Friendly Reminder That John Wrote Ticket To Ride And Obviously Due To Paul Revisionism Some People Have

I love (eye roll) this generation of writers who think they are being edgy by going in the other direction by trashing John because he didn’t want to be best buddies with every single person. It reminds me of Fred Seaman’s book where the captain who took John to the Bahamas insisted on moving himself and his family into johns rented apartment, forced John to sleep in the floor and pay for all their outings and meals for a month while the captain pretended he was Johns’ best friend. Fred thought John was being petty for not wanting to be best friends with this clear user and wanting to get away from him. Just silliness

Shevey could have just said ‘I was intimidated by his confidence, wit and physical appeal’ but instead she decided to write a whole slanderous trashy book. 

Give me the John one!! Pretty please??

scans from 1960s magazines

This is adorable somehow. Why am I obsessed with these little moments?

a) Science boy johnny

b) something about the way paul responds at first…

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

Can we all just weep at John’s body language in 3 & 4: “Constantly transferring your weight from one foot to the other or rocking forward and backward is a comforting movement that indicates you are anxious or upset…[rubbing your earlobes] is a soothing action to counter feelings of uneasiness or vulnerability.”

(Also in no.3, John and Paul’s synchronised head turning, ama cry over that as well, they were so attuned to each other goddamnit.)

Paul McCartney circa 2022 in the Lyrics book: A Day in the Life-that was all me and I’m not even going to mention the other guy at all.

— John Lennon, Hit Parader: Lennon-McCartney Songalog – Who wrote what. (extracts) (April, 1972)

George and Ringo: How friends wake up a friend.

Paul: How a darling wife wakes up her husband.

September 2, 1980 ..

My issue with this statement is that 1) there was no reason to mention John at all to make the statement Paul was inspired by literature 2) why did he single out John specifically? Presumably George and Ringo weren’t Shakespeare fans or if so I haven’t heard it. The only reason he did this was to take a pot shot at John being known as the “smart” Beatle. And it’s kind of unnecessary. After all Lennon never criticised Paul’s love of literature in the Lennon Remembers interview or in any interview in the 70s so it’s not like Paul is responding to anything from John. So why do it? It just seems kind of cruel and unnecessary and no I don’t think I’m being divisive in calling that out. This isn’t about giving Paul the benefit of the doubt or not. This is calling out crappy behaviour

“John never had anything like my interest in literature, though he was very keen on Lewis Carroll and, in particular, Winston Churchill. His Aunt Mimi had lots of books by Churchill in the front parlour. Not a bad basis for an education. In my case, I was always fascinated by the couplet as a form in poetry. When you think about it, it’s been the workhorse of poetry in English right the way through. Chaucer, Pope, Wilfred Owen. I was particularly fascinated by how Shakespeare used the couplet to close out a scene, or an entire play. Just taking a swing through Macbeth, for example, you’ll find a few humdingers, like: 'Receive what cheer you may: The night is long that never finds the day.’ or ‘I go, and it is done; the bell invites me. Hear it not, Duncan; for it is a knell / That summons thee to heaven or to hell.' This was Shakespeare’s way of saying, ‘That’s it, folks,’ and ‘The End’ was our way of saying the same. 'And in the end the love you take / Is equal to the love you make’ This is one of those couplets that can keep you thinking for a long time. […] I often muse upon what might have happened, had I not ended up in a band that rather took over my life. I wonder about the path I thought I was on with my A level in English literature and where that might have led me.”

— Paul McCartney, about “The End”. In The Lyrics (2021).

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.