Hello! I would like to discuss something. I have been reading books about John and Paul, and I noticed that in most biographies or books about John, Paul’s presence is minimal—he either seems relatively insignificant or is portrayed in a somewhat negative light. In contrast, books about Paul are the opposite; they almost always acknowledge John's influence and his importance to Paul. Sometimes this puzzles me. What do you think causes this discrepancy? Is it due to John's own attitude?
Yes!! I have definitely noticed that, and it has always stood out to me. I think there are many reasons for it. A big chunk of Lennon biographies were written in the 80s and 90s, a time when most Beatles books followed the trend of exalting John while minimizing Paul. Many authors took John's bitter words from the early 70s quite literally and never bothered looking below the surface. You can also tell by the way they write that a lot of these authors simply didn't like Paul, while simultaneously idolizing John. As a result, I can picture mant of them dismissing evidence that showed how deep their relationship was; if they disliked Paul, they also disliked the idea of John caring for him. Conversely, when writing about Paul, those same authors loved pointing out how overwhelmingly influential John was in his life. John's (and to an extent, Yoko's) public statements didn't help either: claiming they barely collaborated, that they stopped writing together early on, that they weren't that close, or that everyone in the band was sick of being Paul's "sidemen." Yoko would also highlight John's bond with Stuart, claiming there wasn't a day John didn't talk about Stu. It also didn't help that some insiders like Cynthia claimed in 80s biographies that John "wasn't really close to Paul" and that he was closer to Ringo that to anyone else in the group." (Cynthia later contradicted herself in her own book, admitting John was closest of all to Paul, though she softened it by saying they didn't socialize much outside of work. There's a lot to unpack there, but that's another subject).
On the flip side, I think the reason Paul's biographies focus so heavily on John's importance to Paul is that when authors conduct research and interviews for a Paul biography, it is practically impossible to miss. Paul has had far more people in his entourage over the years than John did, and talking to them—hearing firsthand how profoundly John's death affected Paul—forces any writer to recognize just how deeply Paul cared. I remember reading two biographies by the same author back-to-back: one on John, followed by one on Paul. In the John biography (written first), the author was quite dismissive of their dynamic, presenting Pete Shotton and Stuart as the absolute best friends John ever had. This wasn't because the author loved John and hated Paul, quite the contrary; they showed a lot of contempt for John throughout the book and clearly preferred Paul. They simply lacked a deep understanding of John and Paul's bond beyond basic public narrative. However, a few years later, that same author wrote a biography on Paul, and the tone shifted drastically, even adopting explicitly romantic language when describing the two. The author had interviewed former Wings bandmates, EMI staff, and long-time associates. One staff member who worked with Paul from the 70s through the 80s told the author that Paul went "a bit nuts" after John died and that he still is. The author also pointed out details like Paul getting married on John's birthday. When you research Paul's life, it is impossible to miss how much he loved John. You see John everywhere—in small gestures, in testimonies from those closest to Paul, in decades of emotionally raw comments from Paul himself, and in his post-1980 grief. John was much more publicly guarded about Paul in interviews. We mostly know how deeply he cared through his music and through accounts from people in his inner circle (like Elliot Mintz, Tony King, Harry Nilsson, and Bob Gruen) who made it clear Paul was always on John's mind. But because John's neutral, mixed and negative comments about Paul are what was most publicly accessible, biographers historically leaned on those to draw lazy conclusions about their dynamic. Now, after Get Back, Now and Then, Ian Leslie's book, the ULM series, and so many other things that have been released in the last decade, I don't think any serious author would ever again dismiss the importance of John and Paul's relationship in Lennon biographies. I've seen authors like Ray Coleman release edited and updated versions of their 80s books. He used to claim that John and Paul had nothing in common outside of the music, and that this was the fundamental reason why the Beatles broke up. In a much later edition of the book, however, he removed that line entirely and added much more nuanced takes on their relationship. Even Philip Norman completely changed his tune when he wrote Paul McCartney: The Life, calling John "Paul's soulmate", and completely contradicting his previous claim that their relationship was merely professional. Nowadays, if an author is still dismissive of their bond, they are just in complete denial, lol. The evidence of how deeply they cared about each other is simply overwhelming and more publicly accessible than ever.
gracieabrams
turnnoffyourmind
blakekathryn
titsay
gamechangershow
romaincrisis
