#Submarine Postbox

[thewalrusespublicist]

Hello! Love your blog and your takes, objective and sane and well researched chefs kiss! I had a blast scrolling through it like it was my feed yesterday lol can you elaborate on klaus and Paul if possible? People mostly talk about them like it’s already understood but I don’t understand 😭 I’m kinda lost on their (all of them, including stu) dynamic during the hamburg years specifically when it comes to Paul

Aww thank you anon! Tbh I was starting to feel a bit down about my blog and what I was putting out ( the eternal crisis on how to give full answers and opinions without being stupid, boring and annoying lol). So I really, really needed this. :)

Oh Paul vs/and the Exsis, it's quite a long one so buckle up.

Disclaimer: all of the people involved are essentially art kids/young adults who are famously the most exhausting people on the planet. Do not blame them for being dramatic, it's their natural state of being.

If we want to go into Paul and Klaus, we have to kind of start with the John, Paul and Stu. Now these three are a mess that's too big to go into here (though I have THOUGHTS about how Stu is utilised in the Beatles narrative that I'm more than happy to share if asked lmaooo). But in short(ish):

John and Paul had had an intense year and a bit of closeness. Then John meets Stu at art college.

John and Stu become c l o s e for many reasons (being peers, living together, similar artistic leanings + ego, Stu being a gentle guide to John, sharing art projects/poetry/long letters and feelings etc.) They became 'closer than two men' a friend had seen (remind us of anyone gang?). Most importantly, John could be open about his feelings with Stu in letters. If John had BPD which I subscribe too, I think Stu was his 'favourite person' and as Aunt Mimi said his 'special' and 'closest friend' from this period up until his death (though imho the transference back to Paul was starting prior to his death).

It's not clear what exactly happens as there's differing accounts but Stu uses his money to buy a new bass as John wants him to come to Scotland then Hamburg and play bass as he will 'look good'.

Paul doesen't like being relegated to the seat behind John and Stu when he used to sit next to John. He also isn't thrilled when he gets to Hamburg and not only does he get to sleep in the other room with just Pete but Stu cannot be arsed to play because he's hanging out with his hot new girlfriend Astrid (more on her in a sec). Our boy has spent a lot of money he doesen't have and given up on further education to be here and is jealous and annoyed.

Paul and Stu probably were friends and I think their mutual antipathy is overegged. HOWEVER, can't be denied that Paul is jealous of Stu and Stu is jealous of Paul (and getting flare-ups from increasing brain damage). John and Stu tease Paul and steal his money, Paul is mean to Stu (as are the others encouraged by John). Do I think John was playing games with both of them? Yup. They end up scuffling onstage because Paul said something about Astrid (not clear what, one account is that Paul said that Stu could borrow money off Astrid if he needed it which isn't really that bad a dig but who knows Yoko??).

Why is this dynamic important? Because it directly impacts the 'Exsis' (Klaus, Jurgen and Astrid's) group's relationship with Paul:

The Exsis were young artists living in Hamburg. They were artistic, cool, interesting and edgy. They were paramount in introducing the Beatles to cool new concepts, aesthetics and ideas. They also took themselves VERY seriously ie pretentious as all hell.

Astrid met Stu at Kaiserkeller and hit it off. They embarked on an all-consuming romance.

Letter from Stu to Astrid, c.1961

I've seen people say they were the proto-John and Yoko in terms of making their romance the whole world and influencing John years down the line and I can see that. With Astrid and Stu it's far more endearing though because they ARE young and the right age to have a relationship like that. Stu is popular with the Exsis in general and brings them into the Beatles group.

The Exsis didn't like or trust Paul. Astrid said later it was because Paul was 'too nice' which she herself admits is a ridiculous reason. The others also thought he was a bit of a show-off. It makes sense though if you're cool and edgy and want to stick it to the world to be sus about a guy being friendly show-off with seemingly no inner world. The other problem was a perfectly reasonable one imo, you're not going to like your friends frenemy who you don't connect with. Compound that with Paul not taking drugs as much as George or John and being in the other room and you begin to have a division.

Paul had been popular his whole life, like from what we know since-primary-school-popular. He had never been in this position before, let alone in a foreign country. I believe it became a bit of a brutal feedback loop. Paul's response to this type of behaviour consistently it to go more surface level, snide and passive aggressive. The natural response of any group with a designated 'ugh' person is to become more shady and exclusionary. The cycle continues and gets worse. Stu letters back home at this time says that in a shocking turn of events Paul is hated by everyone but Stu 'just feels sorry for him' (lmao OF COURSE you do Stu, its giving 'loathing' from Wicked lol). Klaus drew a lot of artwork of the early Hamburg Beatles that includes this highly unpleasant picture of Paul in 1961 which I think says a lot:

Klaus is also a musician and fancies himself a place on bass. When Stu leaves to pursue art, Klaus asks John if he could take over but John says that he thinks Paul is going to do it.

Klaus has later gone on to say that he thinks he was a better bass player for the Beatles' sound at the start and then Paul developed into being better for the group. It's one of those I cannot believe those words actually left your mouth and you are not deeply embarrased moments. But it's important to keep this desire and viewpoint in mind.

Klaus stays in touch with all of them and close to John and George, George especially. They visit Klaus on holiday in tenerife in early 60s and Klaus later draws the Revolver artwork.

This whole context of how they met and Hamburg is crucial and has to be taken into account when hearing Klaus' statements. Klaus and Paul started off with a lack of connection and with Paul on the outs, the Exsis got an incomplete view of Paul and an inaccurate snapshot of the Beatles dynamic overall. This is why when Klaus says 'Paul was always slightly apart from the others' and that 'divorce was inevitable' from early 60s we should remember that that is what Klaus is expecting to see as that's what he saw in Hamburg.

Klaus wanted to be the bass player (and was holding out hope to join a band with George and John in the 70s), was really close with George and suffers as many did with 'John Lennon aspiring boy bestie syndrome' (JABBS). Paul had what Klaus wanted and from the Hamburg experience, you could see why Klaus thought he might have an in and may have been jealous of this 'shallow' Paul of all people having the connection that he felt he should/could have with John and George. As with most sufferers of JABBS, he took John's side with everything, always refused to say any regrets about his involvement in How do you Sleep and thought Paul was fine with the song because 'he was even closer to John than [he] was. (Again Klaus to put yourself in that level of closeness with John that it's comparable to Paul is ???.) JABBS and its secondary condition PMIETGSH (Paul McCartney isn't even that good shut up) are virulent diseases that incapacitate sufferers objectivity and judgement, so it's fair to say that Klaus is a source you have to take with a pinch of salt on the early 70s period.

It seems that Klaus and Paul did get on a lot better the older they got (probably without the jealousy complication of George and John) and developed a sweet friendship. Here is Klaus' tribute to Paul for his 80th:

Here is the jam session he's talking about:

He now wants Paul to live in his house lmao so things have gotten warmer. But Klaus and Paul's dynamic is a great example of how and why natural bias, little jealousies and spats can consciously or subconsciously influence our internal narrative and why we need to be so careful about not taking one perspective as gospel.

[wheresanne]

50 Beautiful Things to do in Busan, Korea

Must-Visit Highlights and Landmarks of Busan, South Korea:

Temples/ Religious Sites & History/Art Museums Shopping Streets & Seafood Markets Beaches & Parks & More Beaches Hikes & Mountains Cafes & Restaurants Nightlife/Clubs/Bars

BIFF Square Market

Haedong Yonggungsa Temple

Built during the Goryeo Dynasty in 1376, historic Haedong Yonggungsa Temple is one of only a few Korean temples on the coast, and it honors Haesu Gwaneum Daebul, a Buddhist goddess believed to live in the ocean, where she rides atop a dragon. Legends aside, the east-facing temple offers a spectacular view of the rising sun. There is no fee to enter Haedong Yonggungsa Temple.

BEXCO

Busan Cinema Center (부산 영화의 전당)

Busan Cinema Center is the venue of the Busan International Film Festival, a major world film festival. Address: 120, Suyeonggangbyeon-daero, Haeundae-gu, Busan 부산광역시 해운대구 수영강변대로 120 (우동)

Busan National Science Museum (국립부산과학관)

Address: 59, Dongbusangwangwang 6-ro, Gijang-gun, Busan 부산광역시 기장군 기장읍 동부산관광6로 59 Operating Hours09:30-17:30 (Last admission is 1 hour before closing)ClosedMondays (closed next day if Monday falls on a public holiday), New Year’s Day, Day of Seollal (Lunar New Year's Day) and Chuseok (Korean Thanksgiving Day)

Gamcheon Culture Village

Also known as ‘Santorini of the East’ due to its pastel houses, outdoor sculptures and other art installations. The village was built after the Korean War on a hillside, which you explore on foot as your guide leads you through a maze of alleyways to the Sky Garden, where you stop for excellent photo ops.

Samgwangsa Temple (삼광사)

is near the mountain and kidna near Seomeyon Station and City Hall Founded in 1986, Samgwangsa Temple is the second Cheontae (천태종), located in Choeup-dong, Busanjin-gu, Busan. The temple nestled in the hillside of the Baekyang mountain so all Busan area is viewed at one glance with the bright morning sunshine. It opens 24 hours for praying and continues its practice Buddhism religiously everyday. Address: 77, Choeupcheon-ro 43beon-gil, Busanjin-gu, Busan 부산광역시 부산진구 초읍천로43번길 77 (초읍동)

Gimhae Airport

Daejeo Ecological Park (대저생태공원)

Near Gimhae Airport Bicycle rental. Daejeo Ecological Park is located along the riverbanks of Nakdonggang River next to Gimhae Airport. The park is a habitat for migratory birds, designated Natural Memorial No. 179. The park is made up of various marshs and waterways, flowers and grasses, and exercise facilities. Address: Daejeo 1-dong, Gangseo-gu, Busan 부산광역시 강서구 대저1동

Jagalchi Fish Market

Busan Tower

Take the elevator to the top of the 394-foot-high (120-meter) Busan Tower and look over downtown Busan. On a clear day, you might see Tsushima Island of Japan across the East Sea.

Yongdusan Park by Busan Tower

Haeundae Beach

Cheongsapo Port (청사포)

Cheongsapo Port is located on the right side near the end of Dalmaji Hill in the direction of Songjeong in Haeundae. Along with Gudeokpo Port and Mipo Port, Cheongsapo Port is among the three ports lined against the coastal shore between Haeundae and Songjeong. Cheongsapo Port is famous as a place to view beautiful sunsets and where quality seaweed can be found. Address: Jung-dong, Haeundae-gu, Busan 부산광역시 해운대구 중동

UN Memorial Cemetery (재한유엔기념공원)

The United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea, located at Tanggok in the Nam District, City of Busan, Republic of Korea, is a burial ground for United Nations Command casualties of the Korean War. It contains 2,300 graves and is the only United Nations cemetery in the world. Address: 93, UN pyeonghwa-ro, Nam-gu, Busan (부산광역시 남구 유엔평화로 93) Read more on Visit Korea's official website: https://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/ATR/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=264405

Samjin Fish Cake History Museum · History Hall (삼진어묵체험·역사관)

on the same island part and near Taejongdae Park. Fish cakes are one of the most popular snacks in Busan. Among many fish cake makers in the city, Samjin Fish Cake is the oldest fish cake producer. Its main store in Yeongdo looks like a bakery shop. Address: 36, Taejong-ro 99beon-gil, Yeongdo-gu, Busan 부산광역시 영도구 태종로99번길 36 (봉래동2가)

Taejongdae Cliff Park (태종대유원지)

Taejongdae Cliff Park is a natural park of Busan, South Korea with magnificent cliffs facing the open sea on the southernmost tip of island of Yeongdo-gu. The rock under the lighthouse is called Sinseonam, it was formed 120,000 years ago. These sister-bloggers wrote a detailed blog post about it with tons of photos: https://chopsticksandcarryons.com/2018/01/25/taejongdae-park-busan/

Address: 24 Jeonmang-ro, Dongsam-dong, Yeongdo-gu, Busan

Closes 12AM

Phone: 051-405-2004

Busan Fishing Village Folk Museum (부산어촌민속관)

near Beomeosa

This Museum displays cultural artifacts and materials related to tradition, history and folklore of Busan's fishing culture and development. Designed with a theme of "Fishing Village Trip from the River to the Sea," the exhibition halls are divided into Nakdonggang River Fishing Village Folk Hall and Busan Fishing Village Folk Hall. It has programs such as Zodiac boat making, eco-friendly soap making, marine life classroom, etc.

Address: 128, Haksa-ro, Buk-gu, Busan 부산광역시 북구 학사로 128 (화명동)

Beomeosa Buddhism Temple (범어사)

Beomeosa Temple is on top of a moutnain. It's a large, incredibly serene temple site. Beomeosa has many halls, pagodas, and gates.

Address: 546 Cheongnyong-dong, Geumjeong-gu, Busan, Korea Tel: 051-508-3122 Web: www.beomeo.kr Opening Hours: 08:30 ~ 17:30

https://www.pinterest.co.kr/pin/839428818029370569/ https://www.pinterest.co.kr/pin/839428818029370573/

Busan Citizen’s Park (부산시민공원)

The site of Busan Citizen’s Park was a racetrack during the Japanese colonial era, and after the independence of Korea, it became a U.S. military base, Camp Hialeah. In 2010, the area was returned to the Korean government, and then control was transferred to the city.

Geumjeong Mountain Fortress

Address: Cheongnyong-dong, Geumjeong-gu, Busan, Korea Tel: 051-519-4081 Web: geumjeong.go.kr Opening Hours: 08:30 ~ 17:30

Nampodong International Market

Address: 36 Junggu-ro, Jung-gu, Busan, Korea Tel: 051-245-7389 Web: etour.busan.go.kr Opening Hours: 08:30 ~ 22:30

Seokbulsa Byeongpung-am (Folding Screen Hermitage)

It is the mountain – embedded on the side of Geumjeongsan, cradled in the strong rock’s clutch. A massive Buddhist figure stands in front of a polished stone prayer platform. Address: San 2, Mandeok 1 dong, Buk-gu, Busan, Korea Tel: 054-746-9933 Web: jikimi.cha.go.kr Opening Hours: 07:00 – 19:00 Also visit Pohang! Sources of Information: https://english.visitkorea.or.kr/common_intl/mapInformation.kto?md=enu&func_name=main

Yu Chi-hwan Postbox Observatory (유치환 우체통 전망대)

Really close to Busan train Station. This is an observatory located along Sanbok-ro Road in Choryang-dong, Dong-gu, Busan. A mail box was installed to celebrate the arts and literature of famous poet Yu Chi-hwan. The observatory is divided into two levels. The first level consists of a terraced outdoor performance stage, while the second level is the arts exhibition area, covered in a full glass design. Opening date May 15, 2013 Closed on Mondays Address: 2, Mangyang-ro 580beon-gil, Dong-gu, Busan 부산광역시 동구 망양로580번길 2 (초량동)

Chang Kee-ryo Memorial Hall (장기려기념 더 나눔센터)

close to Busan train Station. Established in 2013, the Chang Kee-ryo Memorial Hall is a place to honor Dr. Chang, often referred to as the Schweitzer of Korea, for his lifelong practice of sharing with poor neighbors. Address: 48, Yeongchowit-gil, Dong-gu, Busan 부산광역시 동구 영초윗길 48 (초량동)

168 Stairs (168계단)

Really close to Busan train Station. Address: Yeongcho-gil 191beon-gil, Dong-gu, Busan 부산광역시 동구 영초길191번길 (초량동)

Eulsukdo Cultural Center (을숙도문화회관)

I think it's far away http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/ATR/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=2025822 http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/ATR/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=2049521 http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/ATR/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=2357522 http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/ATR/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=2357538 http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/ATR/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=2394035 http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/ATR/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=2401015 http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/ATR/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=2401018 https://www.nickkembel.com/things-to-do-in-busan/ https://english.visitkorea.or.kr/common_intl/mapInformation.kto?md=enu&func_name=main

Others 168 Stairs (168계단) Dong-gu Busan Exhibition & Memorial Halls Ebagu Crafts Workshop (이바구공작소) Dong-gu Busan Parks Democracy Park (민주공원) Jung-gu Busan Exhibition & Memorial Halls Provisional Capital Memorial Hall (임시수도기념관) Seo-gu Busan Art Museums/ Art Galleries Busan Trick Eye Musem (부산 트릭아이미술관) Jung-gu Busan Architectural & Sculptural Highlights The Bay 101 (더베이101) Haeundae-gu Busan Seasides/ Beaches/ Islands Sinseondae Cliff (신선대 (부산)) Nam-gu Busan Others Choryang Ibagu-gil & Sanbok Road (초량 이바구길 & 산복도로) Dong-gu Busan Temples/ Religious Sites Hongbeopsa Temple (홍법사) Geumjeong-gu Busan Exhibition & Memorial Halls Fisheries Science Museum (수산과학관 (부산)) Gijang-gun Busan

Ship/ Submarine Excursions Tiffany 21 Night Cruise (부산 티파니21 크루즈 유람선) Haeundae-gu Busan Others Busan Gamcheon Culture Village (부산 감천문화마을) Saha-gu Busan Yachting The Bay 101 YACHT CLUB (더베이101 요트클럽) Haeundae-gu Busan Seasides/ Beaches/ Islands Igidae Park (이기대 도시자연공원) Nam-gu Busan Architectural & Sculptural Highlights Oryukdo Skywalk (오륙도 스카이워크) Nam-gu Busan Industrial Tours Bosu-dong Book Street Cultural Center(보수동 책방골목 문화관) Jung-gu Busan Amusement Parks/ Tourist Resorts Haeundae Special Tourist Zone (해운대 관광특구) Haeundae-gu Busan Amusement Parks/ Tourist Resorts Yongdusan Jagalchi Special Tourist Zone (용두산 자갈치 관광특구) Jung-gu Busan Architectural & Sculptural Highlights Yeongdodaegyo Bridge (영도대교) Yeongdo-gu Busan Sports Stadiums Busan Asiad Main Stadium (부산 아시아드주경기장) Yeonje-gu Busan

Parks UN Sculpture Park (유엔조각공원) Nam-gu Busan Architectural & Sculptural Highlights Busandaegyo Bridge (부산대교) Yeongdo-gu Busan Art Museums/ Art Galleries Johyun Gallery (조현화랑) Haeundae-gu Busan Art Museums/ Art Galleries Goeun Contemporary Photo Museum (고은컨템포러리사진미술관) Haeundae-gu Busan Art Museums/ Art Galleries Goeun Museum of Photography (고은사진미술관) Haeundae-gu Busan Mountains Hwangnyeongsan Mountain (황령산) Busanjin-gu Busan Training Equipments Geumnyeonsan Youth Training Institute (부산광역시 금련산청소년수련원) Suyeong-gu Busan Museums National Maritime Museum (국립해양박물관) Yeongdo-gu Busan Parks 75 Square (75광장) Yeongdo-gu Busan Ferry Boat Terminal Busan Port Passenger Terminal (부산연안여객터미널) Jung-gu Busan

Train Station Haeundae Station (해운대역) Haeundae-gu Busan Ferry Boat Terminal Busan Port International Passenger Terminal (부산항 국제여객터미널) Dong-gu Busan Temples/ Religious Sites Cheokpanam Hermitage (Busan) (척판암 (부산)) Gijang-gun Busan Parks Suyeong Sajeok Park (수영사적공원) Suyeong-gu Busan Seasides/ Beaches/ Islands Haeundae Dongbaekseom Island (해운대 동백섬) Haeundae-gu Busan Mountains Geumjeongsan Mountain (금정산) Geumjeong-gu Busan Ports/ Fishing Villages/ Lighthouses Oryukdo Lighthouse (오륙도 등대) Nam-gu Busan Museums Bokcheon Museum (Busan) (복천박물관(부산)) Dongnae-gu Busan Architectural & Sculptural Highlights Busan Tower (Yongdusan Park) (부산타워) Jung-gu Busan Airport Gimhae International Airport (김해국제공항) Gangseo-gu Busan

Sports Stadiums Busan Sports Complex (부산종합운동장) Yeonje-gu Busan Ports/ Fishing Villages/ Lighthouses Yeongdo Lighthouse (영도 등대) Yeongdo-gu Busan Parks Millak Waterfront Park (민락수변공원) Suyeong-gu Busan Auditoriums Busan Citizens' Hall (부산시민회관) Dong-gu Busan Seasides/ Beaches/ Islands Ilgwang Beach (일광해수욕장) Gijang-gun Busan Parks Samnak Ecological Park (삼락생태공원) Sasang-gu Busan Parks Geumgang Park (금강공원) Dongnae-gu Busan Hot Springs/ Bath Houses/Spas/ Jjimjilbangs Hurshimchung (허심청) Dongnae-gu Busan Train Station Busan Station (부산역) Dong-gu Busan Museums Busan Marine Natural History Museum (부산해양자연사박물관) Dongnae-gu Busan

Auditoriums Busan Cultural Center (부산문화회관) Nam-gu Busan Bus Terminal Busan Bus Terminal (부산종합버스터미널) Geumjeong-gu Busan Bus Terminal Busan Seobu Intercity Bus Terminal (부산서부시외버스터미널) Sasang-gu Busan Convention Centers BEXCO (벡스코) Haeundae-gu Busan Others Seomyeon 1 Beonga (Seomyeon First Street) (서면1번가) Busanjin-gu Busan Architectural & Sculptural Highlights Busan Gwangandaegyo Bridge (부산 광안대교) Suyeong-gu Busan Mountains Geumnyeonsan Mountain (금련산) Suyeong-gu Busan Ecological Tourist Sites Nakdong Estuary Eco-Center (낙동강하구에코센터) Saha-gu Busan Others Gwangbok-dong Cultural & Fashion Street (광복로문화패션거리) Jung-gu Busan Seasides/ Beaches/ Islands Busan Songdo Beach (부산 송도해수욕장) Seo-gu Busan

Art Museums/ Art Galleries Busan Museum of Art (부산시립미술관) Haeundae-gu Busan Museums Busan Museum (부산박물관) Nam-gu Busan Skating Shinsegae Department Store Ice Rink - Centum City Branch (센텀시티 아이스링크 (신세계백화점)) Haeundae-gu Busan Others Gukje Market Food Street (국제시장 먹자골목) Jung-gu Busan Others 40-step Culture & Tourism Theme Street (40계단 문화관광테마거리) Jung-gu Busan Hot Springs/ Bath Houses/Spas/ Jjimjilbangs Spa Land Centum City (스파랜드 센텀시티) Haeundae-gu Busan Ports/ Fishing Villages/ Lighthouses Gadeokdo Lighthouse (가덕도 등대) Gangseo-gu Busan Architectural & Sculptural Highlights Dadaepo Sunset Fountain of Dream (다대포 꿈의 낙조분수) Saha-gu Busan Others BIFF Square (BIFF 광장 (구, PIFF 광장)) Jung-gu Busan Architectural & Sculptural Highlights Shinsegae Centum City (신세계 센텀시티) Haeundae-gu Busan

[thewalrusespublicist]

"Tbh I was starting to feel a bit down about my blog and what I was putting out ( the eternal crisis on how to give full answers and opinions without being stupid, boring and annoying lol)"

OMG no way! Your blog is one of the best here! What i love the most is reading the analysis and meta from the users, there's always more information and good takes, and yours are always quite deep and insightful.

I would love if you share your opinions about Stuart as well. I feel like he is obviously more sanctified that he should be since he died young (like that insane quote from his mom saying that Brian told her that Stuart could have been the Beatles' manager, no way lol) and i feel his memory has been used to attack Paul, sometimes in a very unfair way. Like, i don't deny the teenage drama and jealousy that Paul felt about him but he *was* a shitty bass player and the band was Paul's future, he was allowed to criticized him not only for being John's new bestie. I also think John played with them both but i lack of your eloquence so i will love to read your take about it.

Hi anon! And the other anons!

Thank you again and to all the other messages I got, they were extremely sweet and really made my day. :)

From my inbox, it's clear you guys want to know about Stu and his role in the Beatles legacy. Well you asked for it and a novel you shall have. Be warned this might be the longest post I've done so grab like a drink or something.

A few disclaimers: I wish and had intended for this to be more of a deep dive into Stu as a whole person rather than just his relationship with John and Paul. Unfortunately I just didn't have the space to do it. If you want to know more about Stu I would highly recommend @eppysboys' blog which is the source for all things Stu Sutcliffe and where I got a lot of this info. Please check their stuff out. Also, I'm going to be a bit blunter on this than maybe I usually am because this topic has been irritating me for some time. Oh also I’m trying my best to answer a lot of asks in one post so please forgive if I don’t fully answer your specific ask about this!

Stu in a perfect world should be a fandom darling: an exciting cipher, a handsome artistic talent that died way too soon who had a major influence in the early Beatles style. It's like there’s this secret other James Dean looking mf Beatle hidden away to uncover, that's cool and he is cool! The problem is that he’s sort of becomes radioactive to talk about in a normal way due to how he's been portrayed and utilised in some biographies and fandom spaces, particularly those that have been infected by John Lennon aspirational boy bestie syndrome. As those types of spaces cannot seem to exist without tearing down Paul to prop John up as their special lil guy, Stu as John's other best friend has become the ideal heavy object to hit Paul McCartney over the head with. It's like a corrosive element, the minute Stu hits a Beatles bio, the biographer suddenly loses all training in objectivity and source work and starts waxing lyrical about 100 percent reliable never biased or wrong Saint Stu of Hamburg who died for our condom arson sins and that Paul McCartney should feel bad about every day of his life for not worshipping Stu and not accepting his own ‘place’ in life as John's just-some-guy placeholder best friend. I’ve personally seen so many posts and forums where Stu being mentioned leads to a legion of comments about how Paul could never have been Stu (correct both ways) and how John would never have even glanced at Paul for much longer if Stu had been alive. Sidenote: If you seriously think that the musical savant from down the road whom John went on to produce the most prolific song writing partnership in history with couldnt have kept his attention for long then I'm begging you on hands and knees to get your head out of the arse of your John Lennon body pillow and be serious. But anyway…

This boy bestie battle royale approach has in turn lead to a reflex reaction where Stu gets studiously ignored by other sections of the fandom as a precedent has been set that shining a light on him diminishes Paul and John's relationship with Paul. It's frustrating because if people weren't so keen to cut Paul out of his own story then we would get a much better nuanced view of every single person involved.

So let's put aside all of our defenses, cut the John Lennon loved one ranking system bullshit and lets look at the actual question here which is what was John and Stu's relationship really like and what did he mean to John?

John and Stu met at art college a year or so after Paul and John met. Up to that point John and Paul had their fun little codependant thing going on but Stu quickly became a huge fixture in John's life. Stu had things that Paul couldn't really offer at that point in time. John was at his heart a musician who aspired to be seen as an artist (he would later express surprise that he didn't become an artist). Stu was the passionate artist who knew tons about the art of the period that could teach and inspire John. Their creative leanings meant they could work on projects together and share art notebooks and poetry. (Including yes the one with anti-semitic story which I mention again as I believe it's an important thing to remember when it comes to both John and Stu and the culture of the time.) Stuart by the sounds of it was even writing a novel about John at the time of his death. They were fascinated and inspired by each other.

So, creatively they fired each other up but more importantly perhaps, Stu and John were peers. It's funny to think about when you see the Beatles later but at the time Paul and George were the kids in their school uniform coming to see their cool older friend at art school. That's an important divide. When Paul and George's parents insisted their kids do their homework and go to bed, John and Stu could stay up and talk all hours of the night, which they did. They also could rent a place together and spend long hours chatting (despite John moving out later after realising electricity cost money lol.) There's a different dynamic that the age similarity offered as well. Whilst Paul would later somewhat grow into this role, Stu could act as an authority figure to John as well as open up to John in a way you can really only do with your peers. Stu was the person John opened up to throughout Stu's life:

How long can one go on writing and writing like you. I now don’t really know who I’m writing to or why it’s quiet peculiar. I usually write like this and forget about it but if I put it in a little part of my [almost?] secret self in the hands of someone miles away who will wonder what the hell is going on or just pass it off as toilet paper. Anyway I don’t care really what happens because when I think about it, it’s so bloody unimportant – but what is important who has the right to say that this letter is not important and this is a something any way – anyway – anyway – yeah! I wonder what it would be like to be a cretin or something. I bet it’s gear. & how are you keepin Stuart old chap are you as ok – is life as good – bad shite, great – wonderful as it was or is it just a thousand years of nothing and coolness on and on and on. I think this is it Goodbye Stu don’t write out of – er what is it? well not because you think you ought to write when you feel like So goodbye (from John you know the one with glasses) ANYWAY BYE BYE see you soon I don’t know why I said that I remember a time when everyone I loved hated me because I hated them so what so what so fucking what I remember a time when belly buttons were knee high when only shitting was dirty and everything else clean + beautiful I can’t remember anything without a sadness So deep that it hardly becomes known to me so deep that its tears leave me a spectator of my own STUPIDITY + so I go rambling on with a hey nonny nonny nonny no

Extract from a letter to Stuart Sutcliffe from John Lennon, 1961

By lots of accounts Stu was gentle but firm when it came to telling John he'd gone too far. John references this aspect of Stu to Hunter Davies:

"I looked up to Stu. I depended on him to tell me the truth. Stu would tell me if something was good and I'd believe him."

The Beatles: The Authorised Biography (Hunter Davies)

In this way I kind of see Stu as a proto-Yoko. John was so insecure and uncertain about his grip on the world and reality that he relied on Stu to be his point of reference and guide. Paul did this too later and I think in Hunter Davies John mentions this, but not at this time period and not as much due to their competitiveness. This may be why some people saw Stu as the person that really understood John at this time period:

"During the turbulent adolescence that prefaced a turbulent manhood, hardly anyone knew Lennon as intimately as Stuart Sutcliffe. If they weren't exactly David and Jonathan, June Furlong, one of the life models at Liverpool's Regional College of Art, had "never seen two teenagers as close as those two."

The Gospel According To Lennon by Alan Clayson

Now this person likely never met John and Paul together but this is only one of many similar quotes and even Julia captain of John and Paul's friendship boat seems to agree there was a period where Stu dominated and Paul 'kept his distance' from the John-Cyn-Stu 'menage-a-trois'. But the friendship wasn't perfect and his position as John's ultimate best friend was never iron clad. This is best outlined by the shit they pulled when John convinced him to join on Bass for the Beatles.

Despite being John's best friend, Stu was teased and bullied:

"They argued as usual amongst themselves, but most of all they picked on Stu, the newest member of the group. John, George and Paul had been with each other long enough to know that rows and arguments and criticism didn't mean much. If it did, you just argued back. "We were terrible," says John. "We'd tell Stu he couldn't sit with us, or eat with us. We'd tell him to go away, and he did." At one hotel they stayed at, a variety show had just left. There had been a dwarf in the show and they found out which bed he had slept in and said that would have to be Stu's. They certainly weren't going to sleep in it. So Stu had to. "That was how he learned to be with us," says John. "It was all stupid, but that was what we were like."

The Beatles: The Authorised Biography (Hunter Davies)

Why John encouraged this I have no idea, maybe jealousy over Stu's looks and wanting to play people off each other? Things were tense in both Scotland and Hamburg, especially between Stu and Paul. As I said in my last post, the girls were fighting and it was mutual. Paul was mad for both fair and immature teenage-boy reasons. Stu could not be bothered with the bass most of the time and couldn't really play well and was only there as he was '(John's) best friend' (ouch for Paul). Paul conversely had given up higher education to be there and was sending lots of money back home. He also was dating the girl Paul fancied. Stu was popular with the new group and also did mean things like help John steal Paul's money when money was really tight for him. Paul in turn was a passive aggressive, jealous and mean. It all came to ahead in the punch up onstage which according to Spitz came about from Paul wanting money back and saying that Stu could borrow some from Astrid. Stu goes for him and reports vary from full-on bust up to embarrassing scuffle. Stu then goes to where Astrid and Paul's gf Dot are, demands Dot leaves and goes on a rant about Paul. Now all of this must be framed in the context of Stu receiving increasing brain damage from his condition that seemingly lead to mood swings and anger. Nevertheless, the mutual needling and anger, as well as John's refusal to do/say fuck all about it, especially given how protective John was of Stu, suggests that it wasn’t straightforward and/or John may have been playing some games to make both feel threatened. This would also make sense as to why we hear conflicting accounts of John and Stu being the centre of everything and everyone else in orbit AND John and Paul being the centre and everyone else playing catch-up, as well as John giving Paul the lead to take him round the Reeperbahn when John got dressed in the gorilla costume. (I know Paul may have just been the closest there but that always gave off bestie behaviour to me.)

(I did get an ask about how John and Paul's friendship survived it, I think it was damaged by Hamburg. When Paul got back home he got a job at a construction site and there's just a vibe of everything being a bit on tenterhooks. John also acts a bit weird at the period, not talking to anyone for a few weeks then making a lot of weird demands from Paul. I'm really not sure what to make of it.)

Even when he's back in Liverpool, John still writes long letters to Stu and vice-versa. I can't find it at all but I’ve read a really sad interview with John saying he missed his best mate and it's a shame that he's not with them. He had no idea at that point that Stu had already died of a brain hemorrhage at 21.

John is said to have gone into hysterics when he found out Stu had died. A lot of people who've spoken about this time (Aunt Mimi, his sister Julia, the Exsis) concur that at this point Stu was his best friend and the death shattered him. He even told Astrid he wished he could give his life for Stu’s. This is backed up by the fact that John never forgot Stu and his shadow lingered for the rest of John's life:

Stu was recalled in In My Life

Years later, after John composed the first of his truly poignant and heartfelt Beatles songs, "In My Life"—with its lines about "friends I still can recall/some are dead and some are living"—he revealed to me that the two people he had had uppermost in mind were myself and Stuart Sutcliffe. And then he stunned me with a statement that I'd never heard him address to anyone—least of all to another man. "You know, Pete," he said softly, "I do love you. But," he quickly added, "I loved Stuart as well."

Weird that Paul isn't mentioned surely you think that he would be mentioned if Pete was there too okay, okay my tin hat is going away this isn't the time

Pete Shotton, Nicholas Schaffner, John Lennon: In My Life

In 1965 John drew Stu on a postcard

He apparently said this about Stu prior to sending the postcard, prompted by an article about Stuart.

The card had been sent from Genoa mid-way through the Beatles' Italian tour. [...] But the conversation had become maudlin when I reminded him that he was going to talk to me for an article about Stuart. [...] In that sad telephone conversation before they set off for Milan, I asked him if he was happy: 'I'd be a lot happier if Stuart was still part of us,' he said, 'The Beatles would be complete.' And before he rang off he said 'Ill send you something.'

He also appears on the cover of Sgt Pepper

As mentioned, Stu gets mentioned in Hunter Davies in terms of wistfulness and guilt AND he gets a mention in John's insane 'if I were a homosexual' ramblings in early 70s. According to Yoko, John also wanted Yoko to write letters to him and didn't think it would be strange because Stu wrote letters to him.

I have a pet theory that as with a lot of things for John, his unresolved grief over Stu really came to the fore in the late 60s now that he had actually had a chance to sit down and think about things. I believe it was partially why he wanted Yoko to write letters and why he gets mentioned in the early 70s as a collaborator/best friend and not in 1980 where John only gives that credit to Paul and Yoko. I think with the cracks with Paul, John had started to think back on his old friend and guide and what advice he would give.

Stuarts presence is still felt throughout the seventies:

“He told me everything. He loved to talk about Hamburg. There were no secrets. It was the kind of life I never knew…. It meant total freedom. At his side always was Stuart, sweet Stuart. There wasn’t a time in John’s life when he didn’t think about Stuart. He spoke always of his love and respect for Stuart.”

Yoko discussing Stu in When They Were Boys: The True Story of the Beatles’ Rise to the Top by Larry Kane

Coming to grips with his death is also present in Skywriting

SEAN O’HAIRE: What happened to Stuart Cliff? DR. FISCHY: What happened was a full exchange of energy where it was not needed within the expression of your own self or in the energies involved around and about you. We cannot call it a happening. We’ll say it is an awakening, for in that way it has served an expression from the past to the present and to the future to where there shall be more of that incomplete vibration expressed to you in a more fuller understanding.

Skywriting by Word of Mouth, John Lennon

This isn't exhaustive but I think from all this it's pretty clear that John adored Stu, John grieved Stu and kept grieving Stu. Stu had a specific place in his life as a confidant that he tried to recreate with Yoko. At the time of Stu's death, he was John's best friend, probably slightly over Paul. Stuart had been able to be both a friend and paternal presence, a confidant and an artistic collaborator. His presence and loss was one of the foundational points in John's life.

But as we've been asked to play this stupid game and so many bios like to make a hoopla about it, were they at their closest ever as close as John and Paul were at their height?

No.

How do we know? Because John told us so:

" He [Paul] still is the closest friend I've ever had, except for Yoko, so I'm still close to him whatever goes on."

John Lennon to an interviewer, 1971

But Walrus! John just says shit! How do we know he isn't leaving out Stu because the press don't know Stu. Well true John does just say shit but this is at a time where John isn't the most glowing about Paul and he's had no problem mentioning Stu in this time period ('one of my best friends ever' would have made a similar point).

But Walrus again! If John picked Stu over Paul when they were young why wouldn't he be the boy bestie of all time, and why would John say that he was closer to Paul? Well, because of the environment and timings. Stu's death happened near the beginning of John and Paul's major bonding moments. If you look at their personal timeline, Paris, the Nerk twins, and getting signed happened just before Stu died. That's missing the major years of Beatlemania, Key West, LSD, Paul growing more into being John's peer and a load of other huge moments in their lives. It's like how John writes to Cyn in 1962 about wanting the house to themselves and not have Paul around all the time. Would you say because he feels closer to Cyn then that John in his overall lifetime loved Cyn more than Paul? No, because relationships change over time and theirs were no exception. (One thing to consider as well is that we don't yet have many letters between John and Paul during their Beatles years and earlier, probably because they were spending so much time with each other. We know a couple exist that Paul considers too personal for publication but I'm sure there are others. It's easy to understand what John felt for Stu as we have the letters, I think we would also have an easier time understanding what John felt for Paul if we had the equivalent of those.)

At the end of the day Paul was the man he believed he had a psychic bond with, the man he couldn’t shut up about, the man whom he’d conquered the world with with their endless collaboration, the man with a twin personality to him and according to John spent more time with throughout the 60s than he had with Yoko ever. To be frank if Paul had died in 67' I don't think this would have been a conversation.

As mentioned early, in early 1970s John elevates his partnership with Stu to his collaborations with Paul and Yoko but by 1980 he’s pretty clear that Paul and Yoko are their own category.

"I was saying to somebody the other day, “There’s only two artists I’ve ever worked with for more than a one night stand, as it were. That’s Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono.” And I think that’s a pretty damned good choice!!"

John Lennon interview with DJ Dave Sholin, 1980

There are of course the what ifs. Would Stu still being alive mean that John was not as close with Paul? Maybe, highly doubtful though as the Beatles experience was so intense. If Stu remained a Beatle would John be as close with Paul? If Stu remained a Beatle he wouldn't be Stu so no. At the same time who knows what it would have been like if Paul and John were peers from the off? I said this to @the62ndbugsfan when it comes to Stu vs Paul (hi girl sorry i've made our chat a whole ass post lol) but to go a bit Wuthering Heights, soulmates are made as much from the earth as they are of the stars. What binds us is our experiences just as much as our personalities. There may be a universe where Stu and John took on the art world together or became inseparable bffs again after the Beatles disbanded, but it is not our universe. In this universe Stu tragically died and John and Paul chose to become Lennon/McCartney and artistically unite themselves forever.

Even going back to Stu's lifetime, I've said it before and I'll say it again I find it interesting that not only did John choose to go to Paris with Paul rather than pay to meet up with Stu somewhere but that they arranged to meet up with Juergen and nobody told Stu until they'd already gone. Stu was shocked and didn't know if it meant the end of the Beatles which is a pretty big thing for him not to know about. Why didn't John tell him if they're apparently still writing long letters? Was it because he really wanted to do this with Paul and didn't want to hurt Stu's feelings? And that's really the point I want to make here. Due to his trauma John was preoccupied with reinforcing ranking of relationships within his life. But the thing is friendship rankings are made up guidelines and the reality is far more complicated. You can have a designated best friend but feel closer to another friend at times, you can want to do one thing specifically with one friend and not the other for various reasons. You can (as I do) have more than one equal best friend. Friendship as with most relationships are in a constant state of flux and each friendship you have will give and mean a different thing, even if they are of similar value to you.

Paul may have ended up closer to John than Stu had been, but that doesen't make John's relationship with Stu any less special. Nor does Stu negate the significance of Paul. Whilst both fit into John's pattern of intense relationships and demands related to that, both had unique positions and meaning to him. Considering what I've gone into about John's closeness to Stu, it actually says something deeply, borderline unnervingly, intense about John and Paul that Paul pipped Stu to the post. Maybe it's time Beatles bios accept the fact that John Lennon just wouldn't be into them like that, stop using a tragically prematurely deceased young man as a prop in their jealous psychological warfare against Paul McCartney, stop perpetuating one of the most damaging games that John did to his loved ones and allow both relationships the space to shine and showcase the amazing talent that was the Beatles and those that surrounded them.

[thewalrusespublicist]

I'm not sure if you're the person to go to with this and I'm so sorry to be asking regardless, but I keep seeing allusions to John having a foot thing. but no one says why they think John has a foot thing. what did that man do? why is everyone convinced he has a foot fetish. The mystery is driving me crazy but i can't google john lennon foot fetish.

.

[thewalrusespublicist]

Hi! Your blog is so well-researched and thorough, going through your tags is a delight. I’ve been going through a rabbit hole reading about John and Yoko in the late seventies, and I’m morbidly fascinated but it’s so sad. You make me want to read Dakota Days, but I’m afraid it’s going to be really depressing.

Do you think John’s journals (1975-1980) will ever come out, assuming they haven’t been destroyed?

Because I feel that the best piece of evidence we have that all was not well during John’s househusband phase is that the Estate has chosen not to publish them. Not that I think that there’s anything wildly scandalous in them: in fact, they’re probably pretty boring. I just think it will paint the portrait of a deeply depressed man, paralyzed by his mental illness and pathologically jealous of other pop/rock stars (Paul). It’s not positive for the Estate, and it’s not positive for Paul, because it will make people question once again if John even liked him. Given all that, I can’t think of a good reason for Sean to publish them, except for money, lol.

But if he does, I can totally see it becoming a watershed moment in the fandom. It’s an extreme comparaison, but bear with me: I remember when I was in university and Heidegger’s black book was published. All of a sudden everyone was like did you KNOW he was wildly antisemitic?? And like, yeah. We already knew he had a card in the nazi party. But his stans could always rationalize it in a way that becomes very hard to do when it comes in the words of the man himself. Ironically, considering the mild nature of the material, I can see his journal striking a worse blow to John’s reputation than Goldman’s book, or May’s, or John Green’s or Seaman’s.

Hi anon!

Thank you so much for your lovely message!

Late 70s and John and Yoko is endlessly fascinating. They're almost like a gothic tale mixed with absurdist satire served with a side of good old-fashioned dysfunction. John's whole existence at that time seems akin to a 1970s remake of The Yellow Wallpaper and its crazy to see how the gap between reality and PR started to widen as the decade wore on. On that note, I would highly recommend Dakota Days. True, you are being taken round on a journey by a con-man guide who does everything to lure you into his perspective as well as twist events to frame himself as the ultimate truth-sayer and voice of reason. Nevertheless, the picture he paints to me is so consistent with their characters in the 70s that it seems at worst a bang on parody of their true personalities and I believe the skeleton of his narrative is accurate.

On the diaries, I do believe that at least some copies or illegal copies are still out there in the world. Whether the originals have been destroyed ... I don't think so BUT, they are probably locked in a safe in the heart of the Dakota at this point considering they got nicked twice (like how, how??). I also believe that the manuscript for Peter Dogget's book will still exist somewhere (even if it's just on Dogget's laptop) and will probably be published at some point/things will leak out about it.

As for how I feel about the contents and them getting released, I'm conflicted on near every level. I get your comparison totally. From what we know of the contents, whilst some passages seems to have contained endearing elements of love, self-improvement and self-reflection, a lot of it seems to be dripping in self-absorption, delusion, lust, paranoia, narcissism and petty, jealous thoughts towards others. And it's disappointing, there's no other word for it; mundanely, day-to-day, deep bone disappointing. It's hard not to feel an exhausted disappointment when Robert Rosen talk about John wanting Yoko to get back at Paul by buying a really nice cow. It's hard not to feel disgust over John allegedly gloating over Paul's arrest. From the sounds of it the diaries go further than showing a human being with flaws: they show a pretty awful, weak individual. (To be clear I'm not saying that's who John was, just what the diaries apparently present.)

Therein lies one of the ethical problem with releasing the diaries because is that really fair? If you really think about it, most people have passing unpleasant thoughts and for a lot of people a diary is a form of venting where they only write about a fraction of their actual thoughts and feelings down and often their most anti-social ones. Is it fair to judge John on probably his most base and aggressive thoughts and impulses; impulses that are likely being fueled by severe, untreated mental illness and an abusive dynamic?

The whole private venting aspect also leads on to the other question of is it fair that anyone should even be seeing the diaries as John never intended unedited publication? In any normal circumstance I would say absolutely not, these are private thoughts that should be kept private. The unique issue with these circumstances though is that this isn't just anyone, this is John from JohnandYoko, the couple who presented their lives as a glass case to look in, who taped their own therapy sessions and miscarriages for public consumption and who most significantly presented themselves as an aspirational marriage. It's exhibitionism but significantly, it's artificial exhibitionism with the faux candidness and lack of boundaries being a smokescreen for the actual dynamic and what was going on.

It’s a bit of an ethical quandary, how far is reasonable when it comes to refuting a lie? If we are invited and encouraged to see an intensely intricate albeit false view of their relationship, should we also feel entitled to the real deal? Or should we just accept the inaccurate PR about the couple as that is what his widow wishes to present, even if we know that it isn't entirely true? Should we be okay with attempts to refute the established narrative being sued out of existence on feeble legal grounds and occasionally by illegal means? The recent David Sheff Yoko bio apparently still perpetuates the idea that John's life did not have happiness nor meaning before Yoko. Is a claim that controversial and arguably demeaning to John's life and work pre-Yoko fair to have out without any allowed pushback? Crucially, would the diaries be kept from publication if they were mostly positive as you raised? (I think no, and that's part of the problem.) If you disagree with the idea that the Lennon estate narrative should go unchallenged, does it justify using the personal and private ramblings of a long deceased man who can't consent to support the argument? Like you said, we know enough to know that the diaries are the smoking gun that all was really not well in the depths of the Dakota and that the PR of the blissful latter half of the 70s was a fantasy. Is it just enough to know that the diaries exist and their outline, do we really need to hear any greater detail? These are questions I wrestle with and don't have any solid answers to, save the gut instinct that Dogget’s work should not have been blocked given the situation John’s legacy is in.

In any case I think handling and discussing the diaries would require nuance, care and a level of emotional detachment that I think would be difficult for nearly anyone interested to achieve. If they ever do get released, I can't imagine the backlash to the contents being anything but seismic.

(Adding to all this is, if the diaries are released in full, I really hope it's, NOT in Paul's lifetime. He seems to have finally got to a good place with John's memory post-Get Back. The last thing he ((or anyone)) needs to see are literal novels worth of their best friend's mental illness induced obsessive rants about them. It would be heartbreaking and disturbing and just cruel at this point in his life.)

[thewalrusespublicist]

Hi! What are your thoughts on Paul's relationship Jane Asher? It seems very not affectionate, and even that Paul didn't care about it at all, Jane a little bit more than him but also not really? So a PR relationship? But if yes, why? It's pretty bizarre to me when I look at it . What do you think?

Hi anon!,

I think there’s a bit of a misconception about their relationship that lingers because neither of them have talked about it and it ended terribly (iconic break-up though Jane just amazing). Linda's illness meant that Jane was also airbrushed from MYFN out of respect for her (Peter Cox keeping a copy of Jane's cookbook to pull out and set Linda off about her own autobiography is both worrying and hilarious). All of that makes it seem like she was a blip.

The reality was that Paul and Jane were sweethearts who were deeply loving and affectionate. There's been a lot of really good compilation of quotes and lovely images which I'll link here and here. In short though, Paul lived with the Asher's for years, took time to spend on just her, alludes to missing her on Sgt Pepper and were remarked on as being a lovely couple by people like Ray Connolly, Cynthia and Patrick Stewart weirdly. I can't remember where I saw it but there was this article after Paul was with Linda where he's says something like 'Jane and I are still in love with each other like you are with exes but hey ho!' (I remember it clearly because it was a huge WHAT moment, please if anyone has it I'd be so grateful.) When they split Paul spent weeks crying on Alistair Taylor's shoulder about how he'd lost his 'closest friend', the one he told everything to and he could be himself around. Jane loved him for him and showed him a whole new world and scene. She was a huge part of his life, to the point he dedicated part of 'Eye of the Storm' decades later to her.

So if they were this big love story, why did they split? Well aside from the tinnnyy little cheating issue, they just weren't suited at that life-stage. They met when she was 17 and he'd just turned 21 and broke up when she was 22 and he was 26. People change a lot as they get older and suddenly life plans get in the way. Jane didn’t want children then and wanted her own career whilst Paul is one of the most instinctively paternal, baby-crazy men I’ve ever heard of and had at the time a view of a ‘traditional’ wife that stayed at home with the children. Those two alone are deal-breakers for any relationship. In the Hunter Davies bio it seems they are trying to work the career thing out but there is no way on gods green earth that Paul would give up on the prospect of children.

Then there were the other problems. According to Ray Connolly, Jane didn't like Paul’s drug taking, the affairs, his preoccupation with the Beatles and that he seemed closer to John than her and prioritised their relationship over her (💀). Jane quite fairly wanted to be number one and Paul did try to prioritise her with weeks alone after India in Scotland. However at the end of the day Paul was too enmeshed with the Beatles and especially John to give her that starring position.

So yeah, Jane played a really important part in Paul's life in the 60s, they had a deep and cherished relationship but ultimately they wanted different things and really no one could come between Paul and John ... except themselves.

(Also ngl if you wrote 'we can work it out' about me I would have throttled you Jane has some patience goood god.)

[thewalrusespublicist]

I’d love it if you could give your thoughts on john getting married a week after paul. do you think it was just a matter of outdoing paul and having ppl talk about his wedding instead or something entirely different. thx!

That moment John realises he's going to have to commit to the bit…

Nah I'm joking, but also a little bit not.

I mean the more you think about the question of why the hell John did that, the more complex it gets (and why it’s taken me so long to reply lol). Trying to boil it down to three essential points from least to most important though, I’d say it was the commitment to the ‘ballad of John and Yoko’ plotline, drug fuelled competition and then the fundamental reason underpinning it all which was the overwhelming fear of abandonment/‘thwarted love’ between John and Paul.

So let’s start of with the simple one - the ballad of John and Yoko. Part of John and Yoko’s entire brand was that they were the most in love couple in the history of love and that their love story was the symbol of progressive society and the activist movement in the late 60s. That type of brand and the undercurrent of superiority complex and fragile narcissism underpinning it can’t do with a competing love story pulling focus. Therefore, John and Yoko would have to quickly correct that by getting married as soon as possible to draw focus away from them.

Then there’s the competition. John and Paul were famously competitive with each other, but somewhere towards the late 60s, this starts to shift a lot more into the personal than it had before, probably partially due to heroin. In this landscape of drug use and high competitiveness, everything including personal happiness is a competition to win. This would be especially true when it came to dating women due to its ties to concepts of masculinity and Johns insecurity about Paul’s looks. In John’s mind, I think he partially believed Paul getting married was a strategic one-up move that John had to outdo.

But to me, the real root of the transition into personal competitiveness is actually what I believe this was all about this entire time: abandonment.

(Some of this will be similar to the breakup podcast series but I heavily agree with them so it can't be helped.)

Now competition is par the course for John's creative partnerships, but he does have a specific pattern when he feels his partners are becoming too independent. Whilst you need a lot of salt for Dakota Days, John Green/Charlie Swan does occassionally say some very insightful things which ring true, one being John's behaviour toward Yoko:

John did have a long-established pattern of early support followed by sudden withdrawal. What he required above all was Yoko's undivided attention. So long as her ideas kept her focused on him, he would support them. But as soon as she started off on her own, John would withdraw his energy, knowing that this would force her back to him.

It's not a 1-1 situation and other factors are at play with the John and Yoko dynamic but similar behaviour was present with Paul around Yesterday. Coming back to the late 60s, John was in a similar predicament. According to Pete Shotton, John was feeling isolated in 67' with George and Paul developing their own lives. Then came the engagement to Jane Asher and the arrival of Linda. It's quite notable to me that John remains so salty and annoyed about Linda and not in a 'god why did Linda pick him not me' but in a 'why did he pick Linda??' way. Add to Paul coming into his own musically to the point John has to 'swallow his jealousy' and you have a huge mess for John psychologically.

This is a view shared by many on here but the shift to personal is to me part one of the two pronged withdraw and burn strategy. Fearing that he was going to be abandoned, John withdrew emotionally from his dynamic with Paul and tried to individuate himself. As highlighted by later statements by both of them, their construction of their own identities did not allow for severance from each other. Having no option in his mind to separate from Paul and spurned on by his paranoia, his belief system morphed into a karmic yin-yang in which only one of them could be strong and successful.

The second part of the strategy (that still bleeds in with the first) is to burn and humiliate, in this instance to a new partner, and rip apart everything they had built. My big question with John is how much does he believe in what Yoko and he are doing? I think somewhat, but I'm not convinced that at least part of it is to smash apart the Beatles brand and everything he and Paul had built apart (the dead rat story especially made me really reevaluate some things). I'm not saying that John and Yoko weren't madly in love and that some of John and Yoko's own weirdness didnt factor into her being there all the time, but the constant 'Yoko has to be here, has to talk for me, 'I'd sacrifice all of you for her' feels partially performative and intentionally provocative (especially the last one, why say that when no one is really attacking them other than to make your friends feel like shit?). Paul reactive response in kind reflects that this strategy worked. It's crucial to remember that Paul brought Francie Schwartz into the studio first. This isn't about 'being too in love' to be apart, it's about getting back at each other and as Lina put it, ''playing these games' in escalating ways.

In this environment the marriage is the flipped table on the chessboard. Paul isn't playing and they can't take this back. He is now a married man whose first priority will be his wife and the children John knows he's always craved. Considering his responses to his imagined abandonment by Paul, there's no way John is jinxing his relationship with Yoko nor getting left alone at one altar as it were when there was another ready and waiting to go.

[thewalrusespublicist]

I'm so curious on why you think Get Back would have ruined John's life. Is it because it runs contrary to a lot of the things he believed in his more paranoid, pessimistic moments? Proof that there was something there worth mourning?

(This post is in reference to a tag I put on one of my asks about an alternate world where it was Paul who was killed in 1980.)

Hi anon!

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it!

I mentioned in the tags for that post that Paul said Get Back ‘saved his life’ and it’s easy to see why. It’s not every day one gets a near overdose of validation about one of the most stressful, heartbreaking periods of your life. The fairy godmother that is Peter Jackson came down from on high with a sprinkle of AI fairydust and gave him everything he had ever wanted in a documentary: proof that he was in a tough situation that was near impossible to manage, proof that the Get Back sessions had moments of joy amidst the tension, proof that he was a musical savant and proof that at that stage John still deep down adored him and wanted to fix things. Paul's entire perspective was validated down to even some of his most optimistic recollections. I was talking to @destrokkit about it but I suspect the timing of Paul buying those art and lyric collections and the making of Get Back wasn't coincidental. Get Back gave Paul the gift of absolution in the twilight years of his life an the ability to look back on his life lightened of that burden. And good for him!

In contrast John's perspective in this alternate world would have taken quite the battering. John’s perspective in the depths of his paranoia and defensiveness was based on four key beliefs: 1. Paul was jealous of John and Yoko 2. Paul treated Yoko badly 3. Paul was focused only on making his own music and didn't need/care about anyone else and 4. John didn’t care about the Beatles anymore and only had eyes for Yoko. It's important to remind oneself that these beliefs aren't just to persecute Paul, they function as a self-defense mechanism from hurt, guilt and uncertainty. If we are talking about a situation where Paul died in 1980 instead, it stands to reason that whilst those shields could have shifted somewhat, they would likely still have at least been partially in place to cope with the loss.

Peter Jackson's Get Back, with the edit that went out in our timeline, would have quickly and methodically shattered these conceptions and these protections. Paul’s jealous of John and Yoko and deliberately sabotaging them? Tell that to the man who is defending them out of their earshot. Paul’s treating Yoko badly? Let’s ask Get Back Yoko who happily says that Paul is treating her very well. Paul doesen’t care about John and only cares about music? Explain this please to the teary-eyed man who bounces and beams as soon as he hears that John’s coming in. John only focused on Yoko? Well, John, have fun witnessing past you continue to stare at Paul for long stretches of time and admit you want to resolve things between you to Michael-Lindsey-Hogg. It would be hit after hit after hit against the foundations on which he built his own justifications for not reaching out to Paul more before 1980 and his dramatic tearing apart of the Beatles in the press in the early 70s (and who knows what else post-1980s). I’m not saying that Paul wasn’t jealous (he was) or that he was never snippy with Yoko or not preoccupied with his own songs. It’s just the idea that Paul was intentional or malicious in any of this is not a narrative that Get Back in any way supports.

John would be, as the instigator of a lot of the mess, also in a very different position to Paul. Aside from valid criticism of his treatment of George, audience reaction to Paul in Get Back was very much ‘poor Paul, what a mess he was made to deal with but also what a genius!.’ In contrast, I can’t imagine the general pop who struggle with nuance at the best of times when it comes to mental illness and drug addiction would take too kindly to John showing up late, bringing in his GF for no obvious reason which disrupted the band dynamics and also not producing many songs. Get Back was a massive boost to Paul’s reputation, the opposite would probably have been true of John.

It would be even worse with the very real possibility of he and Yoko not being together anymore. Even if they were together, I can't imagine that dynamic developing into less dysfunction. John would have to contend with either intentionally or unintentionally sacrificing the life and relationships that he in Paul’s case couldn’t ever get back for a relationship that had either failed or likely isn’t working.

Something else to consider is that John's view of Paul from this period was always an inflated titan, a juggernaut whose power he had to get reinforcements for to fight against. Imagine John in his eighties rewatching that footage and seeing that this titan was actually an emotionally exhausted, anxious, giggly, goofy 26-year-old, whose smiles to the camera convey a hint of tearful desperation and who looks at the painfully young version of himself with such love and tenderness that everyone picks up on it. That's a hell of a thing to reckon with. I would argue for a personality like John's that would be too much to reckon with.

Put all of this together and you have a scenario where an eighty-year-old John would be faced with a fresh tidal wave of grief, a diminished view in the eyes of the public, new or renewed blame for the break-up and a horrendous personal reckoning about his own role in the disintegration of his relationship with essentially a soulmate. At eighty years old he would have to face that one of the most influential decisions of his life, the decisions that defined the rest of his days, was based on his own faulty decision making and with no way of fixing it. It makes me panicked just thinking about it.

Now John could easily veto that version of Get Back, try and come up with more defenses about it being biased/Paul playing to the cameras and (if Yoko still is in the picture) insist that his and Yoko’s love story is in it as much as possible (I can’t imagine that would go down great either though). But that footage would still be there. You can’t unsee that shit and knowing John he would watch it over and over and over. I said it in the original post and I repeat it now, it would have absolutely ruined his life.

[thewalrusespublicist]

I’ll push back on the paul hate thing that’s actually not true in my experience. I actually have the opposite issue it’s hard getting to know paul because all you get is push back and accusations of hate, it’s like you can’t speak about him outside of certain parameters that you don’t know.

I’ve talked about george/ john music, philosophies and actions with a lot of people inside and outside of the fandom, we can speak about them freely, critique them and in some cases it actually went too far. But paul with the exception of mclennon it’s a dead end it’s frustrating.

That’s why the fandom’s love of George and john is different because it’s almost like you know them cause we kinda do to an extent.

It’s not the 70s and 80s anymore the fandom doesn’t need to protect him , with the exception of certain periods of time (all of them got it btw) he had been admired and loved by everyone for decades .

Disclaimer for clarity: This anon came in in response to a post I did in around Paul getting mad at strikers and the Beatles morality but before my Paul interview from hell write-up. I also received a similar anon at the same time about Paul vs John and Paul's edges being smoothed out and I'll try to answer that in this anon too.

Hi anon!

To be transparent, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to speak on this as for the most part, I've felt pretty comfortable talking at length about Paul's flaws and haven't received much backlash for it. For example, in the post I think you're responding to, I called Paul stubborn, short-sighted, egotistical, wrong-headed, capable of stupid ideas and a host of other things and without really any trouble. I would also debate the 'freely criticise other Beatles' thing, but that's subjective. To be clear, this is not me saying that your experiences aren't very real and annoying. What I mean is that I think which circles and corners of the internet you are in are crucial for shaping experience.

Looking at it from a distance, I think it's unrealistic to expect for Paul to be talked about in the same way as John and George as Paul is still kicking it. Paul at the minute is part of the present, a living legend, beloved grandude etc. (a status I would argue he's only received in the past decade or so if you look at press response, he was fairly badly mauled pretty consistently until the early 2010s). He is a living part of the culture and therefore our connection to him is both far more immediate and more remote. You don't expect to know everything about a living person's private life and work in the same way you expect of a long dead person. At the same time due to Paul's status in the culture as everyone's legendary grandad, it's fairly natural for people to be more protective over him and his life/legacy. I feel they would have been the exact same way if the situation had been reversed (John's endless cancellations notwithstanding). (Not to mention Paul's also finally got a good PR team who is working overtime and he has been pushing out successful project after successful project lately lol.)

Tragically, in comparison John and George have now begun to move past the point of hagiography and into the realm of historical figures. With this status comes far more information about their behind-the-scenes world: more anecdotes, more honest interviews, more objective analysis and conversations that aren't naturally censored to protect the living individual/fueled by grief for the recently deceased. I read a quote once that it takes about 50 years post a persons death for a decent biography to be made about them and I think we are getting to about that point with John. (I actually don't think we're there yet with George, but that's a different conversation.) Paul is *touch wood* decades behind this point. We haven't even hit hagiography stage that will come when he passes in hopefully a billion years from now. With all this in mind, even though it's annoying and leads to bias in how we discuss each Beatle, the differences in how we view Paul (and Ringo!) compared to George and John are almost inevitable.

[thewalrusespublicist]

Hii! Thank you so much for making this blog and answering all these questions, helps us out a ton ❤️

I'd like to ask about your opinion on John & Yokos relationship, do you believe it was abusive or manipulative? (mostly on Yoko's part but John is absolutely not a saint and it wasn't healthy from both ways), I've also seen many people say that John's affair (and eventual relationship) w/ Yoko was some sort of coping mechanism because of his dropping mental health

What do you think?

Hi anon!

Thank you so much, that's really kind of you to say (though I know i could do a lot better with the inbox lol). Your questions though! Thorny doesen't even BEGIN to describe them! I'll answer the second question here first as that is easier to answer and answer the first question in a separate post as that requires a lot of attention and nuance.

As to if Yoko was a coping mechanism, the very short, tl:dr version is: you don't get with your stalker if you're doing well emotionally.

For the longer answer, Yoko came in during a perfect storm for John. By 1967, the Beatles had stopped touring, John was living isolated in Surrey in a dying/dead marriage, had just lost a fundamental stabilizing force in Brian and was wrestling with what happens when you've become filthy rich and ultra-famous for being a specific persona of yourself in your mid-twenties. It was the first time he'd had to actual process the whole chaos of the Beatlemania and what that meant along with the trauma that he'd been running from his entire life. It was just too much.

Adding to the compounding depression, as John told Pete Shotton, George and Paul were also establishing their own lives and had less time for him. Not good for a man with crippling abandonment issues. The psychedelics frying his brain were just the trippy sprinkles on top of the overall breakdown. John was from his POV losing everything: his motivation, his confidence, his writing ability, his core Beatle family and his sense of who he was and wanted to be. No wonder he felt so threatened by Paul who was doing 'so well', and having crises about his Beatles contribution.

The maharishi thing being a bust to him was like the final straw. He needed something, anything to be a new answer, to save him from this mental dead-end. Then in comes Yoko, the something kind of new, the something interesting with new ideas, the someone who doesn't know him for being a Beatle *cough* lie *cough* and sees something in him that could be 'more', could be greater than the sham he believes he is and what his life to be. I haatttte to say it but as harsh as it is I have to agree with John Green summation of the situation here:

"I've heard that story, but I never believed it. I know men who were cloistered monks at that time, and even they knew who the Beatles were. I think that that was just Yoko's way of telling you that she was so busy with 'real' art and 'real' culture that she never noticed your scene. I think you believed her because under all your bravado and surface confidence, you have a very poor sense of self-worth. She told you that you were unimportant and you accepted it because you secretly believed it, so much so that you gave away half your hard-earned position in pop music to someone whose major talent was giving you her undivided attention.

Dakota Days, John Green

The talent remark is not at all fair but the rest... Let's just say Yoko saw and empathised with John's vulnerability and pain, gave John the out of being Beatle John, bolstered his ego whilst undermining his overall sense of self worth and autonomy, took control when he felt out of control and seemed to offer something no one else could: endless inexhaustible love and attention. Yoko was o b s e s s e d with him, like no exaggeration actual stalker obsessed, and John was so insecure that that was the level of focus he craved. It must have felt like breathing again, to have something pull him up from 'drowning' and guide him in a new direction so that he's never alone again. Add heroin to the mix as a bonding tool and yeahhhhh....

I don't think it's entirely fair to think that John would never ever have been interested in Yoko prior to 67 (he loved art, zany ideas and there's reason to believe he was into androgynous looks ) but you can't understand JohnandYoko without understanding the preceding crisis in John's life and why he ignored all of the red flags to pursue the relationship.

As for if I believe John & Yoko's relationship to be abusive or manipulative, that's for another post that I'll link when I have it up. Edit: it's up :)

[thewalrusespublicist]

what was the tea? every day i learn how little i know.

Hi anon!

So I need to read it properly to review all the instances but in quick summary the Sandford bio (McCartney) has some bizarre Paul behaviour about John that isn't found anywhere else. The most infamous ones that make the rounds here is Paul's supposed drunk lamenting about John in 1980 before he died:

Around midnight, a Cinderella moment in the empty studio when the gear was being stowed, he turned to Linda and one or two friends and told them that it reminded him of the famously trippy session for “All you need is love”. ‘It was that same vibe. I just looked around and there were all these flowers and happy faces smiling up at me.’ Another sip or two, and he began murmuring huskily, “John…. John…..”

This one gets me cause where the hell is he getting this from if there were only a couple of people in the room? It's also a weird as hell thing to make up. Then post John's death, Sandford has it that Paul listened to Just Like Starting Over on repeat for days after John died:

Time passed. Paul locked the door of his home studio and played (Just Like) Starting Over, the first single from Double Fantasy.  Top volume. For days. Christmas came, with its inevitable reruns of Beatles films and other tributes. A fan brandishing a knife tried to break into the McCartneys’ estate. Paul put up more barbed wire and floodlights. A month later, in February 1981, he went back to work.”

@slenderfire-blog has kindly me know that a new podcast contacted Sandford about this and he apparently said that he believes the source was a news story. I'll be honest I don't find Sandford's answer that plausible though if people wish to scour for a matching article feel free lol. (To clarify I don't expect a guy in his seventies to remember everything from decades ago but this is why you CITE YOUR SOURCES or at least WRITE THEM DOWN.) If he has got it from a news story (surely more people would have sourced it if there was one?) then there are the same questions: Who reported this? How did they find out what was going on in his home studio? What hand information is this? The quote is heavy but if we don't have a decent source it's impossible to verify or judge. The Sandford bio is so frustrating as it's near impossible to ascertain what is shitty sources and what could be genuine insiders dropping emotional bombs.

[thewalrusespublicist]

LennonMcCartney is so interesting because on a certain level it’s clear cut what happened; they broke up, John moved on/fell in love, Paul was hurt but they both moved on. It’s only in recent years that it’s been acknowledged both J&P had complex feelings about it all with many skirting the line of ‘something more’ between them. How much is that the audience trying to make sense of what happened (people fall in&out of love) and J&P actually holding onto unresolved feelings? Both were absolutely invested in their lives after the other and for the most part were not on the same page re.the other’s/band’s place and legacy and had it not been for John’s tragic murder there’s no indication they would’ve established any sort of intimacy again. Although Paul’s unabashed desire for some sort of relationship with John may have kept hope alive but for the most part John just really seemed to wish he could shake Paul off.

Hi anon,

Thank you for your message! I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but I think some of your statements and conclusions here aren't wholly backed up by the evidence. If I'm correct, I think some of this may have come from the recent stuff in McCartney Legacy 2 where John seems dismissive and not wanting to talk to Paul? I get how someone could definitely think that John wanted nothing to do with Paul from those excerpts but the thing to remember about it being a bio on Paul is that it's inherently a lopsided perspective from Paul’s POV of the shut Dakota door. The reality is a lot more complex.

The idea that John ‘fell out of love’, moved on, was over Paul and never ever would have regained intimacy with him is not supported by John's temperament, behaviour or conversations he had with others during his lifetime. The evidence actually points to the exact opposite; that John never moved on, never got over Paul and wrestled with this until his dying day. That isn’t some shipper fan girl goggle-wish fulfillment or fans trying to come to grips with a hard, but simple fact of life. This is something blindingly clear from the deluge of testimonies we have. In fact, I would say that the idea of the live, laugh, love evolved John trying to get a way from the pesky gadfly that is Paul and the Beatles is the wish fulfillment built up from John's own cope and later Lennon estate projections.

The evidence for John's continued interest is pretty overwhelming so I’m just going to go with greatest hits. To start with, it wasn’t just Paul that was hurt by the breakup. Nothing says ‘I’ve moved on and am over someone’ like writing funeral on a picture of their wedding then at the same time writing a sad, sentimental line on a picture of the two of you, talking excitedly about hidden messages to you on your ex partner's new album and getting married eight days after them. Then there's the endless and ever evolving looping back to the break-up and why it happened that get reported throughout the decade in both conversations and interviews. Rather than an old scar, the break-up is a painful sore that John keeps picking at to try and get the poison out of it and failing.

As for playing and regaining intimacy, the opportunity for this to happen was raised multiple times in the 70s and by John just as much as Paul. It was John who contacted Paul and Linda to play with Yoko and he twice in ‘72. The possibility of playing together in the Lost Weekend was raised as well and there's pretty concrete evidence that John wanted to go down to New Orleans to play in 75'. The desire was there on both sides intermittently throughout the decade, it's just the timings more than anything.

The unfortunate situation that I think has left the poor impression over the overall decade is the late 70s/80 where we get a lot of anecdotes about Paul getting blocked and some of John's harshest stuff since the break-up. Crucially though, John had continual bouts of paranoia and depression in this time period. He was dedicated to his new life true, but the tough reality was that his new life was not giving him the life satisfaction he may have thought it would. Add Paul's contrasting increasing success and seemingly great marriage and it's like showing a red rag to a bull. And, sure, when he's supposedly writing in his diary about defeating Paul by Yoko buying a nicer cow for their farm I'm pretty sure he would like the concept of Paul to be blown off the face of the earth. But this isn't all the time, in other moments you have the 'my Pau Pau' demo, asking Elliot Mintz if thinks Paul is still thinking about him, talking lovingly about him to Jack Douglas etc. John's mood swung rapidly but whatever the feeling, it was far from indifference.

Even his shittier comments in the media betray him. There's the famous 'he came and I told him to go away and I haven't seen him since' one which yeah, he acts like Paul is this annoying thing on his doorstep but then he adds in the more vulnerable 'I didn't mean for him to take it like that'. You don't add it being a mistake if you’re indifferent or don’t want to see a person again. Also, on 80' he keeps going on about not really having spoken to him in a decade (which I would quibble but fine John). Again if you're indifferent or want someone to go away that wouldn't really bother you, but it bothers John that they aren't having meaningful conversations. John in interviews is a guy claiming he's over someone he.will.not.stop.talking.about. Someone he's resentful he's not more intimate with, not less.

 Aside from the evidence, it was not in John’s nature to not love someone or think about them. He loved his deadbeat dad, he worshiped the mother who abandoned him, he sent flowers when his childhood hero Elvis died despite mocking and criticising him. John was a man of contradiction. He was forward thinking, truth-seeking, eager to shove things aside for each new shiny thing and new ways to live. He was also sentimental, easily nostalgic and utterly incapable of forgetting those that had touched him deeply. I think some of his trying to thrust his past aside and pretend he's moved on was to cover for this incapability and subsequent vulnerability. 

But if we are looking at possibility of reconciliation, where were we actually when John died? Well, if we go from his very last statement about Paul, then Paul was the person he loved and would do anything for. Pretty warm whatever way you look at it.

Where things would have gone from 80' is anyone's guess but all signs were pointing towards, rather than away from each other.

[thewalrusespublicist]

It’s so funny when I see folks justifying their dislike of Paul whenever he does something selfish and shitty like ma’am the beatles, all of ‘em right down to their offspring, are narcissistic Capitalists. They were all living good up top with no real regard for the working class. I thought we knew this?

Hi anon,

Yeah watching a couple of the comments around that descend into non ironic 'Paul is the devil and people just can't accept that he's a terrible person' was not really surprising, but was a bit frustrating (always the usual suspects as well lmao have to love the dedication to Paul haterism) Like let's be really real here you are in the Beatles fandom, none of your faves are winning Person of the Year.

Though saying that, I am going to say something controversial but not that brave which is that whilst I don't think they were amazing or even great people, I don't think any of the Beatles were/are inherently bad. I think it's more accurate to characterise them all as often wrong-headed and egotistical but fundamentally well-intentioned.

To be clear, I'm not saying that they didn't do MASSIVELY shitty things because ohhh my godddd did they just. But they did try to do a lot of good too and to use their platform to support others and for a lot of it they were on the right side of history. George in particular essentially dedicated his life to the ideals of love and connection to others. Did his personal conduct always match his ideals? No, but you can tell from friends, family and those that met him that George was sincere in his commitment.

I also don't think it's entirely fair to say that the Beatles doesn't/didn't care about the working class. To take Paul as an example for a moment (just because I went on a deep dive so it's really fresh in my mind lol), whilst he has had his fair share of howlers (teachers strike hello), his overall known resume of support is long and far reaching. Here is the list of known charities Paul has donated and supported:

21st Century Leaders

Adopt-A-Minefield

Aid Still Required

American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign

Animal Defenders International

Autism Movement Therapy

Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes

Celebrity Fight Night Foundation

Children With Leukaemia

City of Hope

Comic Relief

Cruelty Free International

David Lynch Foundation

David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation

Dorset Wildlife Trust

Elton John AIDS Foundation

Everyone Matters

Great Ormond Street Hospital

Greenpeace

Humane Society International

International Rescue Committee

Keep A Child Alive

Kids Wish Network

Make Poverty History

Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center

MusiCares

Natural Resources Defense Council

No More Landmines

Nordoff Robbins

ParalympicsGB

PETA

Prince's Trust

Red Cross

Robin Hood

Society for Animal Protective Legislation

St. Francis Food Pantries and Shelters

STOMP Out Bullying

Teenage Cancer Trust

The Humane Society

TigerTime

Voices Against Violence

War Child

Watering Seeds Organization

Whatever It Takes

Worldwide Orphans Foundation

On top of this he has:

Fought to keep hospitals open

Browbeat politicians for donations for performing arts,

Started up a performing art university and non-fee paying primary school to get kids into the performing arts who otherwise wouldnt have access to them

These are just the ones we're aware of. Paul has done a lot behind the scenes that he specifically keeps as far out of the press as humanly possible to the point he has cut funding from people who have revealed his sponsorship. It's absolutely true that a lot of these causes are those that touch him personally but this is the case for most philanthropy when you get into it.

That being said Paul's a fantastic example of why support for charities and causes should not be arbitrarily decided on the whims of billionaires and why society should be structured to support vulnerable groups in the first place. Paul clearly means well, but it doesen't mean he doesen't have blind spots. He is stubborn, has no concept of a normal adult life and job, can get wild ideas into his head and is an instinctively bleeding heart for children and animals to the point where it overrules his reason. The teachers strike thing was a perfect example of those factors coming together.

You can see how even a liberal celebrity like Paul who means to do good could do a lot of damage by throwing their support behind questionable causes *cough* PETA *cough*. (I was saying to a beloved moot I also saw Mary McCartney throw support behind the Alfie Evans case and internally groaned because that is the sort of thing you can see Paul going all in for without any of the nuance save 'sick kid, sad parents, must help'.)

Could Paul do more? Could Ringo do more? Could John and George have done more? Can there ever be an ethical billionaire? Do you really care if you are not actively and consistently working to dismantle the systems that shackle the working classes? These are all valid questions where YMMV, but I think it's fair to say that they did and do care to at least a certain extent.

[thewalrusespublicist]

Your most recent post made me realise that John and Yoko were the prototype for the modern day influencer. They walked so family and lifestyle bloggers could run.

Hi anon,

They really were! I hope one day someone with more brainpower and time than I have does a breakdown (if they haven't already) on how John and Yoko shaped celebrity culture and the boundaries between celebrities and fans from that point forward because they really were game changers in so many different aspects.

Though thinking about them as family vloggers does make me laugh. Yoko obsessively doing 24/7 insta live tarot readings and macrobiotic cleanse how-tos as Elliot films. Meanwhile, John's in the other room live streaming seven hour rants about 'the state of music', arguing with the comments and making impromptu unhinged song lyric conspiracy theories of Wings's entire back catalogue as his sourdough starter lies neglected in the corner.

Sean is somewhere in the background eating paint.

[thewalrusespublicist]

What do you think about the Lindsay Ellis essay on Yoko?

Hi anon,

Ah, this is a toughie as Lindsay Ellis' video was actually the video that got me interested in the Beatles! So on that front .. I must have really enjoyed it at the time and I am grateful/embittered to it for leading me down this chaotic rabbit hole!

That being said, ughhh the video. On the one hand, to actually deal with the topic at hand she needed much longer than the run time of the video to actually get into it with enough detail, so it was always going to be simplistic. I did like some of her points about the other competing factors in the break-up and how Yoko really shouldn't be blamed for the overall break-up. I also liked her comparisons with Courtney Love and how women get blamed in these scenarios unjustly. However, my problem is she was presenting herself as an informed authority on the subject when to be honest, she doesen't actually show that great depth of knowledge. The not knowing about the nitty gritty about Northern Songs is one thing but clumping May Pang with those desperate for fame or clout ... I found either ignorant or disingenuous. That wasn't the first time I've noticed that with Lindsay's work. Not going to lie, I stopped watching her for ages after I watched a video where she was talking about British media and somehow managed to call John Hurt a low-rate tv actor and said that Blackadder was pro-the class system which I'm sorry, was ignorant to the point of stupidity. So yeah, I think Lindsay is great at conveying information but maybe also perhaps conveying incomplete information as if she was an expert in the subject.

This next bit might be a tiny tiny bit controversial but I don't really care. Knowing what I know now, I found the entire video to be partaking in an outdated and reductive type of feminism which doesn't actually allow women to have any flaws or be real people. Yoko was massively over-hated for all the wrong reasons, but it seems that in reaction some fans including Lindsay refuse to look at her with any critical view and dismiss any dissent as rooted in sexism. As a born and raised from the cradle feminist, I find this approach not only exhausting but sexist in and of itself as it strips women of agency and complexity. In the case of Yoko, the two extremes has meant that we've only recently been able to have honest conversation about her. No Yoko didn't break-up the Beatles, but she was a contributing factor and was a massive factor in why they didn't reunify in the 70s. Not because she sat on the bloody amp but because of nearly everything else she did. To say that she had no impact is terrible source-work and practice as it requires dismissing most of our sources from the period and from multiple primary perspectives in order to fulfil an ideological agenda. This in May's case is also silencing the voice of a female employee in a vulnerable position power-wise to sanitise her much wealthier boss' public image. I don't like that. I also want to make it clear that I don't think a lot of Yoko's actions were borne out of malicious intent but due to her extremely complicated personality and trauma, a personality that gets completely flattened if she's just a bit of cardboard jutting out in the corner. There are no winners if you refuse to engage with women as real people and through a modernised Madonna complex lens.

So ... a well-presented video with some great ideas but at the same time quite a basic overview that showed a lack of understanding of some key elements and a refusal to actually engage with the material to push a particular agenda.

[thewalrusespublicist]

In terms of dictating who they were and weren’t allowed to see it was mutual. John forbidding a crying Yoko from attending Kyoko’s birthday because he didn’t want her seeing Tony. They both seemed to think that hurting the ones they loved for the sake of the other would strengthen their love but instead it sowed resentment and made the stakes in their relationship all the more higher.

Hi anon,

(Anon referring to this post.)

Oooph yes this was in my original draft as the full extract was Yoko patting herself on the back for letting John see Julian at all which to me is quite revealing. I think you're bang on with how it all sort of spiraled out of control. They both wanted to be a public and performative display of the ultimate all-or-nothing relationship fantasy which required the whole 'just us two alone in hell together would be worth it, no one matters but you etc' commitment. The problem is it's a fantasy for a reason, being in hell fucking sucks and actually leaving behind everyone you ever loved for most people would be as painful as severing a limb. With no one else there to take the brunt and no one to blame but yourself and each other, the pain quickly finds itself aimed at the nearest target.

The Kyoko and Julian situation is a microcosm for the dysfunction it creates. To fulfill the fantasy Yoko was forced/forced herself to not go to the last birthday party she could have had with her baby girl before she got kidnapped. If she left John after, she's essentially lost Kyoko for nothing, so she has to double-down on the relationship or lose everything. At the same time, how could you not boil with resentment over that? How could you not twitch any time he brought his own kid over and spent time together whilst your arms were empty of your own. You could be magnanimous and selfless of course but why would you when he wasn't?

This was only one of many similar situations they found themselves in. The more they lost, the greater the sunk-cost fallacy but also the higher the resentment. I know Dakota Days has its problem but reading that you do sort of wonder ... they loved each other certainly but how much was that love also intermingled with an unspoken hate?

Not to nick Peter Dogget's title but they really were the prisoners of their own love story.