"Johnny Marr review: Where Morrissey failed, his Smiths bandmate scores a clear win" by Bernard Zuel

Johnny Marr review: Where Morrissey failed, his Smiths bandmate scores a clear win (4/5 stars) - The Sydney Morning Herald
by Bernard Zuel

Excerpt:

Comparisons are odious, no doubt, and a cheap shot one way or another. But it's too hard to ignore, two months after Morrissey – Johnny Marr's partner in the Smiths and his tetchy rival in the 30 years since – played in these parts.

Both have far longer solo careers than their brief, if storied, time in that great Manchester band of the 1980s, yet never is a word written about them without reference to the Smiths, often suggesting that no matter how good their subsequent work is, it will never match what they did then.

Of course, that's unfair and not automatically right, as the dull Smiths' songs What She Said and Meat Is Murder proved in May. And, of course, that's never going to change.

But if it is true that Morrissey and Marr unfairly carry the weight of those six years of oft-brilliant songwriting and recording, it's also true both are lifted by the deep emotional legacy of that band. Put it this way, at both shows, while the best of their solo years earn strong cheers, any moments of the Smiths are greeted with roof-rattling roars of recognition, connection and satisfaction.

The test is how do they build around it and how do they bring us to the "best of the rest"?

Morrissey, a stage natural, this year failed where he had succeeded in 2012, resting on his charisma and loading the set with the fruits of a dull recent record.

Marr, an inferior singer, by contrast built on the explosions of joy that were his 2014 Australian shows, helped not just by a better choice of Smiths songs (the thrill of a long unheard The Headmaster Ritual; the glorious pleasures of There Is a Light That Never Goes Out) and a better grade of non-Smiths material, but a better grasp of how to enjoy the moment.

---

Related item:

• "Morrissey review: Sometimes the world really is full of crushing bores" by Bernard Zuel - The Sydney Morning Herald (from original thread posted by realitybites)

 

[Anonymous]

Morrissey? Marr?
"I can have both - there's no need to choose."

 

[Amy]

It's not. What a preposterous thing to say.

Preposterous? What?

Comparing murdered victims of a gun massacre to chickens used by KFC is preposterous.
Suggesting that meat-eating is on a moral level with paedophilia, child abuse and the Holocaust is preposterous.
Saying "You can't help but think that the Chinese are a subspecies" is preposterous.

Point out that the fading career of an unsigned 56 year old singer - who has spent large portions of the last decade without a recording contract, experienced frequent illness and one tour cancellation after another - could be over, is not preposterous.

 

[marred]

Preposterous? What?

Comparing murdered victims of a gun massacre to chickens used by KFC is preposterous.
Suggesting that meat-eating is on a moral level with paedophilia, child abuse and the Holocaust is preposterous.
Saying "You can't help but think that the Chinese are a subspecies" is preposterous.

Point out that the fading career of an unsigned 56 year old singer - who has spent large portions of the last decade without a recording contract, experienced frequent illness and one tour cancellation after another - could be over, is not preposterous.

Then add to that you coming to this site for what reason?

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Then add to that you coming to this site for what reason?

Free speech?

 

[Anonymous]

Free speech?

free speech isnt a reason for coming to a specific site. he released a number two record in the charts, for what little is left to say about the charts, and toured to huge places and large crowds. i can think of some artists who have record contracts and still sold way less records and played to far less people than he did in the last year or two. are they done. i can think of at least one whom people here like that did play to less people and sold less records. is he done

 

[Anaesthesine]

Preposterous? What?

Comparing murdered victims of a gun massacre to chickens used by KFC is preposterous.
Suggesting that meat-eating is on a moral level with paedophilia, child abuse and the Holocaust is preposterous.
Saying "You can't help but think that the Chinese are a subspecies" is preposterous.

Morrissey has said may preposterous things, but I agree with him on the chid abuse front. Many animals are sexually abused before they are killed for meat. There are videos online; I won't link to them, but those of you who think that repeatedly raping a helpless, terrified animal that is about to be slaughtered is not an immoral act are turning a blind eye to an atrocity. Meat production on an industrial scale is sexually abusive mass slaughter, and it affects billions of animals every year.

Animals aren't human children, it's true, but they feel happiness, they know love, comfort, and joy. They also feel pain, know terror, and suffer as much as we do. There must be a word for the continuous rape, dismemberment, vivisection, culling, starvation, tearing apart of the mother/infant bond, and brutal killing that humans inflict on billions of animals every moment of every day. If "holocaust" is too charged a word for many (although some Jewish WWII survivors think it accurate), then let's come up with something else - something less preposterous.

Here's a fairly moderate link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/does-eating-meat-support-_b_773166.html

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Morrissey has said may preposterous things, but I agree with him on the chid abuse front. Many animals are sexually abused before they are killed for meat. There are videos online; I won't link to them, but those of you who think that repeatedly raping a helpless, terrified animal that is about to be slaughtered is not an immoral act are turning a blind eye to an atrocity. Meat production on an industrial scale is sexually abusive mass slaughter, and it affects billions of animals every year.

Animals aren't human children, it's true, but they feel happiness, they know love, comfort, and joy. They also feel pain, know terror, and suffer as much as we do. There must be a word for the continuous rape, dismemberment, vivisection, culling, starvation, tearing apart of the mother/infant bond, and brutal killing that humans inflict on billions of animals every moment of every day. If "holocaust" is too charged a word for many (although some Jewish WWII survivors think it accurate), then let's come up with something else - something less preposterous.

Here's a fairly moderate link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/does-eating-meat-support-_b_773166.html

Of course the meat industry is an affront, but it will diminish naturally as food technology advances. I think it will be an increasing moral issue but while parts of the world continue their slow development out of poverty meat protein is required to support the population. None of us in the advanced nations would be here if not for the husbandry of animals, and while our dependence on food from animals could be reduced tomorrow for most of the world that is not the case.

Advances in technology will solve all of these problems, including the currently necessary tragedy of medical experimentation and vivisection. It will take another century or two perhaps. When it does our descendants will do what descendants always do: Look back on us as if we were savages, while not appreciating fully that we did the best with what we had.

These things do tend to move very quickly once a better or cheaper alternative is found. Look at the way our relationship with the horse has changed in such a very short period. If I went back even a century and walked into town it would have resembled a horse shit minefield. Now I can't remember the last time I saw a real live horse.

In the meantime, and although I believe Morrissey is on the right side of the moral argument and on the right side of history, I think his statements on these issues actually harm his argument. Britain, having not fully come to terms with the not entirely surprising news that the BBC was infested with sexual deviants, is on the edge of discovering the same has been true at the highest levels of government for decades. While some might believe there is a connection between paedophilia and the treatment of animals it might not be the most opportune time to say so, unless they wish to close down the argument entirely.

 

[Anonymous]

Morrissey has said may preposterous things, but I agree with him on the chid abuse front. Many animals are sexually abused before they are killed for meat. There are videos online; I won't link to them, but those of you who think that repeatedly raping a helpless, terrified animal that is about to be slaughtered is not an immoral act are turning a blind eye to an atrocity. Meat production on an industrial scale is sexually abusive mass slaughter, and it affects billions of animals every year.

Animals aren't human children, it's true, but they feel happiness, they know love, comfort, and joy. They also feel pain, know terror, and suffer as much as we do. There must be a word for the continuous rape, dismemberment, vivisection, culling, starvation, tearing apart of the mother/infant bond, and brutal killing that humans inflict on billions of animals every moment of every day. If "holocaust" is too charged a word for many (although some Jewish WWII survivors think it accurate), then let's come up with something else - something less preposterous.

Here's a fairly moderate link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/does-eating-meat-support-_b_773166.html

I agree with Moz on this front as well, Anaesthesine. That people bitch about (what they consider) inelegant phrasing, rather than the heinous acts committed against animals, is mind-blowing.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Of course the meat industry is an affront, but it will diminish naturally as food technology advances. I think it will be an increasing moral issue but while parts of the world continue their slow development out of poverty meat protein is required to support the population. None of us in the advanced nations would be here if not for the husbandry of animals, and while our dependence on food from animals could be reduced tomorrow for most of the world that is not the case.

Advances in technology will solve all of these problems, including the currently necessary tragedy of medical experimentation and vivisection. It will take another century or two perhaps. When it does our descendants will do what descendants always do: Look back on us as if we were savages, while not appreciating fully that we did the best with what we had.

These things do tend to move very quickly once a better or cheaper alternative is found. Look at the way our relationship with the horse has changed in such a very short period. If I went back even a century and walked into town it would have resembled a horse shit minefield. Now I can't remember the last time I saw a real live horse.

This is (for the most part) true. Lab-grown meat is now a reality (although it seems to need a bit more work). I would not put too much trust in either technology or the "free" market however; the unthinkable horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example, went on for five centuries until there was sufficient moral evolution, public outcry and political revolution (in Haiti and beyond) to make such means of production both morally indefensible and financially less desirable. We now need that kind of outrage focussed on factory farming (which hurts not just animals, but the environment). The problem is that people find it "upsetting" to think about, and here in the US, through so-called "ag-gag" laws, it is a crime in many places to record and report on the sexual and physical abuse of animals.

So: it would be nice to wait a few centuries for all the horror to end but, when faced with such monumental moral and legal injustice, it is important to pay witness, to get politically involved, and to make life choices that support one's moral convictions. I'm a coddled American it's true, but there are folks in places like China, Indonesia, Africa and Mexico who fight on the front lines of cultures that do not yet recognize the rights of our fellow creatures to live free from sexual abuse and torture. These are the people whose convictions are really moving things forward - technology and the markets can only catch up to human moral evolution.

In the meantime, and although I believe Morrissey is on the right side of the moral argument and on the right side of history, I think his statements on these issues actually harm his argument. Britain, having not fully come to terms with the not entirely surprising news that the BBC was infested with sexual deviants, is on the edge of discovering the same has been true at the highest levels of government for decades. While some might believe there is a connection between paedophilia and the treatment of animals it might not be the most opportune time to say so, unless they wish to close down the argument entirely.

I've only heard little bits and pieces about the UK Parliamentary pedophilia story (as well as the mess at the BBC). Shocking, but not entirely surprising. We've all been softened, somewhat, by the decades-long tradition of child abuse (and cover-up) in the Roman Catholic Church (at least there's some hope for accountability with Pope Francis).

We agree: Morrissey is on the right side morally and historically, and his more bombastic, ill-considered and (quite frankly idiotic) statements do more harm than good to the cause. However: how many people know about the widespread sexual abuse of farm animals? Perhaps Morrissey has drawn some attention to a subject that no one wants to talk about. In any event: there is a way to win hearts and minds but (unfortunately for Morrissey) it often requires finesse, diplomacy, and patience.

What Morrissey lacks in common sense and moderation, however, he makes up for with his continuous witnessing. I do admire his kneeling before the carnage onstage. I like to think that I'd do the same in his position.

 

[Anonymous]

Preposterous? What?

Comparing murdered victims of a gun massacre to chickens used by KFC is preposterous.
Suggesting that meat-eating is on a moral level with paedophilia, child abuse and the Holocaust is preposterous.
Saying "You can't help but think that the Chinese are a subspecies" is preposterous.

Point out that the fading career of an unsigned 56 year old singer - who has spent large portions of the last decade without a recording contract, experienced frequent illness and one tour cancellation after another - could be over, is not preposterous.

Yawn. I think his career is just fine compared to other singers his age. Jesus. Move on and take your Smiths vinyl with you. He has many new young fans who like his new material. Like me.

 

[Atom Heart Grammarian]

This is (for the most part) true. Lab-grown meat is now a reality (although it seems to need a bit more work). I would not put too much trust in either technology or the "free" market however; the unthinkable horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example, went on for five centuries until there was sufficient moral evolution, public outcry and political revolution (in Haiti and beyond) to make such means of production both morally indefensible and financially less desirable. We now need that kind of outrage focussed on factory farming (which hurts not just animals, but the environment). The problem is that people find it "upsetting" to think about, and here in the US, through so-called "ag-gag" laws, it is a crime in many places to record and report on the sexual and physical abuse of animals.

So: it would be nice to wait a few centuries for all the horror to end but, when faced with such monumental moral and legal injustice, it is important to pay witness, to get politically involved, and to make life choices that support one's moral convictions. I'm a coddled American it's true, but there are folks in places like China, Indonesia, Africa and Mexico who fight on the front lines of cultures that do not yet recognize the rights of our fellow creatures to live free from sexual abuse and torture. These are the people whose convictions are really moving things forward - technology and the markets can only catch up to human moral evolution.



I've only heard little bits and pieces about the UK Parliamentary pedophilia story (as well as the mess at the BBC). Shocking, but not entirely surprising. We've all been softened, somewhat, by the decades-long tradition of child abuse (and cover-up) in the Roman Catholic Church (at least there's some hope for accountability with Pope Francis).

We agree: Morrissey is on the right side morally and historically, and his more bombastic, ill-considered and (quite frankly idiotic) statements do more harm than good to the cause. However: how many people know about the widespread sexual abuse of farm animals? Perhaps Morrissey has drawn some attention to a subject that no one wants to talk about. In any event: there is a way to win hearts and minds but (unfortunately for Morrissey) it often requires finesse, diplomacy, and patience.

What Morrissey lacks in common sense and moderation, however, he makes up for with his continuous witnessing. I do admire his kneeling before the carnage onstage. I like to think that I'd do the same in his position.

You use (far too many) parentheses (nine in the above post alone). So much so, that I stop focussing on what you're saying (and grow too distracted by your poor styling instead). You use them (in sentences) where it's completely unnecessary (only about one of the parentheses from the above nine was actually needed (but even that could have been avoided)).

Let's look at your sentences (with and without the pointless parentheses). If that's the way you think (and type) then that's fine, but you could edit your own work (after you've finished writing it (you could go back (and remove all the unnecessary distractions (and straighten out your sentences (making them less tiresome to read))))). Not that I'm trying to tell you how to write (I'm not), but it really is unsightly (and amateurish).

Sentence 1: This is (for the most part) true.
Rewritten: This is, for the most part, true. Or even just 'this is for the most part true'. Nothing extravagant needed for such simple words.

Sentence 2: Lab-grown meat is now a reality (although it seems to need a bit more work).
Redux: Lab-grown meat is now a reality; although it seems to need a bit more work. ((((Couldn't you do this yourself?))))

Sentence 3: I would not put too much trust in either technology or the "free" market however; the unthinkable horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example, went on for five centuries until there was sufficient moral evolution, public outcry and political revolution (in Haiti and beyond) to make such means of production both morally indefensible and financially less desirable.
Re-imagined: This is a monstrosity of a sentence. I won't go through it all but with so many commas and other meanderings contained therein, the last thing it needed was a parenthetical remark slapped into the middle of it. Nothing would have been lost by removing it.

Sentence 4: We now need that kind of outrage focussed on factory farming (which hurts not just animals, but the environment).
Re-jigged: A comment about hurting animals should be important enough on its own without having parenthesis surrounding it, lessening its impact. That should have been the most important part of the sentence and instead you give it the impression of being an afterthought. You speak of hurting "not just animals", as if hurting animals is not bad enough. "We now need that kind of outrage focussed on factory farming. It has a hazardous effect on the environment along with the horrors it perpetrates against animals.", for example. There are many possibilities without burdening the sentence with seemingly throwaway remarks. The words either stand on their own or they do not, there's no point in trying to mask them.
It's nice that you use two s's in 'focussed' to give the impression of academic writing, but an academic would not type in this way. A Literature undergraduate would receive an 'F' for submitting an essay where the sentences read like this linguistic obstacle course.

Sentence 5: I've only heard little bits and pieces about the UK Parliamentary pedophilia story (as well as the mess at the BBC).
Remoulding: It all gets increasingly ridiculous from here. Five parenthetical remarks in seven sentences. You seem to be battling with yourself throughout. The sentences are an eyesore. It's a Comedy of Errors. I'm getting tired of revamping your sentences so I'll run through the rest of them quickly. Substitute the brackets for a comma in sentence five. Sentence six is a mess. I would avoid saying "we've all been softened by..." when you only know for certain that you have been softened by it. Unless you can prove to me that I've been softened by it. Which you can't, so try not to generalize. But even you do not fully stand behind that statement as you immediately add a meek "somewhat". The whole sentence should be rewritten with the meaning sharpened and stated more concisely, without all the digressions. In sentence seven "quite frankly idiotic" does not need to be contained within parenthesis. Those three words do not need brackets surrounding them, so I can't figure out your purpose for doing it other than it just being a bad habit. Finally, in the eighth sentence with a parenthetical aside, "unfortunately for Morrissey" does not need brackets fencing it in either. I won't even approach all your run-on sentences. I can't imagine anyone kneeling before this carnage. Please consider reviewing your sentences before pushing 'submit' in future. Or get a secretary to do it for you. I had one, but well, it's a sad situation...

Kind Regards,
(((and no need to thank me)))
Atom Heart Grammarian

 

[Amy]

Then add to that you coming to this site for what reason?

Do you operate a door policy?

 

[Anonymous]

A Literature undergraduate would receive an 'F' for submitting an essay where the sentences read like this linguistic obstacle course.

well then, (THANK f***) this was merely a submission on a fansite forum.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

This is (for the most part) true. Lab-grown meat is now a reality (although it seems to need a bit more work). I would not put too much trust in either technology or the "free" market however; the unthinkable horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example, went on for five centuries until there was sufficient moral evolution, public outcry and political revolution (in Haiti and beyond) to make such means of production both morally indefensible and financially less desirable. We now need that kind of outrage focussed on factory farming (which hurts not just animals, but the environment). The problem is that people find it "upsetting" to think about, and here in the US, through so-called "ag-gag" laws, it is a crime in many places to record and report on the sexual and physical abuse of animals.

So: it would be nice to wait a few centuries for all the horror to end but, when faced with such monumental moral and legal injustice, it is important to pay witness, to get politically involved, and to make life choices that support one's moral convictions. I'm a coddled American it's true, but there are folks in places like China, Indonesia, Africa and Mexico who fight on the front lines of cultures that do not yet recognize the rights of our fellow creatures to live free from sexual abuse and torture. These are the people whose convictions are really moving things forward - technology and the markets can only catch up to human moral evolution.

I've only heard little bits and pieces about the UK Parliamentary pedophilia story (as well as the mess at the BBC). Shocking, but not entirely surprising. We've all been softened, somewhat, by the decades-long tradition of child abuse (and cover-up) in the Roman Catholic Church (at least there's some hope for accountability with Pope Francis).

We agree: Morrissey is on the right side morally and historically, and his more bombastic, ill-considered and (quite frankly idiotic) statements do more harm than good to the cause. However: how many people know about the widespread sexual abuse of farm animals? Perhaps Morrissey has drawn some attention to a subject that no one wants to talk about. In any event: there is a way to win hearts and minds but (unfortunately for Morrissey) it often requires finesse, diplomacy, and patience.

What Morrissey lacks in common sense and moderation, however, he makes up for with his continuous witnessing. I do admire his kneeling before the carnage onstage. I like to think that I'd do the same in his position.

I think it is easy to compare what is going on in the meat processing industry with slavery, but I'm not sure the comparison bears too much analysis beyond the obvious: sentient beings killed, tortured and exploited. After that it gets far more complicated very quickly.

Slavery was abolished by Britain, who then used her position as the then only world superpower to impose her moral will on others by dint of the Royal Navy, then the most powerful military force in the world. The law was made in London and imposed on the slave trade by the British government of the time by walking down the road to the Admiralty.

In the case of the meat industry, you are asking every government to act in concert to change omnivores to herbivores. Leaving aside the utter impossibility of the first part of that sentence, you can then start on the really difficult aspect outlined in the second part. Simply put you cannot impose a change by law. You can campaign for a change on moral grounds where that might have some impact, primarily in the first world, but the rest of the planet will not, can not, follow suit until there is something to replace the protein that keeps their populations alive, and that, as I pointed out in my previous post, is a matter of technological advancement. When the alternative to meat is better and cheaper the market will decide, and the meat industry will go the way of the typewriter manufacturers, and probably just as quickly.

 

[Irish blood Irish heart]

Preposterous? What?

Comparing murdered victims of a gun massacre to chickens used by KFC is preposterous.
Suggesting that meat-eating is on a moral level with paedophilia, child abuse and the Holocaust is preposterous.
Saying "You can't help but think that the Chinese are a subspecies" is preposterous.

Point out that the fading career of an unsigned 56 year old singer - who has spent large portions of the last decade without a recording contract, experienced frequent illness and one tour cancellation after another - could be over, is not preposterous.

Now I know who you are, you're mrs barleycorn, have either of you seen morrissey play live since 1986

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Now I know who you are, you're mrs barleycorn, have either of you seen morrissey play live since 1986

I only see Morrissey if he is in within walking distance. The last time was 2006. It was... Okay. Like the Giant's Causeway: Worth seeing, not worth going to see.

 

[Amy]

Now I know who you are, you're mrs barleycorn, have either of you seen morrissey play live since 1986

I saw him in 2011, in Leeds and York. I enjoyed the first gig; the second seemed like going through the motions.

 

[Anonymous]

Based on the ~35 times I've seen Morrissey and the number of records I own by Morrissey (basically all of them) compared to the times I've seen JM live (0) and the number of records I own by him (2, Electronic's first album, The The - Dusk) I'd say I have a very different view of the two and what they did with their careers.

JM does a great job of playing Smiths covers and I do enjoy watching them on YouTube but other than that his career beyond The Smiths has been as remarkable as that of John Oates.

Right. Because John Oates went on to work with a ton of other bands, and recently put out two strong solo albums in addition to work in film scores. 100% spot on with that comparison.

 

[Anonymous]

Johnny was on xfm Manchester the other day talking about his book, said he's gonna be getting some Moz things off his chest in it.
I can't wait, there's gonna be a public meltdown. "Buckle up people and get on board the Crank-Train, the louder ya'll scream the crazzzier those TTY STATEMENTS gonna be ! You know whad am Goddam sayin ? " Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhh. haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
Now am on topic Mofo so get down behind Edd Sheeran and kiss my arse !

Benny-the-British-Butcher

Yawn ! Benny no friends still wasting his life posting utterly predictable drivel. This is the sound of a drowning man lost in his own fantasy.

 

[BrummieBoy]

You use (far too many) parentheses (nine in the above post alone). So much so, that I stop focussing on what you're saying (and grow too distracted by your poor styling instead). You use them (in sentences) where it's completely unnecessary (only about one of the parentheses from the above nine was actually needed (but even that could have been avoided)).

Let's look at your sentences (with and without the pointless parentheses). If that's the way you think (and type) then that's fine, but you could edit your own work (after you've finished writing it (you could go back (and remove all the unnecessary distractions (and straighten out your sentences (making them less tiresome to read))))). Not that I'm trying to tell you how to write (I'm not), but it really is unsightly (and amateurish).

Sentence 1: This is (for the most part) true.
Rewritten: This is, for the most part, true. Or even just 'this is for the most part true'. Nothing extravagant needed for such simple words.

Sentence 2: Lab-grown meat is now a reality (although it seems to need a bit more work).
Redux: Lab-grown meat is now a reality; although it seems to need a bit more work. ((((Couldn't you do this yourself?))))

Sentence 3: I would not put too much trust in either technology or the "free" market however; the unthinkable horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example, went on for five centuries until there was sufficient moral evolution, public outcry and political revolution (in Haiti and beyond) to make such means of production both morally indefensible and financially less desirable.
Re-imagined: This is a monstrosity of a sentence. I won't go through it all but with so many commas and other meanderings contained therein, the last thing it needed was a parenthetical remark slapped into the middle of it. Nothing would have been lost by removing it.

Sentence 4: We now need that kind of outrage focussed on factory farming (which hurts not just animals, but the environment).
Re-jigged: A comment about hurting animals should be important enough on its own without having parenthesis surrounding it, lessening its impact. That should have been the most important part of the sentence and instead you give it the impression of being an afterthought. You speak of hurting "not just animals", as if hurting animals is not bad enough. "We now need that kind of outrage focussed on factory farming. It has a hazardous effect on the environment along with the horrors it perpetrates against animals.", for example. There are many possibilities without burdening the sentence with seemingly throwaway remarks. The words either stand on their own or they do not, there's no point in trying to mask them.
It's nice that you use two s's in 'focussed' to give the impression of academic writing, but an academic would not type in this way. A Literature undergraduate would receive an 'F' for submitting an essay where the sentences read like this linguistic obstacle course.

Sentence 5: I've only heard little bits and pieces about the UK Parliamentary pedophilia story (as well as the mess at the BBC).
Remoulding: It all gets increasingly ridiculous from here. Five parenthetical remarks in seven sentences. You seem to be battling with yourself throughout. The sentences are an eyesore. It's a Comedy of Errors. I'm getting tired of revamping your sentences so I'll run through the rest of them quickly. Substitute the brackets for a comma in sentence five. Sentence six is a mess. I would avoid saying "we've all been softened by..." when you only know for certain that you have been softened by it. Unless you can prove to me that I've been softened by it. Which you can't, so try not to generalize. But even you do not fully stand behind that statement as you immediately add a meek "somewhat". The whole sentence should be rewritten with the meaning sharpened and stated more concisely, without all the digressions. In sentence seven "quite frankly idiotic" does not need to be contained within parenthesis. Those three words do not need brackets surrounding them, so I can't figure out your purpose for doing it other than it just being a bad habit. Finally, in the eighth sentence with a parenthetical aside, "unfortunately for Morrissey" does not need brackets fencing it in either. I won't even approach all your run-on sentences. I can't imagine anyone kneeling before this carnage. Please consider reviewing your sentences before pushing 'submit' in future. Or get a secretary to do it for you. I had one, but well, it's a sad situation...

Kind Regards,
(((and no need to thank me)))
Atom Heart Grammarian

ROFLMAO!

Suki... Sharon... sigh!

Best wishes
BB
turning in his grave -LOL ing at #GrammarSmackdown