#yoko ono (mentioned)

[whatwooshkai]

Who's the black-and-white Protectobot That knows every street and parking lot? STREETWISE! Ya damn right!

And who is the bot that would risk his spark For his brother bots? STREETWISE! Can you dig it?

What interceptor won't back down 'Til his target's run to ground? STREETWISE! Right on!

They say this cop car is a bad mother— SHUT YOUR MOUTH! I'm just talking about Streetwise! We can dig it!

He's a combination bot, But no one gets to use him but Defensor! STREETWISE!

(from the tf wiki)

[its-yoko-onos-biscuit-now]

Hello my dear friends and enemies! I missed my wife (@meh-42-pi) so much that I finished Grapefruit. Here are some graining photos taken under bar lighting for your enjoyment.

[timeangel]

TW: MENTIONS OF SUICIDE

I think one of my favourite things about my father being an ultimate Beatles fan is the endless information I can access. For example, I just read in the Beatles pictorial history book that Yoko tried to commit suicide after an art critic criticised one of her performances.

[anulight]

John Lennon awakes in a spooky place

Trigger warning****

Major character death.

Sad ending

Slight description of a death. Body organ mention. Cause of death mildly described.

Beatles Halloween challenge 2021

Day 4 spooky location

See description for trigger warnings please!!!! 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

[gardenschedule]

Paul hurting John

And any mention of Paul brought a wintry bleakness to her face. 'John always used to say,' [Yoko] told me at one point, 'that no one ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him.' The words suggested a far deeper emotional attachment between the two than the world had ever suspected---they were like those of a spurned lover---and I naturally included them in my account of my visit for the Sunday Times. After it appeared, I returned to my London flat one evening to be told by my then girlfriend, ‘Paul, phoned you.’ She said he wanted to know what Yoko had meant and that he’d seemed upset rather than angry.

Paul McCartney: The Life - Philip Norman.

Paul McCartney, John’s partner into songwriting history, provokes a bleak and bitter look. “John said that no one ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him. But it’s in the past. It’s gone.” “John used to say he’d had two great partnerships. One was with Paul McCartney, the other was with Yoko Ono. ‘And I discovered both of them,’ he used to say. ‘Not bad going, is it?’”

Yoko Ono, interview w/ Philip Norman for Sunday Times: Life after John. (May 25th, 1981)

KLEIN: I can only tell you what John said when I asked him who he would call among the Beatles if he was in trouble—you know, if he had a real problem. He said he’d call George. That surprised me. Then I asked him if he’d ever been really close with Paul and he said no. Not that he didn’t love him; he did. He just said every time he let his guard down, McCartney hurt him. VETTER: Did he say how? KLEIN: Not specifically. But you know, it’s the kind of hurt where you open up to someone, really reach out, and then they’re just not there. A couple of times I thought Paul and I really had something going and then the next day, it was like it all just slipped away.

Allen Klein, Playboy: A candid conversation with the embattled manager of the Beatles. (November, 1971)

“I don’t have any friends!” John reminded me. “Friendship is a romantic illusion!” He said that he had learned this the hard way after the breakup of his relationship with Paul McCartney, whom he had once regarded as his close friend.

Fred Seaman, The Last Days of John Lennon. (1991)

HARTMAN: Paul, there’s a new interview out that John – you mentioned John a while ago – and he talks very openly. Without going into details, he seems to have a lot of resentment, competition, with you. And he says you kind of died creatively in a way, and he didn’t keep track of you, he said ‘The Long And Winding Road’ was your last gasp… How – he seems resentful of you. Do you know why, or—? PAUL: [uncomfortable] Um… I don’t know, I can guess and stuff, you know, but I’ll tell you, after all of that stuff has sort of gone down over the years, I actually keep a bit quiet now, ’cause anything I say, he gets resentful of. So I don’t know really, I mean, uh… it’s just a weird one. I don’t quite know why he thinks like that. I mean, what do you do about that? I – I really just shut up these days. I think it’s the best policy, David.

Paul’s Good Morning America interview

“No one ever goes on about the times John hurt ME,” said Paul. “When he called my music Muzak. People keep on saying I hurt him, but where’s the examples, when did I do it? No one ever says. It’s just always the same, blaming me. Could I have hurt John MORE than anyone in the world? More than the person who ran down Julia in his car? “We were always in competition. I wrote “Penny Lane,” so he wrote “Strawberry Fields.” That was how it was. But that was in compositions. I can’t understand why Yoko is saying this. The last time I spoke to her she was great. She told me she and John had just been playing one of my albums and had cried.”

Paul and Hunter Davies, 1981

I always felt guilty. Always felt guilty. But looking back on it, I keep thinking, okay, let’s try and analyse this. Now John was hurt; what was he hurt by? What was the single biggest thing that we can find in all our research that hurt John? And the biggest thing that I can find is that I told the world that the Beatles were finished. And I don’t think that’s so hurtful. […] I look at it now and really kind of shudder. At the time it was me trying to answer some questions that were being asked and I decided to not fudge that question. And I say, looking back on it, I don’t think… I mean, if that’s the most hurtful thing I did, I haven’t really heard much else beyond that.

...

And I say, looking back on it, I don’t think... I mean, if that’s the most hurtful thing I did, I haven’t really heard much else beyond that. We didn’t accept Yoko totally, but like I say, how many groups do you know, these days [who would]? I mean, it’s a joke. It’s like Spinal Tap! I mean, it’s Spinal Tap! A joke!

Paul McCartney, interviewed by Chris Salewicz for Musician (October 1986).

John had made it clear that he wanted to be the one to announce the split,' Linda McCartney explained years later, 'since it was his idea.' 'He wanted to be first,' her husband confirmed. 'But I didn't realise it would hurt him that much or that it mattered who was first.' Lennon commented later, 'We were all hurt that he didn't tell us what he was going to do. I think he claims that he didn't mean that to happen, but that's bullshit.' Envy also entered the equation. 'I was cursing because I hadn't done it. I wanted to do it and I should have done it...I was a fool not to do what Paul did, which is use it to sell a record.'

You Never Give Me Your Money – Peter Doggett

At first we agreed not to announce it. But after three or four months, I got more and more guilty about people saying, “How’s the group going?” when we sort of knew it was probably split up. So I did a kind of dumb move in the end, and when I look back on it, it was really… It looks very hard and cold. But I was releasing the McCartney album, and I didn’t really want to do much press for it; so I told a guy from the office to do me a list of questions and I’ll write the answers and we’ll print it up as a pamphlet and just stick it in with the press copies of the album. The questions were quite pointed, and it ended up being like me announcing that the Beatles had broken up. John got quite mad about that, apparently – this is one of the things he said really hurt him and cut him to the quick. Personally I don’t think it was such a bad thing to announce to the world after four months that we’d broken up. It had to come out some time. I think maybe the manner of doing it, I regret now – I wish it had been a little kinder, or with the others’ approval. But I felt it was time.

Paul McCartney, Rolling Stone: The Rolling Stone interview – Paul McCartney. (September 11th, 1986)

JOHN: And then as I said in [Rolling] Stone, both Klein and Paul at that time said, “Well, you don’t have to tell everybody, do you? You don’t have to announce it.” And I said, “Okay. Well, I won’t announce it then.” And then a year later, Paul announced it, right? [laughs; bleak] Good ol’… That was a great trick, you know. Because maybe that’s how when he – [very quiet] He felt that’s how he had to do it. So.

January 1st, 1976 (Dakota, New York)

JOHN: Well, I mean, like – like with anybody, when you say “divorce”, you know, the face goes… all sorts of colours. It’s like he knew, really, that this was the final thing. And then six months later, he comes out with – whatever, you know. I told [British journalist] Ray Connolly, and there was a lot of people knew I’d left, but I was a fool not to do it, you know. Not to do what Paul did, which was use it to sell a record. WENNER: You were really angry with Paul. JOHN: No, I wasn’t angry. WENNER: But when he came out with his— JOHN: No, I wasn’t angry, I was just – “Shit!” You know? I mean, he’s a good PR man, Paul. He – he’s about the best in the world, probably. He really does a job. I wasn’t angry in that way.

December 8th, 1970 (New York): Rolling Stone

"Yet even [John's resentment over Paul announcing the breakup first] does not explain his later remark to Yoko that no one had ever hurt him the way Paul hurt him. It almost suggests that, deep beneath the schoolboy friendship and the complementary musical brilliance, lay some streak of homosexual adoration that John himself never realised. He might have longed to get away from Paul, but he could never quite get over him."

Philip Norman, Shout!, 1981

John would say things like, ‘It was rubbish. The Beatles were crap.’ Also, ‘I don’t believe in The Beatles, I don’t believe in Jesus, I don’t believe in God.’ Those were quite hurtful barbs to be flinging around, and I was the person they were being flung at, and it hurt. So, I’m having to read all this stuff, and on the one hand I’m thinking, ‘Oh fuck off, you fucking idiot,’ but on the other hand I’m thinking, ‘Why would you say that? Are you annoyed at me or are you jealous or what?’ And thinking back fifty years later, I still wonder how he must have felt. He’d gone through a lot. His dad disappeared, and then he lost his Uncle George, who was a father figure; his mother; Stuart Sutcliffe; Brian Epstein, another father figure; and now his band. But John had all of those emotions wrapped up in a ball of Lennon. That’s who he was. That was the fascination.

I tried. I was sort of answering him here, asking, ‘Does it need to be this hurtful?’ I think this is a good line: ‘Are you afraid, or is it true?’ – meaning, ‘Why is this argument going on? Is it because you’re afraid of something? Are you afraid of the split-up? Are you afraid of my doing something without you? Are you afraid of the consequences of your actions?’ And the little rhyme, ‘Or is it true?’ Are all these hurtful allegations true? This song came out in that kind of mood. It could have been called ‘What the Fuck, Man?’ but I’m not sure we could have gotten away with that then.

Paul McCartney, on “Dear Friend”. In The Lyrics (2021).

PAUL: He was hurt. He later explained it by saying that I’d hurt him over some things, and it was kind of bitchy. Um… you know. He just had to do that. It’s fine. And at the time I thought, well, I should really answer all of this, but I took – I thought, no, it’s really going to get crazy if I start answering him and then we’re gonna be talking through newspapers at each other and really bitching, you know. And I decided to not do that.

October 19th, 1984: Paul McCartney talks to Barbara Frum of CBC-TV’s The Journal

"The truth is, deep down they were very, very similar indeed. Each had a soft underbelly, each was very much hurt by certain things. John had a very soft inside to him. But, you see, each had a bitter turn of phrase and could be quite nasty to the other. It was like a tug of war. Imagine two people pulling on a rope, smiling at each other and pulling all the time with all their might. The tension between the two of them made for the bond."

George Martin – Bill Harry, The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia, 2003)

JOHN: [Paul] even recorded that all by himself in the other room, that’s how it was getting in those days. We came in and he’d – he’d made the whole record. Him drumming, him playing the piano, him singing. Just because – it was getting to be where he wanted to do it like that, but he couldn’t – couldn’t – maybe he couldn’t make the break from The Beatles, I don’t know what it was. But you know, I enjoyed the track. But we’re all, I’m sure – I can’t speak for George, but I was always hurt when he’d knock something off without… involving us, you know? But that’s just the way it was then.

August, 1980: interview with Playboy writer David Sheff

‘There’s only one incident I can think of which John has publicly mentioned. It was when I went off with Ringo and did “Why Don’t We Do It In the Road?” It wasn’t a deliberate thing. John and George were tied up finishing something and me and Ringo were free, just hanging around, so I said to Ringo let’s go and do this. “I did hear him some time later singing it. He liked the song and I suppose he’d wanted to do it with me. It was a very John sort of song anyway. That’s why he liked it, I suppose. It was very John, the idea of it, not me. I wrote it as a ricochet off John. “Perhaps I hurt people by default. I never realized at the time John would mind.

...

“I’ve never come back at him, not at all, but I can’t help hide my anger about all the things he said at the time, about the Muzak, about me singing like Englebert Humperdink….. “If I had to start listing all the times when HE hurt me. Doing that one little song on my own, compared with what he said about ME…. “When you think about it, I’ve done nothing really to him, compared with that. Anyway, he did the same with “Revolution 9″. He went off and made that without me. No one ever says all that. John is now the nice guy and I’m the bastard. It gets repeated all the time.”

Paul and Hunter Davies, 1981

ROBBINS: When are you going to be doing another tour? Do you know? JOHN: No idea. I know we’ve got music to write, as soon as we get back. And Paul’s just signed us up to write the music for a film [The Family Way]. So I suppose it’s off the plane and into bed and – knock knock knock, “Get up and write some songs.” ROBBINS: A film that’s not your own? JOHN: Yes. ROBBINS: Very exciting.

John Lennon, interview w/ Fred Robbins. (October 29th, 1966)

“The healthy partnership and camaraderie that evolved from Paul and John’s competitive streak was only one step away from sibling rivalry. It now transpires that one of John’s earliest ‘hurts’ inflicted by Paul was McCartney’s solo writing of the music for the Hayley Mills film The Family Way in 1966. ‘I was told recently by Yoko that one of the things that hurt John over the years was me going off and doing The Family Way,’ Paul says. The filmmaking Boulting brothers had approached him via George Martin. ‘I thought this was a great opportunity. We were all free to do stuff outside the Beatles and we’d each done various little things.’When he mentioned it to John, Paul said, ‘He would have had his suit of armour on and said: “No, I don’t mind.” However, my reasoning would be that at exactly the same time he went off to make a film. He wrote his books. It was in the spirit of all that. But what I didn’t realize was that this was the first time one of us had done it on songs. John would write a book and I was supposed not to be jealous, which I wasn’t. He acted in a film [How I Won the War]. But I didn’t realize he made a distinction between all those solo things and actually writing music because this was the first time one of us had done it in film scoring. I suppose what I should have said was: “I’d like to write it with John,” and then that would have been OK. It actually didn’t occur to me at that time at all. So I went off, saw and liked the film, said: “Right, come on George [Martin],” and I must say it was all over very quickly.’

Paul McCartney, c/o Ray Coleman, McCartney: Yesterday and Today. (1995)

JOHN: ‘Rigby’’s, um, his first verse, and the rest of the verses are basically mine. But the way he did it was – uh, was he had the song, and he knew he’d got the song. So rather than ask me, “John, do these lyrics—” Because by that period, he didn’t want to say that – to me. Okay? So what he would say was, “Hey, you guys, finish off the lyrics,” while he was sort of fiddling around with the track or something, or – or arranging it, in the other part of the giant studio in EMI. ... But that’s how it – [Paul] just sort of— ‘Cause that’s the kind of insensitivity he would have – which made me upset in the later years – because to him, that meant nothing. But that’s the kind of person he is. So he threw ‘em out and said, “Here, finish these up,” like – to anybody, who was around. [By saying that] actually he meant I was to do it, but – you know, Neil and Mal were sitting there, and…

August, 1980: interview with Playboy writer David Sheff

"As mild and oblique as the comment was [Paul's "You took your lucky break and broke it in two" line from "Too Many People"], it seemed to cut John to the heart. On top of the questionnaire inside the McCartney album and the lawsuit, it was like the tipping point between a divorcing couple that turns love into savage, no-holds-barred hostility. Indeed, John's wounded anger was more that of an ex-spouse than ex-colleague, reinforcing a suspicion already in Yoko's mind that his feelings for Paul had been far more intense than the world at large ever guessed. From chance remarks he had made, she gathered there had even been a moment where - on the principle that bohemians should try everything - he had contemplated an affair with Paul, but had been deterred by Paul's immovable heterosexuality.

Philip Norman, John Lennon: The Life, 2008

[undying-love]

"John was to be posthumously inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Paul was to give the induction address. This took the form of an open letter to his old soul-mate and arch-competitor, recalling their first meeting at Woolton fete [...], the 'little look' they'd exchanged before singing 'I'd love to turn you on' in 'A Day in the Life', knowing the consequences but not caring. The woman who'd come between them received only the briefest, most tactful mention. One day, 'a girl named Yoko Ono' had appeared, soliciting a Lennon and McCartney manuscript. 'I told her to go and see John,' Paul said, adding with masterly understatement: 'And she did.'

-Paul McCartney: The Life, by Philip Norman

[aj-thegreatest]

Fame and Paparazzi in LO: An Underdeveloped Picture

So this is gonna be less of a "formal" essay, and more of a...ramble unfortunately. Stay around if you still wanna read lol.

I've always been interested in stories where the public eye, media, and/or paparazzi become one of (if not, the only) driving forces in the story. Or stories where the main character is always on guard, protecting their image against the people who twisting it for their own means. See also: any story set in Hollywood, or any story set in a royal/high status environment.

So you could only understand my disappointment on how it's used in LO. Because ideally, this should be a straight shot! And it started off fairly decently.

Persephone, a complete nobody, gets thrusted into the spotlight by meeting an influential powerful figure. And we do see the negative effects of this through Tori and Alex (I can't remember which one got their eye snatched but I honestly kind of don't care about their characters I'm sorry). Persephone can't readily make friends because of Hades' actions. For a moment, she's isolated among her peers. And it's good! And then...

It...barely gets mentioned for like, a majority of the series (Don't worry I will get to that part near the end) There are other moments mentioned (Hera disguising herself as paparazzi as a "test" for Persephone, this notable visual from Minthe's POV)

And it's not anything...substantial? The audience doesn't get to the emotional/mental effects from this. Especially directed at Persephone, who'd ideally be the perfect person for this. It encourages the audience to sympathize with her, which I know the narrative wants. Like, desperately. One of the main rules in LO is to be on Persephone's side, 24/7. And we know what happens if people aren't:

But I also know one of the secret rules of LO, is Persephone cannot suffer/go through genuine hardships. She can't get slandered (rightfully or wrongfully) by the press, because it'd be too hard for her. She can't have a truly unfair trial, because it'd be too unfair. And, if the ending of LO means anything, she can't even have her long distance separation with Hades.

It's why Persephone doesn't get this overall treatment from the press. In the context of the world, she kind of skirts by and doesn't get recognition for it? It's a bit like Retsuko Post S2, where she should probably start getting noticed more but it just doesn't happen.

Even after the trial and her punishment, she can freely walk down the streets of Olympus like she's the most hated goddess around (I'm not even saying this to be mean, if I had a family in the Mortal Realm and I couldn't see them for a decade? I'd be pissed).

I'm going to take time to mention the video that inspired this ramble, Lindsey Ellis’ “Yoko and the Beatles,” which goes into the history of the Beatles and Yoko Ono. It also touches on other famous women, like Courtney Love, Britney Spears and others, who were slammed by the media and press. There is/are a lot of elements at play, to misogyny and racism (in Yoko Ono’s case) that effected their treatment in the public eye. And a lot of this came in the late 90s/early 2000s, which was a very bad time to be in the press. No sympathy at all.

I’d highly suggest watching it for yourself if you haven’t, because the treatment in the video did remind me of an LO character, but not the one the narrative wants us to think of-

Minthe got dumped on in the story, in WT comment section, and by its own creator! It’s no wonder people give her more grace/sympathy, because she’s barely standing up by the time she gets planted. But back to Persephone because it’s always about her:

So. the only time Persephone gets slammed like that is near the end…where the narrative decides to input all the criticism to the evil scary villain who sucks sooooo much:

And it’s like…ok. So. Typically, when a character is getting mistreated in the press, the claims are usually sensationalized and inflammatory. Borderline slander. We, the audience, should not be on the press’s side unless we’re supposed to take validity in those statements.

The best example is the 2nd interview in Bojack Horseman, where the audience is expected to see Bojack as a deeply flawed and messed up person who, when things get really bad, will throw people under the bus to save his own skin (I.E, him mentioning Sharona in relation to Sarah Lynn drinking for the first time). 

And there’s obviously situations where it’s a lot more morally grey, when it comes to the media and press. It’s all about who’s telling the “real” story and which one is the “fake.” But in this, you as a writer need to make a decision: how is your audience supposed to take it? Should we be on the press’s side, like in the case of Bojack, or should we be on the character’s side?

Now. In this moment with Persephone, it’s clear we the audience are supposed to sympathize with her. But everything Apollo (and the other citizens) are saying is…correct. Persephone is responsible for this, and she hasn’t really owned up/done enough to manage it. She’s sitting there in her ivory tower, pulling the “woe is me” act like she did in the trial. And somehow, we’re supposed to be on board? When we haven’t been given enough evidence that Persephone genuinely cares and they’re wrong about her?

And this could’ve worked! If Persephone owned up to her mistakes and wanted to change, we��d be on board! Look, she’s actually developing! But because Persephone can never be in the wrong, the narrative bends itself like a game of Twister for her to always be right. And that’s boring in a story that’s supposed to have stakes.

I’m actually gonna end this off on a positive note, and talk about the best use of the media in LO. While Persephone is at school, after she’s spent the night at Hades place, she comes across this in the bathroom:

This is genuinely perfect! We see how the press/media defame Persephone, and how people are reacting to it. We see her being affected by this in her day to day life, with the Cherry on top being the “Goddess of Sluts.” It’s so bitter and borders on Highschool levels of petty, and it works. This is probably my personal fave moment in the LO Pilot!

And I will forever be shocked on why this wasn’t included in the WT version. It’s so simple to put in, but it’s almost like the press was sprinkled in…instead of being baked into the story. A dash of media slander here, a scoop of cliffhangers, and another sprinkle of SA, and that’s all it is, really. Or just a plot that didn’t spend enough time in the dark room

[thewalrusespublicist]

Stress Testing Song Lyric Theories: Real Love/Real Life/Stepping Out Demo Meta

What's this? Another long-ass essay analysis on a piece of John Lennon's media that keeps getting taken down by the Ono Lennon estate? More likely than you think (especially when you're this autistic).

As a history obsessive and a grizzled, mood ruining, eternal hater/skeptic, I have misgivings when people in the Beatles fandom look at song lyrics only through one specific lens/focus as it can lead to a myopic and potentially inaccurate take of the subject matter. This I've noticed is particularly bad with older Beatles fans looking at John's work through just the Yoko lens and other fans looking at it just through the Paul lens. (This ain't a lecture btw, I am as guilty as anyone when it comes to doing both.)

When dealing with contentious things like interpreting feelings and songs (nothing could POSSIBLY go wrong with that combo lol), it's important to get at least the facts we do have straight, which is why I wanted to go through some of the fandom's darlings and take them apart to see if the theories about them actually hold up to scrutiny.

To start out, I'd thought I go big with having a proper look at John Lennon's 1977 real life/real love/stepping out demo. I wanted to tackle this one as this is one of only three unconfirmed songs in John's catalogue that I was 100 % convinced was about Paul. As I've mentioned before, this was to me the smoking gun to end all smoking guns, my golden calf, Real Love demo my beloved etc. Got to say, I'm glad I did, as the outcome was a lot more complicated than expected! So let's get to the demo:

Analyzing songs for a fixed specific meaning or one coherent subject is always ... challenging. Songs are a medium to express both real or imagined concepts, feelings and events. You can't know everything about the artist's thought process and therefore their work, especially in regards to what is fictional/metaphorical and what is real (pun intended). What's special about this demo though (and what makes it easier to work with) is the fact that its less of a fully crafted song and more one long stream of consciousness ramble. The line between subject and artist is dissolved as we sit at the piano with John as he tells us about his miserable morning:

Woke up this morning. Blues around my head. Ain't no need to ask the reason why. Went to the kitchen. Lit a cigarette. Blew the smoke rings in the sky. Just got to let it go. Just got to let it go.

The song (or ramble) carries on like that for a while as we get to John reading the newspaper (keep this bit in mind, it might come in handy later):

Picked up the paper. Read the Daily News. Nothing doing anyway. Same old BS. Doot doot doot doot cruise. Nah nah nah nah now. Let go. Let it go. (laughs) No, what am I doing? Why don't you let it go? Why don't you let it go? Mm, it's real life. It's real. Yes, it's real life. It's real. Let go. Let the mighty river flow. Let go. Let go. Oh, rock your balls, you...

As we can see in the stanza above, John is bored and clearly agitated/embarrassed about something.

Then more stanzas about boredom and a lack of fulfilment wherever he goes and then we get to the stanza that everyone here is probably familiar with:

Was I just dreaming or was it only yesterday? I used to hold you in my arms. And now a baby, and another on the way (laughs) la la la la la farm (laughs) Why must we be alone? Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah. (scats)

If it don't feel right, don't do it. If it don't look right, look right through it If it don't feel right, don't do it. Just call him/them on the phone.

People go insane over this stanza and for good reason. It's a confession of lost intimacy with someone who:

Is clearly important to John

He is now more distant with

Is connected to babies or having a baby

Is connected to a farm

The mystery of course is, who is this person? Realistically, there is only really three people we know of who even somewhat fit these specific categories. Let's go through them:

First potential subject: Yoko!

This one has some legs. More than I was expecting. At this point John and her:

Do have an infant

Are purchasing a farm together (I think the sale went through 1978 so they should be talking about that in 1977.)

Distant from one another (their marriage was rocky throughout the mid-late 70s)

With Yoko as the subject, the stanza could be a reflection of their lost intimacy:

Was I just dreaming or was it only yesterday? I used to hold you in my arms. - self explanatory, the yesterday here has no significance but to signify nostalgia. The dream in this circumstance could be the dream of their relationship, The Ballad of John and Yoko.

And now a baby, and another on the way (laughs) la la la la la farm (laughs) - A long time has passed, they have a kid now. Now this takes some manipulation but is the farm 'the baby on the way'? The new shared project that will take further attention away from their marriage? The laugh might indicate a sense of irony there, a bitter joke. Yoko and John have struggled to conceive, Sean is very likely their only shared child. Is the laugh brought about by a sad reflection of the farm replacing the gap of children?

Why must we be alone? Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah. (scats) - we are in this marriage but we are alone OR why are we alone? Their marriage was a cocoon, all-consuming but stifling. Maybe both of them needed air from time-to-time.

So this stanza alone works quite well to be about Yoko, if you go quite metaphorical. It works somewhat with the beginning as well, he's down and depressed, over the state of their marriage? He needs to let something go, an argument? Is he waking up to the fact that reality isn't this marriage fantasy?

What it doesen't straightforwardly answer is why he is SO mad/embarrassed/avoidant of these feelings? In the records we have of their conversations, John is usually VERY vocal about not seeing Yoko enough. So why is he holding feelings of distance back and wanting to forget about it?

It also doesn't answer why the person he is calling in the following stanza on the phone is a him/them. (It's hard to hear at a normal volume. but if you are an insane person and blast your headphones to an ear bleeding level, it sounds a lot more like him than them. For the sake of caution and covering all bases however, let's consider both for now.) Why would he have reticence calling his wife or refer to her as them? In all accounts of that time period he has no issue calling her or hell, just going and talking to HIS WIFE who lives in their shared flat. It's a weird, dangling thread. The only explanation that would fit the stanza being inspired by Yoko is John realising he needs connection outside of his fading marriage. (I want to raise and partially dismiss here that it could just be a separate train of thought, a reminder to himself that he has to call someone for a chore/service. Yoko handled most of the admin stuff so its not like he's doing any of that and he isn't doing anything professionally so its unlikely to be a random call).

Second potential subject: May Pang!

Now I almost dismissed May outright but girl you know what, good for you, this might actually be about you! Our dear May is:

Important to John (she's also in the diaries and he dreams about sleeping with her a lot, he is REALLY into May)

Distant now he and Yoko are back together

But not baby nor farm adjacent

Taking May in mind, there is a certain logic there. John allegedly does dream about May and sleeping with May so whilst the Yesterday has no significance, the dreaming would. She was his romantic partner and still into her so holding in arms makes sense. The next lines also make sense if you follow the same logic as Yoko's but more distanced. Time has passed and his circumstances with the baby and the farm is now massively different to before, maybe he wants an escape from responsibility represented by May?

With May in mind, the stanzas work a lot better than it does Yoko. It's real life, he can't be with her and he's got to let it go. But he can't so he wants to call 'them'. Or maybe he's had a fight with Yoko and is being reminded of May in his agitation.

So May works from an emotional standpoint and as long as that last line is really 'them'. (It begs the question of why not 'her' but anyway.) As it stands, May seems like a stronger candidate than Yoko in terms of the songs emotional logic.

So currently, May is in the lead but wait ... there's another contender...

Third potential subject: Paul!

Now this one is I think the fan favourite opinion on this site for this song and there's merit to it. Paul is:

Important to John

Relationship now distant (but not apparently distant enough for John to ALLEGEDLY stop dedicating pagggess to him in his diary/meet for dinner when they are in town/visit for Christmas).

Doesen't have a baby but he is expecting one with Linda.

John's got problems and those problems are usually projected onto a Paul shaped target. But beneath all that, was there any softness left, any tenderness?

Well yes, its fucking John Lennon, the man was a giant marshmallow with knives sticking out.

But in this song? Let's look at the stanza with Paul in mind:

Was I just dreaming or was it only yesterday? I used to hold you in my arms. - in the first line we have the 'oh shit Paul feelings incoming' klaxon of yesterday. Of course, John is allowed to reference yesterday without it necessarily being about Paul, but it's something to make a note of. Another is the dreaming. John often associates the Beatles/Paul with a dream, a fantasy, an illusion. Was his time with Paul/their closeness a dream? He is also ALLEGEDLY dreaming of Paul a lot during this period. The distance implied by yesterday also suggests a time period more applicable to Paul than Yoko/May.

The holding in arms with Paul in mind is ... well. There's no two ways about it it's unusual to think about a best friend like that. Taking out romantic implications for the sake of argument, firstly it doesn't have to be literal (just the idea of closeness) and second of all it would be like the fiftieth weirdest thing John said about Paul John has expressed similar sentiments of enjoying physical touch and closeness with a close mate.

And now a baby, and another on the way (laughs) la la la la la farm (laughs) - also needs manipulation here but still works. John's got a baby with his wife now Paul has a baby on the way with his wife yet their lives are completely separate. John could also be talking in extremes, Paul has just had a kid now another (he exaggerates the number of kids Paul has often). Paul lives on a farm, which John has been very focused on before (stttreeetch but maybe this is a point of comparison, they are still mirroring each other). The laugh here in this reading is a acknowledgement of vulnerability of the feelings he's singing about.

Why must we be alone? Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah. (scats) - harder to reconcile with Paul but could be John's projection hours, I am feeling alone therefore Paul must ALSO be feeling alone (unagi or some shit).

So the stanza also works well if we take it to be about Paul. I've said this in a prev post but being about Paul also makes the rest of the song more coherent. John is upset about something he is trying to let go of but is struggling with, he references being everywhere yet remains depressed and troubled by something in his past. All of this fits with John's relationship with Paul. With Paul in mind, the call line at the end makes a lot more sense. He wants to call him, or them, his friends who he hasn't spoken to and misses.

The big supporting evidence for this one is of course the newspaper articles for the Daily News found by a user on here who has sadly deactivated.

To be honest, these are a bit of a holy grail find. With the newspaper articles in mind, a coherent, nearly perfect narrative falls neatly into place. John has woken up in a bad mood and upon reading the paper he sinks into a worse mood as he reflects back on his old time with the Beatles. He feels the need to let it go yet is resentful and embarrassed about doing so. The articles also explain a few oddities of the song, namely why John just comes out with the word cruise just after discussing the paper:

Picked up the paper. Read the Daily News. Nothing doing anyway. Same old BS. Doot doot doot doot cruise. Nah nah nah nah now. Let go. Let it go. (laughs) No, what am I doing? Why don't you let it go? Why don't you let it go? Mm, it's real life.

If we consider that the newspaper contained the article about cruises, it makes sense for it to come out as a subconscious/conscious association (have checked btw as the audio isn't clear and it's absolutely cruise, it's much clearer when you decide your hearing is worth less than a parasocial fascination with a dead dude). The newspaper containing info about Paul also illuminates the potential reference to Paul's song 'Suicide' in the Nothing Doing line and why the stanza seems to go off the rails once the newspaper is mentioned. It's all BS apparently (classic John defense mechanism in play) but once it gets brought up, John laughs, starts questioning what he's even doing writing this song and then gets angry with himself, cutting off the first half of the take. The derailment there could be he can't believe he's singing about the news OR that the newspaper contains the emotional point he's trying to get away from. He then does a few pithy lines about the beach and mountain before circling to actually what's bothering him, the lost intimacy with the person who has a baby on the way and renewed desire to call him. The way it all fits and slots together is borderline unreal.

Buuuuttt ... there's a problem. No matter how fitting, how magically perfect, how right-seeming a theory is, it doesen't necessarily mean it's true. For it to work fully, John would have had to have recorded this on one (or two at a stretch) specific day(s) out of the whole year. It could still be about Paul of course if you take out the newspaper article element, however there are other timing issues as well. According to Dogget, this demo should date to a recording collection from late 1977 when John was going through a depressive episode, the article is dated to early 1977. Shortening the window further, the Ono-Lennon's took a trip to Japan from Summer to October and the Mccartney's third child was born in September, meaning that if it is from late 1977, its unlikely to be about Paul.

Now Dogget could very well be mistaken and this demo is from earlier on in the year. From research, the only thing I could find about John and Yoko in February 1977 is them going to visit a friend a few hours away on the 16th, so from the limited evidence I have at my disposal, there isnt a reason why it couldn't have been produced in February (if anyone has any info on early 1977 please let me know and I'll amend accordingly). Additionally, John's moods were mercurial and his mental health never great, it wouldn't surprise me if he had bad days pretty consistently throughout the year.

To wrap this whole ass dissertation up, from the context within the song, context of the major players in his life, the emotional logic of the song and the repeated references in addition to the newspaper clipping, I am 70% confident that this demo is about Paul and that Dogget was incorrect in his attribution of the demo to late 1977. I believe instead that this was recorded in early 1977, specifically on February 9th 1977 as indicated in the newspaper article. However, I am more than willing to concede that I am working on less information than I would like about John's movements at that time in early 1977 and why Dogget placed all of these in the late 1977 grouping (I think just vibes but wasn't sure, the google books page had that bit blocked lol). Therefore I think that a less likely but still plausible second option is that the subject is May or even Yoko in late 1977 during John's extended period of depression.

Power to all of you who made it this far, let me know if you want me to take a hatchet to any more fandom darlings or if you have any thing to add! Also remember this is only my analysis so feel free to disagree (but like in a fun friendly way pls, it isn't that serious)!

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

I don't know how best to share it. But the strongest evidence is probably the paraphrased quote from the Norman book that you've referenced in the past. Where she suggests that John must have had feelings for Paul. (https://mclennonanthology.tumblr.com/post/77393769824/from-chance-remarks-he-had-made-she-gathered). Like, it's McLennon evidence. But it's also her speculation, not coming from John or Paul. Then there's the audio diaries. The part that gets quotes all the time is the part where she says Paul would be competition for her. But, in context, she doesn't really say it in a jealous way. She says it after a long monologue about how much she likes him and how she hopes he likes her, not for herself, but "because she belongs to John." She also talks about how she vibes with him way more than George and Ringo. (I couldn't find a good transcript but this one from a Yoko hate site ☹️is ok https://yuckfoko.livejournal.com/22933.html) Then there's the oft quoted bit of the Sheff interview where John is trying to talk about how normal his relationships with Yoko and Paul are and Yoko's the one suggesting that people might have found John and Paul abnormally close (https://www.tumblr.com/amoralto/57260485982/august-1980-playboy-writer-david-sheff-questions)! And there's the bit of Sticky Fingers where Wenner claims that Yoko walks around telling everyone that John was gay and Hagen claims she also tried to convince Paul of this theory! (https://www.tumblr.com/amoralto/180893176242/the-wenners-moved-to-the-west-side-of-manhattan-in?source=share). Heck, she's one of the core purveyors of the "Paul was John's princess" idea!

That's all the super McLennon-specific evidence. But there's also tons of evidence that she was very fascinated by John's sexuality overall. There's the 1981(!) interview with Philip Norman where she claims she used to call John a "closet fag" to his face. (https://amoralto.tumblr.com/post/69790080940/i-used-to-say-to-him-i-think-youre-a-closet). She's possibly referencing John when she sings "You're thinking of Rock Hudson when we do it" in No No No. And another paraphrased quote from her that Norman used in John Lennon: A Life is the quote where she's claiming John said it would hurt her less if he slept with a man (and that he thought David Spinozza was hot) (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11785347/Inside-John-Lennon-Yoko-Onos-life-New-York-City-moves-Dakota-building.html). There's also the fact that Goldman makes endless references to Marnie Hair telling him Yoko gossiped about John and Brian a ton. Plus, she's the one confirming John was bi decades after his death in the 2015 interview. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/yoko-ono-i-still-fear-lennon-s-killer.html) I'm not saying her statements aren't evidence of John's actual queerness. I think they are. She was his wife, she knew him well. But they are also evidence that she spent (and has spent since he died) a lot of time thinking about his sexuality and seems to revel in the idea that he was queer as much as any tumblr shipper. If I want to get super speculative, I would even point to the fact that John seemed to play up his "Oscar Wilde side" when he was around her at times, and a plausible explanation is that he did it because she found it attractive.

Which makes sense when we note that Yoko has dated other queer men. Most notably Sam Havadtoy. And, in that 1968 audio diary, talks about her suspicion that certain gay men are "as attracted to her as they can be."

I don't know. I started thinking about this when you mentioned that the most concrete evidence we have for John's queerness and McLennon comes from Yoko. And then I started realizing how much of the stronger evidence comes from Yoko. And it really does start to seem like she's acting similarly to how many shippers do

Yup lol!!! I agree with this, for the most part. It's kind of crazy to me when I see people painting Yoko as having been two-dimensionally homophobic for shipping reasons when the truth appears to be so much stranger and more complicated than that.

Thank you so much for compiling this!!

I also just remembered the "boat called Paul" quote comes from Yoko and I think she also expressed to Norman that she found it weird that John was treating her like Stu by writing her letters.

It's genuinely bonkers how much of our theories trace back to her.

[moontrinemars]

Dhruva as Dhanishtha: The First Fortune is a Red Herring

To me, it seems Dhanishtha is simultaneously over-hyped and under-valued... It's generally diluted to the fame, wealth, fortune, etc. it's associated with, as if it has no depth and no meaning beyond that. It's associated with the Ashta Vasus for a reason! The life of Dhruva is a good example. It is not necessarily work or labor that brings bounty to Dhruva, but his reclaiming renunciation after experiencing scorn and neglect, at a very young age. His humility as a boy, in sacrificing his birthright for the sake of determining his purpose, and his prostration to the divine after his being denied love and status, these qualities are what leads to his being crowned king as a child, yes, but that's not the actual point of the story. His true reward is being gifted with intrinsic knowledge of/the voice to sing the hymns of Vishnu, and to reach Druvapada, becoming one with the cosmos, out of reach of true destruction even at its most powerful.

Obviously, this is a story about an unusually holy figure, the brightest and healthiest form of Dhanishtha, so we don't expect all natives to reach these spiritual heights, but putting aside the ending for a moment, to look at the beginning and middle, we see depth rarely mentioned when looking into Dhanishtha.

Dhruva is born into privilege, but explicitly made to understand that he is unworthy of this privilege. Thus, he has to retreat from the source of his privilege, he has to fast, he has to devote himself to something higher than his desire for love, comfort, security. Only after giving up, disowning the fortune of a prince, does Vishnu offer him the true, great fortune of the holy figure elevated and eventually deified, a boy-king and a god.

This speaks to a theme I've seen repeatedly in Dhanishtha natives. Princess Diana was born into a nobility which afforded her the role of wife and mother to future kings, but she had to forgo that role, the security of it, to become the woman sanctified in popular culture to this day. The problem with those lost famous Dhanishtha figures like Diana and Marilyn Monroe and Yoko Ono — and this is particularly true for women — is when their fame or hunger for fame becomes so intense that they no longer have the option of withdrawing, of renunciation. Who with Dhanishtha placements had this result? Well, Princess Diana, Marilyn Monroe, Yoko Ono... and Bob Marley, Sharon Tate, James Dean, Paris Hilton, Jennifer Aniston, Justin Bieber, Kristen Stewart, Mary Queen of Scots, Elvis Presley, Whitney Houston, Ariana Grande, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Arthur Conan Doyle, Jimi Hendrix, Aaliyah, Shia LaBeouf... all of these figures had Dhanishtha placements, and have had their lives, reputations, and properties over-publicized. (This is not a comment on whether any of the listed figures are good or bad people, btw.)

This isn't to say that Dhanishtha is more tragic than another nakshatra, but that an underexplored aspect of Dhanishtha is the need for absense, rest periods, and periodic fasting, whether literal or metaphorical. The sense of rhythm that Dhanishtha is famous for, it isn't just about knowing when to hit, it's about knowing when and how long to wait before you do. That's what rhythm is — not just the beats themselves, but the spaces in between. That's why the happiest and most consistently successful Dhanishtha natives are the ones who don't allow the pressure of the public, those around them, or duties that are attached to supposed fortunes they've received, to overload their plate until they're hitting out of sync, or simply have to stop all together. Whether fast or slow, these natives need discipline in setting and keeping pace.

The depth to Dhanishtha is that, as with all Dharma-motivated nakshatras, its natives yearn for purpose and meaning — but on a distinctly cosmic scale. They're told and feel that they've been blessed, but to what end? They spend their whole lives trying to figure it out, because it simply isn't enough to have potential, they also have to use it to whatever end makes them matter. It depends on their other placements how this internal struggle manifests, but throughout their lives, yearning for significance permeates everything they feel and do.

And this yearning can propell them to ignore their greatest asset: their sense of timing.

Underdeveloped Dhanishtha natives will use their blessing however they are told to, in the form that's convenient to those around them. They never leave the palace; they stay prince forever, and thus never grow enough to even be a particularly good prince. Natives who do develop somewhat will leave the palace, but they may return after an insufficient amount of time, expecting that their experience of fasting, of loss or struggle, in and of itself, will be enough to enlighten them. Dhanishtha at its truest and most enlightened form will not only fast until they understand hunger, not only fast until they can SEE 'god' — they will fast until they MEET 'god', until Vishnu returns their voice to them, and reserves a place for them in the heavens.

[dieinct]

my dad just started unprompted defending yoko ono (mentioned on pbs), a woman he claimed was unfairly maligned. he keeps saying "paul broke up the beatles!" which is true

[muzaktomyears]

After the [Apple Boutique launch] party, George Harrison - who'd dressed up for the occasion in a magnificent yellow and black pinstriped suit - accompanied Neil Aspinall and me to Neil's flat on Sloane Street. "I have to admit you've made a great job of it," George told me as we sat chatting cross-legged on Neil's floor. "The whole place looks fantastic, especially the outside of the shop. You know, I really wasn't too keen at first when the others told me they wanted you to run Apple." "Why was that, then?" I said, somewhat taken aback. "Well," George smiled, "I always used to think you were a bit of a bad influence on John." "Oh, so you don't think so now, then?" "Not at all," said George. "It's just great having you here, you're doing a terrific job, and I realize now that you're not a bad influence at all." "Well, that's a bit of a shame in a way," I said. "I like being a bad influence on John. I must be slipping up somewhere!" But it was only after Yoko Ono had become an important part of John's life that I fully understand the implications of George's remark. The other Beatles - not to mention everyone around the group - lived in mortal fear of John's volatility. Especially with Brian Epstein gone, they were dreading the day when he might decide to upset the whole apple cart, and thus spoil a good thing for everyone else. George, evidently, had thought I might be the one to set John off.

John Lennon: In My Life, Pete Shotton and Nicholas Schaffner (1983)

[juvenilefrogg]

HOT TAKE!!

I don't expect everyone to understand me or relate to this but just because someone likes Harry Potter doesn't mean they're not allies. It's not a facade if someone is a Potterhead and still claims to be an ally.

A lot of people believe in "separate art from the artist". The famous painter Pablo Picasso was such a great artist, widely known for the cubist movement. You may also know about his blue period and might pity him. But then again Picasso as a person has done very questionable things. He is known to have treated women poorly and had many affairs throughout his life.

Now just because he was a great artist doesn't mean he is not accountable for his poor actions and choices but his actions surely do not make him a bad artist. I can accept that he is a bad person and yet still admit that he was a great artist.

Legendary singer, songwriter and lyrical genius John Lennon is well known in the music industry. Surely we all have listened to his songs at least once. The legendary rock band The Beatles gave us so many bangers.

Beautiful Boy by John Lennon is one of the songs that I adore so much. I just love the showcase of the fraternal love in that song. But when you dig up the history of that song you find that it was written for Sean Lennon (child of John Lennon and Yoko Ono). It is not about Julian Lennon (child of John Lennon from his first wife, Cynthia Lennon). Now it just breaks my heart to think about this from Julian's pov. To have a dad who left your mom and then goes ahead to write a song about his other child with his 2nd wife. Don't get me wrong I'd be furious I'd be going crazy.

But oh to have a dad who'd love me enough to write such a song for me ahhhh I'd give up anything just to have that experience. From Sean's pov I'd be so in love with this song.

Now I am not justifying and romanticising what he did but how do I close my ears, shut my eyes, and turn my back on such a beautiful art? To say that there are plenty of other and far better songs and things to admire why do I have to stick to this particular song or thing is not fair. It is not fair to me as an admirer. You can't quantify my love. I can't transfer my love from one thing to another in an instant. Though it may die or fade away with time until then you'd just have to let me be. The heart wants what it wants.

Recently, Ariana Grande released her latest album, Eternal Sunshine, I am sure most of you already know about it and have listened to it. It's a hit you can't deny that. But when you get to know the story behind that album, the songs and whom they're written about and what they mean, you might want to cancel Ariana. And sure if you want to do that go ahead you're free to do that. But that doesn't mean everyone will. One can still like her songs and not be a supporter of cheating in a marriage. Fans who literally grew up listening to her songs can't just one day stop listening to her songs and thinking about her (at least not in my view). They might start to feel conflicted about her as a person tho but I am sure they'll still have some love left for her old hit songs.

We talk about not being judgemental, being liberal, and being open-minded so why are we still so constricted at the same time? Life and its choices aren't black and white most often you find yourself in the grey areas. Who are we to judge so easily? We as a queer community would get offended if someone judged us just for putting a pride flag on our profiles. So why are we judging just because someone has their Hogwarts house mentioned in their profile? One might say the first is homophobic but isn't the latter prejudice?

Mind you I am talking about the people, the allies who have nothing to do with the writer, who just enjoy the books, and the movies, who find comfort in that story, relate to characters and have loved them for years. What's their fault? All this hate just because they fell in love with the wrong franchise? Which had nothing to do with the trans community when they were created and enjoyed by the fans. One can take a stand and still love Harry Potter.

I am sure many people from the queer community itself are part of the fandom. Wolfstar shippers flood Tumblr with love and how most of them are queer. You can't say that they're transphobic.

Criticism is necessary I am not saying don't criticise the wrongs. If there's no criticism one might never know what they did wrong. Wrongs should never go unchecked.

Criticise the artist for their choices and actions. Don't hate someone who just fell in love with the art.

Don't turn a blind eye to the wrongs. Don't follow the artist blindly. Be mindful of your own choices. That's all you could do.

I don't have Hogwarts house mentioned in my profile. I dont even own the books. Sure I've read the books and watched the movies. But I sure as am not even gonna judge someone blindly if they've mentioned their Hogwarts house.

I respect all your views you might not agree with me and you don't even have to but I believe that you'd at least be respectful of my views. I most often don't even comment on controversial things out of fear of judgement and rejection but this is something that I need to get off my chest. I am not transphobic, I have never been. I respect everyone regardless of who they love. So here I am just keeping my views and hoping that you guys would at least be respectful enough and correct me if I said something wrong.

At the end of the day, I am just trying to find a place in this world.

[dateinthelife]

9 July 1969

A bed is brought into the studio so that Yoko Ono, recovering from a car crash eight days previously, can attend.

Much has been made of the disruptive presence of Yoko in the studio, but no one ever mentions the healing power of hearing "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and people arguing about it on repeat for eight hours at a time.

[lilac-hecox]

So like Anthony's ex talked about talking about how he talked about her in some of the Smosh reunion videos and that she was going to make a video about it. She did.

I will be honest and say I know very little about her outside of watching some tea videos about their relationship and the vlog channel they had, and hearing Anthony's comments and takes on things, and how she once got angry online because he said in his draw my life video that she used him and was manipulative.

So, this is just a recap of what she said from her video about him/Smosh:

Anthony's ex's perspective is that she is getting blamed for the Smosh break up because neither Ian nor Anthony wants to take responsibility for the friendship crumbling.

After the video, she called Ian's long-term ex Melanie and talked for an hour, and they both agreed that Ian and Anthony threw her under the bus and made her the Yoko Ono of Smosh.

She says that the friendship began to crumble when Ian began dating Melanie because Anthony and Melanie didn't get along. She said that Anthony told her when he started dating her verbatim that he "hated her." "Couldn't stand her." "Found her very annoying." "Literally couldn't be in the same room as her."

She says that when she started dating Anthony Ian got upset that Anthony started being a good boyfriend to her and devoted 30 hours a week to her and was a better boyfriend to her than Ian was to Melanie and it caused tension in Ian's relationship with Melanie. That Melanie compared the way Anthony was with her with how Ian was treating his gf and how Anthony was "proud" of his gf and featured her in videos.

She said Ian never liked her and was mean to her. That he was fake towards her and she never understood him. They never fought and got along if they were in the same room. She said they didn't vibe with each other and that Ian didn't care to make any kind of effort to be her friend.

She brings up the low blow of Anthony saying that he tried to have a heart to heart with Ian in 2017 about how he almost married her and how it was a bad relationship and she says if Anthony is so happy in his relationship that he "constantly talks about how happy he is (with Mykie) and how great it is and that he moved on why does he keep talking about her"

She said if she was so terrible, why did he propose to her. Why did he beg for her back multiple times.

She also mentions how he now edited her out of his draw my life video the good and the bad things about her. She thinks he did that to hurt her.

Earlier in the video, she also says that they broke up in part because she stopped being attracted to him, and she got 'the ick' over him.

Later, she talks about Anthony being an introvert and how they were similar in lifestyle decisions. Then she says she wants to date someone introverted again.

My perspective/opinion (and again I don't really know her that well or know the ins and outs of their relationship) is sort of that she is just kind of making a bigger deal out of it than it really is. She's got people hyping her up in her comments saying Ian and Anthony are misogynistic for blaming their problems on a woman, and she's replying to those in positive ways. Admittedly, I'm biased because I'm a Smosh fan and a fairly new one who is learning lore. But it just kinda smacks of using the Smosh reunion for views, get people talking, etc.

Also, people are definitely allowed to talk about their relationships, and it goes both ways. She mentioned that if he's so happy, why is he mentioning her. In his POV, the relationship was toxic and had abusive elements. I was in an abusive relationship, and despite moving on and being happy, sometimes you just remember crap and you're like "man good thing that didn't actually work out."

Her being kinda snotty about how Anthony has to keep talking about how happy he is with Mykie just comes off as bad vibes.

Idk! Also, the stuff about Ian and Melanie. Ian and Melanie appear to still be friends or close, so whatever issues they had there is apparently no ill will between them when she kind of paints Melanie as being on her "side."

My take (which is just my opinion) is that I don't trust her really and this feels like a cash in on the Smosh reunion and the fact that she just moved back to LA and that a majority of her audience knows her because of her relevancy of being his ex.

[hey-i-am-trying]

Translations ꜜ

Quando a gente fala que o tiktok tá vivendo outra experiência que a gente, ninguém acredita

[TRANSLATION] First screenshot Mine: A person with a pfp and banner of qsmp defending homophobes onmy mentions, my god.

Second screenshot

Tiktok comment: Mike that we knew is gone, after the marriage or whatever has caused the changes on his life, he changed his own self Juju(in the comment of the first screenshot's tweet): Mine, look at this.

Mine: BarbMine, Yoko Ono of Mojang