#i'll read any shitty beatles book as long as it's not boring so let's see

[pleasantlyinsincere]

Philip Norman in conversation on SATB (ep. 54/2016) about the possibility of him writing a George bio. So who is looking forward to read his book of little substance on someone unpleasant, grim and humorless who offers little to explore but some rubbed off magic?

RR: Do you see yourself doing a George book in the future? PN: I don't, no, I don't. I just don't think there is the same substance. George did write some very good songs but he didn't write that many. And I think it was because John and Paul's magic rubbed off on George eventually. And there is something about him that is kind of a bit grim and humorless and I just don't think I could go through what you have to go through to write one of these books. I don't think I could do that for a George Harrison biography. RR: To me, what makes it so compelling is the fact that by all accounts he had such a wonderfully supportive childhood. [...] But the bitterness manifested itself very early on. And for a guy who was chasing most of his life this peace of mind, seeing beyond earthly plane of existence he could be incredibly petty and mean-spirited. It was like a very strong division into the two sides of him that everybody who revered him spoke of. [...] It just seems ripe for exploration by somebody. PN: I think so but then what are you going to explore? I mean there is no point to write a book that denigrates the subject and decides the subject is unpleasant. Like the late Albert Goldman used to do. You have to love your subject. Even if your subject is a monster - and neither John or Paul was a monster - you have to love your monster. I just cannot see basing a major biography on George, important though he was and huge though his fan base still is, undoubtedly.