I’m Sylvia Wanting A Lock Of John’s Hair. Also I’m Donna Because I Would Totally Buy Beatles Records

This is such a weird take that John’s mom dying horrifically in a car accident right underneath his bedroom window counts as hagiography regardless of whether the driver was drunk or not. It was still a traumatic thing for John. Also why is it never acknowledged there is massive hagiography for Paul “everything can be explained away as his actions are always right” McCartney?

It’s also massively problematic for anyone to diagnose anyone else without a formal mental health evaluation and even more wrong for a mental health clinician to do it via taking pieces of biographies out of context. Also Erin Torkelson Weber is biased. Ugh. So many things I hate about this and once again it’s taking a complex person like John and taking out his worst pieces out of context to form a half baked conclusion.

Hi :) my friend just sent me a link to a podcast episode called "The Psychology of John Lennon" by Psychology in Seattle. I'm kind of interested but seeing as the episode so awfully long and I have no experience with that podcast idk if it's worth a listen. So I wanted to ask if you have given that one a go and if so what are your thoughts on it? Is it insightful?

P.S.: I love your blog, I really appreciate all the hard work that goes into your posts and they're always so interesting to read!!

Hiya anon!

Thank you for the lovely “PS” message btw — I really appreciate hearing that!! :)

I have listened to this podcast a few times, and I’ve actually recommended this specific episode (which can be found here (x)) quite a bit – so I’m pretty familiar with it! The short answer here is that I would recommend it. It’s a decent illustration of the key arguments concerning a diagnosis for borderline personality disorder, albeit, not a comprehensive one. But id say the host gets the job done, and it’s a good starting point for wider discussion.

The long answer, is that the episode does have a handful of flaws. There were two main issues I recall having with it, the first being that Dr Honda assumes Mimi’s parenting was not in any way problematic or abusive. He discusses Julia’s parenting, establishing it as chaotic, and also discusses Alfred's parenting —or lack thereof, really— and illustrates how both these early abandonments would have affected John. He even mentions an intergenerational aspect to the family-line which I thought was interesting (I’m actually working on whole post dedicated to that topic!). But then he brushes off Mimi’s parenting as “good-enough”, when it evidently had a more substantial impact on John.

In discussing how a borderline personality might have developed for John throughout his childhood, I just don’t believe you can dismiss Mimi in this way, since she was such a pivotal figure in the formation of his personality. Her treatment of him appears to have been emotionally and verbal abusive — and that isn’t a judgement of her, nor is it to say that she didn’t love him (or that he didn’t love her), but simply that if you read the various accounts of her parenting styles, it seems fairly apparent that it is what would be considered abusive today. I do appreciate that John was probably always going to be difficult, and that she had her own issues largely stemming mainly from her father — but these things don’t ultimately dispel the argument that her parenting could be abusive. So essentially, Mimi's needed to be discussed in more depth for this to be a comprehensive outlook on John’s childhood. As well as this, the episode would have been improved had he dedicated more time into discussing the impact of Uncle George and his death.

The second issue I had with the episode, was that the host largely neglects to discuss John’s relationship with Paul. There are parts of the podcast where he does discuss their closeness, but overall it didn’t feel to me as though he had really recognised the depth of this relationship. Im aware that he recently did an episode on Get Back, which I haven’t gotten round to listening to just yet — but I’m interested to see to see if perhaps his perspective has changed/grown.

There are other things in the podcast which I take issue with (for instance, his understanding of the relationship between John and Yoko could be fairly shallow and one-sided), but it seems to me as though these things tended to be more-or-less related to a problematic historiography. I appreciate that Dr Kirk Honda has done dozens of these kinds of episodes, where he analyses the psychology of various celebrities and characters, and offers potential diagnosis’s for them – and therefore, I’m not expecting him to be an absolute expert on John Lennon. When you’re running a podcast which is fairly miscellaneous in its subjects, there’s an extent to which you can research each topic, and so I cant really expect the host to have studied practically Every Single Area of John Lennon’s life. There are things which I would have been more attentive towards — but I’ve dedicated, frankly, an amount of time into researching him which therapists would find concerning (*kidding*…..but not really). Additionally, I would presume that the shows hosts haven’t read most of the biographies in which they gathered their information from with much critical thought, because they’re not The Almighty Great Erin Torkelson-Webber. So effectively, their understanding of John Lennon is going to blindsided by hagiography — an example of this would be when the host cites that John’s mother was killed by a drunk-driver, which contemporary reports would disagree with. But I wouldn’t say that this flaw is so much so that it spoils their entire overarching argument, its just a notable blindspot and something to keep in mind when listening to their analysis’s.

On a more positive note, there were merits to this podcast. As a professional psychologist, he is able to offer valuable insights into things such as Janov’s Primal Scream Therapy, and illustrate in laymen’s terms, essentially why its a quack. And despite his arguments being, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed since they neglect to account for two massively crucial figures (Mimi and Paul), he’s still able to conclude with a solid, evidenced argument for John having had BPD.

If you happen to be someone fairly ‘iffy’ about diagnosing (or suggesting diagnosis’s) John with a mental illness—especially something as complicated as borderline personality disorder—id definitely recommend giving this as a listen! You might still conclude that diagnosing him is not the right course of action, or that it has little value, or that its just plain wrong etc. but I still think its a good thing for people to at least understand the arguments here, since I know that in the past when I have mentioned that I think John was a strong candidate for BPD, I am often met with a response telling me that I'm just projecting onto him, which does make me wonder if they’ve really understood the objective outlook in this discussion.

Someday I’ll have to sit down and write up an entire post on all this, collecting the strongest arguments for him having had BPD (and someday I will, I swear!) but for now I’ll just leave you a few other relevant links to this topic:

An overview of the John and BPD argument (x) — @thecoleopterawithana

Exposing the voice of truth: a psychological profile of John Lennon — Deborah Fade (x) + additionally you can read the @anotherkindofmindpod critique of it here (x)

A quote from Lesley Ann-Jones and (a more important) addition from @walkuntilthedaylight (x)

Ah the hypocrisy. Lewisohn gives Paul some light criticism (along with Stu!) about his letter format? and this is unacceptable. Paul takes numerous pot shots at John (criticises his lack of literary nature, lack of handiness around the home, takes credit for Ticket to Ride for some reason) in the lyrics book and anyone who questioned it was completely shot down. Surely this double standard is apparent?

“On 27 March, Stuart wrote a letter looking to get the group a holiday camp booking … and as if in competition, which he was, Paul also wrote one that same day or soon after. Both are indicative of their hopelessness, for - as Rory Storm and the Hurricanes thrillingly knew - summer seasons had already been tied up a month or more. Paul’s was another masterpiece of dressing: this time he made no mention of personnel, obscuring altogether the question of a drummer, and added one to every calculation - the boys were ‘eighteen to twenty’ and had been together for four years, time in which they had ‘acquired three very importance things - competence, confidence & continuity’. Stuart’s letter was also verbose, and more intense. The recipient couldn’t have had many letters from rock groups that began 'Dear Sir, As it is your policy to present entertainment to the habitues of your establishment…’”

— The Beatles: Tune In, by Mark Lewisohn, on Paul McCartney and Stuart Sutcliffe’s attempts to book a spot at a holiday camp for the band to play

Happy birthday beautiful Johnny! Because you deserve all the love on this day and every day

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JOHN LENNON!

"I am a guy, yeah. That is true. But how do you know unless you see somebody? I am just some guy who did... Whatever. Always see me as me. I was always me, all the way through it... I love motels 'cause there is no reception area. I like hotels too. But I like motels as well. Just invisible places where you check in with a credit card, in the middle of the night, anywhere. Some guys in taxis now, old guys, they recognize the voice is English, but they don't recognize me. They don't know who the hell I am. They say, "Oh, you're English! I was over there in the war..." And they go on and on... And tell me amazing life stories.... They ask, "what do you do?" and I say, "I'm a musician," and they say, "Are you doing alright?" "Yeah, I am..."

The Beatles being menaces in Ireland, 7th November 1963 - part 1 (part 2)

Just look at Paul’s life flash before his eyes…

Completely agree. This is why I’m not a Cyn fan. The woman wrote 2 exposes! The first because he husband at the time wanted a cash grab. Say what you will about Yoko and Sean but they’ve done an incredible job bringing John’s music to the next generation. That shows true love for John.

I just realized something.

Yoko never wrote an expose about John. Cyn, May Pang and Pete Shotton did, but Yoko didn't.

exposes kind of rub me the wrong way. This is someone who trusted you with everything, and then you turn around and write a tell-all about them. As a fan I love them, but I'd feel so betrayed if a friend wrote one about me.

Pattie Boyd, George Martin and Pete Best wrote books, but they were more about themselves and their connection to the boys than a fictionalized version of the past.

Ivan Vaughn, Jimmie Nicol, Jane Asher, Peter Asher and Maureen Starkey never did. They didn't even write autobiographies from what I can find.

I think that all speaks volumes.

Especially Yoko. No matter what you think of her, that shows a strong sense of character and respect that we just don't talk about enough when it comes to her.

I love this. This is why I struggle with people holding a particular book or author up and saying this is the true story of the Beatles or John Lennon or whatever. People have spotty memories and people have a tendency to remember things in a way that minimises their faults or presents them in the best light or removes negative memories. You have to take everything with a grain of salt.

he's not right for you -- but right for each other

she often had to lend him the fare -- he's usually offer to pay my fare

...

Cyn and Phyllis remembering mirror pasts.

So glad I’m not the only one thinking this. Let’s show equal respect to John and Paul for a change. It’s what they both deserve.

@bitchybillionaire yes that’s the one. I’ve had the same trajectory, honestly. I’m interested in some of what they’re saying, because some of it is also what I’ve been thinking for years. And I get the need to give Paul the credit and attention he is due, after so many books and articles overlook him or malign him. But a lot of this podcast does feel like okay, John was elevated beyond belief before, so we have to do the same for Paul now to balance it. And like, what if we just met in the middle with a true balance of the scales instead of it being like a seesaw where Paul is elevated now?

Also they really need to cite more sources. It bothers me when they say “NOBODY has ever talked about xyz” but like, you got that info from somewhere. Someone had to have talked about it! Or else you wouldn’t know about it!

Ah yes the typical tumblr experience. Thousands of posts where John is reduced to nothing more than the sum of his faults…crickets. One article about Paul that throws a few softball shots (in a sea of articles defending Paul’s every action as being completely justified) and the comments are full of essays defending Paul. And yet people around here keep saying that Paul is a victim that needs defending because of what happened back in the 80s when John had just been murdered and people in their horror may have gone too far one way. It’s kind of silly when you think about it.

Paul liked to keep his options open and this applied to friendship. Just when you thought you were getting to know him, to feel a commitment from him, he'd slip behind a smiling mask. Finally I came to accept this aspect of his nature and we worked together, travelled together in a relaxed fashion, but never with any developed contact.

Paul had a real appetite for life -- an exuberant optimism and a buoyant enthusiasm that was admirable even if at times it overwhelmed his sceptical partner, John.

...He lived in his head to create music or lived to create music in his head. This process or activity could account for a certain distance in his contact with people, however pleasant and engaging he might appear.

Robert Freeman, The Beatles: A Private View

I love this side to Johnny. I especially love him throwing his school report through the window and riding away on his bike to avoid getting into trouble. I could definitely see myself doing that just to avoid the conflict lol

“John can be very tender. I know he has this reputation for being cynical and sharp, but I know him better. I know that beneath all that, he can be very warm. He asks how I am, how my health is, how the weather’s like…Then we’ll start to talk about the old days. The last time he was on, we started talking about his schooldays and the time he came home on the last day of term with his school report. He just rode up to the kitchen window on his bike, threw the report in and shouted, ‘im off out.’ I knew it must be a bad report, so I chased after him, shouting, ‘You come back here this minute, John Lennon,’ but he was off. We had a good laugh about that over the phone. I think, in a way, he’s a little bit lonely…”

- Aunt Mimi Smith (c. 1977) in The Dream Is Over: Off The Record 2 by Keith Badman (pg. 216)

This is the stupidity I know and love on tumblr. Ooo Paul. What a hero for sending a LETTER to Maggie Thatcher. Never mind the years he has kissed the ass of the royals and the establishment in general. Bonus points for throwing Johns name in to shit on him for no reason. No one in Johns camp ever compared the incident with the MBE to Paul’s no doubt slightly less than vanilla letter but Paul’s camp has to sling arrows that Paul is the true hero TM. Lol

“Did you know Paul sent a telegram to Margaret Thatcher in 1982? He did. It wasn’t friendly. He lost his temper over her treatment of health workers and fired off a long outraged message, comparing her to Ted Heath, the prime minister (tweaked in “Taxman”) felled by the 1974 coal strike. McCartney warned, “What the miners did to Ted Heath, the nurses will do to you.” This controversy is a curiously obscure footnote to his life—it seldom gets mentioned in even the fattest biographies. He doesn’t discuss it in Many Years from Now. I only know about it because I read it as a Random Note in Rolling Stone, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Paul propaganda at the time. (The item began, “Reports that Paul McCartney is intellectually brain-dead appear to have been premature.”) But the telegram was a major U.K. scandal, with Tory politicians denouncing him. In October 1982, Thatcher was at the height of her power, in the wake of her Falkland Islands blitz. Many rock stars talked shit about Maggie—Elvis Costello, Morrissey, Paul Weller—but Paul was the one more famous than she was. He had something to lose by hitting send on this, and nothing to gain. What, you think he was trying for coolness points? This is Paul McCartney, remember? He was in the middle of making Give My Regards to Broad Street. He could have clawed Thatcher’s still-beating heart out of her rib cage, impaled it on his Hofner on live TV, and everybody would have said, “Yeah, but ‘Silly Love Songs’ though.” Why did he feel so intensely about the nurses? He didn’t mention his mother in the telegram, but he must have been thinking of Mary McCartney’s life and death. So he snapped, even though it was off-message. (He was busy that week doing interviews for the twentieth anniversary of “Love Me Do”—the moment called for Cozy Lovable Paul, not Angry Paul.) He didn’t boast about it later, though fans today would be impressed that any English rock star of that generation—let alone Paul—had the gumption to send this. You can make a case that it was a braver, riskier, and more politically relevant move than John sending his MBE medal back to the Queen in 1970. Still, John’s gesture went down in history and Paul’s didn’t, though his fans would probably admire the move if they knew about it. He couldn’t win. He was Paul. All he could do was piss people off.”

—

Rob Sheffield, Dreaming the Beatles. (2017)

This is one of the best books I’ve read on them. Go get it.