#i know some of my mutuals are into mclennon and i respect that to be clear!!

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

Do you lean more towards the view that John was irrevocably in love with Paul but this wasn’t reciprocated in the same way because Paul is straight? Hence the bitterness of John and the bewilderment of Paul during the break up and the following decade? I struggle between this view and view there was a mutual love between them. I go back and forth, my head saying the first is probably more likely but my heart finding it too heartbreaking and depressingly tragic. Then finding further ambiguous stories that swing my view back around and so on and so on. I actually find the view that it was purely platonic on both sides more comforting (for lack of a better word) than the one sided love take on things. I also struggle with the *it was all John and his many mental issues fault* discord, maybe because I find it again, too heartbreaking. But also too black and white, Paul was the saint, John was the broken one. Ah I just don’t know! It drives me insane sometimes. I just wondered if you related at all? What’s your opinions? I just love reading nuanced Mclennon takes and I very much respect yours :)

Hi anon! thanks for this ask, I really enjoy talking about this too.

I actually think you bringing up what stories we find the most comforting is too often overlooked. The distinction between what is true and what one wants to be true is important.

Personally, I think the two-sided platonic take is the least tragic – not that friendship breakups aren't incredibly sad, but in this particular case it wouldn't carry as much extra baggage. TBH, regarding the one-sided scenario, I actually find it heartbreaking from Paul's perspective specifically, because it's something I feel he would both want to know and which would be about the most upsetting thing he could possibly find out now, when it is far too late to do anything about it.

But on the other hand, I also disagree that one-sided attraction from John's side is more heartbreaking than something two-sided (assuming it was deep, not just situational mutual lusting), because I find the idea that Paul has been hiding something that huge his entire life almost disturbingly sad. I know he's a private person, but if John was some lost Great Love of his, I can't imagine it not weighing on him that he's felt the need to tiptoe around that for half a century (given he does enjoy speaking about Linda in that way). As I've said, the idea of it being one-sided is very sad to me, but there's also sort of a "well, nothing to be done about that" to it, which takes some sting out of that scenario to me. If there was a mutual attraction there, then it does to me feel viscerally upsetting if they never got to actually give that a fair shot (seeing as most people don't think John and Paul were in a committed longterm relationship, even if they think they had a multi-year sexual thing going on).

Okay, now onto what I think the truth is. Firstly, I want to reiterate: I don't know the truth, there's a lot of unknown variables at play. There's a sort of "default" most likely scenario in my head, but I try to keep as many possibilities as I can in mind.

As I've said, I have not found there to be a very compelling case that Paul is anything but straight (but I am open to the idea that he might not be). There is a very compelling case that John was not. From there, it doesn't seem like a leap to me, based on quotes, that John at some point had at least a crush on Paul. What gets murkier is assessing how relevant that was to the breakup and their relationship at large. I agree with you that saying "the breakup happened because he couldn't stand not being with Paul" is a gross simplification, as is "John was Mentally Ill™, thus breakup". But dismissing either of those things as at least co-factors in the breakup seems unwise to me.

I feel like understanding John's journey with internalized homophobia would be relevant here. Even if by the time the band broke up he was no longer "down bad" for Paul, I can't help but feel like, if John was generally feeling negative about his attraction to men, that he would project that onto a former male love interest of his, especially if he was already mad at Paul for other reasons (business and music-related). I talked about how primal therapy specifically might have exacerbated this here (though bear in mind: I no longer would use the term 'conversion therapy' to describe primal, just because people tend to misunderstand the details and sensationalize this chapter in John's life).

Looking at John's breakup behaviour, I'm also somewhat reminded of this guy from my high school who went from very obviously crushing on me to very openly and repeatedly voicing his disgust with me. Is that to ensure nobody gets "the wrong idea"? Is it needing to convince yourself your feelings weren't real or that moving on is the right answer? I'm not sure.

Furthermore, Yoko did basically tell Norman that she thought John was partially extremely angry at Paul post-breakup because he felt sexually rejected by him. Like. That's a thing John's widow, who was there at the time, said lol, though I'm not actually opposed to the idea that maybe Yoko is kind of an overly enthusiastic shipper herself and has maybe even read more into it than was there. But I also can't just dismiss her when she is basically the single most knowledgable source on John.

Lastly, even though I think it's quite possible that John had an unrequited sexual and romantic attraction towards Paul, I don't think I'd claim Paul loved John less. I think Paul was kind of obsessed with John,* and still is in some sense (though the reasons for that are far more complicated and related to 1) the senseless tragedy of John's death and 2) Paul basically having to act as a sounding board for everyone on earth's grief for John).

Not that this fact would necessarily have been all that comforting to John at the time, but I kind of reject the premise that it's completely tragic because their relationship was built on a mutual love, even if it wasn't always compatible in that way.

*I also kind of think Paul probably enjoyed the attention John gave him, even if (or perhaps because) he didn't realize what John's intentions were.

Does that all make sense?

[kreekey]

I'm obsessed with your blog and your art! You're extremely talented! And I love your view on John and Paul because yessss 100000% they had lives outside of each other and other important relationships. That's one thing I find confusing about mclennon. But I still like parts of it. I'm not sure if it actually happened but I do think there was tension. Do you think there was a romantic tension or any opinions on it

Oh wow, I’m glad you like my blog and art!! Thank you so much I got a dumb grin on my face. And I didn’t think someone would come to ask me for my opinion on that stuff, haha 😅 but it’s really nice! 

And I love your view on John and Paul because yessss 100000% they had lives outside of each other and other important relationships

I’m so glad someone shares my sort of feelings on this 😭💕💕

So in my view, I don’t know if there was romantic tension! I can see why people think so because sometimes they would say stuff like this: 

“PAUL: It’s like, uh, “We have to get back.” “We’re on our way home.”

JOHN: Yeah.

PAUL: There’s a story. There’s another one – ‘Don’t Let Me Down’. “Oh darling, I’ll never let you down.” Like we’re doing—

JOHN: Yeah. It’s like you and me are lovers.

PAUL: [reserved] Yeah. [pause]

JOHN: We’ll just have to camp it up for those two.

PAUL: Yeah. Well, I’ll be wearing my skirt for the show, anyway.”

[From the Get Back sessions]

But honestly? I think there was brotherly love, some sort of obvious connection, but I don’t think they were in love in the romantic sense. I think they longed for each other in 1969/1970, but because they were friends for so long--and such close friends--who were going through a not-so-clean breakup. You’d want that relationship back in the way it used to be. There were only four people in the world who could really relate to The Beatle experience, and two who knew what it was like to be Lennon/McCartney, right? So it was losing a friend, an immensely valuable one, one they had for so long and were so familiar with. And they said stuff like that to express how they really understood each other (hard thing to express...) or to respond to how the media portrayed them. But you can understand your friends without being in a romantic relationship with them. It would be difficult or impossible to fully explain their relationship because we’re outsiders, but I wouldn’t jump to ‘they were lovers’. Being great friends is still a beautiful story, I appreciate that. Sometimes I think the word ‘friend’ doesn’t fully encapsulate their dynamic, but I still think ‘lovers’ is something completely different. But anyway, that’s just what I think personally. Impossible to tell anything for sure haha.

Tangent: I know some of y’all say the ship was possible because John was bi or at least bi-curious. And yeah I believe he was bisexual/fluid in his sexuality, but being bi doesn’t mean you’re in love with your friends haha. I have a close (same gender) friend who’s pan and people at school will be like “are you in a relationship?” even thought we’ve said no and it’s kinda uncomfortable. Possibility doesn’t mean it... happened. I don’t think it can be used as evidence for him and Paul in particular, or else you can say it about any man John knew... Also, I believe Yoko when she said John never really entered a relationship with a man as he never found the right one because John literally said that, albeit in a lighthearted manner. (Extra tangent: I saw someone write that John would’ve come out as bisexual but the in the 1970s they didn’t have the word for it/John wasn’t aware of bisexuality. Whoever you were, you kinda undermine the fact John definitely ran in the scene where bi and other sexual orientations were relatively out. Here he jokes about hoping his baby to be bisexual lol. Anyway...)

I think my main opinion on the McLennon ship is that it’s nearly all speculation and interpretation, so it’s hard to discuss it. And I think some of the people who say it’s true want it to be true more than they want the truth (whatever it is), so much so that they’ll look past things that contradict it or will stretch their interpretations so far as to make it look like they were in love in the romantic sense. Sometimes people will post pictures of them looking at each other out of context or something as ‘proof’ of McLennon but it honestly makes me think of it as a parody. And I can see why shippers like it--it would be a gorgeous story and they had a great dynamic!! But I really don’t feel comfortable with people who claim it was 100% true. Because Paul has denied it openly and very clearly multiple times before. And he would know, I think. Plus other’s who write about John’s heterosexuality (like Cynthia for example). But, John can’t really respond. It feels nearly disrespectful and presumptuous to say you know about the lives of these two people if you didn’t actually know them, y’know? Especially because that, in particular, is such a personal issue. Sensational, even. And it’s also something to insert into biographies and to claim and a way to sell copies--I’m not saying that every author who claims it is being disingenuous, but I question people like Goldman. Because some of the people who support it will bring up straight false information to back it up. My basic view is that it’s fine to ship it as long as you don’t try to say you are certain in its reality. I don’t think the information is known to be able to say it’s certain. 

Also, another one of my opinions related to ‘McLennon’ is that some of the fandom share made up quotes or stories as ‘proof’ for it. Support your ship, sure, but separate fiction from reality! These are real people. For example, I’ve seen this one posted a few times:

“Cynthia Lennon is a goddess, you know. Paul is a god. Aren’t I lucky to have such a religion?”

X

Not necessarily McLennon, but John calls Paul his religion. This is from an alternate history book called Walkin' Blues-Beatles At The Crossroads: An Alternate History Of The Beatles Novel (Jackie Lane). I also posted this one and asked if anyone knew the source for it:

“One night he was so drunk that I had to drag him away from the pub and bring him in a park to vomit. When he finished, he was upset so we sat on a bench. Still drunk and hesitant, he pointed his finger at a star straight above our heads and he said: ‘That is the star my mother dedicated to me and it has always been mine. But from now on it will be yours too, if you want. Its name is Mary Julia and every time you will at it in any situation, any moment, you will know that I’m there near to you and laughing about how queer you are. I will always be there, I promise, I will look at you from Mary Julia. And even the contrary because it’s our star, just ours, a star that belongs to two idiots that strum and that every night lie on a bench full of alcohol.’ I was flabbergasted and together we started to laugh. Some years later I looked at that star and I cried for the whole night. His laugh near me wasn’t enough to make me stop. But I realised that he kept his promise and it was beautiful.” [-- Paul]

X

Some people told me they were pretty sure it was from a fanfiction. Y’all, I wrote fanfiction too. I wrote a epistolary-like piece of fiction once. If someone shared it as a real quote I’d be fucking mortified lol. (Also, when I posted it asking for a source some people in the tags were like “I don’t care if it’s fake that’s beautiful” and I’m like how do you not?? That blurs the line between reality and fantasy and that’s terrible because they were live people like you and me at a point...)

Uhm I think those are my takes. Thank you anon for the ask!! Sort of an excuse to share all my thoughts that I figured no one cared for 😂😂 And I get people will disagree and that’s okay!! If you think there was tension, etc I can see why! In the end there were only two people out there that can really answer that.