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:

• MORRISSEY’S GAY RELATIONSHIP REPORTEDLY EDITED OUT OF US COPIES OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY - FACT Magazine. Link posted by wemissumoz.
• Morrissey - Morrissey's Male Lover Edited From U.s. Book Release - WENN / ContactMusic.com
• 5 Intimate Lines Cut From U.S. Version of Morrissey's Book - Fuse. Link posted by an anonymous person.
• Morrissey's Intimate Relationship With Another Man Reportedly Removed From U.S. 'Autobiography' - Huffington Post. Link from Lee.
• Morrissey’s Relationship With Jake Walters Omitted From American Release & British Hardcover Editions of His Autobiography - 2020k. Link posted by 2020k.

 

[Anonymous]

WHY ARE MEN AFRAID OF INTIMACY AND REJECTION

Some men grow up without love and are afraid. They may not have had a good model for how to be in a loving, committed, intimate relationship.

And the BIG thing I uncovered is that men feel unworthy at their core. They feel unlovable. And if they feel unlovable, do you think they want a woman they really like to see that? No way! So when things get too close they will pull back or sabotage.

And often the reason the men I coach feel unworthy and unlovable has to do with one big unspoken thing: SHAME -- the unspoken secret.

John Bradshaw, in his book “Healing the Shame that Binds You,” defines shame as “feeling defective and flawed.” And if you think or feel you are defective and flawed, there is no possibility for repair.

What are some typical circumstances that cause a man to feel shame?

Maybe his father or mother criticized him at a crucial age; maybe he was told he was stupid or ugly; maybe his father was very successful and he never felt he could measure up; maybe he was spanked or yelled at in front of other kids when he misbehaved; or he had a learning disability. Most of us have experiences in our past that caused us to feel ashamed.

And once that shame ball gets rolling it’s hard to stop. Men and women hide their feelings of shame and often isolate themselves or choose other behaviors that will guarantee they don’t get involved in intimate relationships.

Shame is a secret. We don’t talk about feeling ashamed. We just carry it with us, secretly.

And here’s another piece of information that John Bradshaw shared in his book “Healing the Shame that Binds You”: rejection, to people with shame, feels like annihilation. Annihilate means “to destroy completely.” Men can feel like they will be annihilated, completely destroyed if they get rejected. So there is no way, with that feeling, they are going to risk rejection and get annihilated.

 

[Chip]

I don't think his comment was homophobic. He did not say all gays are misogynists. And he did not say that heterosexual men are exempt.

I think anything Johnny says is being unfairly and erroneously sent through your He Hates Moz filter. Reread what he wrote. Be open minded. Some gays do hate women. Some straights do as well. It was not homophobic.

Meh. It's hard not to read it as anything else. I don't doubt there are gay men who are misogynistic--there's a deeply misogynistic undercurrent to our culture and a lot of people, including many women, have internalized and reproduce it in their speech, choice of words, etc.

But to imply people are misogynistic because they are gay or there is some link between male homosexuality and misogyny is kind of implicitly homophobic. Even if he doesn't mean all gay men.

I mean try switching those statements around with a racial/ethnic group and maybe change misogyny to another negative attribute and tell me how it reads. Nonetheless the second post about how he knows a couple of "gay guys, both major f*** ups." Just switch the word gay to black or Muslim or Jewish or any of those things and read that post to yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

WHY ARE MEN AFRAID OF INTIMACY AND REJECTION

Some men grow up without love and are afraid. They may not have had a good model for how to be in a loving, committed, intimate relationship.

And the BIG thing I uncovered is that men feel unworthy at their core. They feel unlovable. And if they feel unlovable, do you think they want a woman they really like to see that? No way! So when things get too close they will pull back or sabotage.

And often the reason the men I coach feel unworthy and unlovable has to do with one big unspoken thing: SHAME -- the unspoken secret.

John Bradshaw, in his book “Healing the Shame that Binds You,” defines shame as “feeling defective and flawed.” And if you think or feel you are defective and flawed, there is no possibility for repair.

What are some typical circumstances that cause a man to feel shame?

Maybe his father or mother criticized him at a crucial age; maybe he was told he was stupid or ugly; maybe his father was very successful and he never felt he could measure up; maybe he was spanked or yelled at in front of other kids when he misbehaved; or he had a learning disability. Most of us have experiences in our past that caused us to feel ashamed.

And once that shame ball gets rolling it’s hard to stop. Men and women hide their feelings of shame and often isolate themselves or choose other behaviors that will guarantee they don’t get involved in intimate relationships.

Shame is a secret. We don’t talk about feeling ashamed. We just carry it with us, secretly.

And here’s another piece of information that John Bradshaw shared in his book “Healing the Shame that Binds You”: rejection, to people with shame, feels like annihilation. Annihilate means “to destroy completely.” Men can feel like they will be annihilated, completely destroyed if they get rejected. So there is no way, with that feeling, they are going to risk rejection and get annihilated.

So, men who never got love in childhood are doomed to never be loved as adults, how sad, they are taxed to have more courage than the rest I think?

 

[This charming man.]

Just started reading it and how dare he say "it was always mother and never the ghastly Manchester 'mam'. Snobbish prick has forgotten his roots. Although he purports to be Mancunian he was actually born outside of Manchester. Otherwise a very witty and poetic read.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Meh. It's hard not to read it as anything else. I don't doubt there are gay men who are misogynistic--there's a deeply misogynistic undercurrent to our culture and a lot of people, including many women, have internalized and reproduce it in their speech, choice of words, etc.

But to imply people are misogynistic because they are gay or there is some link between male homosexuality and misogyny is kind of implicitly homophobic. Even if he doesn't mean all gay men.

So let me get this - if you'll forgive the choice of word - straight. You accept some homosexuals are misogynists, but you object to me saying so, based on your personal opinion (your use of the word "imply") that I meant something else? Is that it? That must come in useful.

I'm pretty sure that if I wanted to write "all homosexuals are misogynists" I could have managed it, but as I didn't write that it seems to me you are left with pretending I did.

I mean try switching those statements around with a racial/ethnic group and maybe change misogyny to another negative attribute and tell me how it reads. Nonetheless the second post about how he knows a couple of "gay guys, both major f*** ups." Just switch the word gay to black or Muslim or Jewish or any of those things and read that post to yourself.

Or alternatively, don't switch the word and take it that I wrote what I meant to write. This is one of the famous tactics of the dying political correctness lobby. They find something to take faux offence to and extrapolate into something they find even worse. "Ah, yes, but imagine if he'd said..." That might work for you with others, but to me it is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

There seems to be a small section of the Guardian/Huffington Post crowd who will excuse any behaviour based on the skin colour, religion, or sexual orientation of the miscreant. It's patronising, hand-wringing, liberal rubbish. People are getting wise to this so-called search for equality. Many are starting to see it now as anything but.

 

[Anonymous]

I know a couple of gay guys, both major f*** ups. One, a Spanish architect living in London, who gets up in the morning and guzzles two large glasses of wine before work, and his unemployed boyfriend, a German ketamin addict, who secretly hires rent boys on his credit card while bf is at work and is so close to the huge credit limit he doesn't know how he's going to survive. They hate each other only slightly less than they hate themselves, but are manacled together by the extortionate London housing market. They both loathe attractive women, and it isn't unusual in their community, they tell me.

I met them through a very, very pretty female friend who fluctuates between a size 12 and 14 dress size. They often tell her she's a fat bitch, but fortunately for them not yet within my hearing.

I think they probably hate themselves indeed and are insecure in their relationship to be this aggressive.

There are lovely gay blokes who are lovely to women. Sadly I just met one, and just on the internet. That guy would be a darling to me IRL I'm sure, because it's his personality, and also because he is in a long-term, stable and loving relationship with another man.

I met two gay couples IRL and in both instances I observed the same pattern.
Within seconds of being introduced to me, the dominant one (sorry for the zoology term) took me on, and said all kinds of outlandish/ provocative/ slightly cruel things to me, probably to see how I would react. With no reason other than me being female, friendly and unaccompanied by a large masculine entity that could punch them in the face for being rude.
Meanwhile, their partner observe the exchange, looking embarrassed and sad like a long-suffering spouse, or smiling indulgently, like a mother watching her kid play.
The first time, with the first couple, I was unprepared, and was bemused by the whole thing. I never got used to this guy, so each time we met he tested me. If I didn't react he became more and more provocative. He was young, very attractive and masculine-looking and apparently had had a girlfriend in the past. I kept repeating to myself he was gay because I analyzed his behaviour as clumsy aggressive flirting. Flirting with danger, I suppose.
The second couple looked more stable, but one of the guys was a showman (it was both his job and his main personality trait). After a couple of minutes he declared to the whole room I was shaggable (in the arse.) and kept talking about me in the 3rd person while I was standing before him. Luckily by then I knew how to react to that, so I smiled at him, joked with him, asked him about his job, and at the end of the evening he apparently declared to the woman who invited them I was adorable. Thank God. I wasn't attracted physically this time and I never saw him again, lol.

So yeah, in my experience some women have to put up with a lot of shit from some gay men. It sucks to display any kind of aggressivity (in whatever form - "humour"/ actual abuse/ etc) towards something you supposedly gave up on. You only invite despise or hatred back. Not all women have the patience of saintly fag-hags. Which is a fairly normal reaction to me. Why should we put up with that shit? It only comes from insecurity and it's only attention-seeking antics. Look, if I want drama, I go to the theater.

That's why I'd like Morrissey to be in a stable, long term loving relationship with a man now. As a rule, people should focus on the ones they want, can have and love, and stop bothering anyone else when they obviously don't want to have anything to do with them.

Otherwise they'll never be a proud and happy gay person, with love for everyone, like my internet buddy is.

Obviously our Main Man Mozza here isn't quite there yet... He's running away from it, as ever. Runs quite fast, for an older dude...

 

[Anonymous]

So let me get this - if you'll forgive the choice of word - straight. You accept some homosexuals are misogynists, but you object to me saying so, based on your personal opinion (your use of the word "imply") that I meant something else? Is that it? That must come in useful.

I'm pretty sure that if I wanted to write "all homosexuals are misogynists" I could have managed it, but as I didn't write that it seems to me you are left with pretending I did.



Or alternatively, don't switch the word and take it that I wrote what I meant to write. This is one of the famous tactics of the dying political correctness lobby. They find something to take faux offence to and extrapolate into something they find even worse. "Ah, yes, but imagine if he'd said..." That might work for you with others, but to me it is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

There seems to be a small section of the Guardian/Huffington Post crowd who will excuse any behaviour based on the skin colour, religion, or sexual orientation of the miscreant. It's patronising, hand-wringing, liberal rubbish. People are getting wise to this so-called search for equality. Many are starting to see it now as anything but.

What you said assumes that homosexuals have issues with women and the entire tone suggested that this was something you might take for granted. You followed it up with a random post about two individuals who you seem to use as an example of the typical homosexual.

In another post you said someone had been missing and implied it might be because they were off having gay sex. You could not be more blatantly homophobic if you wrote "I literally fear gay people."
Fortunately, it's only a discussion on a fansite and you aren't actually changing anyone's mind. You've been supported by our resident alliance maker (and breaker) because you said something nice about her but those without an agenda can see you possibly more clearly than you see yourself if you really believe what you're writing.

 

[realitybites]

What you said assumes that homosexuals have issues with women and the entire tone suggested that this was something you might take for granted. You followed it up with a random post about two individuals who you seem to use as an example of the typical homosexual.

In another post you said someone had been missing and implied it might be because they were off having gay sex. You could not be more blatantly homophobic if you wrote "I literally fear gay people."
Fortunately, it's only a discussion on a fansite and you aren't actually changing anyone's mind. You've been supported by our resident alliance maker (and breaker) because you said something nice about her but those without an agenda can see you possibly more clearly than you see yourself if you really believe what you're writing.

I have been friends with Johnny for quite a while now. My so called recent alliance is not recent at all. Has nothing to do with him paying me a compliment. If you were up to speed you would see that my visible support for him preceded his remark about me. If you are going to put out a claim at least have the facts straight.

Btw, I have no agenda. I am friendly with people I like. People I find to be intelligent, witty, funny, kind. If alliances look like they are shifting, did you ever consider that maybe the others are the ones who have changed the way they interact with me? I could give a few examples, but is that really necessary? There are people in this forum that I adore. But you might not see this admiration being displayed publicly. I have people drop me from their friend's lists because they don't like the things I say. The ones who stick with me, are the people I care about. The ones that know that even if things get heated, controversial, and our opinions differ greatly, we are still civil, even friendly with one another. Playcat, is a great example of this. She and I don't agree on many things about Moz. She is much more tolerant, supportive, and loyal than I. But she knows that my opinions don't make me evil or a bad person. We have fun on the forum and get along because we embrace our commonalities instead of focusing on our differences. I give her credit for this. She lets things roll off her back and doesn't take this place too seriously.

 

[Anonymous]

Too true! Moz has a life unlike many on here that use this site as a way of expressing deep rooted anger issues.

I should now like to bring Mr Peter Hogg to the witness stand please !!!!


Benny-the-Butcher

 

[realitybites]

Too true! Moz has a life unlike many on here that use this site as a way of expressing deep rooted anger issues.

Yeah, Moz uses the press to vent instead.

 

[Anonymous]

I should now like to bring Mr Peter Hogg to the witness stand please !!!!


Benny-the-Butcher

Yes give him a good "Hog roasting" and lets get to the "bottom" of it Make mince meat out of him Benny.


Q

 

[Chip]

So let me get this - if you'll forgive the choice of word - straight. You accept some homosexuals are misogynists, but you object to me saying so, based on your personal opinion (your use of the word "imply") that I meant something else? Is that it? That must come in useful.

I'm pretty sure that if I wanted to write "all homosexuals are misogynists" I could have managed it, but as I didn't write that it seems to me you are left with pretending I did.



Or alternatively, don't switch the word and take it that I wrote what I meant to write. This is one of the famous tactics of the dying political correctness lobby. They find something to take faux offence to and extrapolate into something they find even worse. "Ah, yes, but imagine if he'd said..." That might work for you with others, but to me it is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

There seems to be a small section of the Guardian/Huffington Post crowd who will excuse any behaviour based on the skin colour, religion, or sexual orientation of the miscreant. It's patronising, hand-wringing, liberal rubbish. People are getting wise to this so-called search for equality. Many are starting to see it now as anything but.

You did not say some homosexuals were misogynists. You said

Morrissey plainly has issues with women, as a lot of homosexuals do. Usually it is a sign of their own psychological issues in trying to deal with their self-loathing.

You are drawing a connection between being homosexual and being misogynistic since it stems from psychological issues that are somehow unique to being homosexual. You than followed this up with a random story about two gay men you allegedly knew (I bet you have a lot of black friends too!) which started with a list of random description of unrelated negative traits (unemployed, addicted to ketamine, BAD CREDIT!) followed up with how they loathe attractive woman which isn't unusual in "their community."

Once again this isn't just saying there are gay men who misogynists, because there are misogynists in every group of people. Misogyny is common amongst gay men and it is because of psychological issues that stem from their own sexual orientation. It doesn't matter that you don't think this is true of all gay men it's still homophobic because you are drawing a connection between being gay and hating women.

And as far me changing your words to find something you didn't say that would be more offensive that wasn't the point of my statement. My point was that if someone said "Person X hates woman, as do many black people. It has to do with their psychological issues and their self-loathing" and then when called out on their racism told a weird story about how they knew two black people, one of which was unemployed and addicted to drugs, and they both hated attractive women I suspect some people who don't think your statement is homophobic would think that this statement would be racist. I doubt you would be one of them since I am certain you are if nothing else consistent.

As far as your final comment, I am not in anyway implying that somebody who displays misogynistic and is gay should be excused. Misogyny is repulsive and individuals who engage in it should be called out. That has zero to do with what you said or the reactions you've gotten. Though I suspect this is probably lost on you.

- - - Updated - - -

What you said assumes that homosexuals have issues with women and the entire tone suggested that this was something you might take for granted. You followed it up with a random post about two individuals who you seem to use as an example of the typical homosexual.

In another post you said someone had been missing and implied it might be because they were off having gay sex. You could not be more blatantly homophobic if you wrote "I literally fear gay people."
Fortunately, it's only a discussion on a fansite and you aren't actually changing anyone's mind. You've been supported by our resident alliance maker (and breaker) because you said something nice about her but those without an agenda can see you possibly more clearly than you see yourself if you really believe what you're writing.

That is a perfect description of Johnny's comments and what's wrong with them.

 

[Anonymous]

I should now like to bring Mr Peter Hogg to the witness stand please !!!!


Benny-the-Butcher

Read in the voice of a Mr Blackadder (roll the r sound and emphasise the p at the end) :- "Mr Peter Hogg also known as 'rent-a-chap'! "

Bald Rick

 

[Kalmsa]

So he removed some of the best passages of the book to appease a group of bigots in the US who would never have bought his book anyway...

 

[Anonymous]

The trouble with this Morrissey-is-gay thesis is that it seems to rely on dismissing Tina as a "token" relationship. I've heard of sham relationships and pretend relationships and relationships entered into because of social pressure. But what's the idea in this case? Is Morrissey supposed to have hooked up with Tina in order to restore balance to the universe or something?

 

[realitybites]

So he removed some of the best passages of the book to appease a group of bigots in the US who would never have bought his book anyway...

I don't think anyone in this thread made this claim. Have you read the posts?

 

[CrystalGeezer]

I don't think anyone in this thread made this claim. Have you read the posts?

I think he was talking about the issue of the editing, NOT THE VARIOUS PERSONALITIES ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. Who's losing the plot now?

 

[Chip]

I think he was talking about the issue of the editing, NOT THE VARIOUS PERSONALITIES ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. Who's losing the plot now?

This thread had a plot?

Good God I am truly lost.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

This thread had a plot?

Good God I am truly lost.

Well, it was about Morrissey. Not about the people posting about Morrissey, that's my point.

 

[realitybites]

This thread had a plot?

Good God I am truly lost.

No, there is no plot. Just Geezer picking another fight with yours truly... grasping at straws in order to find any leverage. She can't start her day without first having a good sparring match.

The poster assumed people think the edits are due to the publisher fearing the book would not be well-received in a conservative (bigoted) American market. I don't think anyone is claiming this is the reason for the edits--certainly that has not what has been argued in this thread. This was what my reply to him was about. Not her delusional, twisted interpretation.