without operating, whilst the fact that we are only allowed to observe makes the will run and rise all the stronger."

AND

“Your emotional permanence is all that keeps me level. I only learned to love because you showed me that I could. Nothing else in life is enough. I will give you no trouble for the rest of our lives. I beg you to take me as I am, with the knowledge of all that’s happened. The agony will only be sharper if we separate. Unless I am with you I shall never be where I belong. Together we can recover, and we can live a happy life. There is no one but you for whom I feel this love. I’d endure any pain in order to spare you from it. Your love is beyond price. I am so heartily sorry for all that has taken place, but I am spared further self-hatred if I can turn around and there you are.”

They show a faith in love that I always believed he never had.

This is beautiful

 

[Anonymous]

First of all, I never suggested that a writer should pander to an audience or that doing so makes a piece of writing good (in fact, Vidal was doing anything but pandering with The City in the Pillar; it's a book presenting homosexuality as normal and natural, published in 1948---career suicide material). You're right in that a book's level of cultural impact or success is not necessarily a good barometer of quality, but that's not what I meant in my post. Rather, sometimes the resonance of a story can be maximized with the "less is more" approach and keeping writing simple often achieves a better narrative flow. That doesn't mean that intellectual depth will be sacrificed or that it cannot be thought-provoking. In short, a good story need not always be a complex one.

As for Other Voices, Other Rooms, I don't think it's all that stylized, at least not compared to the work of a writer like Melville or Proust, who you cited in another thread, and certainly not to the point where the events and actions described become abstruse. Of course, so much of this particular debate comes down to personal taste and interpretation, so it's probably futile to really argue about it because there won't be resolution. I do agree though that sometimes the most rewarding novels to read are the ones that require meditation and multiple read-throughs to really digest. I'm on my third reading of List of the Lost and I'm really starting to appreciate it as a critique of heterosexism, and I've already said elsewhere that it's fascinating as a roman a clef. I still think it's fundamentally flawed in many ways. Regardless, you should probably wait until you read it before you start declaring it a misunderstood classic-in-the-making to be vindicated by time.

first of all i never declared it a mis understood classic to be vindicated in time. go back and read and youll notice that i didnt. sometimes it can maximize as im a big fan of kingsley amis who writes very dryly and simply but hes really good at story structure, at least after lucky jim, and makes up for it in other ways. after reading martin i was disapointed by the overly dry observation style but got used to it and found other good qualities. he also inserts all of his personal ideas, his characters make speeches all the time that spout the personal politics he himself believed all of which was leveled as criticism to list of the loss. i mean jim is a very thin portrait on kingsley. its not so much a defense of the novel that im making but rather how people make judgments that seems questionable to me. to have something be diverse complex convoluted and verbose with characters that say unrealistic things is not a reason to claim a book poorly written which is mostly what has been said in reviews. in the sex scene in rememberance it is almost possible to miss that proust had an orgasm but i dont think it makes the book or the passage poorly written even if it obscures the facts of the actual physical events. it wasnt the point

 

[Anonymous]

This is beautiful

yeah especially the second passage.

 

[Anonymous]

There are some nice passages in it. The trouble for me isn't so much the purple prose, which one could write off as 'experimental', but the annoying way that every character is blatantly Morrissey. They all speak like Morrissey, and exist only to further his viewpoints, and there are whole pages where the 'plot' grinds to a narrative halt, as Morrissey forgets he is writing fiction and goes off on some True To You style rant, about judges, or Margaret Thatcher, or Queen Elizabeth, or the police. There is no way to get lost in this book, because the characters are tissue-thin, and the voice of the author is foghorn loud.

If Morrissey's next novel is set in Revolutionary France, I expect he'll still work out a way to spend pages going on about sexual politics of 'Bonanaza' and the why the meat industry is like the holocaust.

 

[itsmorrisseyyy]

There are some nice passages in it. The trouble for me isn't so much the purple prose, which one could write off as 'experimental', but the annoying way that every character is blatantly Morrissey. They all speak like Morrissey, and exist only to further his viewpoints, and there are whole pages where the 'plot' grinds to a narrative halt, as Morrissey forgets he is writing fiction and goes off on some True To You style rant, about judges, or Margaret Thatcher, or Queen Elizabeth, or the police. There is no way to get lost in this book, because the characters are tissue-thin, and the voice of the author is foghorn loud.

If Morrissey's next novel is set in Revolutionary France, I expect he'll still work out a way to spend pages going on about sexual politics of 'Bonanaza' and the why the meat industry is like the holocaust.

i think the only reason I like the damn thing is because of the annoying way every character is blatantly Morrissey, because I like Morrissey so much. The fact I'd be able to pick this book out of a line up as being written by Morrissey is the one thing that saves it.

 

[Anonymous]

its officially the worst book ever written.
those who defend only end making spectacles of themselves.
lets pretend it never happened.

 

[Anonymous]

If a novel can ever be a yardstick to great writing this is it! Open your eyes, soul and heart. Jeez those critic/bloggers prove that great literature remains unrecognised! PS how are they doing on x f and strictly .............

 

[vegan.cro]

If a novel can ever be a yardstick to great writing this is it! Open your eyes, soul and heart. Jeez those critic/bloggers prove that great literature remains unrecognised! PS how are they doing on x f and strictly .............

 

[vegan.cro]

its officially the worst book ever written.
those who defend only end making spectacles of themselves.
lets pretend it never happened.

no, it is the worst book ever read (by some).
and, it is one of the best written books of this decade.

 

[Anonymous]

I've enjoyed the book. I was very surprised about the only romance was between a male and female and it was written as a lovely one. I like this passage "Did you ever compliment a friend, a mere friend, on the directed desire of their eyes? Of course you didn’t. Or on their sexually agreeable smile? Of course you wouldn’t. Or on their hands –whose touch certainly does something as the waft of their passing being triggers unsuspecting impulses within unsuspecting you? The will to find all of these motions in others runs strong in our being, yet we must only ever observe without acting, and even the very words that are in themselves a form of action … must never be said. Day after day, year after year, we observe without operating, whilst the fact that we are only allowed to observe makes the will run and rise all the stronger."

AND

“Your emotional permanence is all that keeps me level. I only learned to love because you showed me that I could. Nothing else in life is enough. I will give you no trouble for the rest of our lives. I beg you to take me as I am, with the knowledge of all that’s happened. The agony will only be sharper if we separate. Unless I am with you I shall never be where I belong. Together we can recover, and we can live a happy life. There is no one but you for whom I feel this love. I’d endure any pain in order to spare you from it. Your love is beyond price. I am so heartily sorry for all that has taken place, but I am spared further self-hatred if I can turn around and there you are.”

They show a faith in love that I always believed he never had.

That 2nd passage is beautiful. I've read it over and over again. I like this one too.
"There are days of genuinely poor visibility when your sorry best is the most you can do, whereas a dry and radiant day expects more from you and is ready to catch you victimized by excuses. Well, either you can run or you can’t, and no eloquent apologies are acceptable substitutes for hair-raising action. Somewhere alone within the hole of the soul it is known that the page is already turning, and the future is a time when you will only watch. Fully present in today, you will make the most of yourself as you dig deep to bring out whatever will save you, for isn’t it true that we have within us everything that we seek outside, from others?"

The book is great. It's original. Some silly lines but overall very beautiful for a first novel. The reviewers have missed the mark and had made up their minds before they read it. I'm not convinced that any of them have read it.

I love this one too.
"Worth is derived from approval, yet we discount the importance of our will to appreciate others because it is said to be a nothingness, or unwanted, or dangerously unsuspected. Yet, if I feel it, so must you, for it is you who made me feel so. Otherwise what is it that is ‘there’ for either of us to catch? Electrons from me need electrons from you in order to become electrons. Yet, there they are, and still you say nothing whilst always knowing. Look at the blue of the sky and tell me why you held back. Did you think there would one day be a bluer sky and a better hour? What did you think before you were aware?"