"Morrissey" does not rhyme with "poetry"

Is Morrissey a poet akin to Philip Larkin? Um, no. And why are we even discussing this?

Because of academic freedom, damn it! According to Telegraph.co.uk, "Dr. Gavin Hopps, a lecturer at St Andrews University, has written a book called Morrissey: The Pageant of His Bleeding Heart, which he says is 'the first academic study' of the ex-Smiths singer."

Hopps says Morrissey is quite the wordsmith (get it?), on par with poets like Sir John Betjeman and Philip Larkin.

Uh, not so fast says Telegraph.co.uk's Michael Deacon. Morrissey is no poet.

"Poetry is written to fit metre, song lyrics to fit melody. This is why poems look good on paper, and song lyrics almost invariably do not," he writes. "Even a poet who writes free verse, the stuff that ignores traditional verse forms, has to keep his ear open for his lines' rhythms. A singer doesn't; he just has to follow the tune," Deacon writes.

And in the case of Morrissey, it's always the same tune.

Hopps is right that Morrissey's lyrics tend to be more high-brow than most, but poetry it isn't.

"Why these academics make such lofty claims for pop stars, I don't know. Perhaps doing so makes them feel younger and cooler, in the same way that non-academics of their age might suddenly acquire a taste for leather jackets. Or perhaps they're secretly ashamed of enjoying pop, and so try to persuade both themselves and others that it's 'high' art," Deacon writes.

Deacon also mentions Bob Dylan as a pop star who has been given poet status unjustifiably. I am with him there. I don't think Dylan is a great poet. Great songwriter, sure. And it's not because I think of poetry as a higher art. It's just that they are different arts.

It's like how my sister Laura and I are twins, yet completely different people. One of us thinks Morrissey is way overrated and the other wants to have Morrissey's babies and lick the sweat off of his bare 50-year-old chest. (Confidential to Laura: that is gross).