![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Yeah, no
Good 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
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
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.)