![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakGood grief. Philip Norman strikes again. His career as a Beatle biographer for non-Beatles fans, summarized:
Shout!: "John Lennon was two thirds of the Beatles" is the most infamous claim and the one he had to walk back on most, but while the book is fluently written (that was never Norman's problem), it's the kind of biography where we're told what exactly Brian Epstein felt when seeing John Lennon for the first time (not, you understand, based on Brian Epstein's own comments), and where the Paul bashing is only matched by the George ignoring-or-sneering. (Poor Ringo doesn't even rate a bashing.) And you can tell Norman has not much interest in the musical production side of things, which is, after all, what makes the Beatles important to begin with. It's positive about Yoko which at the time was still relatively rare, but otherwise, I'm struggling to find good things to say. The 2001 reedition preface includes more sneering at George and bashing of Paul, including the claim the only reason why people felt sorry when Linda McCartney died was that the British public had gotten into the habit of mourning blondes with Diana, I kid you not.
...and when George died, he wrote an incredibly mean spirited obituary. This is a plot point.
John Lennon: The Life: Note the "The" Life. Norman didn't make a secret out of the fact he considers all other Lennon biographers inferior to himself. That said, this particular biography included some genuine new material - Aunt Mimi's fling with her student subletter, and famously the passage where either Yoko or Norman-as-narrator (it's phrased a bit ambigiously) says John told her something that made he wonder whether he didn't have certain feelings for Paul. Also, and perhaps not unrelatedly to the fact that while he still refused to meet him, Paul did answer some of Norman's emails, Mr. Norman has changed his mind about the importance of Paul McCartney to the Beatles. Behold, now he's a worthy co-creator! Otoh, Norman still isn't really interested in the creative musical process, and ignores anything not fitting with his idea of John.
Norman's Paul biography: I haven't read it. The novelty of of Norman no longer being anti Paul has already been spent with the Lennon bio, so I was and am not very motivated. Also, I'm still resentful over that tasteless Linda remark.
And now he has written a George biography. And a lengthy article about writing the George biography, in wihch he's absolutely bewildered as to why Olivia Harrison, son Dhani and the fans would hold such a little thing as the absolutely mean spirited George obituary against him. Quoth Norman: I’d hoped that my sympathetic treatment of George in the Lennon, McCartney and Clapton books might persuade Olivia Harrison and their son, Dhani, to co-operate in it. However, the sample of my work drawn to her attention – by a previously friendly executive at the Beatles’ Apple company – was that ill-judged 2001 obituary, given seeming eternal life on the internet along with numerous posts from fans virtually endowing me with horns and a tail. Now there clearly was no possibility of access to Olivia or Dhani.
Firstly, what sympathetic treatment of George in the Lennon book? Secondly, gee, Philip N., why would a woman who has had to watch her husband die of cancer, then opens up a national newspaper and reads you calling said husband "a miserable git", not to mention a couple of other equally mean-spirited things, want to talk to you? Especially since the motivation for you writing a biography of her husband clearly isn't because you cared for his music, thoughts and person during his life time, but because writing abouto the Beatles is still your best paying gig. (Also: Olivia once saved George from a knife attack by attacking the attacker. Maybe Norman is lucky she won't receive him, is what I'm saying. Olivia is hardcore.)
Going from an older fandom to a newer one: this cracked me up to no end. And makes me wonder whether someone will ever be insane enough to write that fusion. (Don't look at me.) And you know, given that Frederick the Great wrote in his obituary (!) of Voltaire, of himself in the third person, "the King wished to possess this genius of such rarity and uniqueness", which is an Annie Wilkes thing to say if ever there was one, the comparison does have its merits. *veg*
Shout!: "John Lennon was two thirds of the Beatles" is the most infamous claim and the one he had to walk back on most, but while the book is fluently written (that was never Norman's problem), it's the kind of biography where we're told what exactly Brian Epstein felt when seeing John Lennon for the first time (not, you understand, based on Brian Epstein's own comments), and where the Paul bashing is only matched by the George ignoring-or-sneering. (Poor Ringo doesn't even rate a bashing.) And you can tell Norman has not much interest in the musical production side of things, which is, after all, what makes the Beatles important to begin with. It's positive about Yoko which at the time was still relatively rare, but otherwise, I'm struggling to find good things to say. The 2001 reedition preface includes more sneering at George and bashing of Paul, including the claim the only reason why people felt sorry when Linda McCartney died was that the British public had gotten into the habit of mourning blondes with Diana, I kid you not.
...and when George died, he wrote an incredibly mean spirited obituary. This is a plot point.
John Lennon: The Life: Note the "The" Life. Norman didn't make a secret out of the fact he considers all other Lennon biographers inferior to himself. That said, this particular biography included some genuine new material - Aunt Mimi's fling with her student subletter, and famously the passage where either Yoko or Norman-as-narrator (it's phrased a bit ambigiously) says John told her something that made he wonder whether he didn't have certain feelings for Paul. Also, and perhaps not unrelatedly to the fact that while he still refused to meet him, Paul did answer some of Norman's emails, Mr. Norman has changed his mind about the importance of Paul McCartney to the Beatles. Behold, now he's a worthy co-creator! Otoh, Norman still isn't really interested in the creative musical process, and ignores anything not fitting with his idea of John.
Norman's Paul biography: I haven't read it. The novelty of of Norman no longer being anti Paul has already been spent with the Lennon bio, so I was and am not very motivated. Also, I'm still resentful over that tasteless Linda remark.
And now he has written a George biography. And a lengthy article about writing the George biography, in wihch he's absolutely bewildered as to why Olivia Harrison, son Dhani and the fans would hold such a little thing as the absolutely mean spirited George obituary against him. Quoth Norman: I’d hoped that my sympathetic treatment of George in the Lennon, McCartney and Clapton books might persuade Olivia Harrison and their son, Dhani, to co-operate in it. However, the sample of my work drawn to her attention – by a previously friendly executive at the Beatles’ Apple company – was that ill-judged 2001 obituary, given seeming eternal life on the internet along with numerous posts from fans virtually endowing me with horns and a tail. Now there clearly was no possibility of access to Olivia or Dhani.
Firstly, what sympathetic treatment of George in the Lennon book? Secondly, gee, Philip N., why would a woman who has had to watch her husband die of cancer, then opens up a national newspaper and reads you calling said husband "a miserable git", not to mention a couple of other equally mean-spirited things, want to talk to you? Especially since the motivation for you writing a biography of her husband clearly isn't because you cared for his music, thoughts and person during his life time, but because writing abouto the Beatles is still your best paying gig. (Also: Olivia once saved George from a knife attack by attacking the attacker. Maybe Norman is lucky she won't receive him, is what I'm saying. Olivia is hardcore.)
Going from an older fandom to a newer one: this cracked me up to no end. And makes me wonder whether someone will ever be insane enough to write that fusion. (Don't look at me.) And you know, given that Frederick the Great wrote in his obituary (!) of Voltaire, of himself in the third person, "the King wished to possess this genius of such rarity and uniqueness", which is an Annie Wilkes thing to say if ever there was one, the comparison does have its merits. *veg*
no subject
Date: 2023-10-29 05:32 pm (UTC)Aha! I only have a passing interest in the Beatles so I don’t follow their biographies etc, but Mr. Norman wrote an article for the London Times a few weeks ago called ‘My Life as a Rock Biographer’ which I happened to read. In the second paragraph, he is careful to remind the reader that he was one of Granta’s 20 Best British Young Novelists of 1983 and that he really SHOULD have had a career writing fiction until pesky biography got in the way. And now I realise why even I, with no context at all, thought that he was a bit mean spirited about George Harrison in that piece. He also comes across as feeling hard done by because people who write biographies of popular musicians are looked down on by those who write about more worthy subjects.
no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 08:51 am (UTC)"I first saw Harrison backstage at a Beatles concert in Newcastle upon Tyne at the height of Beatlemania, back in 1965. Lennon, McCartney and Ringo Starr were immediately friendly and forthcoming, McCartney even handing his violin bass guitar to me to try. Only Harrison stayed in the background, his pale face cupped in a black polo-neck. I thought at the time that he looked a bit of a miserable git, but I did not dream how right I was. Harrison's misanthropy was as well hidden as McCartney's two-facedness and Lennon's general disgust with the whole Beatlemania experience." Which sets the tone.
He's not keen on George's solo music ("He began to alienate concert audiences by his self-importance and heavy-handed attempts at lecturing and preaching"), and while you could argue that fine, this is all Norman's personal impression and opinion of George as a man and a musician, though calling a man who organized the first big charity concert and who specialized in discovering and producing other artists a misanthrope really demands a new definition of the word), he then goes beneath the belt even when forced to write something positive about George's second marriage: His greatest asset proved to be his marriage to Olivia, not a rock star’s cipher wife but a woman of character and compassion who became deeply involved in charity work to help orphans in Romania. The marriage, clearly, was not all roses. A few years back a Los Angeles prostitute known only as Tiffany identified Harrison as one of her clients, alleging that while a sexual service was performed for him he was playing his ukulele and singing a George Formby song. Because that's really what you need to include in a Sunday Times obituary most likely read by the "woman of character and compassion" and her son. (Note: in a George biography, I can see the point of mentioning marital infidelities. But not in an obituary published as soon as the man breathed his last breath, and definitely not in such detail. (And then marvelling Olivia doesn't want to talk to him!)
ETA: A general observation on John Lennon interviews: on the one hand, there's a reason why he was the most interviewed of the four - he varied his answers each time instead of sticking to the same routine replies, despite the fact that they were interviewed so many, many times. Otoh, on the downside: those Lennon interviews keep contradicting each other, they very much depend on how he was feeling on any given day and what he wanted to achieve, so it's both frustrating and fun to figure out what could possibly be the truth when you have John quotes stating the opposite of each other. I once, years ago, made a post with a fake interview in which I asked questions and then used actual John quotes as (contradictory) replies to illustrate how this works, here.
no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 11:16 am (UTC)Gosh that is unnecessarily mean.
I looked up the quote because it's worth reading in all its glorious self-pity:
"Nonetheless, I’m aware of being thought not quite respectable by the literary establishment. When biographers congregate, it’s far more impressive to be able to say “I’m doing Augustus John” than “I’m doing Elton John”. I can hardly complain since no one could think less than I do of “rock writing”. Frank Zappa defined music journalists as “people who can’t write preparing articles about people who can’t think for people who can’t read”; indeed, the subject brings out a latent prattishness even in authors of the calibre of Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis."
Translation: I, Philip Norman, was one of the 20 Granta Best Young British Novelists of 1983 and I feel I am in the same class as Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis and I am bitter that writing the kind of books that have given me presumably a pretty decent living has not also earned me the respect I richly deserve.
no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 12:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-29 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 09:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-31 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-29 11:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 09:29 am (UTC)In the later 60s and then in the 1970s, you have a rich and thriving black music scene, and the increasing value of studio recording did not mean that there was a lack of interest in live performances or "the dance floor". Ike and Tina Turner (boo hiss to Ike as a person, but he was an important part of the music at the time) made rock as well as rock'n roll; the Jackson Five and later adult Michael Jackson produced their hits specifically for the dance floor. Quincy Jones was the big studio producer from the later 1970s onwards. Seems to me rock'n roll was alive and thriving long after the Beatles separated, inside and outside the studios.
Also: just because the Beatles themselves did not peform in concert anymore after 1966 (except for the Apple Rooftop Concert in 1969) doesn't mean everyone else followed suit, on the contrary. The Rolling Stones made a decades long career specifically as a constantly live performaning band. And I would even question the idea that Pepper, because its sound was so specifically studio created, acted as a deterrent to other artists' live performances. It hadn't been released for more than days when Jimmy Hendrix famously played the first track, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, live in his debut concert in London and created a sensation. And the most famous version of With a little help from my friends, aka the song written for Ringo on the album, is arguably not Ringo's version but the one sung by Joe Cocker live as part of the Woodstock Concert. What I'm getting at: Sgt. Pepper showed what you can do in the studio, yes, but it also evidently inspired musicians to take those songs and see how they could rework them in concert.
no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 12:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 09:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-10-30 05:10 pm (UTC)I'm *dying* over here. I only know what I've osmosed from pop culture, but I know enough to be DYING. "I'm your number one fan." !!
They both think they're Paul Sheldon, but only one of them ever had the power to hold the other one literally captive.
And makes me wonder whether someone will ever be insane enough to write that fusion. (Don't look at me.)
I'm looking at you! In fact, before I'd even read this far but had only seen the tumblr post, I had the same thought and was looking at you!
(I haven't read the book or seen the movie, so I can't. :P)
no subject
Date: 2023-10-31 04:52 pm (UTC)Voltaire: Lucky Paul.
Fritz: I‘m not Annie, I‘m the other Paul. As Mildred so rightly says. It‘s entirely Voltaire‘s fault that I have been forced to have him arrested.
Annie: It‘s entirely Paul‘s fault that I was forced to keep him with me, too!
no subject
Date: 2023-10-31 04:26 pm (UTC)I haven't read the book or seen the movie (eta: though I've osmosed enough, like mildred, to make this absolutely hilarious) -- I'm not that into horror -- but I've been dipping my toes in horror more lately, sooooo maybe I should read the book just to think more about this crossover :DD
Other thought I had: That pic of Fritz is really versatile :D
no subject
Date: 2023-10-31 04:43 pm (UTC)Re: Misery: The book is actually one of my favourite Stephen King novels and brilliant meta about the process of writing to boot. The movie on the one hand has a great performance by Kathy Bates who without making Annie Wilkes any less scary manages to make her more human than she is in the novel, but on the other changes an essential element in the ending which I‘ve always treasured, and also doesn‘t get the meta aspect about writing at all. Granted, this is harder in a movie than in a novel, but still.
(Two years ago I watched the short lived Castle Rock series, which is a gigantic Stephen King crossover prequel bonanza, and the second season has a young Annie Wilkes, and manages that tricky thing Kathy Bates did - making her more human, tragic even, without fortifying why she‘s also scary - without, however, doing what annoys me about the movie, but then Paul Sheldon isn‘t in the series, it’s a prequel, after all, and thus the writing about writing in a fictional way thing doesn‘t have to be, either.)
But yes, Miseryis actually a Stephen King novel I would reccomend as an introduction to King in general. It‘s a standalone novel, and has only two characters (plus the characters Paul writes about in his novel within a novel), and it‘s brilliantly claustrophobic. (The film less so, as it has a subplot about a sheriff investigating Paul‘s disappearance. The novel really is exclusively from Paul‘s pov during his time with Annie Wilkes, starting with his accident.)