Simon Armitage's Anti-Morrissey Agenda

[Media Whore]

While I always approve of découpage, it'd be nice if you actually responded to any of the arguments I brought up in the post that you quoted. If you have a relevent rejoinder I'd like to hear it.

I'm always nice so I will respond to your arguments, I'll just make my dots a little closer together shall I?

My response is that this is an article in The Guardian. Quite a left wing paper, quite PC and unlikely to do a Hello style article.

From their editorial guidelines

""A newspaper's primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted."

The most important currency of the Guardian is trust. This is as true today as when CP Scott marked the centenary of the founding of the paper with his famous essay on journalism in 1921. "

To omit things such as the devious line, or to stay silent on Armitge's very personal reflection that one should never meet their heroes, to only speak of the "unrivalled body of work" or his "wit, articulacy and all-round smartness" is to be a journalist worthy of blogger.com.

Armitage owes it to the Guardian readership to paint with colours other than pink, even if he doesn't use the full set. To do so makes him a so-so journalist not a person who is planning to make a suit out of Morrissey's skin. This is the problem; there is a line between professionalism and personal attack. This falls well short of anti-Morrissey agenda.

Let's face it, it could have been worse. He could have retold the story of when head met bottle. Or the night he informed a fan he could love him outside but only after he went and f***ed himself.

 

[Media Whore]

But this is a fluff piece. They sent fanboy Simon Armitage to meet his hero Morrissey, and the article we get is about that, which is really not very interesting. Driving license? Really? This isn't Paris Review "Writers At Work"-caliber stuff, is it?

Welllll, yes, you can make that argument which is why I said earlier that Armitage has somehow managed to offend both sides of this equation. It appears that regardless of what, why, when, where, who and how he wrote this he was always bound to be caught by the scruff of the neck with at least one person wanting to tug at the dermis that covers him.

 

[Raised on prisoner's aid]

Throughout the article it seems apparent that Simon Armitage f***ing hates Morrissey. Simon characterizes Morrissey as decrepit and self-absorbed to the point of delusion. He dismisses Morrissey's lyrical talents; "in fact, Morrissey isn't a poet. He's a very witty emailer," then goes on to equate Morrissey's career with the Smiths to his own garage band. Is Armitage threatened? I don't know, take a look at his poetry. http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-golden-toddy/

You're an idiot. As others have shown Armitage is actually a huge fan, and is simply providing an accurate account of his interview. Wouldn't you be a bit annoyed if your hero treated you like dirt? He has no agenda whatsoever. (And he's actually quite a good poet himself)

 

[Queeninacoma]

One thing I did notice is that although he put the quote in context he didn't talk about how it came about. In fact if I remember rightly it was just one of a list of things Moz said and wasn't singled out as anything other than 'shocking'

 

[Tito]

The whole world's against morrissey don't hurt my morrissey

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Adam wrote a poignant open letter to the Guardian questioning Armitage's portrayal of Morrissey. I saw it on facebook, I hope I'm not stepping on any toes posting it here. It was thoughtfully written.

To the editors and staff of The Guardian,



The alleged poet Simon Armitage wrote:



The tone of voice reminds me of a recent email he posted to a [Morrissey] website, a tender and poignant citation for a girl who wasn't much more than a regular face in the crowd at his concerts, but whose devotion and death had clearly touched him. In fact, he talks movingly about all his fans, as if they were blood relatives, or even something more intimate.[...] I can't understand how a man who apparently shuns emotional involvement and physical proximity of any kind can write with such passion and desire. If it isn't personal, is he simply making it all up?



(http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/03/morrissey-simon-armitage-interview)



First of all, the citation was for a woman, not a girl. She was a nurse. She was one the ten people on this planet whom I am most happy to have known. She was much more than a face in the crowd; she was a friend to many of us who span the globe, and frequently amused Morrissey with her cute gifts and witty comments from the front audience row.



She also happened to be Chinese-American.



She, too, abhorred the typical treatment of animals in China. We had discussed these abuses — skinning still-living dogs and cats, amongst a roll call of horrors that animals suffer in modern China — and she believed that these horrors are on par with the human rights abuses that the thuggish Chinese government perpetrates at any given moment. There is no way on Earth that Morrissey considered her to be part of a subspecies, based solely on her birth heritage.



The atrocities exacted upon animals and people in China are subhuman acts. Much like Canada's annual slaughter (using spiked clubs) of baby seals for the fur industry, China's tortuous conduct is something that all caring, thoughtful human beings should denounce. When we are apathetic to the suffering of animals, creatures who have no voice, we are behaving in a less-than-human manner. China's barbaric treatment of animals typifies a culture that does not belong in the modern human species.



Armitage's dismissive and ignorant commentary towards a moment of true compassion was as offensive to us, the broader family of "fans", as his obvious manufactured racial controversy. Perhaps, rather than trying to paint a caring and courageous, outspoken man as a racist, The Guardian should have a look at the savagery that is commonplace in "modern" China. Readers may then conclude whether this behaviour is worthy of the zoological title Homo sapiens.



Regards,

Adam May,

Atlanta, GA

 

[DAVIE]

....who are all these new people??? *screams and smashes through a window*

 

[troubleluvsme]

"Anti-Morrissey Agenda"

The phrase kind of makes me LOL.

 

[DAVIE]

"Anti-Morrissey Agenda"

The phrase kind of makes me LOL.

Methinks it's some sort of Julius Caesar type cult threatening to over-power Morrissey!

 

[troubleluvsme]

Methinks it's some sort of Julius Caesar type cult threatening to over-power Morrissey!

too funny.
It will never happen. We're a force to reckon with.

 

[DAVIE]

God help them! It'll be a bloody war film by when the argument ends!

 

[goinghome]

Adam wrote a poignant open letter to the Guardian questioning Armitage's portrayal of Morrissey. I saw it on facebook, I hope I'm not stepping on any toes posting it here. It was thoughtfully written.

This is a very sincere strong response. All that could have been added is a request that Mr Armitage might furnish us with the rest of the interview.

 

[smiler]

Adam wrote a poignant open letter to the Guardian questioning Armitage's portrayal of Morrissey. I saw it on facebook, I hope I'm not stepping on any toes posting it here. It was thoughtfully written.

Intersting letter but the point is this - as the letter says "There is no way on Earth that Morrissey considered her to be part of a subspecies, based solely on her birth heritage."

But thats exactly what he said! - he said after watching that horrific footage (of animal cruelty by chinese people) you (and i assume he) can't help but feel that the chinese are a subspecies and therefore (based solely on her birth heritage) she is part of that (cruel) subspecies

he said "the chinese" not "the chinese - expect the ones i know and like - or the ones who don't support animal cruelty" - so like it or not she is part of his subspecies, genetically evolved i assume with less "feeling"

The shockingness of the video does not excuse or provoke the racism

if you are arguing that he didn't mean it then thats one thing - but the quote itself is very clear and difficult to defend

and just because the quote isn't as bad as the cruelty on the video doesn't make it okay

 

[Clarksville]

Ludicrous statement Armitage is obviously one of us.

Yeah, this rings true with me. I enjoyed the article and I thought it was kind of moving in a way, because it was so honest about the way Armitage felt rejected. And you don't get that very often. (Even if it was tongue in cheek, you could tell there was a truth behind it.)

And I thought the whole thing was about the difficulty of an artist being around any human being but the subtext was that that is true especially of other artists, where all the problems are multiplied. But then of course only another artist would do, which is the irony.

It was almost tragic, somehow. Like seeing a coulple of magnets put the wrong way around. Because Armitage went there bearing a kind of love, but there coudln't have been any other resolution, anyway. That's what it's like with fan stuff. that's how it works. It's love on one side but on the other, it's a wearing thing. And that's always going to end up a bit tragic.

(I did think it was a shame that Armitage took offence at the question about what he makes, because most people worry about what a poet lives on and I don't think the question was unsympathetic. I dont think the question about the driving licence was, either. They were as bad as each other, in a way. But that, of course, is what I liked about it. Because when it comes down to it, I like people to be complicated.)

(I suppose I am also just about cynical enough to think that Armitage went there with love in one hand and the knife to sacrifice his hero in the other, for the sake of the story. But I don't know. We're not in a position to see anything clearly, are we? A newspaper is not the place for the whole truth any more than the internet is.)

 

[Clarksville]

(Is it possible to be weedy and fat at the same time?)

(Just wondered.)

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Yeah, this rings true with me. I enjoyed the article and I thought it was kind of moving in a way, because it was so honest about the way Armitage felt rejected. And you don't get that very often. (Even if it was tongue in cheek, you could tell there was a truth behind it.)

And I thought the whole thing was about the difficulty of an artist being around any human being but the subtext was that that is true especially of other artists, where all the problems are multiplied. But then of course only another artist would do, which is the irony.

It was almost tragic, somehow. Like seeing a coulple of magnets put the wrong way around. Because Armitage went there bearing a kind of love, but there coudln't have been any other resolution, anyway. That's what it's like with fan stuff. that's how it works. It's love on one side but on the other, it's a wearing thing. And that's always going to end up a bit tragic.

(I did think it was a shame that Armitage took offence at the question about what he makes, because most people worry about what a poet lives on and I don't think the question was unsympathetic. I dont think the question about the driving licence was, either. They were as bad as each other, in a way. But that, of course, is what I liked about it. Because when it comes down to it, I like people to be complicated.)

(I suppose I am also just about cynical enough to think that Armitage went there with love in one hand and the knife to sacrifice his hero in the other, for the sake of the story. But I don't know. We're not in a position to see anything clearly, are we? A newspaper is not the place for the whole truth any more than the internet is.)

 

[Clarksville]

Sorry. It's not always tragic. I'm almost certain that it's not always tragic.