'Autobiography' as an authentic source

T. H. Auden

Active Member
In Morrissey’s autobiography, the way he describes himself and his life, could work as a good first-hand source. But professor of English studies, Juan Pellicer, argues that when Morrissey wrote his autobiography, he was taken over by the myth, that he had created about himself, and therefore we cannot use it, as a correct source, he told me. What do you think? Could it be something like this?
 
Last edited:

The Wild Turkey

Wild T!
Turkerator
Moz got a right to tell his story how he wants.
These English professor always gotta act like they're the real experts
on a subject, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for'em.
 
M

Musician

Guest
Everything's a lie, unless you see the words forming in Morrissey's mouth (or something like this :) )
 

Ketamine Sun

HANG THEM HIGH VERONICA
.


WHEN THE WORLD WAS IN DARKNESS

AND DARKNESS WAS IGNORANCE


ALONG CAME MOZ !!!


THE LIVING MYTH








:cool:
 
In Morrissey’s autobiography, the way he describes himself and his life, could work as a good first-hand source. But professor of English studies, Juan Pellicer, argues that when Morrissey wrote his autobiography, he was taken over by the myth, that he had created about himself, and therefore we cannot use it, as a correct source. What do you think? Could it be something like this?
Is any person's autobiography more "authentic" and less subjective? If a person feels that that he or she deserves an autobiography, isn't that sufficient evidence that person isn't equipped to be objective? And why would we want objectivity from an autobiography? In fact, biographies are contentious enough, and many famous people have entire industries devoted to repackaging their biographical data. Professor Pellicer isn't at all wrong but Morrissey isn't his enemy: subjective reality is.
 
Last edited:

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
Like most things with Morrissey, he wants you to only see what he wants to share, there's a whole lot more to him as I'm sure will become evident at some point.
 

Watson

Well-Known Member
Like most things with Morrissey, he wants you to only see what he wants to share, there's a whole lot more to him as I'm sure will become evident at some point.
I think you are right...but who will tell that story? Those closest to him rarely say a word.
 

T. H. Auden

Active Member
I think you are right...but who will tell that story? Those closest to him rarely say a word.
Yes, is it because Morrissey is regarded as a complete human being with feet planted on the ground, and not some lock-jawed celebrity without soul and intelligence?
 

Watson

Well-Known Member
Yes, is it because Morrissey is regarded as a complete human being with feet planted on the ground, and not some lock-jawed celebrity without soul and intelligence?
Hmm it could be because he looks like he could punch your lights out if crossed.
 

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
I think you are right...but who will tell that story? Those closest to him rarely say a word.
I think some interesting stuff will come out at some point, those close to him mention things from time to time but mainly respect Morrissey's privacy.
 
G

General Disaray

Guest
What, some effing professor?, they all think the know better than anyone with their pycho babble, remember those that can do, those that can't teach
 

Vex

Well-Known Member
In Morrissey’s autobiography, the way he describes himself and his life, could work as a good first-hand source. But professor of English studies, Juan Pellicer, argues that when Morrissey wrote his autobiography, he was taken over by the myth, that he had created about himself, and therefore we cannot use it, as a correct source, he told me. What do you think? Could it be something like this?

I don't think he did create a myth about himself - what you're getting is the way he feels about things he remembers. So it's more about his inner life than external facts. Some things would need fleshed out, but it's a good source.

He keeps an archive so that'll make things clearer, if it reaches the public.
 
G

General Disaray

Guest
I would rather hear it from the horses mouth, even if said horse was devious, truculent and unreliable
 

Jamie

Bluff, Ardour & Assoc.
So it's more about his inner life than external facts. Some things would need fleshed out, but it's a good source.

This sums it up pretty succinctly. How he experienced it is accurate. How some events actually transpired - or what the truth is about another party he writes about - is probably subject to debate.

In my opinion, the title is a bit of a misnomer to begin with. Some parts I'd classify as memoir - which is typically more stylistic than a rehashing of facts - and much of the later part of the book is a sort of travelogue with a timeline that skews from a linear chronology.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
I think some interesting stuff will come out at some point, those close to him mention things from time to time but mainly respect Morrissey's privacy.
They do that because they are required to sign an NDA if they want to work with him, and that's why nothing has ever come out from any of his collaborators. The reason I know this is because Boz said this in the early to mid 2000s.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
All autobiographies are at least partially fiction. No one is ever completely honest. As soon as they write, they want to present a certain side of themselves to the audience, either consciously or subconsciously. At a bare minimum, they will exaggerate and gloss up a factual occurrence so that it reads better, the same way people tidy up messy real-life happenstances into anecdotes that are amusing or interesting. Morrissey will have massaged the facts, compressed timelines, altered things here and there - either because he's self-mythologizing, has an axe to grind, or just because it reads better. Never trust an author, especially when it comes to the form of autobiography.
 

Watson

Well-Known Member
They do that because they are required to sign an NDA if they want to work with him, and that's why nothing has ever come out from any of his collaborators. The reason I know this is because Boz said this in the early to mid 2000s.
Really? Boz said this?

FWD - any truth to this assertion, or is it just Peter being Peter? Yours is the only voice I trust.
 

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
Really? Boz said this?

FWD - any truth to this assertion, or is it just Peter being Peter? Yours is the only voice I trust.
Not going there!
Any view I may have wouldn't necessarily negate Peter's (although the quote would help).
From personal experience, I've had quite a few drinks with various band members in my time and they've been quite 'accidentally' indiscreet with information relating to Morrissey. That said (and a point worth mentioning), I didn't rush online and disclose any tidbits I'd picked up probably from a sense of loyalty towards said people. That didn't require anything signed and could go some way to explain why they behave the way they do.
Also worth noting: the general use of the term non-disclosure agreement on this site is in an assumptive manner and doesn't relate to any hard evidence.
Regards,
FWD.
 
Tags
autobiography
Top Bottom