#i'm not paraphrasing that is actually word for word what he said lads

[fantabulousfelix]

man it's bad tonight huh

[caralara]

I'm writing this as a mum, I've always been 50/50 about louis being Freddie's dad and I went to see aotv today and it actually changed my mind about it in a way that now I'm sure he is not. when he said something like I spend 3 weeks or a month with him in a la but then I miss my sisters or my grandparents and I come back to Doncaster to see them, like no parent says that ever. It doesn't matter how close you are with your family, you don't leave your kid because you miss your sisters.

Also, they don't have a dad and son relationship, it's so clear now.. the way they interact. It can be cute, yes but it's not fatherhood.

Other thing that made me go oh? was the words that the grandparents chose to talk about Freddie, "when he brought him to London, I knew he was his little lad or baby" and "he is his double". My parents would never say that about my son, there are so many words that you can use to describe a father and son relationship and you decide to chose those?

I thought that maybe Freddie would go to London more often than we actually saw but the grandparent said that he goes there once a year. Louis has the funds to get the kid to the UK for a weekend if he wants, he's not that he doesn't have the money. That doesn't add up either.

It completely changed my mind because yes they are cute together for those 5 seconds but the rest is not there.

Hi anon!

Very interesting, thank you for sharing. I myself don’t have my own kids, and I always feel like I don’t have a right to judge other people’s relationships from the outside because apparently people don’t all work / feel like I do (weird concept but ok lol) but yeah. It does feel very “cool uncle” vibey.

Something I’ve picked up on the second watch through was that at some point, Louis talks about what he had to endure, and he counts up one direction splitting up, his mum passing, then Fizzy, and then he says (I’m paraphrasing) “and on top of that I then had to deal with more shit” as in - there were more exhausting tragedies. But there were not really any from the publics perspective? Until covid of course.

I just found that interesting.

[ladyjaneasher-blog]

Hey I came across Philip Normans book and as I'm not familiar with him I was wondering what was wrong with him as a lot of people seem to dislike him

short answer:

pictured here is philip norman writing anything ever.

long answer:

i honestly don’t know where to even start, dear anon. it would be easier for me to list what isn’t wrong with philip norman. i can’t tell you what people as a whole dislike about him, but i can tell what i dislike about him. my immediate kneejerk reaction to your question was this poem of norman referencing paul published in the sunday times in the early 70s:

O deified Scouse, with unmusical spouseFor the clichés and cloy you unload,To an anodyne tune may they bury you soonIn the middlemost midst of the road.

to paraphrase a comment i read on heydullblog a while ago: nothing like a biographer hoping for the speedy death of one of his (later) subjects. 

it exemplifies my problem with norman: he’s made a living out of holding a grudge for the pettiest reasons. he envied paul, not only because he was “good-looking” (and boy, does he veer off into paragraphes about paul’s “doe-eyes”, “angelic” “delicate features” only “saved” from girlishness by his “five-o’clock-shadow”) but also for his “mounting riches” and his dating of “a classy young actress”. his envy turned into outright dislike for paul. norman saw paul’s failed relationship with jane as his “public sense of duty” weakening; he blamed paul for the end of the beatles, felt that he had turned into a “self-satisfied lightweight” and you can almost feel his satisfied glee whenever he feels that paul’s life veers of its “perfectly polished-rails”.    

i’ve read a few books by norman – most recently paul mccartney: the life – and excerpts of others, and each time i’ve come to the same conclusion: norman comes across as a very peculiar mix of a self-importantance, jealousy and nastiness. much like other authors of his caliber – sounes comes to mind – he seems to have been motivated by these emotions that had left him embittered enough to write books, rampant with confirmation bias, one-sided accounts, mistakes, snipes, digs and disproven or outdated anecdotes, hardly offering any new insights. yet i don’t want to dictate how you think about norman, so i present to you some pearls of wisdom by our dearest of beatles biographers to make up your own mind about how much he’s on the mark – or how far off:

“Barrow later discovered that when they’d signed their management contract, Paul had told Brian that if the Beatles didn’t work out, he was determined to become a star on his own.”

‘[And] unlike John (and Brian), Paul did not seem to have any half-concealed demons to deal with.’

“Over the next six years, Barrow would realise that the inexhaustible geniality Paul showed the world was not always replicated in private.”

“[…] Frieda Kelly[…]” (throughout the entire book, I might add)

“With the Beatles brought a radical change of image, illustrating the vastly altered demographic of those who were now with them. On the Please Please Me album cover, four cheery, unabashedly working-class lads had grinned down a stairwell at EMI’s Manchester Square headquarters, with Paul’s good looks barely noticeable. Now they were shown as solemn, polo-necked faces half in shadow against a plain black background, less like pop musicians than a quartet of Parisian art students. It was an ambience which suited none of them better than Paul, that one-time art student manqué.”

[1968/1969] “John had always been recognised as an uncontrollable maverick, but being a Paul fan involved a strong feeling of proprietorship. Like so many tut-tutting aunts, the gate pickets now observed the change from his former dandified, fastidious self; the bushy black beard, the perceptible weight-gain, the baggy tweed overcoat he seemed to wear all the time. To the fans, it signified how ‘she’ [Linda] had got her hooks into him; what it actually signified was that he was happy.”

[1968/1969] “His [Paul’s] personal life thus replenished and stabilised, he now turned his attention to replenishing and stabilising the Beatles after their ordeal with the White Album.”

“Knowing now just how much McCartney meant to Paul–and feeling a twinge of compassion for one who’d never before invited such an emotion–Ringo talked the others into reinstating its 17 April release.”

In the same week, Stella’s first collection for Chloé was shown in Paris with the help of her ‘mates’ Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell and Yasmin Le Bon. Paul and Linda were both seated beside the catwalk: he [Paul] in the novel position of applauding someone else, she still with close-cropped hair, the result of prolonged chemotherapy, which gave her face a new gentleness and repose.

The order of [Linda’s] service was as meticulously planned and arranged as a McCartney album tracklist.

However, when the Beatles made the Decca tape, Best had still been with them, so was due a share of royalties from ten tracks used on the Anthology. The first he knew about it was a phone call from the one who’d been so keen to get rid of him [Paul] –the first time they’d spoken since it happened.

all of the above quotes – and keep in mind: these are just a select few that i had at hand from a book that spans around 800 pages of much the same quality of writing – are from paul mccartney: the life, published in 2016(!!!). while norman proclaims to have had a change of heart over the years from his previous assessment of paul in shout!, which he in the very same breath during promotion claims wasn’t really anti-paul:

…it rings hollow. to the point of where i’m not the only one wondering about how much he truly means his words, and how much of it is simply trying to save face in light of his waning monopole on being an authority when it comes to beatles history. he still heavily relies on the same old tired clichés: paul the master manipulator of all around him lacking heart and substance, paul the ambitious starlet ready to sacrifice everything and everyone, determined to make it big, paul the stingy boss of wings, paul the borderline abusive husband to linda’s dichotomy of easy american groupie vs fraught shy housewife trying to escape her domineering husband by way of her career as a photographer and writer. some of them may perhaps contain a kernel of truth, but norman seemingly lacks the ability to acknowledge nuances and the willingness to dig deeper, search for other viewpoints, or consider context. 

he still uses every other opportunity to get his digs in no matter how macabre it may be in the light of events he’s referencing as evidenced by his description of linda’s funeral procession; he, at times, solely relies on people with questionable motives like peter cox for entire chapters without questioning a thing they are saying, or letting the reader hear other voices to provide a more balanced view; he lacks the insight into his subjects as portrayed by his claim that paul’s weight gain and drastic change of looks from ‘68 to ‘70 was brought on by being “happy” with linda or his equally outrageous claim of ringo never having felt a “twinge” of “empathy” for one of his closest friends; paul and john’s relationship is reduced to a rivalry that even to john’s last breath was defined by one-upping each other. although, is it perhaps no wonder considering that paul mccartney: the life seems to be mostly a copy/paste job of his previous books (here a part of shout!, here a part of his john biography).

the less said about shout!, published in the early 80s, the better. suffice it to say that during its promotion, norman titulated john as “three-quarters of the beatles”. yes. i repeat: the less said, the better. it’s only sad that this book helped shape entire generations of authors that would buy into norman’s narrative and perpetuate it decades later.

yet my excerpt of philip norman’s books simply don’t do the man’s tastelessness and scope of grudge-holding justice. for your reading consideration i present you philip norman’s letter to paul from 2005 as well as his obituary for george harrison and his complete dismissal of ringo from an interview in 1987.

to not let this already too long post end on such a note, i feel obliged to throw in this quote by mark lewisohn, who was partly motivated by norman’s… skill, to research the topic on his own:

Mark Lewisohn: “I came to meet Philip Norman. He wanted to meet someone who was a kind of studious Beatles fan, if you like. And when we met it became clear that there were certain areas of the story he was unclear of. There were certain areas that were cloudy. And I said I would research them for him. I was 21 and he said, yes, that would nice. So I still had a job, but in my weekends and evenings I did this research for him. I was so intrigued by the findings, that I just carried on after that. I gave him what he wanted and then carried on researching and I haven’t stopped to this day.”DK: “By the way, what do you think of his book, Shout!? I don’t mean to be putting words into your mouth, but your intent, I think, is to correct a lot of mistakes that have become fact as a result of other people’s biographies of the band. Could you bring that into perspective?”Mark Lewisohn: “Well, when I was less mature, I did want to correct other people’s errors. Errors always offended me, particularly when they resulted from laziness. And I had always wanted to correct other people’s errors. But I’ve grown up, a bit, since then, and with these three books I’m writing, I’m not interested in correcting anything. I’m just telling the story from the beginning. I am starting fresh. And along the way, I am debunking myths right, left and centre. But I am not pointing out what they are, because it is not relevant. Shout!, when it came out in 1981, just after John Lennon was murdered, was the second Beatles biography, with the first being the Hunter Davies biography which came out in ‘68. And it was reckoned by a lot of people to be better than the Hunter Davies book. And because I am in it, and because I was young, and because I was blinded to it, I thought it was a great book. And a lot of people do. It is so stylishly written, and all of that. But the older I’ve got, the more I see where I can no longer agree with my original opinion. Well, Philip Norman came up to me at a recent event and said he professed himself unhappy with some of the things I’ve been saying about his book, so I need to be delicate here. But I do think that it is out of date. It left scope for the job to be done again. That book has had 30 years in the sunshine, but it is in no way the definitive book. I am hoping to write the definitive book that is a lot more comprehensive and is also much more deeply rooted in research.“

mark lewisohn: beatles researcher extraordinaire and classy thrower of shade.