#structured interview example | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 5 months ago

Text

MLMs are the mirror-world version of community organizing

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/05/power-of-positive-thinking/#the-socialism-of-fools

In her unmissable 2023 book Doppelganger, Naomi Klein paints a picture of a "mirror world" of right wing and conspiratorial beliefs that are warped, false reflections of real crises:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

For example, Qanon's obsession with "child trafficking" is a mirror-world version of the real crises of child poverty, child labor, border family separations and kids in cages. Anti-vax is the mirror-world version of the true story of the Sacklers and their fellow opioid barons making billions on Oxy and fent, with the collusion of corrupt FDA officials and a pliant bankruptcy court system. Xenophobic panic about "immigrants stealing jobs" is the mirror world version of the well-documented fact that big business shipped jobs to low-waged territories abroad, weakening US labor and smashing US unions. Cryptocurrency talk about "decentralization" is the mirror-world version of the decay of every industry (including tech) into a monopoly or a cartel.

Klein is at pains to point out that other political thinkers have described this phenomenon. Back in the 19th century, leftists called antisemitism "the socialism of fools." Socialism – the idea that working people are preyed upon by capital – is reflected in the warped mirror as "working people are preyed upon by international Jewish bankers."

The mirror world is a critical concept, because it shows that far right and conspiratorial beliefs are often uneasy neighbors with real, serious political movements. The swivel-eyed loons have a point, in other words:

https://locusmag.com/2023/05/commentary-cory-doctorow-the-swivel-eyed-loons-have-a-point/

Once you understand the mirror world, you start to realize that many right wing conspiracists could have been directed into productive movements, if only they'd understood that their problems were with systems, not sinister individuals (this is why Trump has ordered a purge of any federally funded research that contains the word "systemic"):

https://mamot.fr/@[email protected]/113943287435897828

This also explains why the "tropes" of right wing conspiratorialism sometimes echo left wing, radical thought. I once had a (genuinely unhinged) dialog with a self-described German "progressive" who told me that criticizing the finance industry as parasitic on the real economy was "structurally antisemitic." Nonsense like this is why Klein's "mirror world" is so important: unless you understand the mirror world, you can end up believing that "progressive" just means "defending anything the right hates."

Historian Erik Baker is the author of a new book, Make Your Own Job: How the Entrepreneurial Work Ethic Exhausted America, which has some very interesting things to say about the mirror world:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674293601

In a recent edition of the always-excellent Know Your Enemy podcast, the hosts interviewed Baker about the book, and the conversation turned to the subject of pyramid schemes, the "multilevel marketing systems" that are woven into so many religious, right-wing movements:

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/know-your-enemy-the-entrepreneurial-ethic/

MLMs have it all: prosperity gospel ("God rewards virtue with wealth"), atomization ("you are an entrepreneur and everyone in your life is your potential customer"), and rabid anti-Communism ("solidarity is a trick to make you poorer").

The rise of the far right can't be separated from the history of MLMs. The modern MLM starts with Amway, a cultlike national scam that was founded by Jay Van Andel and Richard DeVos (father-in-law of Betsy DeVos).

Rank-and-file members of the Amway cult lived in dire poverty, convinced that their financial predicament was their own fault for not faithfully following the "sure-fire" Amway method for building a business. Andrea Pitzer's gripping memoir of growing up in an Amway household offers a glimpse of the human cost of the cult:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/amway-america/681479/?gift=j9r7avb6p-KY8zdjhsiSZxYkntna5M_rYEv4707Zqqs

Amway – and MLMs like it – don't just bleed out their members by convincing them to buy mountains of useless crap they're supposed to sell to their families, while enriching the people at the top of the pyramid who sell it to them. The "toxic positivity" of multi-level marketing cults forces members deep into debt to pay for seminars and retreats where they are supposed to learn how to repair the personal defects that keep them from being "successful entrepreneurs." The topline of the cult isn't just getting rich selling stuff – they're making bank by selling false hope, literally, in Hilton ballrooms and convention centers across the country, where hearing an MLM scammer berate you for being a "bad entrepreneur" costs thousands of dollars.

Amway destroyed so many lives that Richard Nixon's FTC decided to investigate it. The investigation wasn't going well for Amway, which was facing an existential crisis that they were rescued from by Nixon's resignation. You see, Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, was the former Congressman of Amway co-founder Jay Van Andel, who was also the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the most powerful business lobbyist in America.

At Ford's direction, the FTC exonerated Amway of all wrongdoing. But it's even worse than that: Ford's FTC actually crafted a rule that differentiated legal pyramid schemes from illegal ones, based on Amway's destructive business practices. Under this new rule, any pyramid scheme that had the same structure as Amway was presumptively legal. Every MLM operating in America today is built on the Amway model, taking advantage of the FTC's Amway rule to operate in the open, without fear of legal repercussions.

MLMs prey on the poor and desperate: women, people of color, people in dying small towns and decaying rustbelt cities. It's not just that these people are desperate – it's that they only survive through networks of mutual aid. Poor women rely on other poor women to help with child care, marginalized people rely on one another for help with home maintenance, small loans, a place to crash after an eviction, or a place to park the RV you're living out of.

In other words, people who lack monetary capital must rely on social capital for survival. That's why MLMs target these people: an MLM is a system for destructively transforming social capital into monetary capital. MLMs exhort their members to mine their social relationships for "leads" and "customers" and to use the language of social solidarity ("women helping women") to wheedle, guilt, and arm-twist people from your mutual aid network into buying things they don't need and can't afford.

But it's worse, because what MLMs really sell is MLMs. The real purpose of an MLM sales call is to convince the "customer" to become an MLM salesperson, who owes you a share of every sale they make and is incentivized to buy stock they don't need (from you) in order to make quotas. And of course, their real job is to sign up other salespeople to work under them, and so on.

An MLM isn't just a pathogen, in other words – it's a contagion. When someone in your social support network gets the MLM disease, they don't just burn all their social ties with you and the people you rely on – they convince more people in your social group to do the same.

Which brings me back to the mirror world, and Erik Baker's conversation with the Know Your Enemy podcast. Baker starts to talk about who gets big into Amway: "people who already effectively lead by the force of their charisma and personality many other people in their lives. Right? Because you're able to sell to those people, and you're able to recruit those people. What are we talking about? Well, they're effectively recruiting organizers, people who have a natural capacity for organizing and then sending them out in the world to organize on behalf of Christian capitalism."

Listening to this, I was thunderstruck: MLM recruiters are the mirror world version of union organizers. In her memoir of growing up in Amway, Andrea Pitzer talks about how her mom would approach strangers and try to lead them through a kind of structured discussion:

Everywhere we went—the mall, state parks, grocery stores—she’d ask people whether they could use a little more money each month. “I’d love to set up a time to talk to you about an exciting business opportunity.” The words should have seemed suspect. Yet people almost always gave her their number. Her confidence and professionalism were reassuring, and her enthusiasm was electric, even, at first, to me. “What would you do with $1 million?” she’d ask, spinning me around the kitchen.

This kind of person, having this kind of dialog, is exactly how union organizers work. In A Collective Bargain, Jane McAlevey's classic book on labor organizing, she describes how she would seek out the charismatic, outgoing workers in a job-site, the natural leaders, and recruit them to help bring the other workers onboard:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/23/a-collective-bargain/

Organizer training focuses on how to have a "structured organizing conversation," which McAlevey described in a 2019 Jacobin article:

“If you had a magic wand and could change three things about life in America [or her town or city or school], what would you change?” The rest of your conversation needs to be anchored to her answers to that question.

https://jacobin.com/2019/11/thanksgiving-organizing-activism-friends-family-conversation-presidential-election

The MLM conversation and the union conversation have eerily similar structures, but the former is designed to commodify and destroy solidarity, and the latter is designed to reinforce and mobilize solidarity. Seen in this light, an MLM is a mirror world union, one that converts solidarity into misery and powerlessness instead of joy and strength.

The MLM movement doesn't just make men like Rich De Vos and Jay Van Andel into billionaires. MLM bosses are heavy funders of the right, a blank check for the Heritage Foundation. Trump is the MLM president, a grifter who grew up on the gospel of Norman Vincent Peale – a key figure in MLM cult dynamics – who tells his followers that wealth is a sign of virtue. Trump boasts about all the people he's ripped off, boasting about how getting away with cheating "makes me smart":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/04/its-not-a-lie/#its-a-premature-truth

The corollary is that being cheated means you're stupid. Caveat emptor, the motto of the cryptocurrency industry ("not your wallet, not your coins") that spent hundreds of millions to get Trump elected.

Tech has its own mirror world. The people who used tech to find fellow weirdos and make delightful and wonderful things are mirrored by the people who used tech to find fellow weirdos and call for fascism, ethnic cleansing, and concentration camps.

In Picks and Shovels, my next novel (Feb 17), I introduce readers to a fictitious 1980s religious computer sales cult called Fidelity Computing, run by an orthodox rabbi, a Catholic priest and a Mormon rabbi:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865908/picksandshovels

Fidelity is a faith scam, a pyramid scheme that is parasitic upon the bonds of faith and fellowship. Martin Hench, the hero of the story – a hard-fighting high tech forensic accountant – goes to work for a competing business, Computing Freedom, run by three Fidelity ex-employees who have left their faiths and their employers to pursue a vision of computers that is about liberation, rather than control.

The women of Computing Freedom – a queer orthodox woman who's been kicked out of her family, a Mormon woman who's renounced the LDS over its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, and a nun who's left her order to throw in with the Liberation Theology movement – are all charismatic, energetic, inspirational organizers.

Because of course they are – that's why they were so good at selling computers for the Reverend Sirs who sit at the top of Fidelity Computing's pyramid scheme.

Hearing Baker's interview and reading Pitzer's memoir last week made it all click together for me. Not just that MLMs destroy social bonds, but that within every person who gets sucked into an MLM, there's a community organizer who could be building the bonds that MLMs destroy.

#pluralistic #amway #mlm #picks and shovels #martin hench #devos #that makes me smart #rich devos #mirror world #doppelganger #naomi klein #crime fiction #technothrillers #books #cults

1K notes · View notes

planetsandstarsandstuff · 7 months ago

Text

Natal Chart Notes/Observations:

(please do not copy or repost on other platforms)

Those with Venus in the 3H can be extremely sweet in the way they speak to others - these people are often very verbally affectionate, especially with those closest to them. Compliments from them can feel particularly validating.

Cancer Moons tend to be babied a lot - people assuming they're more sensitive than they are, thinking their feelings need to be protected, etc. Their vulnerability is often exaggerated in the minds of others.

Having Saturn or Mercury in/ruling the 2H can allow a person to detach from material possessions quite easily; they tend to approach this area of life with logic + practicality and are often able to throw items away with little hesitation (Mercury likely even more so than Saturn, as Saturn's rigidity can hold them back here.)

3H Neptune may be especially prone to dropping things.

Those with Mercury in the 12H often struggle to turn their brain off; it can feel like there's constant chatter in their subconscious. This may also be true for those with Pisces Mercury, Neptune-Mercury aspects, and Neptune in the 3rd - no structure to keep racing thoughts contained.

Above is an excerpt from an interview with Joan Didion, who has her Sun, Moon, Mercury, and Venus in the 6H - keen awareness of how one spends their time, finding and creating beauty in the mundane, daily indulgence in life's pleasures. Those with 6H placements, when expressed at their best, are particularly good at remembering to live.

7H Suns are often such lovely people to engage with, they bring so much warmth and vitality to their interactions with others. Very friendly people who focus a lot of their energy on those around them.

If you have any t-squares in your chart, look to the apex to see where you're likely to engage in unhealthy coping mechanisms in response to issues indicated by its two opposing houses. If the apex is in the 12th house, for example, this can look like isolating, excessive daydreaming, and possibly substance use. In the 7H this might look like codependence, in the 6H overworking, etc. The sign and planet should be considered as well.

(look to the opposing sign + house to find the qualities that likely need to be embraced.)

Our 3H is how we speak, but our 2H is how our voice sounds - someone with a 3H Moon might speak with a soft inflection but if they have a 2H Mars, for example, the actual resonance of their voice may be quite loud or harsh. Princess Diana's Moon was in both her 2nd and 3rd house (looking at placidus + whole sign together) and she's famously very soft spoken - not only in expression, but also in the actual tone of her voice.

Those with Chiron in the 1H are prone to viewing life through a negative lens, their pain informs their worldview more than most.

Scorpio Venus/Pluto-Venus/Scorpio 5H love angst.

Mercury-Venus aspects can indicate having a very classically beautiful voice. Jonathan Groff, who has Mercury exactly conjunct Venus, is a good example of this - under every interview I've seen of his are comments filled with people talking about how much they love his voice - not only his singing voice, but his regular speaking voice as well.

Prominent 11H placements can attract an audience quite easily.

Those with Jupiter-Mercury aspects tend to have a funny way with words - something about the way they speak just tickles people. Ayo Edebiri, who has her Mercury sextile Jupiter, is a great example of this. Kate McKinnon as well (Mercury conjunct Jupiter). These individuals often have great comedic timing and aren't afraid to go big in order to get a laugh.

Having Venus in or ruling the 4H can indicate a person being somewhat of a mediator within their family - always trying to keep the peace, encouraging family members to connect, etc. Family is often very important to these people.

2H Moons love providing for others - cooking for people, gifting things, just generally making sure those around them are well taken care of. They'll do anything to bring comfort and safety to their loved ones, and often find a lot of emotional fulfillment in doing so.

Capricorn Mars can be very presumptuous in that they think they're in charge everywhere they go. This can definitely get on people's nerves but in all fairness if any placement deserves to be in charge it's probably this one - if nothing else, a cap mars knows how to get things done.

Thanks for reading!

#astrology #astro community #astro notes #zodiac #astro observations #astrology observations #astrology notes #birth chart #natal chart #natal placements #natal astrology #natal aspects #astro placements #astro blog #astrology tumblr #astrology thoughts #astrology community

1K notes · View notes

swampjawn · 8 months ago

Text

What happens when you let a film nerd make an anime?

Fuuga Yamashiro (山代風我) joined Science Saru in 2017 as an Assistant Production Manager during production of "Night Is Short, Walk on Girl." He was essentially Studio Co-founder Masaaki Yuasa's secretary, but he worked his way up to assistant director on "Keep Your Hands off Eizouken" and finally got to direct his own first full Anime series, Dandadan.

Having worked so closely with one of the greatest living auteur directors, you might think he would share that overpowering individual creative influence, but as he has pointed out in interviews himself, it's much the opposite.

Instead of relying on his own creative voice, which he doesn't seem confident about in interviews, he literally collects techniques from his favorite movies, breaking them down into storyboards and adding them to his arsenal to re-contextualize later. And as you may be able to tell from watching Dandadan, his biggest influences aren't anime and manga, but live action film -- something he seems to have studied obsessively.

And when you compare the anime to the original manga (which itself is already filled with references to old movies and TV) subtle adaptation choices make the deft application of techniques borrowed from other storytellers very clear. Every choice is made for a reason and furthers the story being told in some way; nothing is there for no reason. like the simple, controlled camera pans and tilts that make the serpoian spaceship feel cold and sterile, or the crazywackysilly, un-predictable wide-angle camera movements that intrude on that cold sterile world when turbo granny shows up.

In one interview during the production of "Keep Your Hands off Eizouken" Yamashiro pulls out his notebook where he had collected all these techniques and gives an example:

"There's a technique called 'Dolly Zoom', which is a technique that changes the perspective of the background while keeping the size of the subject." […] "In 'Cult of Chucky,' which I saw recently, there is a scene in which a long passageway is filmed in telephoto, while a wheelchair moves forward. The character is 'getting closer, but the viewer feels farther away'. This is the kind of thing I collect." […] "I'd like to combine these things in various ways and do it in animation." (I took some liberties with this, the translation was pretty rough)

And sure enough, that exact same type of dolly zoom rears its head in Dandadan as Okarun sprints away from Turbo Granny and the mouth of the tunnel stretches impossibly into the distance.

It may seem counterintuitive to ascribe too much importance to the creative vision of one person who specifically talks about his own lack of strong creative vision, (and to be clear, he's far from the only person playing a major role) but I think it's precisely that encyclopedic knowledge of film techniques and that pragmatic, meticulous attitude that may have acted as a stabilizing force for Yuasa, and that also provides some needed structure to a ball of pure energy like Dandadan, while still preserving its essence and the eclectic influences that it wears on its sleeve.

Also, mad respect for using the seventh installment of the Child's Play franchise as your example of a dolly zoom instead of, like, Vertigo, Jaws, or Goodfellas.

This is just a sliver of what I talk about in this full video! A minuscule piece of the pie! Some tiny little crumbs for the peasants! So if you consider yourself worthy, go watch the whole video. I think it's good.

youtube

Uhh also reblog! I spent way too long on that intro animation, so I need it. Bad.

#dandadan #anime #media analysis #mini essay #okarun #momo ayase #science saru #video #gif warning #Youtube

459 notes · View notes

seb-boo · 3 months ago

Text

Highlights from Seb's recent interview:

When it dawned on him that he himself was also part of the climate problem, Vettel started “slightly obsessively” keeping track of everything. “I came out to about 400 tons per year. An average person emits about 10 tons, and that's already a problem. [...] To Italy, for example, when I drove for Ferrari. I said: I take the train, to which they responded: you are a Ferrari driver. Ferrari drivers don't come by train. But I can be stubborn. Long story short: that's how I got my footprint down to 60 tons."🏎️🚄 After you announced your farewell, you said you were a little afraid of life after Formula One. Is it as scary as you thought it would be? *Laughs* “Well, I don't wake up screaming. But I made a conscious decision not to have anything in my schedule at all, and that is a challenge. The lack of structure. For as long as I can remember, I was always racing. [...] And besides that, I was used to getting confirmation every two weeks on how I was doing. You drive your lap time, and you know right away how good you are. But of course my wife doesn't give me a printout in the morning saying I was a good husband yesterday." 🖨️💯 Vettel can regularly be found in the clay these days: he is completing a one-year agricultural course next summer. “Since the pandemic I am very interested in agriculture, also because of the link between agriculture and climate. Not just of: I like vegetables and I want to grow them myself, but really the Formula 1 approach. There you're always looking for the last bit of performance from your car. Of course, I'm not looking for the last bit of performance from a potato, but I do want to know what the difference is between conventional and organic cultivation.” 👨🏼‍🔬🥔

#silly boy #I am endeared #he thinks he's so funny #and he is #always needs to be praised #sebastian vettel #ret!seb #rwt!seb #quotes25 #2025

151 notes · View notes

maxdibert · 16 days ago

Note

Do you think there are homophobic elements in Grindeldore?

Ooooh yeah, i mean here are several homophobic elements in how Grindeldore is written (or more accurately: not written). From both a political and literary standpoint, it’s clear that the relationship is handled with cowardice and erasure.

First, there’s the issue of J.K. Rowling’s retroactive “reveal” that Dumbledore was gay, which was never explicitly shown in the original books and was later confirmed only in interviews. That’s already a red flag, it centers queerness as subtext, not text, as something acceptable only if you know how to “read between the lines.” It’s a very neoliberal move: using diversity claims for progressive clout while refusing to represent that diversity meaningfully in the actual narrative.

Then, when we finally get a story where Grindelwald and Dumbledore’s relationship could be explored — the Fantastic Beasts films — their romantic and emotional connection is again minimized to vague dialogue and zero intimacy. These are supposed to be two men who were passionately in love and driven apart by ideological conflict, and yet the story keeps them physically and emotionally distant. Their bond is never given the same narrative weight as a straight romance would be. That’s not accidental, that’s institutional homophobia, even when it’s wrapped in rainbow capitalism.

Worse still, Grindelwald becomes the archetype of the dangerous, manipulative queer man, the one who “led Dumbledore astray.” That plays into long-standing tropes about queerness being corrupting, irrational, or inherently tied to deviance and destruction. If we’re looking at this from a gender studies perspective, it’s a textbook example of queer-coded villainy and the sanitization of queerness in “good” characters like Dumbledore.

So yes, Grindeldore is not just queerbaiting, it’s structurally homophobic. It punishes queerness narratively, sidelines it politically, and reduces it to tragedy without ever letting it live fully or visibly.

#grindelwald #gellert grindelwald #albus dumbledore #Dumbledore #grindeldore #albus x gellert #dumbledore x grindelwald #queerbating #internalized homophobia #jk rowling #jk rowling being an oportunist and capitalizing queer people #shame on her honestly

126 notes · View notes

melrosing · 2 months ago

Text

ok so over the years I have had a LOT of asks about whether I really believe that Jaime's story is a redemption arc and I don't humour them as much as I used to bc apart from having made most of the pertinent points many times over, I do think it's just self-evident in the text, and indeed in GRRM's own statements in interview.

plus, it is an extensive and detailed arc - it's like being asked over and over again to explain why I think Arya's arc is about identity. there are any number of answers you can give, but just how long is an exhaustive answer, who has the time, and isn't it obvious anyway???

and the thing is that when ppl come to u asking you to contradict an 'anti-redemption' take, what they're generally asking u to argue with is like. a carefully curated twt thread of quotes that, sure, compiled like that can look like an argument.... but honestly, you can make any argument you like in that way. and such 'arguments' are exhausting to disagree with because you'd have to carefully re-contextualise each and every quote, which ofc, have been deliberately de-contextualised, and frame your argument around each. and I think that just brings me to the plainer point that these people are not writing real analysis of the text. they're running through a book with a highlighter pen, which is really only the prep for an actual analysis.

you cannot make a point about a character's arc by isolating lines to say 'quotes that show X being Y, therefore foreshadowing Z', or, for example, 'quotes that show Jaime thinking about Cersei, therefore foreshadowing that he will romantically return to her' or whatever. this doesn't work because what this style of 'analysis' completely fails to do is account for the structure of the story they're reckoning with.

I think a lot of ppl like to pretend with ASOIAF that structure does not work the same way here as it does in another narrative, because GRRM likes twists. and I disagree. for example, something people like to say about ASOIAF is that you can never consider your faves truly safe, but I think that's been vastly overstated. we know Arya isn't dying before she returns North, because fundamentally we know how stories work. we know Arya's story points back to Winterfell - that her story is about the long journey home. we know she's not dying in Braavos because: we just do. there's a reason that if you poll people on who is surviving this story, Arya will rank pretty highly, along with Sansa and Bran. people sense the structure behind the Stark kids' stories - they somehow know, without being told, that the story is not building to their deaths.

because all of us have grown up with stories, we have an innate sense of their rhythm, and how they're supposed to go. they can surprise us, but if we've learnt anything from Game of Thrones, I hope it's that the twist cannot come from nowhere. ASOIAF succeeds because GRRM pays close attention to these rhythms. even as he's making it up on the fly, he is clear about what beats go where. they may last longer than in a different story - in another book, Arya would probably be home by now - but we still understand what each beat plays in a broader arc.

and an arc is SUPPOSED to broadcast itself. sometimes it's subtle, other times it's not, but generally it is not something that you can only recognise has taken place at its very end point. even though Arya has not yet fully reclaimed her name, we know she will. likewise for Sansa. even though Bran has not come into his powers, we know he will. we DO actually understand that.

so when people say that Jaime is not redeemed yet and his prevarications in the Riverlands means he never will be, they're either 1) consciously or subconsciously denying the arc they can sense GRRM is writing, or 2) they're just not that media literate. it's there, it's obvious, it's broadcast clear as day. Jaime starts bad. we get to know him. he proves himself capable of better. he decides to pursue better. he is constrained in his pursuit of betterment. he breaks free of that constraint to pursue betterment properly. and yes, this probably is a tragedy where Jaime's best efforts will still cost him dearly, and there's a strong chance he does die! but your baby trebuchet quote collection is not accounting for the clear narrative beats of a redemption arc, which the baby trebuchet actually feeds into if u were paying attention! this arc has not been painstakingly set up for a rug pull. Arya is not being set up to go 'fuck it actually I'm no one and I'm staying in Braavos'. that is not satisfying. that is not what stories are for. that is not what GRRM is doing.

so when GRRM tells you that this is a story about redemption: believe him! he knows what he is writing! the struggles of some twt user who hates Jaime should not be concerning you! and as we've said 100 times: it IS up to you whether you forgive Jaime, same as it's up to you if you forgive Sandor, or Theon, or Zuko your spiritual king! that choice is yours! but your feelings do not change what trajectory this story is taking! so yes MY GOD it is a redemption arc now let me die

#jaime lannister #asoiaf #following that one from last weekend or whenever it was a few of u are still asking so. i hope this helps

123 notes · View notes

nyctohyloph0bia · 4 months ago

Text

Thread of experts saying that endogenic and nondisordered systems are valid: A repost.

originally posted by @/jsheaforrest on Twitter, Oct 3 2023. This is a repost so that others can view it if they do not have Twitter.

First off, we have the Plurality chapter of the book Transgender Mental Health by Dr. Eric Yarbrough, Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric, published by the APA in 2018 :

Important excerpts from that chapter: "Being plural, or having two or more people existing in one body or space, is just one part of the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. Many people who are plural do not experience distress from the existence of others within themselves."

Since distress/dysfunction are essential for a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, the implication here is that there's plurals who don't have DID. "However, although dissociative identity disorder and plurality are frequently associated with trauma, there are those who are plural and report no history of trauma. The case presentation in this chapter describes someone with severe trauma, but this is not a definitive or universal reason for the existence of plurality."

Next we have "Dissociation in Trauma: A New Definition and Comparison with Previous Formulations," published in the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation by Dr's Nijenhuis and Van Der Hart, two of the authors of the theory of structural dissociation.

The key part of this section is at the beginning where it says, "Our deﬁnition of dissociation pertains to a division of the personality in the context of trauma. We are aware that this division may also occur in hypnosis and mediumship, that several other deﬁnitions of dissociation also address these other contexts, and that there are some indications that dissociation in these other contexts is also best understood as a division of personality."

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21667387/

Sci-hub link: https://sci-hub.usualwant.com/10.1080/15299732.2011.570592

Next we have the ICD-11, a diagnostic manual written by the World Health Organization, with the latest edition being from spring of 2022. In its entry on DID, it uses "distinct personality states" to refer to what it also calls "dissociative identities."

In the DID entry's Boundaries With Normality section, it says the following:

"The presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. In certain circumstances (e.g., as experienced by ‘mediums’ or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners) the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive and is not associated with impairment in functioning. A diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder should not be assigned in these cases." Note that the text says "eg" meaning "for example", therefore it is not saying that it is ONLY those.

Next is the DSM-V-TR, which also came out in spring of 2022. In the differential diagnosis section of the PTSD entry, it says the following:

"Dissociative disorders. Dissociative amnesia, dissociative identity disorder, and depersonalization-derealization disorder may or may not be preceded by exposure to a traumatic event or may or may not have co-occurring PTSD symptoms. When full PTSD criteria are also met, however, the PTSD “with dissociative symptoms” subtype should be considered."

Lastly, we have an interview w/ Dr Richard Loewenstein, who is lead editor of the DSM's section on dissociative disorders, has written over 100 papers mostly on trauma and dissociation and been referenced in 100s more, and used to run a trauma and dissociative disorders center.

In an interview with radio journalist Laura Klivens, talking about our system and having been told our origins, he said what's on the screenshot below.

Source: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/49hr6k (the link is broken, it redirects to Spotify, all gimlet media links do. If I find the episode i'll put it here.)

"RICHARD: What you’re describing is much more somebody who is emitting symptoms consistent with Dissociative Identity Disorder and, um, you know, without interviewing her, um, I would wonder if that’s … what’s occurring and this is--creates a kind of, um, way that she can experience herself without distress. But again, if she is not distressed, by definition it’s not a disorder."

Continuing on in that episode, Laura says the following:"

"LAURA: I didn’t just talk to Lowenstein, I also talked to four other mental health professionals--both psychiatrists and psychologists--from these really reputable institutions. And they echoed what Lowenstein said. They said if there’s not distress, it’s not a mental illness--it just doesn’t fit any of the DSM definitions."

So. All these sources, from the American Psychiatric Association, World Health Organization, the two major diagnostic manuals used worldwide, and experts who study and treat DID/OSDD-1.

They all support the idea of nondisordered and endogenic systems. We've yet to see a single source from any major institution or expert saying that endogenic and nondisordered systems are impossible. Thank you for reading.

This is the end of the original thread. The thread picks up again on Jan 8, 2024.

New addition: a recent study (September 12, 2023) specifically on endogenic and nondisordered plurality.

source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpp.2910

"Dissociative identity disorder and depersonalization–derealization have attracted research and clinical interest, facilitating greater understanding. However, little is known about the experience of multiplicity of self outside of traumagenic or illness constructs. Consequently, this systematic review explored how people identifying as having multiple selves conceptualize their experiences and identity."

It picks up once again, on Jan 17, 2024.

Another addition, from an article on Psychology Today's website published in September of 2021.

source: https://psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

Key points: "Why some people develop dissociative identity disorder is not entirely understood...Several studies suggest that DID is more common among close biological relatives of persons who also have the disorder than in the general population."

#pro endo resources #pro endo info #pro endo #plural #plurality #plurality info #plural info #info #alterhuman #alterhuman community #plural community #Thread of experts saying that endogenic and nondisordered systems are valid #<- would that work in the search engine?#idk lol #bookmark

172 notes · View notes

starfirexuchiha · 3 months ago

Text

P5R Interview section translation regarding the “Bad ending” (Maruki Ending) in the P5R artbook

I'll translate the whole interview section of the P5R artbook in the future. For now, I'm only translating the part of the interview where they talk about the "bad ending" (accepting Maruki's reality) because it really intrigued me for obvious reasons.

The person being interviewed in this section is Usuda Mumon, the Chief Designer & Animation Manager in P5 Royal.

So let's begin with the translation! (英語の翻訳は間違いがあったら、直してくださいね！ 🙏)

Creator's Comment translation:

Usuda: Among all the illustrations from the “Maruki Ending”, the one that left the strongest impression on me is probably the Akechi one. It was very interesting to see him get along with his companion (Ren), and spend a fun and peaceful time with him like normal high school students.

エンディング (Ending)

丸喜の提案を受け入れることで迎えるエンディング。歪められた彼らの日常もまた、美しい結末のひとつだ。

This ending occurs if you accept Maruki’s proposal. Their distorted everyday lives is one of the beautiful endings in this game.

───── ⋆⋅☆⋅⋆ ─────

TN: Ren is called 主人公 (the protagonist) in this.

Interview Translation:

Interviewer: In the so-called “Maruki Ending” where you accept Maruki’s proposal, there are illustrations created for each character. Please tell me about the process on how you decide on which contents should go in each illustration. Usuda: In the illustrations, everyone in Maruki’s Reality appears happy for having their wishes fulfilled. They depict scenes where each of their wishes that couldn’t be fulfilled in the true reality, had actualized in Maruki’s Reality. These scenes are structured to express “what ifs” and what everyone wanted to become. For example, in Ryuji’s case, I think it would be easy to understand that he wished to be active in the track team together with the track team members, and not have his leg injury anymore.

Interviewer: For Akechi, the Protagonist (Ren) is depicted as a special person to him, and based on their story and their ending illustration, I can imagine various things about them. Usuda: Those feelings are also strongly expressed in the Akechi fandom. Another illustration that I want to talk about is the group photo illustration in Leblanc. While everyone else is enjoying themselves, Protagonist (Ren) and Akechi are the only ones looking at the entrance side of Leblanc. This is a nuance where they both seem to ask the player “This is the kind of reality you wanted right?”

TN: The devs are aware about Akechi fans shipping Shuake? 😳I do recall them talking about how very popular Akechi is. Is that why... is that why Royal has so much Shuake content and even that "Our Light" song? Is that also why there is so much Shuake merch?

Interviewer: I would like to ask about another ending. At the end, there is a scene where the Protagonist (Ren) gets on the Shinkansen (bullet train) and feels Akechi’s presence. I’m sure that many players are also wondering, how should we interpret that scene? Usuda: There is nothing we can say about that scene. I would like the players to use their own imagination as to whether Akechi is alive or dead.

TN: They wanna keep it ambiguous with the schrodinger's detective y'all. But don't worry, we always have that unused Goro scene where he is alive and helped clean the place that his mother took refuge in. 💖

#shuake #akeshu #goro akechi #ren amamiya #akira kurusu #p5 royal #p5r #persona 5 royal #artbook #interview #translation #joker #crow

121 notes · View notes

barraisersworld · 1 year ago

Text

#structured interview #structured interview questions #structured interview example

0 notes

communistkenobi · 2 months ago

Note

I'm curious how you stomach going thru Tom Cruise's entire filmography when he's such a massive piece of shit. Like I feel like I'd just be thinking about all the women in films he has costarred in and abused beyond reason the entire time.....

I’m going to step very slowly into a minefield so please bear with me:

I don’t find that approach to art particularly helpful or interesting most of the time, and even if you do (which I don’t begrudge you for) I don’t think anyone has a principled stance on the matter, which would prohibit you from watching any film ever made, because the production of film under the current economic and social conditions of the world is itself unjust. Perhaps this is a lazy cop-out - if the moving image is evil then all actions vis a vis said moving image are equally damnable and therefore equally permissible. However, everyone carves out exceptions for what they can stomach (MY favourite celebrity would never do that) or cannot stomach (see: depp, jkr), myself included. And that’s not even getting into the actual issues of the content of the art itself. iirc Tony Gilroy scabbed during the writers strike to finish the Andor S2 script and I still watch it and enjoy it! I am also glad they fired Gina Carrano from the Mandalorian for her transphobia and white supremacy meltdown on twitter, and her character on that show is permanently ruined for me now because of it. I will not be able to enjoy anything involving Noah Schnapp as a direct result of his Zionist views. And so on.

An anecdote I always liked that I heard from a prof is his explanation of what a social position is: once a music band reaches sufficient fame, one of the members will inevitably sexually assault someone. So this might sound overly cavalier, but I don’t care to litigate the moral character of Tom Cruise or figure out exactly what he did or did not do (I’m not familiar with the abuse allegations you mentioned), nor do I care to do that with most celebrities, because that would mean accepting the assumption that doing so will give you an answer as to whether you should continue enjoying their work. I don’t generally find this assumption helpful for how I interact with art, nor does it give me the answer I want - which is always, inevitably, no I should not enjoy this, because accruing that much wealth and fame is unjust regardless of who they are or how hard they worked or their talents as an artist or etc., and this injustice structurally produces abuse (#MeToo is a response to this structure). Like the fact that celebrities exist as a social position is itself a problem lol.

Now does this mean you can engage in celebrity worship, free of any guilt? Again I don’t know if this is a productive question, or if the answers it gives you will be helpful. I find it generally distasteful, but I likewise engage in celebrity parasociality - I watch Tom Cruise press interviews! I enjoy hearing his little stunt anecdotes and it’s not just because they’re interesting, I find him charming and fun to listen to. And we all had a great time when Pedro Pascal was posting the word socialism on twitter. The examples are infinite.

And maybe this is all just motivated reasoning (I don’t want to consider myself a bad person, etc) to let myself off the hook, but it would be effectively the same critique as like, consuming the MCU despite its deep ties to the US military or what have you. Which again, I have engaged in this argument on this blog, and will almost certainly engage in it again! I will mock anyone who still likes Harry Potter on both moral grounds (JKR is abominable) and aesthetic ones (you have dogshit taste). I am also not principled in this regard. You can call me a hypocrite and I’ll agree with you. But I find a lot of movies ideologically despicable (see: Top Gun) or made by awful people (see: Kubrick) and still really enjoy them. This is not a contradiction for me because I (generally) do not operate under the assumption that my engagement with art first requires me to figure out if the artists are good people or not.

And a lot this is adjacent to the point you’re making, and is a strain of discourse I’m anticipating in this response, so maybe this all sounds off topic or overly defensive, but this leads into the broader discussions surrounding the politics of like, ‘moral consumption’ and using the quality of the moral character of an artistic object or artist as a guide for what you should buy into. your mileage will ultimately vary, including my own. and personally I’m really enjoying Mr Tom Cruise!

#asks #cruiseposting #this is off topic but I am blocked by a lot of tom cruise blogs. like specifically TC fan blogs. which I think is very funny #so whatever parasocial posting I’m doing is not up to snuff

120 notes · View notes

deception-united · 1 year ago

Text

Online Writing Resources

YouTube:

Abbie Emmons: A published author. Her videos have great tips and advice for plot and character development.

Hello Future Me: Mostly worldbuilding tips, but very in-depth, with specific examples.

Ellen Brock: A professional freelance editor who provides help with all aspects of writing—outlining, worldbuilding, character writing, plot development, publishing, and generally answering any questions writers may have.

Terrible Writing Advice: Great writing advice, if you can handle the sarcasm.

Podcasts:

Writing Excuses: Albeit fast-paced, the given writing advice is quite useful. There's multiple seasons addressing topics such as story structure, characters, and genres, amongst many others.

The Creative Penn: This podcast is run by author Joanna Penn, who shares the lessons she learned in her own journey and advice for writing and publishing your novel.

I Should Be Writing: Interviews with various authors, and encouragement for aspiring writers.

Story Grid: Outlining methods, writing tips, editing advice, and analysis of various works.

Blogs:

Creativity Portal: Author interviews, creativity generators, writing prompts and templates, and various other writing resources.

Now Novel: Aside from writing tools, this website has multitudes of posts about characters, dialogue, narration, plotting, editing, and story structure, as well as writer motivation.

Helping Writers Become Authors: Tips on dialogue, characterisation, outlining, plot development, structuring, character arcs, and common writing mistakes to avoid.

Almost an Author: This website is great help for aspiring authors, with advice that ranges from genres to motivation for writers to guidance for making writing a career.

Hope this is helpful! I'd love to hear any other resources you use or are familiar with. Happy writing ❤

Previous | Next

#writeblr #writing #writing tips #writing advice #writing help #writing resources #creative writing #writer resources #author resources #writer stuff #how to write #writing techniques #story writing #author #author things #writer things #writer help #deception-united

486 notes · View notes

valdotjpg · 3 months ago

Text

i would highly recommend reading all 3 parts of this interview w/ hidetaka miyazaki abt the duskbloods to those who wanna hear more abt its gameplay, but i wanted to make a little highlight reel of points that interested me personally

Genre + addressing concerns wrt future games

"[...] At its core, it’s an online multiplayer focused game [...] I’ve always found the PvPvE structure very interesting. It allows for a broad range of game-design ideas, while also letting us leverage our experience of designing challenging enemy encounters.

As a side note, please allow me to address one thing. As previously mentioned, this is an online multiplayer title at its core, but this doesn’t mean that we as a company have decided to shift to a more multiplayer-focused direction with titles going forward. [...] We still intend to actively develop single player focused games such as [Elden Ring] that embrace our more traditional style."

(more under the cut!)

The general gameplay loop

"The game has a so-called “hub” area, where players can choose their character, customize them and enter online multiplayer. Online multiplayer supports up to 8 players. [...]

Online matches are generally last player standing, however there are certain cases where victory conditions differ. For example, players may be tasked with teaming up to take down a powerful boss enemy, or find themselves in other special circumstances."

The game's characters & setting

The game’s protagonists are known as “Bloodsworn” - a group whose members have achieved super-human abilities through the power of special blood. Fromsoft tried to extract the sort of romantic aspects they found interesting from concepts such as vampires while working on the game.

"As human society reaches an end, something known as "First Blood" flows in an event called the “Twilight of Humanity.” The Bloodsworn are summoned to the Twilight of Humanity across a variety of different times and places in a bid to obtain First Blood. Due to this, there is no fixed era or location in which The Duskbloods takes place. There are more traditional Gothic- or Victorian-style maps as well as those depicting the closing years of the early modern period, like the one glimpsed in the trailer with the train running through it."

There are over a dozen characters for the player to choose from, each with their own identity and appearance. Each character can be customized to a certain extent using rewards from online matches, "allowing players the fun of building a character that feels like their own."

"The fragments [of lore and worldbuilding details] this time are found in character customization items: their “blood history and fate.” Customizing a character will reveal a piece of information regarding the world and its unfolding story. [...] Analyzing and altering a character’s blood history and fate allows players to customize all sorts of things, from their abilities, appearance, and inner characteristics to the role they play in the world and relationships with other characters."

Roles & "role-playing"

"Roles give players special responsibilities and objectives that often lead to unique interactions and relationships between players based on their corresponding roles.

For example, if a player possesses the “Destined Rivals” role, another player is designated as their rival, and they are tasked with finding and defeating that player. Doing so counts as achieving a personal goal, separate from the overall victory conditions.

Another example is “Destined Companion,” where one player is required to seek out another designated as their companion, which results in a special reward if they form a bond with one another.

Roles can be assigned to any character via blood customization, allowing players to enjoy role-playing in a literal sense and hopefully adding to the drama of these engagements."

Rat lore :)

"That character shares a similar role with the fire keepers from the Dark Souls series. They remain in the hub area, providing the player with advice and guidance.

I suppose you could say we tried doing something a little [cute] in the spirit of the [Nintendo] partnership. [...] Although I will say this character is actually an elderly gentleman (laughter)."

#the duskbloods #(btw just to be clear i mean 'interested me' as in like . i was curious abt some of this stuff & this interview provided answers)#(im not a multiplayer guy so im not rlly interested in playing it all that much by default haha)#(and when u count the switch 2 + game + nintendo online prices........ its like . oof)

141 notes · View notes

k0mmari · 1 month ago

Note

Got any writing tips?

Honestly I could go on forever about all the ways you can improve your own writing, but I'll try to keep it to the things that help me the most

Slight disclaimer: Everything I'll say is in the context of writing with the intent of having an audience read it. Writing for yourself with no intentions of showing it off to anyone is completely free game.

Slight disclaimer 2: I am in no way a professional writer and what works for me might not work for you. Writing is a skill and it comes with a whole lot of trial and error; don't be afraid of failure, or making something bad! We're in a constant journey of figuring things out, and everyone has their own time.

With that said, let's get started!

1- Starting a story

Sometimes the hardest part is the beginning, and as we all know, it can get overwhelming staring at a blank page. Let's say you have the beginning of an idea, but when you sit and think about it, you're not sure where you want to go with it; then let's start simple!

I like to start out with what type of themes I want to explore with the story; do I want to explore familial relationships? Romance? Trauma? How these characters react to external problems? Treat it like your own little research, and ask yourself what you would like your story to be in the vaguest sense possible.

Example: A story about how people deal with grief in different ways, and how that effects their relationships with others, with found family and a bit of dry humor sprinkled in.

If you're struggling in that front, prompts could help you a lot! There's a lot of free-to-claim story prompts floating around, so picking one or three, smash them together, and see what happens from there!

2- Steal like an Artist

When I first started out drawing (and eventually writing), I saw the phrase 'steal like an artist' thrown around a lot, but I never really made sense of it, but I'm here to make it simpler for you now!

Going back to the prompts idea, when struggling to form a story, you can always steal from other stories! Obviously, not literally steal the whole script from a movie and change the names, but pick and choose your favorite things from the media you like.

Grab a scene from your favorite movie. A bit of the character design from your 3 favorite game characters. Get the beginning of the backstory of your favorite book protagonist. Eventually, it'll be like second nature to look at a piece of media and go 'hey, I could do something with that!', and when you smush them all together, you now have your own story in your hands!

Don't worry about originality. It's true when people say that 'nothing is original anymore', but don't take that to mean that nothing can be unique anymore! Let's say, from when you were stealing like an artist, you decided to grab the structure of Alice In Wonderland! Great, but that idea's been sooooooo overused by now, what do I do to make it original?

Well, I don't know how to make it original, but what if I mixed it with Dracula and a bit of Interview With A Vampire, and made it in a modern setting with secret societies of vampires going around? I also think mafia stories are very fun, so why not make it that the vampire hunters are like mafia families, and the Queen of Hearts was one of the bosses? Oh, and to top it off, I really like found families, so why not make Alice the Queen of Hearts daughter that she's trying to protect from the world of vampires!

Boom! Is it original? Not one bit, but it's unique, it's your interpretation of a story, a genre and its characters, and that makes it worth telling too!

3- During the writing process

Great, you have your the idea of your story! You have ideas for the main characters and maybe even a shaky timeline of events in the beginning, middle and end.

You... You do have a timeline of events, don't you?

When writing a story, no matter how long or short I want it to be, I like to begin by making a timeline of all the important parts I NEED to have it in there. The story is guaranteed to change while you're writing it, so having a plan to fall back on can help you from not straying too far from the main idea.

Not to say that you aren't allowed to change anything after you wrote your timeline, but I can keep you grounded on those initial themes that you want to talk about. It's normal to get excited and loose yourself in the characters, but before you know it, your horror thriller suddenly changed into a cheesy romcom and you don't want to delete your 20 pages worth of progress.

Create as many timelines as you need! Make a timeline for your general story, your character arcs, your fighting scenes, everything! Keep it as simple as possible in the beginning to avoid focusing too much on the details– having a clearer idea of the whole narrative will also help you when you get stuck trying to figure out how to transition from Event 1 to Event 2.

Personal Suggestion- Dialogue

This is the most personal 'tip' here yet, and it genuinely depends on what type of story you're writing, but I find that learning how to write natural-ish sounding dialogue is one of the most important things a writer can learn.

It's a skill on its own! Dialogue can carry a lot of weight in your story. It can give the reader a more personal idea of the characters, their feelings and the atmosphere of any given scene, and making it feel natural while also having the characters expose information you need for a story can be quite the juggling act.

Copy from your favorite books, shows, and games! Games I think are the best way to get started in my opinion, as I find it to be in the perfect middle ground between 'book dialogue' and 'movie dialogue'; so pick a game where you really like how the characters speak and try to dissect what exactly makes you like their dialogue.

Another thing to be mindful of is punctuation! Punctuation signifies pauses for your reader, and dialogue can change its feel drastically depending on the punctuation you use in it. Let's take an example:

"I don't know."

"I... Don't know."

"I. Don't. Know!"

The dialogue is the same, but the way you imagine a character saying it drastically changes from one option to the other, so be mindful and take just a little bit more in figuring out how your character feels in any particular scene, and how their speech would be affected by that.

Just to compliment that last part, don't be afraid to break up your dialogue if needed! This is writing we're talking about, it's not everyday you have the luxury of visuals accompanying your story, so describe your characters' actions! Example:

(Person A walks into the room, smiling with their hands in their pockets.

" Hey guys! How are we doing?")

(Person A walks into the room, smiling with their hands in their pockets.

"Hey guys!" They walk to the sofa, sitting down with a huff as they put their legs on the coffee table. They take out a gum packet from their pocket and offer it to the rest of the group. "How are we doing?")

Again, it sets two wildly different scenes, and the second example gives a much clearer picture of the character's movements across the space. Of course, you can always take advantage of your readers not being sure of what the character is doing while talking for reveals and tense situations – it all comes down to what tone you want to set for the scene.

#will i ever be able to say anything without it turning into a mile long post #apparently not #i could say more btw but this already got way longer than i thought it would #oopsie #writing tips #writing

74 notes · View notes

gardenschedule · 2 months ago

Text

Paul & leadership, musically & otherwise

Link to masterpost of quote compilations

When Paul came in[to the band], things started to get a little bit more serious. Paul’s father had actually had a band, Jim Mac’s Jazz Band, so Paul was much more aware of the career possibilities than any of the rest of us were, because here his own dad had had a band. So things got a lot more structured and serious when Paul arrived. You can tell that by looking at the photograph of us in July ’57, when we were at St Peter’s Church, a bunch of guys in checked shirts, and in November ’57, when you have John and Paul in smart white jackets and everybody in little bootlace ties. I mean, already Paul’s influence was evident, you know?

Rod Davis (of The Quarrymen), interview w/ Gillian G. Gaar for Goldmine: Before they were Beatles, they were Quarrymen. (November 28th, 2012)

COLIN: Paul would have allowed John to feel that he was the boss anyway. Paul wouldn’t have gotten head to head with John, but Paul would have got his own way if you’d like, carefully, by maneuvering and perhaps letting John think it was his idea. I think that’s the way Paul was. LEN: I think it was part of his characteristic, really. Part of his characteristic. You know, when we started off as The Quarrymen, we were a gang of scruffs, we could dress whatwe’d like, checked shirts, anything we would like. But I’m pretty sure it was Paul’s idea that one night at Clubmoor we dressed a bit smarter – you know, the white coats and the black ties. I think – it wouldn’t be John’s idea. John was more interested in the music and the entertainment. “We can dress what we like as long as we’re enjoying ourselves.” But I think Paul was more... I don’t know. Image-minded, you know. Worried more about the image. COLIN: Paul was very much the diplomat. He would never get a quick answer off Paul. He would always think about what was the right answer; not what the answer should’ve been, but perhaps what you wanted to hear.

2003: The Quarrymen talk about Paul

“I can well remember even at the rehearsal at his house in Forthlin Road, Paul was quite specific about how he wanted it played and what he wanted the piano to do. There was no question of improvising. We were told what we had to play. There was a lot of arranging going on even back then."

John Duff Lowe pianist on their first ever recording, In Spite of All the Danger

“During one Cavern performance of ‘Over the Rainbow’, John leaned back on the piano, pointed to Paul, burst into raucous laughter and shouted, “God, he’s doing Judy Garland!” Paul had to keep singing in the knowledge that John was pulling crips and Quasis behind his back or making strange sounds on his guitar to interrupt him. Yet, if Paul stopped in the middle of the number, John would stare around the stage, the essence of innocence. […] Paul took such behavior from no one but John, but also he gave it back and was strong minded enough to carry on doing what he wanted, knowing how much the audience liked it. He sang these songs well, and added one more to the portfolio at this time, the Broadway show number ‘Till There Was You’. John really had a go at Paul for singing this��but didn’t try to stop him doing it, recognizing there was scope for all kinds of music in this group, to please all kinds of audiences.”

Mark Lewisohn, Tune In: The Beatles: All These Years (unFUCKING believable that Lewisohn uses this as an example of John's leadership and not Paul's)

As they near the club, they start to discern the sounds of a band rehearsing a poppy, recently released Elvis number called “It’s Now Or Never”, refitted that summer from the melody of “O Sole Mio”. As the pair near the door of the bar, Lennon realises it is his band, and that the voice singing is that of his fellow Beatle, Paul McCartney. Lennon, to put it mildly, is unimpressed by this proposed extension of the group’s repertoire. “He said, ‘What the fucking hell is he doing now?’” remembers Griff, today. “Lennon was a rocker. He stormed in the club and said, ‘What are you doing?’ Paul said: ‘This is a popular song—they’ll love this.’ And of course the audiences did.”

Brian Griffiths, interview w/ John Robinson for Uncut: ‘A roaring rock’n’roll band in leathers and cowboy boots… but they changed.’ (March, 2012)

The observations Sam Leach had of the teenaged boys seems to put Paul in the leadership position, not John: “Even when we went to shows, Paul had the ideas, made the decisions — about what clubs to play in, for example, new things to try on stage. He was the idea man, John was a bit lazy when it came to doing stuff.”

Larry Kane. “When They Were Boys.

The other Quarry Men did not take quite so strongly to Paul. 'I always thought he was a bit big- headed,' Nigel Walley says. 'As soon as we let him into the group, he started complaining about the money I was getting them, and saying I should take less as I didn't do any playing. He was always smiling at you, but he could be catty as well. He used to pick on our drummer, Colin - not to his face; making catty remarks about him behind his back. Paul wanted something from the drums that Colin didn't have it in him to play.' "Paul was always telling me what to do," Colin Hanton says. "Can't you play it this way?" he'd say, and even try to show me on my own drums. He'd make some remark to me. I'd sulk. John would say "Ah, let him alone, he's all right." But I knew they only wanted me because I'd got a set of drums.' Even Pete Shotton - still a close friend and ally - noticed a change in John after Paul's arrival. "There was one time when they played a really dirty trick on me. I knew John would never have been capable of it on his own. It was so bad that he came to me later and apologised. I'd never known him to do that before for anyone.' It was shortly after Paul joined the Quarry Men that they bought proper stage outfits of black trousers, black bootlace ties and white cowboy shirts with fringes along the sleeves. John and Paul, in addition, wore white jackets; the other three played in their shirtsleeves. Eric Griffiths, though also a guitarist, did not have the jacket-wearing privilege. A cheerful boy, he did not recognise this for the augury it was.

Shout!: The True Story of the Beatles (Philip Norman)

Gerry Marsden also has his own interesting theory about Paul’s left-handed guitar playing: “He and John were able to get their faces close up together at the microphone for the vocals, unlike most players. So when they were singing, it was like a love affair with each other, and the mike between them. In every photograph they are tight together and the effect is very powerful. In those days, we didn’t have a microphone each: we shared one, so for Macca to plan this effect for the Beatles, as I’m certain he did, was brilliant.”

“What The Stars Said About Them.” Beatles Book Monthly Magazine No. 205 (May 1993).

“Paul was very good,” said Eric [Griffiths, of The Quarrymen]. “We could all see that. He was precocious in many ways. Not just in music but in relating to people.” […] His charm also worried John, according to Eric. “We were all walking down Halewood Drive to my house to do some practising. I was walking ahead with John. The others were behind. John suddenly said: ‘Let’s split the group, and you and me will start again.’ “We could hear Paul behind us, chatting to Pete [Shotton] as if he was Pete’s best friend. John knew we were all his pals, but now Paul was trying to get in on us. Not to split us up, just make friends with us all. I’m sure that was all it was, but to John it looked as if Paul was trying to take over, dominate the group. I suppose he was worried it could disrupt the balance, upset the group dynamics, as we might say today. “I said to him: ‘Paul’s so good. He’ll contribute a lot to the group. We need him with us.’ John said nothing. But after that the subject was never mentioned again.”

Eric Griffiths, c/o Hunter Davies, Sunday Times: A Beatle’s boyhood. (March 25th, 2001)

“[John] didn’t like it one bit, paying to play did not sit right with John Lennon… but we did eventually pay to go in — John included, and it was Paul McCartney who convinced John we should do so… Paul’s reasoning was we were more than good enough to win the prize money. He argued that as we would soon be walking off with the cash prize anyway, so we could afford to pay to go inside… So we all did cough up and in we trooped, set up, performed and, of course, proceeded not to win. It was undoubtedly a reality check for our new super-confidant guitarist. We all came away out of pocket, but steeped in admiration for Paul’s enthusiasm and blind faith in the Quarry Men’s ability. He had impressed us all.”

Colin Hanton and Colin Hall, Pre-Fab, The Book Guild, 2018.

‘When Paul joined the band, things changed… but it wasn’t an overnight change,’ Colin Hanton remembers. ‘Paul was shrewd. He realised from the start that John liked to think of himself as the dominant force, but he needed Paul to teach him proper guitar chords, which was the way in to playing more rock ‘n’ roll material. He recognised John was the power in the group and that the best way to take him on was to do it subtly.’ Paul’s most immediate effect on the Quarrymen was in their presentation. ‘You could see he had this show business side to him,’ Colin Hanton says, ‘while John just lived for the music.’ The group had always worn what they liked onstage, but now John accepted Paul’s suggestion of a uniform: black trousers, white Western-style shirts and black bootlace ties. On 23 November, they had a return booking at the New Clubmoor Hall, where Paul had previously mucked up ‘Guitar Boogie’. He was determined to cut a better figure this time. ‘He had this sort of oatmeal jacket–he’d worn it to the Woolton fete–and he let it be known to John that when we did the gig, he was going to wear the jacket,’ Hanton remembers. ‘So the gig got nearer and then one day John turned up and he had got a cream jacket that was lighter than Paul’s. It was John’s way of saying “Hey, I’m cooler than you.”’

Philip Norman, Paul McCartney: The Life. (2016)

“During playbacks, John and Paul would often huddle together and discuss whether a take was good enough; they’d talk about what they were hearing and what they wanted to fix or do differently,” “John wasn’t casual about making records, not in the early years, anyway. Still, it was Paul who was always striving to get things the best that they could possibly be.” While Lennon might not have shared McCartney’s perfectionism, he respected and went along with it. He may not have had the same attitude toward Martin, though. “Certainly George Martin couldn’t get away with that,” “If he dared try, they would bite his head off. There was never any doubt in my mind that Paul and John viewed George Martin as a helpmate, not as their equal.”

Geoff Emerick in his book Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles.

“John is an original. New ideas just come to him. Paul has great originality but he’s also an arranger. He can get things done, which John can’t, or can’t be bothered trying. They do need, and they don’t need, each other. Either is true. Paul is as talented a composer as John. They could easily have done well on their own.”

Astrid Kirchherr in 1967, from The Beatles, by Hunter Davies.

In the early days my role was to tidy things up, musically - to put songs into some sort of perspective. (I would also give a commercial estimate of their worth) I might take a phrase out of the middle of ‘Can’t Buy Me Love’, for example, pointing out that the phrase should have started the song, or, as on ‘Please Please Me’, say ‘Speed it up, maybe; that’s all it needs, really… ’ I think John learned from this kind of input. He learned a whole lot more from Paul, though: musical structure; organization in his song writing; how to make a song telling. He also learned the value of a good ‘hook’ —the catchy bit, for example the guitar riff that starts ‘Day Tripper’, the harmonica from ‘Love Me Do’.

George Martin

John used to find it hard to express himself, I was in a position where I really had to read his mind, and he didn’t have a lot of patience. He would accept something that was sort of 95% good, whereas Paul would want it 100% good. So Paul to me has always been the musician and the one that was a musicians sort of musician. I mean Paul was a good drummer, a good guitarist, a good keyboard player and he sort of held the band and brought them to that perfection part of things, John would let things easily go. And of course John did not like the sound of his voice either. No matter how much you told him how great his voice sounded, he always wanted tape echo on it or something done to it.

Geoff Emerick interview w/ Alan Light for Blender.com (2009)

Paul was the one who sort of saved the situation always, the one who always went that little bit extra to perfect things you know. Especially because on Paul’s songs, we’d spend a considerable amount of time doing Paul’s songs because he knew exactly really what he wanted whereas John didn’t. The time we spent on some of John’s songs was a bit less than Paul’s songs, but if Paul, I think, thought that a John song was going slightly a bit, you know, lopsided, he’d interject and sort of make sure it really was polished.

Geoff Emerick interview w/ Alan Light for Blender.com (2009)

Q: If you had a favourite out of all The Beatles, who did you find yourself drawn to? Geoff: Oh, Paul, obviously! I mean, Paul was the musician’s musician. And I think Paul had an understanding of what I was doing as well; because he knew I was into instruments and so forth, you know, listening to musical instruments and crafting them, let’s put it that way. […] He was the one who always wanted a 110%.

Geoff Emerick, interviewed for ABC’s 7.30 program, for the 50th anniversary of Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. (25 May 2017)

"I don’t want to take anything away from anyone, but production of the Beatles was very simple, because it was ready-made. Paul was a very great influence in terms of the production, especially in terms of George Harrison’s guitar solos and Ringo’s drumming. The truth of the matter is that, to the best of my memory, Paul had a great hand in practically all of the songs that we did, and Ringo would generally ask him what he should do. After all, Paul was no mean drummer himself, and he did play drums on a couple of things. It was almost like we had one producer in the control room and another producer down in the studio. There is no doubt at all that Paul was the main musical force. He was also that in terms of production as well. A lot of the time George Martin didn’t really have to do the things he did because Paul McCartney was around and could have done them equally well… most of the ideas came from Paul".

Norman Smith (The Beatles recording engineer from Please Please Me through Rubber Soul), McCartney by Chris Salewicz

“If you take ‘Across The Universe’, for example: that’s like a folk song without his production on it, [which is] kind of slightly heavy handed. I think it would have been very different if my Dad had done it. Not necessarily better; just very different. I think Paul’s main issue with what happened is that he normally had a lot of input into the arrangements, and he didn’t with Spector – they arranged it without him. I was listening to [off-cuts from 1966’s] ‘Eleanor Rigby’ and even at that early stage you can hear my Dad saying, ‘Do you want that vibrato or not vibrato, Paul?’”

Producer Giles Martin

JOHN: [singing operatically] Well, let me tell you… [Small laughs] Everybody has all the ambitions. Everybody’s full of ambition, and uh, it’s like – uh, once I gave George the advice on songwriting, [which is] that when you start one, finish it. And I think I got the advice from Paul, or working with Paul. But it’s like anything. If you have an idea, the only – the best way is to try and do it right away, otherwise you won’t do it, and that’s called ambition, you know.

October 22nd, 1969 (Apple Corps, London): Detroit DJ John Small

Paul: OK, and that’s great, you know. And then – it’s just being able to say that, on the occasion, just being – say, “Look, I’m not going to say anything about the song, because it’ll be difficult … to sing it to you.” John: Yeah, I know, but you wouldn’t say – listen to me – you probably arranged it you know? Paul: I know, I know. John: Well, I’m saying that “Dear Prudence” is arranged. Can’t you hear [John vocalizes part of the song]. That is the arrangement, you know? But I’m too frightened to say “This is it.” I just sit there and say, “Look, if you don’t come along and play your bit, I won’t do the song,” you know? I can’t do any better than that. Don’t ask me for what movie* you’re gonna play on it. Because apart from not knowing, I can’t tell you better than you have, what grooves you can play on it. You know, I just can’t work. I can’t do it like that. I never could, you know. But when you think of the other half of it, just think, how much more have I done towards helping you write? I’ve never told you what to sing or what to play. You know, I’ve always done the numbers like that. Now, the only regret, just the past numbers, is when because I’ve been so frightened, that I’ve allowed you to take it somewhere where I didn’t want

Jan. 13: The Lunchroom Tape

PAUL: We – we haven’t played together, you see! That’s the fucking thing. But when we do come together to play together, we all just sort of talk about the fleeting past! We’re like old-age pensioners! [British geriatric voice] “Remember the days when we used to rock?” You know, but we’re here now! We can do it, you know. But I mean, I’m – all I hoping for is enthusiasm from you— PAUL: You see the thing is also, I, I get to a bit where I just sort of push all my ideas, you know, and I know that my ideas aren’t the best, you know. They are [mechanical voice] “good, good, good” but they’re not the best, you know. We can improve on it. Because we write songs good, and we improve on it. [to Ringo] And you can improve on your drumming like it is, if you get into it. If you don’t, you know, then okay, I have better ideas, but if you get into it, you’re better! You know. It’s like that.

Twickenham, January 6th

"I always had the impression that Brian used to worry about Paul, that he was a bit frightened of him perhaps because he was so strong-willed in his opinions about the exact details of how the Beatles’ career should progress. Even though they could also be as thick as thieves about such matters, Brian was always circumspect when talking to Paul about things of any great importance. John and Brian always seemed to get on all right. But Paul would argue with Brian, and as far as I could see, Brian always gave in."

Brian Sommerville, McCartney by Chris Salewicz

“Sgt Pepper had not yet been released, but already Paul was explaining to Brian at length his plan for the Magical Mystery Tour movie. Every few seconds Brian would make a note on a scrap of paper. Paul drew the whole plan out as a diagram, a cosmic plan with time and action and motion. Brian could translate this, as he could all Beatles commands, into a specific timetable of booked studios, rehearsal halls, rented equipment, tea for forty-five people and everything else they needed, without the Beatles even knowing what degree of organisation was required to satisfy their often obscure and demanding requests. Brian was on Paul’s wavelength and treated him as the most organised Beatle, who could in turn translate management needs back to the other three. It was the last time I saw Brian.”

Barry Miles, In the Sixties

To Lennon, [Paul] was "cute, and didn’t he know it," a born performer who was also a "thruster" and an "operator" behind the scenes.

Christopher Sandford, Paul McCartney, 2005

Because Paul was the natural PR man within the group, it was Paul with whom I worked most. In a sense, I used him to manipulate the others, because that’s what he was doing all the time anyway. I suspect that Paul got his way more than John did within the group, but in a far more subtle manner. He was a smooth operator, as he is to this day. Metaphorically, he still takes that last look in the mirror. His critics now think of him as calculating and selfish, but you could level the charge of selfishness at any great performer. Any artist who is not self-centred will not sustain himself—and self-centred is what Paul is. I soon found out that his management of himself is total. That’s why he always found it so difficult in his solo years to get management that would be satisfactory to him. Everybody knows that all Paul needs is to surround himself with people who will carry out his ideas and do what he says. He considers himself, as he did then, to be self-sufficient. That’s different from John. It is why the partnership worked so well in the early days.

Tony Barrow, Daily Mail. (February 16th, 1998)

And only until John became what he is now – which is after John’s death that people started to revere John – it became an issue for Paul. Because you have to understand that table was turned many times. One, when John made the Jesus Christ remark, and Paul became virtually a leader. And John turned the table on Paul by becoming a partner with me, probably. But then the thing is, the table was turned again by Paul becoming extremely successful with Wings. So he was doing alright, while John did Some Time in New York City with me, and then followed that with Mind Games or something, you know.

1990: Yoko

“I hear tell, I said, "that you can all be downright rude - and have been.” “Of course we’ve been rude - but only rude back,” he [John] explained. “Have you any clue about the things people say and do to us? "We’re not cruel. We’ve seen enough tragedy on Merseyside. But when a mother shrieks, ‘just touch him and maybe he will walk again,’ we want to run, cry or just empty our pockets. It’s a great emotional drag, and this is where Paul helps out. He’s the diplomat with the soft soap. He can turn on that smile like little May sunshine and we’re out of trouble. "We’ve a very tight school, the Beatles. We’re like a machine that goes boom, boomchick, chickboom, each of us with our own little job to do. We’re just like dogs who can hear high-pitched sounds that humans can’t.

The Daily Mirror: The one that bites – Donald Zec dissects Mr J. Lennon. (March 1965)

JOHN: Well, that’s the game they play. Neil Aspinall plays that game too. At one point, in one of the Northern Songs proceedings, I sent a telegram to Neil, because I’d heard he’d been doing things behind me back, and I said: “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” Because I was the one that protected him many times from Paul. Paul had no love for Neil, and vice versa. And all of a sudden he’s a Paul man. Because they clung to Paul—Derek included—because they all thought Paul was the one who was going to hold it all together. So they had a choice of which side to come down on, and they chose Paul, and the past, and at that moment I cut ‘em off.

John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld. (September, 1971)

It seemed that John had cut me off not just from him but from the whole Beatles family. The only person who came to see me was Paul. He arrived one sunny afternoon, bearing a red rose, and said, 'I’m so sorry, Cyn, I don’t know what’s come over him. This isn’t right.’ On the way down to see us he had written a song for Julian. It began as ‘Hey Jules’ and later became 'Hey Jude’, which sounded better. Ironically John thought it was about him when he first heard it. It went on to become one of the Beatles’ most successful singles ever, spending nine weeks at number one in the US and two weeks in the UK. Paul stayed for a while. He told me that John was bringing Yoko to recording sessions, which he, George and Ringo hated. […] He joked about us getting married - 'How about it, Cyn?’ - and I was grateful to him for cheering me up and caring enough to come. He was the only member of the Beatles family who’d had the courage to defy John – who had apparently made it quite clear that he expected everyone to follow his lead in cutting me off. But Paul was his own man and not afraid of John. In fact, musically and personally, the two were beginning to go in separate directions so perhaps Paul’s visit to me was also a statement to John.”

Cynthia Lennon, John

“They were the first group I had heard who sounded just like they did on record. You could tell John was the leader, he had a look somehow, a bit of a hard case, but I actually think it was Paul who was in charge.”

Andre Wheeldon, musician

Q: What were the Beatles like to deal with…It was said that John wasn’t the easiest to deal with, Paul was a delight to work with.

A: If we’re talking…professionally, those were the days I was a PR man; and therefore to a man who was doing publicity for the Beatles, Paul had to be the greatest joy of the four because he was the one who organized everyone else. He was the one who posed for the photographers, he was he one who said c’mon chaps, let’s do the interview, let’s do the photograph or whatever. John, in that respect, was more difficult, but John….is the most misunderstood man, actually, because beneath all that bravado and rudeness–and sheer rudeness a lot of the time– there was a genius, and there was also a man who was afraid. I mean all that noise he made was in fact a coverup for being rather a frightened man. Q: He was a shy man… A: Yes, yes indeed. And that is how an awful lot of shy people cover it up by making a lot of noise.”

Tony Barrow, TVAM interview

Paul came across in 1963 as a fun-loving, footloose bachelor who turned on his charm to devastating effect when he wanted to manipulate rivals, colleagues or women he fancied. (...) He had enormous powers of persuasion within The Beatles. He would get his own way by subtlety and suaveness where John resorted to shouting and bullying. John may have been the loudest Beatle but Paul was the shrewdest. I watched him twist the others round to his point of view in all sorts of contentious situations, some trivial, some more significant, some administrative, some creative.

George told me that when he joined Paul and John in the line-up of The Quarry Men in 1958, Paul was already acting as though he was the decision-maker in the group. According to George: "I knew perfectly well that this was John's band and John was my hero, my idol, but from the way Paul talked he gave every indication that he was the real leader, the one who dictated what The Quarry Men would do and where they should be going as a group." This made sense to me because, from what I saw for myself in 1963 and later, Paul's opinions and ideas tended to prevail with The Beatles, particularly on matters of musical policy such as whether a new number was worth recording or whether the running order for the group's stage show needed altering slightly. I didn't see any of the others resist him. They seemed to welcome Paul getting his way by winning arguments with John. When Paul wanted something badly enough from Brian Epstein he would speak softly, wooing the man rather than intimidating him. Epstein's defences would melt away as Paul looked him straight in the eye. In terms of song lyrics, Paul's idea of romantic was 'Michelle', John's was 'Norwegian Wood'.

John, Paul, George, Ringo & Me: The Real Beatles Story, Tony Barrow (2005)

“PAUL: John used to say, ‘I’m the leader of this group!’ and we used to say, 'It’s only because you fucking shout louder than anyone else!’ It wasn’t as if we didn’t know how to do that, it was just nobody wanted to shout and be so uptight about it. Nobody cared as much as he did about being the leader. Actually I have always quite enjoyed being second. I realised why it was when I was out riding: whoever is first opens all the gates. If you’re second you just get to walk through. They’ve knocked down all the walls, they’ve taken all the stinging nettles, they take all the shit and whoever’s second, which is damn near to first, waltzes through and has an easy life. You’re still up with number one. Number one still needs you as his companion, so I think my relationship to John is something to do with this attitude.

paul mccartney: many years from now, barry miles

“When I came out of the Beatles, I got slated for being a bit too heavy with the other guys in the band,” he said. “It was a bit as if I was taking over as the manager. I thought with the new band, I’ll give them total freedom, so no one can accuse me of that again . . . and you can’t do that either. You started to have people saying, ‘Hey man, c’mon, produce us.’ No one would take up the baton, the role. So I came back to that. “The whole of ‘Wings Mark I’ was to see if that could be done. But there was too much indecision, and I wasn’t willing enough to take the thing by the scruff of the neck and say, ‘Look, I think we’ve gotta organize the solos you’re gonna play.’ It was a bit like we’re gonna be the Grateful Dead and we’re just gonna play what comes up. But to do that you’ve gotta know each other for a long time.”

The McCartney Legacy, Volume 1: 1969 – 1973 by Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair (2022)

“Coming out of The Beatles, I’d kind of got burned by being told I was too overbearing. So I really backed off too far in the early days of Wings. Having to be diplomatic and say ‘Um, perhaps we should do this’ doesn’t work either. You have chaos and confusion. Eventually somebody says: 'Why don’t you tell us what you want?’ and I’d think, 'I just got a bollocking for doing that!’ There was a bit of that in early Wings which caused difficulties.”

Paul McCartney, The Word, October 2005

But it was always hard for you to lock a line-up with Wings. Was it a benign dictatorship? That’s what they thought it was. The thing is, if you come out of The Beatles and you go in another group, you’re not just anyone. You’re the guy out of The Beatles. So, y’know, if anyone’s gonna make a decision, it should probably be him. But I mean, having said that, it was a team thing. Y’know, if anyone didn’t like stuff, we didn’t do it. You could never force musicians to do stuff. But you’d suggest strongly.

The Q Interview, 2007

“That’s difficult. I really don’t know,” he says. “What I first thought of was: listen to people’s opinions more, particularly within the group. But I did listen to people’s opinions and what would happen was I would feel like I had to give my opinion and not get too nervous, because you’ve got to be strong in those situations. There were times when John would bring a song in and I could have just gone, ‘That’s great John, let’s do it like that.’ But the producer in me would think, ‘No, that’s not going to work, why don’t we try it like that.’ So something like ‘Come Together’ would never have been as cool if I’d just been listening to the way John brought it in. And there were a few little instances like that where we would insist on it being one way. So I can’t actually think what I’d say to him. I’d say: You’re a good kid, I love you.”

NME Big Read – Paul McCartney

I had to fight at EMI even for things like the thickness of the cardboard. EMI were always trying to give me less and less thick cardboard. I said, 'Look, when I was a kid, I loved my records, the good ones, and I wanted to protect them and thick cardboard would keep my records. That's all I want to do is give the kids who buy our stuff something to protect our records.' 'Well now, Paul, we can't do it, the volume you boys sell at. If we can save point oh oh pence ... And you can't tell the difference.' 'I bloody can! That's a thin piece of cardboard!' But I got my thick cardboard. I was always arguing for things like that. It somehow fell to me. Later people put me down for that, 'Oh, he was always the pushy one, the PR one.' The truth was, no other fucker would do it! And it had to get done, and I was living in London and I could hop in a taxi and go down Manchester Square and say, 'I'll be down in ten minutes to talk to you about the cardboard.'

Paul McCartney, Many Years From Now

Derek Taylor was heading publicity at the Beatles’ company, Apple Corps, and O’Dell was a low-level assistant in radio promotion. When Taylor suggested she come work at the Apple office in London, she dropped everything and moved halfway across the world. “Paul [McCartney] was there every day organising everything,” she says, on the phone from her home in Arizona. “One day he came into my office and said, ‘Chris, should we use paper towels or cloth towels in the bathroom?’ That’s how detailed he was.”

Chris O’Dell

Terry Henebery recalled the fun in the studio was not confined to the speech content. ‘They were very much younger and they’d come to the studio and horse about. You had to crack the whip and get on the loudspeaker talk-back key quite a lot and say, “Come on, chaps!” They’d be lying over the floor, giggling. And I can remember afternoons down at the BBC Paris Cinema Studio, where you were just looking at the clock, throwing your hands up in horror and thinking, “Will they ever settle down, stop horsing about?” I mean, people would go and get locked in the toilets and fool about. But you were, at the end of the day, getting some nice material out of them.’ Ian Grant was reminded by his boss to ‘sort this unruly lot out. . . sit on them a bit more!’ ‘They approached it as fun,’ Ian remembered. ‘But Paul was more the co-ordinator for getting things together. You could liken him to the fixer. . . he was the guy you could talk to if it was getting a bit out of hand.’”

The Beatles: The BBC Archives: 1962-1970. (2013)

“I’d always been the keeny, the one who was always eager, chatting up managements and making announcements,” he said. “Perhaps I was being big-headed at first, or perhaps I was better at doing it than the others. Anyway, it always seemed to be me.”

The Beatles: The Authorized Biography by Hunter Davies

#the most incorrigible bossy boots of all time #featuring onlookers who saw paul be nice to get his way and decided it was villainous femme fatale scheming on his part #the beatles #john lennon #paul mccartney #george harrison #ringo starr

82 notes · View notes