By and large if you want proper discourse about the book I would both avoid talking sincerely about it on these comment pages or reading reviews, as they've shown themselves unable to properly analyse the book, instead falling back on click bait ''list'' articles the aim of which is re-tweets and facebook likes, not discussion.
This is by no means an insult to the users here, it's clearly just too much of a hotbed for argument rather than proper discussion. The discussion ALWAYS becomes about the discussion and whether people are allowed their point of view in said discussion which is utterly tedious at best.
Having almost finished the novel my take is that it does have merit, and plenty of content which doesn't smack of over written alliteration. The reviews which hinge around the fact there's some clumsy lines in there are clearly going for digestible articles that don''t need to be read as much as glanced at. Those lines exist, but also aren't exceptionally frequent.
The narrative itself if quaint and charming, sort of has all the small, close knit cast of characters you come to feel affection for that you'd find maybe in a Salinger novel, mixed with the boisterous camaraderie of something like The History Boys. This is frequently interspersed with some quite obvious and maybe thinly veiled analysis on many areas they find themselves in, from Morrissey himself, or ''The Author'' as it were.
I think this structure is on purpose, as the blurb itself suggests ''Beware the novelist... intimate and indiscreet ... pompous, prophetic airs... here is the fact of fiction''. The narrative is very cutesy and cuddly at times (often the titular characters are referred to often as 'our' boys), something which is underpinned often by the writers analysis, showing us ''behind the curtain'' at times, what lies behind their motives, in larger contexts which often talk about war, nature, social class etc. In a way it often reminded me of Twin Peaks, in that we have this quaint, pulpy backdrop behind which these larger, darker themes exist (the horrific magic realism that comes into play within the book especially a certain scene within the woods with a hobo reminded me of this quite alot). I do think the disparity and breakneck way in which the narrative twists from fiction, to analysis of that fiction is on purpose and is not without merit.
Having said that, I do think the book is quite messy in this regard. Whereas something like Twin Peaks offers a pulpy, frothy drama in which the horrors and darkness of suburbia lies beneath, gives you both sides (the narrative and the larger themes), I think List of the Lost often relies too heavily on the analysis part. Too often does Morrissey tangentially go on to enthuse about a subject (something I'm not adverse to as a fan) and seemingly forget about the plot, and in that respect I can see how from an objective viewpoint it can be frustrating for someone expecting a straight narrative. For me rather than a propulsive forward facing narrative, I think Morrissey has set out to write something that more often than not moves sideways, filling in backstory and motive as opposed to movement. Not always, mind.
Another slight criticism, which as previously mentioned I believe has been blown too out of proportion, is the alliteration and over written one liners that sometimes crop up. They within themselves are not badly written, but do suggest a lifetime of being a lyricist as opposed to a writer. These lines are jarring in that the writing surrounding them is very much a different style, just as descriptive, but much more noirish, so when one of these lines crops up it does seemingly break the flow. However as mentioned I do believe that these rhyming, half rhyming, almost lymeric lines are the result of being a lyricist for the better part of his life, so I think possibly he could be forgiven for accidently (or not) doing what he does best.
Overall I think the book does have problems, and alot of the criticisms aren't without merit. However I do think the way the press and similarly certain fans have gone about it is quite vitriolic (as usual) and quite unjust. I do think the novel is much more meta, and self analytical (and in parts knowingly silly) than realistic, and certainly much more than the press will give him credit for. Bear in mind the structure and ways of writing novels must be so alien to someone who has spent so long in another form, and as such I think we can afford Morrissey's debut novel some space to be a little lop sided in its structure. Maybe it would benefit from an editor, but for someone who clearly is guarded about his work, why should he? And in that instance I can hope (and hope others hope) that he continues and that his work tightens through familiarity to writing.
I will say I think it's probably much better written than most modern fiction out there and I think by and large reviews are quite redundant in today's day and age (despite having just written one). If you like Morrissey I think personally there's more than enough of him in there for you to enjoy. If you don't know Morrissey there's still alot of great writing in there for readers who like good fiction to enjoy.
