Lodger left out

Something I'd been wondering after I realized that "Heroes" was the last album Seabrook would break down song-by-song was: "Why won't Lodger get the same treatment?"

Now I know that it does. Sort of. 

Pages 221 to 236 feature Seabrook's writing purely about Lodger. He goes over the album song-by-song and points out how it was received, how Bowie reacted to that, and the general impact that the album had. Just as he did for "Heroes", for Low - even for Iggy Pop's The Idiot.

Except Seabrook doesn't set his break down of Lodger apart from the book's regular text with headings and credits. 

Not doing so seems like an oversight to me. 

Maybe Seabrook didn't think he had enough material to justify giving Lodger the full treatment, or that there just wasn't enough to say about the songs themselves. So far, it sounds like he, along with the rest of the music critic world, doesn't regard Lodger very highly. Perhaps his not setting the album apart then, is a kind of snub. 

Whatever the reasoning behind this editorial choice, not giving Lodger equal treatment definitely throws off my notion that Low, Heroes, and Lodger form any kind of trilogy. Having mentioned the fact that many critics saw Lodger as an anticlimax after Low and "Heroes" on page 234, Seabrook is certainly asserting that the album does not fit with the previous two.