#self-aware lennonisms about himself and his failings

[bugpoasting]

i Know that come together is mostly john's free-association gobbledegook but. have u considered that associating them with the beatles makes me happy and imbues the song with a profundity that enhances the song overall

[good-to-drive]

John Lennon, Richard Nixon, and Presentism in Our Discussion of Mental Illness

So I'm reading a new book about Richard Nixon and it's got me thinking about presentism in how we discuss Richard Nixon's mental illness(es), and, because I have Beatles brainrot, it's also got me thinking about whether this same mentality could affect how we talk about John.

Both Nixon and John's lives were heavily influenced by their lifelong battles with severe, persistent mental illness, but understanding the historical context of that battle and how it was fundamentally different from what a person might experience today seems to be largely ignored.

We tend to talk about Nixon in particular as if a) he or someone around him had identified that he was exhibiting symptoms of depression, paranoid delusions, and (most likely) psychosis, b) that he or someone around him understood these conditions as so-called "no fault" illnesses that could/should be treated, and c) that this treatment would have been effective.

In other words, we still understand Nixon's mental deterioration as if it had happened today.

Now, to be clear, a LOT of people in Nixon's inner circle described behavior that they personally found unsettling, and the Pentagon had stopped taking orders from the White House by the end of Nixon's presidency because they were so disturbed by his degree of disconnection from reality. So I'm not trying to argue that his condition went unnoticed -- rather, we can reasonably say that almost no one in Nixon's inner circle believed he was "normal."

(I mean, he literally screamed at God and had conversations with portraits of former presidents. It wasn't subtle.)

But the entire conceptualization of mental disorders as legitimate illnesses that can/should be treated was nowhere near as prevalent during Watergate as it is today. Even if the people around him recognized that Nixon was "acting crazy", it's not realistic to project our own ideas about mental illness onto them and assume that they conceptualized that behavior as an illness that Nixon could not control and had not chosen, believed that it was possible to treat that illness, or even had any desire to see that illness be treated.

(Incidentally, the only significant medical intervention in response to Nixon's illness was to start dosing him with anticonvulsants, resulting in significant memory loss.)

It's less clear whether Nixon himself was aware that he was losing touch with reality (my guess is "kinda"), but even if he did have insight into his mental condition he almost definitely didn't have deep familiarity with terms like "PTSD" and "psychotic break" that might help him understand what was happening to him. We can also assume that, if he did have some inkling of what was happening to him, he likely felt an even greater sense of self-hatred and revulsion at his own condition than a person might experience today.

I know there's still a huge stigma around "bad" mental illnesses, but I also know I'm incredibly lucky to have experienced a psychotic break in 2014 and not 1974. Mental hospitals were still sometimes referred to as "snake pits" because they were so horrible, and the average person did not consider someone with severe, persistent mental illness to have any future or hope whatsoever. I'm not a doctor, much less a doctor from the 70s, so I truly don't know what the prognosis for someone like Nixon would have been. But Nixon himself most likely would have believed it was very poor.

To put this another way, Nixon’s ability to have insight into his own illness was impaired by the lack of insight in the society in which he lived, and the way he processed his own experiences would have been more heavily rooted in confusion, shame, and hopelessness. Also, the degree to which we can hold Nixon to blame for failing to manage his mental illness and pursue effective treatment definitely isn't zero, but it's certainly not on par with what you could expect of a person today.

Now I'm absolutely NOT saying any of that to give Dick a free pass for the horrible things he did and said (any more than I think we should give John a free pass). Nixon was a monster in many ways. But I'd rather understand a monster within their actual context than within an imagined one.

TL;DR I think it's worthwhile to ask ourselves whether we're looking at one of the defining factors in Dick and John's lives through a distorted lens, and, if so, how that distorts our perception of them as human beings.

[thecoleopterawithana]

So John was basically a fanfict writer writing about him and Paul before it was cool but basically in conito? But damn if that story wasn't trippy as f...what next level LSD hallucinatgenic romance novel shit was that guy on? 😂😂😂

Sorry for the late reply @sarahthefluff but thanks to how your reblogged commentary and this ask itself made me laugh, I waited until I could give the answer my undivided attention. (I must also apologize about how this run away from me, so feel free to stop reading whenever you like…) 

But yeah, they do seem to yearn to tell their own story ‘in their own write’ as it were. And John, especially, appeared rather frustrated that people wouldn’t pick up on the hints he was constantly dropping about ‘that Paul and John business’.

And if you are able to decrypt all the little references littered within this ‘Lewis Carroll dialled up to eleven’ of a piece, as the OP kindly did, you begin to find either a fantasising work of fiction (basically a fanfic) or a delightfully masked account of true events. 

I must admit that in order to remain somewhat objective (or as objective as one can when looking from the outside at limited data and trying to judge what it was), I try not to hold too fast to one single narrative that I personally define as The Truth. Because I’m afraid we’ll never really get it all, even if Paul came forward with some kind of confession or definite statement on the matter. And so, I’m always a bit on the fence at just exactly how did their love manifest.

It always seems to comes down to how aware were they of their own feelings and the corresponding depth in the other. 

From everything I’ve seen, it’s obvious that the love was there. Now, if we want to go ahead and label it (as limited and reductive as labels can be), I think the dynamic itself, the perceived exclusivity in the relationship and all the intimacy involved, tends rather heavily to what we would call ‘romantic’ rather than ‘platonic’. 

If nothing else, the fact that when attempting to describe the relationship, both John and Paul inevitably end up referring to it as a marriage, is rather telling. It’s amazing to see just how often terms like ‘in love’ (note the difference between saying they ‘loved’ each other and that they were ‘in love’ with each other), ‘love affair’, ‘trial separation’, ‘divorce’ and ‘estranged fiances’ pop up in their conversation. That, together with John’s constant lumping of Paul and Yoko in the same category and their vows of devotedness to each other, paint a strikingly clear picture. There are also overlooked pearls such as this:

And throwing in the line “the Walrus was Paul” just to confuse everybody a bit more. And because I felt slightly guilty because I’d got Yoko, and he’d got nothing, and I was gonna quit. [laughs; bleak] And so I thought ‘Walrus’ has now become [in] meaning, “I am the one”. 

- John Lennon on ‘Glass Onion’, interviewed by David Sheff, August 1980.

Now, how aware were they of their own feelings? Well, it might seem a stupid question, considering all the aforementioned attitudes. But one must learn not to underestimate people’s capacity for denial and avoidance, especially from these two Liverpool lads, John ‘agression as an armour’ Lennon and Paul ‘if I ignore it long enough it will disappear’ McCartney. 

Looking at their songs - something they intentionally wrote and put out there, not something that could be an oblivious slip - it appears improbable that they could lack self-awareness that much. At the same time, both have said that sometimes they only later realize what they were unconsciously trying to communicate in song. 

However, I think it’s safe to say that in the later years, before the break-up, amid all the tensions and Yoko-shaped wake-up calls, Paul at least was very much forced to come to terms with it. Otherwise, blatant conversations like those they were singing at each other on record would be impossible. I mean, you can’t get more desperately obvious than ‘Oh! Darling’, even without the change to ‘Oh! Johnny’ later in the track. But still, people at the time seem to miss the point, with Geoff Emerick wondering why Paul was insisting on doing this song himself when it was better suited for John’s voice, so maybe it wasn’t obvious enough… There’s also those that Paul has stated were not intended to be about John, but that the latter man claimed anyway, like ‘Hey Jude’ and ‘Two Of Us’. 

But I think that perhaps John accepted his feelings earlier, as his track record of love letters stretches way back, to the times of ‘I Want To Hold Your Hand’ and ‘If I Fell’. There are countless other little messages, some of which we may never realize, though the later period ‘letters across the sea’ were so obvious in their intended recipient that there are whole books examining the correspondence. (In fact, it might be a good idea to do a masterpost putting them all together and in order/context, though I’m pretty sure that exists already in the fandom. If so, please link me to it!)

So yeah, I’m pretty sure they were aware. But then, were they able to recognize the same level of feelings in the other?

This is the part where I think a lot of the tragedy comes in… Because for all their huge egos, they were simultaneously terribly insecure, especially concerning the matter of just how significant they were to the other. 

That’s where a lot of the hurt on John’s part came from, at Paul’s perceived indifference and disregard for the monogamy of their partnership/relationship, with famous anecdotes such as the making of ‘The Family Way’ or ‘Eleanor Rigby’. The pain he was feeling was immediately translated in a rabid need to wound back, if only as a desperate cry for attention. 

Paul, for his part, wasn’t readily able to recognize the lashings for what they were, and so the blows connected. In fact, he internalized John’s attacks to such an extent, that to this day he appears to need to actively convince himself that the other did love and respected him.

There’s also Paul’s constant regret at not clearly telling John that he loved him (perhaps increased by the doubts he himself was left with), and his following life mission to try an rectify that, both through wonderfully poignant pieces like ‘Here Today’, ‘This One’ and the heartbreaking ‘The Lovers That Never Were’, and by stating it publicly as often as he can.

It’s this abundance of doubt and regret, the tragic taste of missed opportunities, that makes it seem as if the relationship was left unresolved… That they lacked a confession or consummation of some kind… 

Could it be that they were in fact at some point romantically and sexually involved, but that they were so emotionally constipated that they were never secure in the depth of the other’s affections? Or that the break-up was so brutal that their confidence in the realness of the relationship was completely shattered? That feels almost sadder than the ‘unresolved tension’ narrative… Because it means they did have it, but it still failed…

But going back again to the McLennon fic penned by Mr Lennon himself, that piece, together with all the bed talk Paul seems so fond of, and other cute nonsense such as fusing their signatures or outright signing the McLennons in that rather obvious postcard, make it seem as if they did assume it among themselves at some point… Oh, and one should never overlook the songs!

The time has come, the Walrus said, 

For you and me to stay in bed my love 

It’ll be just like starting over

- Early Demo of ‘(Just Like) Starting Over’

So, yeah, I don’t really know what to take off all of it. Just maybe that they could hardly be more explicit about how they liked the other that way, and people (themselves included) still doubt it. No, even if they never got together, they were more than ‘just good friends’. 

[onestowatch]

Lollapalooza 2019: 13 Ones to Catch (Who Aren’t The Strokes or Ariana Grande)

The moment we have all been waiting for is nearly upon us -- who’s ready for Lollapalooza? The music fanatics’ equivalent to Christmas in August, Lollapalooza is set to fill Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois, starting August 1, with some of the biggest and best names in music for four days straight. We have personally been preparing by taking turns between moshing alone to The Strokes’ entire discography and getting over our ex thanks to Ariana Grande’s thank u, next.

While Lollapalooza is certainly the spot to be if you want to catch Flume’s first set in years or what may possibly be a stop on Childish Gambino’s farewell tour, if you do not read the fine print, you are missing out. Lollapalooza’s 2019 lineup features a host of not-to-be-missed up & coming artists who you can guarantee we’ll be front-and-center for. These are our 13 indisputable ones to catch at this year’s Lollapalooza

Scarypoolparty

When & Where: Saturday, 3:45pm at Lakeshore stage 

When we say an artist like Scarypoolparty comes around once in a lifetime, we do not say those words lightly. The spellbinding project of Alejandro Aranda, Scarypoolparty became a worldwide sensation after a heart-rending audition for American Idol went viral. Since that fateful audition, the last odd year has seen Aranda finish as the runner-up to Season 17 of American Idol, release his official debut single as Scarypoolparty, and sell out shows across the nation. This is a set and artist not to be missed.

half•alive

When & Where: Thursday, 2:50pm at American Eagle stage

How to begin describing half•alive… a wholly infectious amalgamation of R&B, funk, pop, rock, soul, and so much more all encapsulated under the iridescent reflective lights of an array of disco balls seems like a good as place as any to start. The Long Beach trio quickly became a pop-adjacent sensation after a seemingly one-take video for their single “still feel.” mesmerized us and more than 24 million others. half•alive is simply one of those bands you have to catch live, and what better a place than Lollapalooza?  

Alec Benjamin

When & Where: Friday, 1:50pm at American Eagle stage

With John Mayer taking him under his wing, Alec Benjamin may just turn out to be one of the greatest and most popular songwriters of the 21st century. Referring to himself simply as a “narrator,” the Phoenix-born singer-songwriter manages to elevate the seemingly mundane into rich, grand lyrically-driven narratives. Yet, to officially release his debut album, now is the time to catch Benjamin before he is quite possibly the biggest thing on the planet.

Joji

When & Where: Sunday, 3:30pm at Lake Shore stage

Joji’s music is an inescapable vibe–there is simply no other way to describe the ominous, space-age R&B of the Osaka, Japan-born artist and producer. A central figure of music collective and label 88rising, Joji stands at the forefront of a new wave of artists. It is a level of previously unheard innovation that runs through the pulsating electronic undercurrents of his phenomenal debut album BALLADS 1 and is sure to carry over into this rare live performance.

Sam Fender

When & Where: Saturday, 1:00pm at Bud Light stage

Sam Fender is the voice of a generation on the brink. The central figures in the electrifying British artist’s records are not lovelorn teens or heartbroken exes, but dystopic nightmares brought about by manmade failings, friends lost to suicide, and the eventual end of the world that seems to be creeping in at an alarming speed. It is not easy casual listening, but it shouldn’t be there. There is a pressing nature to Fender’s guitar-driven musings, a pressing nature that makes his music feel larger than life yet deeply personal.

Conan Gray

When & Where: Friday, 2:45pm at Bud Light stage

Conan Gray is the undisputed king of bedroom bops. First finding his start with nothing more than GarageBand and a bargain mic taped to a lamp, the current state of Gray is one defined by a legion of fans, national sold-out tours, and a polished take on anti-pop that runs the gamut from explosive to deeply heartfelt. Without a doubt the next big thing in pop, Gray is ready to take Lollapalooza by storm, and you will want to be front-and-center for it.

Yeek

When & Where: Sunday, 2:10pm at BMI stage

Yeek belongs to an era of artists not bound by genre conventions or norms. The Florida-born, Los Angeles–raised artist weaves together elements of pop-minded R&B, hip-hop, and indie rock to create a hypnotizing concoction of sounds that is just as apt to catch you in a nostalgic bout of feels as it is to open doors to a previously unrealized future. Hot off the heels of his acclaimed IDK WHERE EP, Lollapalooza will give you just the chance to catch the magic of Yeek in a setting quite like no other.

Lennon Stella

When & Where: Thursday, 2:45pm at Bud Light stage 

To say Lennon Stella has come a long way in a few short years would be a massive understatement. Getting her start covering pop and R&B hits on YouTube with her sister Maisy, the rapidly rising pop starlet is in the midst of joining the same ranks as those superstars she once covered. With only a lone debut EP and a handful of singles to her name, Stella is now racking up streams in the hundreds of millions. This festival may just be one of the few times you can see her before she is packing arenas.

Roy Blair

When & Where: Friday, 4:30pm at BMI stage

Roy Blair is a name you need to know. Quite possibly the very definition of anti-pop, Blair’s music sees him instilling all the emotional depth and unapologetic honesty of sprawled diary entries into the pages of sonically rich hip-hop, R&B, and pop influences. While he has only released a single full-length album, 2017’s Cat Heaven, the impressive debut feels like more than enough material, and then some, for a standout festival set. And if we’re lucky, this will be one of the few opportunities this year to hear new music from Blair firsthand.

Omar Apollo

When & Where: Friday, 1:00pm at Bud Light stage

There is a multidimensional appeal to the dreamy sonic musings of Omar Apollo. Blending elements of bedroom pop and idyllic R&B with a relaxed lull that drifts in and out of English and Spanish, Apollo arrives as a star for a new generation. The universal charm of Apollo is only heightened by the DIY feel of the entire experience, as the Indiana native coaxes you further into his dreamscape behind a perfectly imperfect wall of fuzz and textured instrumentation. Now, this is an act capable of whisking up an inimitable groove and dreamlike state in the same set.

GothBoiClique

When & Where: Thursday, 5:45pm at BMI stage

Truth be told, we cannot tell you what exactly to expect from a GothBoiClique set, and therein lies part of the excitement. The Los Angeles–based emo rap group formed in 2013 by WICCA PHASE SPRINGS ETERNAL, Cold Hart, and Horse Head paved the way for the modern-day emo rap that now pervades mainstream public consciousness and airwaves. Beyond a set poised to feature the most artists on stage at once, GothBoiClique is a not-to-be-missed affair for any of our sad boys and girls out there.

Yung Gravy

When & Where: Sunday, 5:40pm at BMI stage

Blurring the lines between self-aware parody and viral rap phenomena, Yung Gravy is our newest not-so-guilty pleasure. First going viral with the Seuessian smash hit “1 Thot 2 Thot Red Thot Blue Thot” in 2018, the Minnesota rapper returned a year later with a debut album that has no right being as good it is. Sensational, the debut album in question, sees Yung Gravy cementing himself as more than just a punchline but a genuine artist fully capable of turning what could be thought of as a passing joke into an international sensation.

DJ Diesel

When & Where: Sunday, 5:15pm at Perry’s stage

We don’t know how many times you will be afforded the opportunity to witness Shaq drop a DJ set at one of the largest festivals in the world. That is all.

[crimeculturepodcast]

On First Looking into Chapman's Holden: Speculations on a Murder

Mark David Chapman, the young assassin, was carrying two things with him when he shot and killed John Lennon on the steps of the Dakota apartments in Manhattan: a pistol and a paperback copy of The Catcher in the Rye. The function of the pistol was obvious. Less obvious was the function of J. D. Salin­ger’s novel. Yet the book, it seems fair to say, must have had some special significance to Mark Chapman. Any attempt to uncover its significance is, in the nature of the case, highly speculative. Yet some aspects of The Catcher in the Rye, set beside Mark Chap­man’s murder of John Lennon, seems so sug­gestive that not to speculate upon the connec­tions between the two seems a temptation impossible to forgo.

J. D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye was published in 1951. Like the Beatles, whose rise to fame came about roughly thirteen years later, the novel’s adolescent hero, Holden Caulfield, became a spokesman for a genera­tion of rebellious, supposedly much-misun­derstood youth. An oversimplified yet func­tional reading of the Salinger novel might conclude that all that the book advocates would fall under the heading of “innocence” and all that it condemns falls under that of “phoniness.” Holden Caulfield, during his somewhat aimless ramble through New York, feels overwhelmed by the phoniness he finds all around him. He struggles to preserve his own tenuous hold on youthful innocence–or, as he sometimes puts it, “niceness”–and de­spairs when he finds that innocence lost or threatened in the young people around him.

At his trial, Mark Chapman read what is perhaps The Catcher in the Rye’s most famous passage:

I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around–nobody big, I mean–except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff–I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I’d do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be. I know it’s crazy.

While scarcely as succinct as John Wilkes Booth’s “Sic Semper Tyrannus,” or as compel­ling as Brutus’s “Romans, countrymen, and lovers,” the above passage was Chapman’s sole attempt to justify the murder of John Lennon. It ought to be examined for anything in it that might have led Chapman from Salin­ger’s rye fields to the Dakota apartments.

Probably no one will object too strenuously to the notion that Mark Chapman identified himself rather heavily with Holden Caulfield. Chapman would, after all, be only one of millions who felt that Salinger’s book was written especially for him, that it addressed itself to his problems and, in the way that certain books do, eased his pain. If Chapman identified with Holden, what sort of view of the world would accompany the identifica­tion? The Catcher in the Rye is a book almost wholly concerned with the preservation of innocence. When Holden speaks of “coming out from somewhere” to catch the children, he hopes to save them from becoming the adult “phonies” of the kind he has been encountering in New York. He doesn’t want the children to grow up into people who will “talk about how many miles their goddam cars get to the gallon.” If Chapman also saw him­self as a protector of innocence, why was he inspired to shoot Lennon? Here is a question of the kind Holden himself might have called “a real bastard.”

Two possibilities come to mind: either Mark Chapman saw John Lennon as a corrup­tor of innocence, or he saw him as an innocent about to be corrupted. If Chapman imagined that Lennon was a threat to the innocence of youth, he certainly took his time in doing anything about it. After all, the man who in his music sang the joys of “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” and later posed nude on album covers while exhorting listeners to “open their thighs,” was not exactly what one would call a Samaritan. But Lennon’s last album, “Double Fantasy,” was, by contrast, a Girl Scout manual. This album, which came after a silence of six years, dealt largely with the joys of home life and fatherhood. There was little in the album’s songs that could be considered threatening; and the interviews that Lennon gave to promote it showed that he had settled into a comfortable, somewhat embourgeoisi­fied life of baking bread and clipping cou­pons. Surely, this John Lennon was not the sort of person likely to threaten the innocence of children or of anyone else.

It is more likely, then, that Chapman saw Lennon as an innocent who was himself about to be corrupted. Some problems arise here, but the idea becomes at least plausible if considered in tandem with The Catcher in the Rye. Holden Caulfield provides some useful standards by which to judge innocence. His older brother, D. B., is the novel’s clearest example of innocence gone bad. D. B., it will be recalled, was apparently a writer of great promise who “sold out” and began to “prosti­tute himself” in Hollywood by writing cheap movie scripts. Commercial success at the ex­pense of artistic integrity is, in The Catcher in the Rye, the worst expression of phoniness. Throughout the novel, Holden despairs that his once-noble brother has fallen.

This model of the fallen artist is easily applicable to the world of Mark Chapman. As a teenager, he idolized the Beatles, and a large part of the charm of the Beatles lay in their absolute unwillingness to compromise their integrity for the sake of commercial gain, as Holden’s brother D. B. had. As it happens, the Beatles made fabulous sums of money anyway, but they often risked both their for­tune and their popularity in unorthodox cre­ative ventures. Sometimes, as with the album “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” they succeeded in spite of their heterodoxy. Other times, as with their disastrous merchan­dising firm Apple Corps., they failed. But they always preserved their dedication to their fans and their art, which made them easily the world’s most exciting rock band, while other bands clung to tested, profitable, and second­hand formulas. When the Beatles disbanded in 1970, their fans–including, one imagines, Mark Chapman–watched with interest to see what the individual members would do. Could any of the four men who had formed the Beatles achieve anything like a similar success on his own? Ringo Starr and George Harrison pursued fairly steady and largely uninteresting solo careers. Paul McCartney and John Lennon, divided by the stresses that had disrupted the Beatles, took off in two wildly divergent directions. Salinger himself couldn’t have wished for two characters whose careers more clearly defined the two sides of The Catcher in the Rye dilemma.

James Paul McCartney, as almost everyone who once cared for the Beatles is aware, became the most successful male pop artist the world has ever known, but in the process, he completely alienated his former fans. The man who had written such songs as “Hey Jude,” “Let It Be,” and “Yesterday” now churned out material that was designed, al­most scientifically, to sell. From a purely commercial standpoint, McCartney was sev­eral times more successful than the Beatles ever were, but he had, like Holden’s older brother, clearly sold out in producing obvi­ously commercial music. If Chapman held to the definitions of “phoney” and “nice” as outlined by J. D. Salinger, Paul McCartney had become a phoney.

Turn now to John Lennon. Lennon’s solo career was easily the most erratic of the four former Beatles. He released a series of albums that were alternately brilliant and peculiar, sometimes both, and then he dropped out of sight. “Dropped out of sight” actually means that he stopped recording and dedicated six years to raising his son, Sean, while his wife, Yoko, managed their business affairs and sold Holstein cows for enormous sums. While Mc­Cartney was so much in the news that even his toes were once photographed for Time, John Lennon–and all his various parts–were hidden from sight. No one has ever made much sense out of Lennon’s post-BeatIe years, but one thing is certain: in the code of rock music, he preserved his Beatle integrity. He was not a phoney. Even his artistic failures were dignified, and his self-imposed exile did nothing to damage but rather strengthened the claim of some music critics that Lennon was, after Elvis Presley, the “king of rock.”

Lennon’s exile suggests an interesting and possibly illuminating parallel to The Catcher in the Rye as it might have been interpreted by Mark Chapman. Possibly America’s most famous recluse is J. D. Salinger. For more than twenty years Salinger has isolated him­self in his bunker-like retreat in New Hamp­shire. Like Lennon, Salinger has preserved the mystique that surrounds his early work, and he has accomplished this simply by re­moving himself from society. This isolation has done nothing to damage but rather has strengthened the claim of some literary critics that Salinger is one of the more important American writers in the postwar era.

Salinger’s retreat from society is anticipated in The Catcher in the Rye. On a date with the pretty but vapid Sally Hayes, Holden sud­denly asks:

How would you like to get the hell out of here? Here’s my idea. I know this guy... we can borrow his car for a couple of weeks. What we could do is, tomorrow morning we could drive up to Massachu­setts and Vermont, and all around there, see. It’s beautiful as hell up there... I have about a hun­dred and eighty bucks... we’ll stay in these cabin camps and stuff...

Holden’s plan is, obviously, unrealistic, a fact that, in the novel, Sally Hayes belabors at somewhat tedious length. But the desire to “get the hell out of here,” which Holden expresses several times, is entirely consistent with the uncompromising line Holden draws between “nice” and “phony,” and his fantas­tical if winning desire to become a “catcher in the rye.” “There were goddam phonies com­ing in the windows,” Holden complains at one point. Thus overwhelmed, the logical recourse is escape. Salinger’s own decision “to get the hell out of here” must mark one of the rare cases in literature in which an author has taken his character’s advice.

Though one can hardly call holing up in the Dakota “getting the hell out of here,” John Lennon did follow a course roughly like the one outlined by Holden. He, too, “got the hell out.” If Chapman shared the views of Holden Caulfield, then the chances are fairly good that he very much admired Lennon’s with­drawal from public life. When Lennon resur­faced in 1980, suddenly granting interviews and appearing in public, Chapman may have perceived a threat to the Salinger credo and a crack in the wall that protected Lennon’s splendid innocence.

The self-promotion accompanying Lennon’s re-entry into the world of high publicity was unlike anything he had ever done before, and it seems likely that Chapman found him list­ing dangerously toward commercialism. After six years of seclusion, news of John Lennon’s doings was everywhere. The hermit of rock had become all too accessible, in a People magazine, vulgar way. In many respects, he resembled Paul McCartney promoting his al­bums, which led John Lennon’s fans to won­der, with some trepidation, what Lennon’s long-awaited album would sound like.

Since his death, Lennon’s last album, “Double Fantasy,” has been hailed as a rock classic. At the time of its release, however, when Lennon was still alive, the album re­ceived a very lukewarm reception. In En­gland, his home country, The National Music Express suggested that “the old man” ought to have stayed in retirement and pointed out striking similarities between this album and the work of Paul McCartney, which Lennon was known to have found distasteful. Fans who hoped for, or expected, another album of the quality of “Imagine” were disappointed.

We can only speculate, of course, upon what effect Lennon’s re-emergence might have had on Mark Chapman. Perhaps Chap­man had been perfectly content as long as Lennon remained in Salinger-like isolation. Now, however, Lennon thrust himself into the open with a McCartney-like publicity blitz and released what was generally ac­knowledged to be a mediocre piece of work, Lennon was in trouble; he was in danger of falling off the cliff, à la D. B. Caulfield, and Paul McCartney. What could Mark Chapman do about it? If we examine the question with The Catcher in the Rye in mind, a most distressing, twisted solution arises. Simply put, it appears Chapman misread The Catcher in the Rye. He took the “catcher” passage to be the novel’s solution, when in fact it is the crisis.

No one who has read The Catcher in the Rye will argue that Holden Caulfield was a seriously disturbed sixteen-year-old. He wan­ders through New York with a genuine desire, to quote an old Beatles tune, to “take a sad song and make it better,” but he doesn’t know how to begin. As a result, he develops an all-purpose, self-protective cynicism, When chal­lenged by his younger sister Phoebe to justify this cynicism, he offers the famous “catcher” speech. But the book doesn’t end there. What Holden has outlined in his “some crazy cliff” plan, and in his earlier “get the hell out” plan, is impossible. Holden Caulfield wants to stop reality. He wants to keep the children in the rye field from growing up. But growing up is the natural order of things. It cannot be stopped. Yet Holden longs to do the impossi­ble. This is what brings about his crisis in The Catcher in the Rye.

Can it be that Mark Chapman, devoted J. D. Salinger reader, had his own difficulty in dealing with reality and responsibility in a world of grown-ups? In addition to The Catcher in the Rue, Chapman was known to favor a song of Lennon’s called “Strawberry Fields Forever.” Like Salinger’s rye fields, Lennon’s strawberry fields offered a frozen, unrealistic approach to life; it promised an eternity in a land where, to quote from the song, “nothing is real.” If Chapman was madly drawn to both Holden Caulfield’s “catcher” and John Lennon’s “Strawberry Fields,” it is not inconceivable that he would have wanted Lennon himself to remain “caught” in his protective retreat, where ��nothing is real.” Especially now, with the release of the mediocre album “Double Fan­tasy,” Mark Chapman could have viewed John Lennon poised on the edge of the crazy cliff, and it was up to him, Chapman, to play catcher in the rye.

So Chapman flew to New York and began a sojourn very much like the one that takes place in The Catcher in the Rye. Although it is difficult to know for certain how Chapman filled the time, he was in the city for two full days before the shooting. He is said to have switched hotels (as Holden did); walked out of a movie theater (“I hate the movies,” Holden says, “don’t even mention them to me”); and regaled a cab driver with tales of a forthcoming Lennon/McCartney album, which he claimed to be producing (”I’m a terrific liar,” Holden admits, “I have to watch myself sometimes”).

Now comes the large question: Why did Chapman shoot Lennon? Given his Holden Caulfield state of mind, wouldn’t it have made more sense to invite Lennon out for a night-cap somewhere or to go skating at Radio City, there to caution him against selling out? But Chapman was a confused, disturbed man. There are no easy explanations for why he did what he did. One answer is suggested in the pages of The Catcher in the Rye. Chapman may have believed that the highest possible attainment, at least as viewed through Salin­ger’s novel, would be to achieve that perma­nent state of innocence suggested in the “catcher” passage. Only one character in The Catcher in the Rye manages that un­impeachable innocence–Holden’s younger brother Allie. Allie is the only character in the novel, including Holden, who never shows any hint of phoniness, and who never will. How is this possible? It is possible only be­cause Allie is dead.

Immediately preceding Caulfield’s “catcher” speech, which Chapman found so significant and which he recited at his trial, there is a section in the novel in which Holden’s sister Phoebe asks if her depressed brother can “name one thing” that he likes. Holden has a lot of trouble responding. He recalls a boy at school, James Castle, who, rather than taking back something he had said about a bully, jumped out of a fifth-floor window. Then he reveals what at first seems to be an unrelated piece of information: that he likes his brother Allie. “Allie’s dead!” Phoebe cries, “You al­ways say that! If somebody’s dead and every­thing, and in Heaven, then it isn’t really–”

“I know he’s dead!” Holden returns. “Don’t you think I know that? I can still like him though, can’t I? Just because someone’s dead, you don’t just stop liking them, for God’s sake-especially if they were about a thou­sand times nicer than the people you know that’re alive and all.”

In the traditional interpretation of the novel, Holden’s reference to his brother is simply another indication of his unrealistic desire to freeze innocence and thwart phoni­ness. But Chapman, who wrote “This is my statement” in the flyleaf of his copy of the Salinger novel, was not a typical reader. To him, the “catcher” speech was the book’s final and transcendent message, which would make Allie the real hero of The Catcher in the Rye. Allie, in this reading, is the only charac­ter to come out unscathed. Death, then, would have presented itself to Chapman as the only safeguard against loss of innocence.

Holden Caulfield and Mark Chapman were faced with the same crisis: an assault on innocence. Holden Caulfield could not find a way to preserve innocence forever and was forced to entertain the notion of growing up. If I am correct in my speculation, Chapman found a way. Taking as a model the only character in The Catcher in the Rye who achieved perpetual innocence, Chapman found his course clear. For John Lennon’s innocence–which was essential to Chapman’s own spiritual well-being–to remain intact, Lennon himself would have to die. Only then could his innocence, like Allie’s, be preserved forever.

Unfortunately, this idea, as I have set it out here, is not as absurd or outrageous as it sounds. If Chapman’s intention was to secure, and even to improve, the legend of John Lennon, the artist of perfect integrity, he succeeded. Gone now is the John Lennon who once smeared excrement on the walls of his dressing room; who claimed that the Beatles were a bigger item than Christ; and who appeared in a Los Angeles nightclub with a Kotex on his head. In his place is a sort of rock-and-roll Gandhi. Because of his vio­lent death, anything about him that is base or even unkind has been erased. In the most extraordinary way, John Lennon today is viewed as a man of pristine innocence—“a genius of the spirit,” Norman Mailer has called him. And all because Mark Chapman, standing outside the Dakota apartments, caught him in the rye.

- Daniel Stashower (January 30th 2010)

[thosewhocantdomusic-blog]

The Brexit of Boybands: Harry Styles vs. Zayn Malik

By Your Hubadera-Next-Door

“Sign of the Times” was everything we ever wanted and hoped for from a boyband expatriate. It was a Prince reference with the soul of David Bowie and Billy Joel all in one piece of pretty boy art. Harry Styles soared with a Birdman-esque fashion in the song’s music video and so did our expectations of his upcoming work.

Photo from Vevo 

But I guess it was just too good to be true. 

May 12, 2017 was the break of dawn for Directioners. Harry Styles released his much-awaited solo album (predictably) named after himself. You could hear the “oohs” and “aahs” from young girls all over the world as Harry counts under his breath in the beginning of “Meet Me in the Hallway.” Breathy and pregnant with echoes. Okay, not bad. “Give me some morphine.” Okay, cheesy angst, but okay, forgivable. Let’s just skip to “Sign of the Times” where all the clouds part for a melancholy tune of being born into a world of political rifts and street violence. So fucking #woke. 

It all goes downhill with the third song. “Carolina”—a recollection about a girl he met from a state with unimpressive NBA credentials—is a tasteless impostor of a Beatles song. It made John Lennon cringe in his grave. And really, Harry? A girl you only met once? How very Taylor Swift of you. 

If a music producer muted Lady Gaga in one of her New Age country pieces and let Shawn Mendes hog the vocals, you would have “Sweet Creatures” and “Two Ghosts.” “Only Angel” and “Kiwi” are obvious odes to the big names of the late 60’s (The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd) but, like, that’s all they are. While their rock-leaning tendencies do seem to call attention to themselves, the songs fail miserably at being the least bit memorable to the 21st-century audience.

Photo from Rolling Stone

Since it’s common courtesy to finish an album once you’ve started, I moved on to “Ever Since New York.” And how fucking sad. It was just another One Direction song without five other yelping seals in the background. He risks copyright infringement from the exact same blokes he swore he’d leave. Self-referencing, Harry? Vain much? 

But wait! Harry Styles finally gives us something exciting to look forward to with “Woman.” Style-wise, anyway. Its substance, however, sinks straight to the lair of Lucifer. “Should we just search romantic comedies on Netflix and see what we find?” Barf. Enough of songs about women being “flowers” and “feasts.” Where my #complex bitches at? 

When the last song played, I flinched. Have I mistakenly wandered into a Ben Howard playlist? Are the members of Fleet Foxes his chorale? Or worse: is this The Ransom Collective? *yawns myself to death* 

And so I wondered: if Harry is less of a revolutionary and more of a spineless fraud, do we now pass the crown to Zayn Malik?

ZAYN’s solo album, Mind of Mine, was released a while back in 2016. To be honest, I didn’t bother listening to it at all when it hit the charts. I first heard “PILLOWTALK” the same time the music video came out and I hated it. But that was probably because the mere sight of Gigi Hadid makes me want to jump off a building. All elitist pride aside, I locked myself in my room one day and finally gave his album a listen for the first time. 

My high horse was put to shame. Mind of Mine opens with an eclectic intro and a smooth transition to “PILLOWTALK,” the song responsible for all teenage pregnancies that year. Some things really are better the second time around. He begins with alternative R&B and alternative R&B is definitely what we get. No false promises. 

After “PILLOWTALK,” rainbows start shooting out my ass. You could hear a little bit of R. Kelly in the first few songs, from “iT’s YoU” all the way to “dRuNk.” But “iNTERMISSION: fLoWer” was the most captivating song in the album, with ZAYN paying a tribute to his Bollywood influences juxtaposed with bedroom beats. “rEaR vIeW,” a sleazy song about a sad boy’s romantic manifesto, is what Usher would have sounded like in the late 90’s if he wasn’t so concerned about getting laid with the freakiest girls in the club.

Photo from Vevo

Behind Zayn’s solo flight is the work of talented people in the industry, including R&B producers Malay and Alan Sampson. He featured Kehlani in “wRong,” the R&B duet that “Knock You Down” wanted so bad to be. Beyond the album, Zayn Malik has also worked with pop music connoisseur Jack Antonoff for that famous BDSM joke of a movie and, of course, Taylor Swift. Take that, Harry. 

“fOoL fOr YoU” is a break from the funky production and shines the spotlight on ZAYN’s vocal range that he was always known for. The song is not his best but his voice is definitely worth the mention. But it’s when “TiO” plays that you are suddenly aware of the album’s unabashedly sexual undertones which you might have forgotten because of the album’s utter beauty. 

I think “LIKE I WOULD” is my favorite song in the album. This is when ZAYN bids goodbye to the adolescent foolishness of pining after a girl who doesn’t want him (WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULDN’T????) and accepts in “SHE DON’T LOVE ME” that it doesn’t really matter. There are other chicks in line. And he’s fucking Zayn Malik. 

Mind of Mine is heavily peppered with similar sounds from Zayn’s biggest musical influences. But the difference between Zayn Malik and Harry Styles is that the former doesn’t beat around the bush. Despite the nods towards the likes of Biggie and Tupac, ZAYN’s unique take on contemporary R&B shines through. Mind of Mine had the organic unity, faithfulness to self-expression, and the right amount of mass appeal that cements it as one of this age’s greatest pop/R&B music albums.

This is me admitting to the universe that, yes, Zayn Malik is way ahead of his mates. With a firmer grip on his style and voice, he can go about frolicking with the uglier Hadid sister and I wouldn’t give a shit. Harry Styles, on the other hand, tried so hard to free himself from the chains of Simon Cowell and the rest of the boys but it was too late. The shrilling screams of hormonal teenagers had already poisoned his music. 

The decision is final: Zayn Malik brings home the trophy. 

The New York Times thinks that a mature Harry Styles is deserving of going places in the music scene without his adorable-X-Factor-act turned subpar-boy-band turned masturbatory-content-for-twelve-year-olds. If that’s “maturity,” then I don’t ever want to grow up.

[theamazingdrunk-blog]

Reposting DarkAngel's spec without permission

Little Know Facts about Louis and Lestat © Dark Angel

rueroyale@yahoo.com Spoilers: VampChron

Status: Complete Characters: Lestat & Louis Disclaimer: This piece of speculative fiction is not meant to infringe upon, sidle up to, nor slip in on top of the rights of the author of the Vampire Chronicles, Knopf Publishing or it’s subsidiaries, Kith and Kin, Geffen Pictures, Warner Home Video, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, The Estate of Pointe du Lac, L’etat d’Auvergne, The Talamasca, Pointedulac Renovation and Construction, The Lion Court - Bar and Strip Club, Dulac Real Estate - New Orleans, LA, Melmoth Prophylactics Company, L&L Gazebo and Porch Swing Manufacturing, Amadeo World Enterprises, Molloy Bourbon Distillery, any other SPEC Authors, any SPEC readers, their pets, close relatives or chiropractors. Thank you. Author’s Notes: I began writing this in 1996 when I first discovered the a.b.a.r Archive. I want you all to know that if any of the statements below directly or indirectly oppose or contradict anything that has been written in your or any other SPEC, this is unintentional, and I am sorry. Conversely if anything contained below has already been stated in your or any other SPEC, this is also unintentional and again I am sorry. It is just for fun. One vampire’s view. Please enjoy. Dedication: With generous suggestions from Father of Lies to whom it is dedicated.

I am a vampire, one who is known to you from the writings of the aforementioned. I do not wish to identify myself further than this, as I am not possessed of the need for fame. I have read the “Anne Rice” books as well as the literature which has been appearing in alt.books.anne.rice. These are very interesting. Some are so close to reality that I feel convinced that I am not the first one of our little family to submit writings here. The portrayal of Louis and Lestat, in the books and in these specs, compels me to reveal a few of these facts (personal traits, mortal experiences, abilities, likes and dislikes) which may give everyone a clearer image of them. Even in their own writings, they fail to describe themselves or each other the way that I see them to actually be.

I do know them personally. I have lived with them. I am extremely fond of them both, this is why I feel the need to dispel the notions of a weak, whining Louis and a violent, self-centered Lestat. These are stereotypes which emphasize the very worst (notice I don’t actually say non-existent) qualities of these two very charming and well-rounded gentlemen quite out of proportion.

Lestat de Lioncourt *******************

-loves puns. The worse the better.

-plays radio and CDs extremely loud. Has been made aware that this is quite annoying to every one else, but seems to revel in causing others to yell at him.

-often breaks into to song with little or no provocation, usually accompanied by dancing. Has actually danced on tables.

-being the last surviving member of his family, is technically the Marquis. He sometimes mentions this , as in “is this any way to treat le Marquis d’Auvergne?”

-is very sweet, often presents a member of the family with a single flower, for no reason at all.

-is terrible at video games and has very little patience for them, though he loves new technology and is very knowledgeable about computers. He can take them apart and put them together, though if he is asked to fix one, he is more likely to appear with a brand new one instead.

-writes poetry incessantly, some of it is very good, and a few are truly beautiful, but with the volume he produces, invariably most are going to be quite bad. This is also true for lyrics and music which any passerby is unfortunately subjected to.

-whenever he sees Tom Cruise, in magazines, videos or on television , has taken to exclaiming “There I am!” This started with the film and has now progressed, everyone has now picked it up, “There you are, Lestat!”

-still occasionally buys dolls, I am not sure what he does with them.

-will do nearly anything, including acrobatics, to make someone laugh. (this is usually practiced upon Louis)

-loves riddles.

-seems to know an infinite number of songs which he plays on the piano, he is a virtuoso. Plays more ragtime than classical, however.

-is a very tactile person. Hugs everyone as often as possible.

-takes an intense dislike to certain media (personalities, programs, movies, bands, songs, etc.) and will go on long tirades about these people or whatever it is, each and every time they appear, to the point where many of us offer to just go and kill them if this will in some way placate him.

-is still enamored with the Shakespearean play, “Macbeth”, to the point of obsession. He has seen it countless times and purchases copies of it in print, on video and even on CD ROM. It is due to this obsession that the rest of us have been treated to : “Macbeth-the one man show”, “MACBETH!-the musical”, and even “Lady Macbeth-an all-drag revue” (the specifics of which I do not care to go into, and how he convinced the others to participate, I’ll never know )All have been delightful!

-is still deep in mourning over the seeming demise of the heavy metal music scene. You would think it was a close relative. Now he has closets full of black leather clothing which he claims he can’t wear anywhere.

-is terrible at spelling, but loves to work crosswords and cryptograms.

-would do anything, at any time, to help a member of the family.

-pouts often, over trivial things mostly, but this is usually short-lived.

-has sent the entire coven personalized autographed copies of all of his books, with his dialogue printed in red, of course.

-loves fresh flowers and has new bouquets delivered every night.

-has an intense dislike of insects.

-is much more generous and adorable than he has been described. Is constantly buying things for someone, or giving things away.

-is actually very paternal. He likes to take care of people and animals, and can be very gentle and comforting. Often teases his fledglings by referring to them as a father would “this is my youngest, David”, or “Well, Louis is a middle child, so we must expect these things”, “tell Papa what’s wrong”, or even “Bedtime for you, young man” and “Go to your Room!”

-loves books, has stacks of them everywhere, including at other vampire’s lairs.

-his nicknames among us are “Trouble” and “Brat” (shortened from “Brat Prince” of which you are all aware). Once, at Night Island , several of us were sitting quietly together (reading, playing games etc.) when Lestat appeared suddenly in the middle of the room, striking a rather affected pose. “Who am I?” he demanded, trying to start a game of charades. Louis looked up from his book and said quietly, “The Nyades Road ghost?” Lestat has been The Nyades Road ghost ever since, as in, “Telephone call for the Nyades Road ghost”, “Who do these boots belong to? ” “The Nyades Road ghost” “Of course I didn’t do that, what do I look like, the Nyades Road ghost?” Daniel has taken to calling him NRG (energy).

-loves to play hide and seek in its many different variations.

-loves pseudonyms and uses them as often as possible. Often they are names of established characters, such as Clarence Oddbody. Has also used: Timothy Cratchit, Samuel Spade, Nick Charles, Dorian Gray and Rick Blaine. He also uses other people’s pseudonym’s, such as Oscar Wilde’s Sebastien Melmoth, has also used: Richard Bachman (Stephen King), Alan Smithee (any director who does not want to be associated with a film he or she made), Max Schreck (Name given for actor who portrayed Nosferatu, but strangely no records of a Max Schreck can be found), Apollo C. Vermouth (Paul McCartney) Dr. Winston O’Boogie (John Lennon) and even Pandora Spocks (Elizabeth Montgomery as Serena). Also likes Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Mark Twain, David Banner, Peter Parker, Thomas Mapother and Howard O’Brien. When making reservations or holding tickets for himself and Louis, loves to put them under some variation of Louis’ name, ie. Louis Lioncourt, Louis Armstrong, Lancelot DuLac, Joe Louis, Ludwig Loch, Luigi Punta Lago, Pointdexter Lewis or of course, Brad Pitt. And then makes Louis pick them up.

- is a dog person, as you have probably guessed. Talks more to Mojo than anyone else. Bathes and brushes him often. Takes those disgustingly cute pictures of him - Mojo on the couch, Mojo at the table, Mojo reading a book, Mojo in front of the Christmas Tree, Mojo at the computer, Mojo calling his broker, Mojo fixing the VCR, Mojo kicking back having a beer.

-is not particularly fond of cats, even as a meal.

- when they are living together, almost constantly messes with Louis’ hair, to the point where Louis threatens to smack him, and I believe actually has on occasion. Frets over it more than his own, even. HATES it short. Would only cut his own hair if it were somehow unavoidable.

- loves shopping, for himself or others.

- calls Louis “Precious Darling” if he thinks no one can hear him. It always makes Louis smile a little embarrassed smile. Louis almost certainly has little private names for Lestat, but he is far more discreet about them. I suspect, on the basis of some very circumstantial evidence, that one of them may be “Tomcat”.

-would secretly love to have the entire existing coven living all together

Louis de Pointe du Lac **********************

-has a beautiful voice. Sang in the choir of his parish cathedral as a child. Still sings softly to himself. Will sing with Lestat if cajoled long enough.

-loves the smell of grapes. It reminds him of his youth, there was a grape arbor at Pointe du Lac.

-often becomes enamored of certain television shows and will not miss them. Uses the VCR more than anyone else in the family, to the extent that he has worn out several machines. Has closets filled with shelf after shelf of tapes.

-often asks Lestat to play the piano for him.

-though they do argue and fight, even physically, Louis does have the best rapport with Lestat, and is often asked by others in the coven to “ask Lestat something for me, won’t you?”. Which Louis always does.

-plays practical jokes, like sending Armand a series of tapes entitled, “How To Speak With A Spanish Accent”, or sending boxes of cheap plastic fangs to any one of us. Since the film has come out, he always makes certain that a crimping iron is prominently displayed in their bathroom whenever they have guests. He has even had it engraved with Lestat’s initials.

-is a very good story teller.

-has a subtle , yet very lively , sense of humor. His standard greetings to Daniel include, “I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to talk to you” and “I never give interviews, monsieur”. He had a fake book jacket with the title Daniel Molloy-Boy Reporter by Anne Rice made up, put it around a copy of their book (IWTV) and sent it to Night Island.

-is the “family” photographer.

-has an iron will, matched with a vicious temper. Though he is very slow to anger, and does tend more toward depression, when he is finally provoked, he is intimidating to us all, strength, age, and powers notwithstanding. All of us who have witnessed, or even heard about one of Louis’ rages (which have been few, four in over two hundred years) do all we can to avoid him during one of them. I can say with confidence that we would all fear to be the focus of one. You have certainly read about one, recorded in IWTV, in which he burns down the Theatre des Vampires. Another occurred during the time that we were all together, while Lestat was with Akasha. It was so upsetting to everyone that even Lestat, with his well known penchant for publishing even the most disturbing things about all of us, declined to include it in his book.

-keeps a record of everyone’s “birthdays”(some significant date in their lives if they don’t know their actual birthdate) and sends gifts.

-is an excellent speller and mathematician. He was trained early to keep the books and the plantation journal at Pointe du Lac. He has proof-read all of Lestat’s books, is the only one Lestat trusts to read his proofs without taking anything out, or changing anything. Has often been asked to check up on various mortal accountants retained by one or the other of us, to be certain that our investments are being handled wisely and honestly.

-usually pays little attention to his surroundings, allowing Lestat to decorate as he pleases when they are together, and doing nothing when he is alone, but enjoys the traditional holidays very much and loves to drape the entire house in greenery and ribbons and fruit for Christmas, as was done when he was a child at Pointe du Lac. Lestat loves to counteract this by buying the brightest, cheapest tackiest decorations ( huge plastic lighted Santa with reindeer for the roof, brightly colored elves everywhere, Fake-snow-in-a-can on the windows, lights that play Christmas carols and blink in time to the music, welcome mat that says “Ho Ho Ho” when stepped on, silver icicles strewn everywhere, mistletoe in every doorway, all kinds of automatons, such as are usually seen in store windows - Santas, Little Drummer Boys, Elves working, Christmas trees that fall over, ect. Shiny red and green garlands everywhere, and even one of those cardboard fireplaces, next to the real one) and putting them up before Louis wakes, or while Louis is out.

-loves candlelight. He often turns off the lights in his room and lights several candles instead. He has been lectured about the danger of this, but he persists in secret. When he is discovered he will blow them out and use electric light for a few nights. He has had his candles confiscated after setting off the smoke alarm.

-knows how to drive and usually has a car, but prefers motorcycles and nearly always has one. Says it is closer to horseback riding.

-when annoyed or irritated with Lestat will call him “Lestat Christophe Marie!”. No one knows if this was Lestat’s actual name. When asked, Gabrielle claims she doesn’t remember, Lestat claims that it was not, Louis made it up. Louis will say only, “It is Lestat’s name.”

-often disappears without warning. For instance, once, in 1990 when he was living with Lestat, he was sitting on the floor, watching a video in the living room, Lestat was in a chair behind him. Louis got up, turned to Lestat and said, “I’ll be back.” Went into the kitchen, apparently out the window and was gone for three weeks. Lestat has threatened to put his face on a milk carton.

-according to Talamasca files, the name on Louis’ baptismal certificate was “Louis Michel Rene Antoine”.

-loves to gamble. He generally stays away from casinos, but has cleaned every one of us out during card games. Always has a bet going somewhere. His nicknames among us are “Lucky” and “Ace” (we can’t all call him “Beautiful One”). Loves to play Pool or Billiards. Has been known to hustle other players.

-is still somewhat claustrophobic and suffers from vivid nightmares often.

-loves film and video. Avoids quoting them very much, but can identify nearly any quote that is put to him.

-adores video games, although he owns none himself. Becomes immersed in them for hours and loses all track of time. Has had to be literally dragged to safety at dawn.

-is the most avid and interested listener of all the vampires. Will sit for hours and listen to Maharet, Khayman or any of the others describe their lives as mortals or vampires. Has asked Daniel to tell him of all of the other stories he had collected before they met. Loves to listen to David’s adventures.

-has very refined manners. Still stands when a lady enters a room, opens doors, pulls out chairs, sends thank you notes, etc.

-is a very graceful dancer. Had lessons as a child.

-periodically puts great sums of money in church poor boxes.

-often uses the French pronunciation of our names, such as, Davide, Erique, Danielle.

-can discuss philosophy and religion at length.

-draws and paints but doesn’t want anyone else to ever see his work. He often burns it once it is completed. Lestat has stolen some of the sketches while Louis was out hunting, and he says they are quite good.

-loves jigsaw puzzles and board games, especially chess.

-was a cat person in his mortal life, and was always making pets of the cats at Pointe du Lac. Now however, he avoids pets mostly, but since he has had Mojo foisted upon him, takes very good care of him, and I believe, loves him very much. Mojo has formed a very close attachment to Louis, taking any opportunity to lay on his lap. If Lestat is gone, Mojo will follow Louis and never leave his side. Is somewhat opposed to all the picture taking, but only as much as to say, “Lestat, leave poor Mojo alone.” Speaks to Mojo in French, claims that Mojo is bilingual.

-hates to shop for himself, but will shop for nights and nights to find just the right gift for Lestat.

-has no particular attachment to his hair, if not with Lestat, will cut it very short as soon as he wakes, but does not burn it, because he believes the odor would attract attention. As a result, has garbage bags full of hair that he regularly disposes of. Lestat likes to take them and give them to wig-makers and doll makers. This distresses Louis, but he cannot quite explain why.

-knows much more about Voodoo than you would ever believe. Not that he practices it …as far as I know.

-still uses his real name as much as possible, though Lestat advises against it. As forms and registrations have evolved, has changed it to Louis DePointeDuLac, then Louis Depointdulac, now it is usually Louis Pointedulac, or if the name space is especially short, Louis Dulac. When Lestat does prevail in forcing him to use a pseudonym, always uses something as far from his own name as possible, which results in Louis’ mail and phone messages coming for : Giovanni Martelli, Ciaran O’Shea, Bobby Lee James, Alexei Andropov, Angel Martinez, Dmitri Stadopolous, Biff Weatherington, Ping Chang Lee, Casimir Pulaski, DaShawn Lincoln, Ingmar Thorvaldson, Kefentse Unika, Israel Goldberg or Trinity Lovechild Smith. Lestat gets great joy out of this, and if he happens to retrieve the mail, or take a phone call, will often call Louis by whatever pseudonym it came under, for the rest of the night.

-has never, ever gone underground. There are other unsaid explanations for his disappearances.

FINIS

THE END

[wildcatscot]

https://shatterboysuk.wordpress.com/blog/   https://archive.is/qBwqC 

LINKS SCREENSHOT  http://www.gcoffey.co.uk/personal-injury-services/accidents-work/care-home-accidents         https://www.facebook.com/grahamcoffeyrally/

Victoria Myers  {Graham Coffey & Co}

Victoria Myers sales pitch 1  https://videopress.com/v/rSKYG0ah

Victoria Myers sales pitch 2  https://videopress.com/v/cP9fItnd

source VOICING CSA https://vimeo.com/213215657   https://vimeo.com/223345165

& then we have MYERS THIRD ATTEMPT TO “PERSUADE” SURVIVORS TO USE COFFEY’S SOLICITORS (AIDED BY CO-PERSUADER DANIEL)  https://archive.is/Kvwr4 

Ex Shatter boys Director Mr Steven Ward

In a lengthy statement from Mr Ward, he talks of a meeting with himself & director Mr John Lennon also Ms Myers from Graham Coffey Solicitors.

Mr Ward said

“John & Vicky were discussing getting survivors to use Coffey solicitors firm.  It really didn’t sit well with me, so I asked Vicky what was in it for her & she replied. 

“35% of each case“

Further on Mr Ward states.. 

“The first cheque from Coffey’s was to cover the rental of an office for shatter boys. We had arranged with Albert House to rent an office costing £600 per month for 6 months. Whilst I am a little uncertain of the exact amount on the cheque, It was for approximately £5,000”

“3-4 weeks after agreeing to rent the office, we STILL had no company bank account,  so I asked Daniel what was happening with the cheque, as Albert House wanted paid. Daniel said Coffey’s were going to sign the check over to him so he could put it in to his own personal bank account that way enabling us to pay Albert House.

However in the meantime, having finally grown tired of waiting for us to pay, Albert House put the office back on the market & subsequently it was rented to someone else.

“I never saw the cheque again & we never did get an office, so I have no idea where the money went nor what it was used for”

                                                                 Mr Steven Ward – ex shatter boy director

Below, a FB post by another Shatter Boy director, Mr J Lennon. Who appears to be a tad miffed with Daniel

https://archive.is/gPL9a 

https://archive.is/G7Uwv 

Unfortunately I can’t make out the details on the cheque, other than it has a Lloyds Bank Logo

But it is clear that these are two different occasions Coffey’s gave Shatter boys money. & that is only the ones I managed to find…

We know from Daniel’s own words.  Shatter boys DID NOT have a company bank accout.

SO WHERE DID THE CHEQUES GO?

MORE ON SHATTER BOYS

Daniel Whatshisname – PART 1

Mr Daniel Whatshisname – PART 2

Daniel Whatshisname PART 3

As well as being VERY supportive of Shatter boys, going by their facebook pages, Myers & Coffey Solicitors are clearly supportive of all things CSA. For example

The Truth Project

Voicing CSA

#PurpleFriday

Victoria Myers Facebook page is at least 95% CSA related posts, & her very first posts are dated 28 Feb 2017. (Presumably the day she opened the FB account) & from that day onwards its near enough all CSA related & very, very few about any other business matters. There are so many, I couldn’t possibly screenshot them all so these are just a sample (see more below)

https://www.facebook.com/VictoriaMyersSolicitor/    archive 

https://www.facebook.com/VictoriaMyersSolicitor/posts/327589254330343

https://www.facebook.com/VictoriaMyersSolicitor/photos/a.277980029291266.1073741828.277960725959863/326051017817500/?type=3

PURPLE CHRISTMAS / FRIDAY

Coffey’s not only supports & promotes shatter boys, but also #purplefriday #purplechristmas  which as far as i am aware was started by DavidLean (I could be wrong)

@InquiryCSA Verified Account https://twitter.com/search?q=%23PurpleChristmas%20iicsa&src=typd      https://archive.is/bCFWr  

@voicing_csa      https://twitter.com/search?q=%23PurpleChristmas%20Voicing%20CSA%20&src=typd     https://archive.is/L7PkI  

Shatter boys is also very vocal in their support of #purplechristmas 

EVEN MORE BIZARRELY, I decided to just have a quick look to see what purple friday / christmas was all about & so I  googled purple christmas.

I was HORRIFIED to see this

LGBT SCOTLAND YOUTH

Purple Friday is an LGBT Youth Scotland.”thing”

Strange, how out of ALL the colours & ALL the days they both JUST SO HAPPEN to be the same… purple friday.

Purple Friday 2017 – Be a #PurpleHero – LGBT Youth Scotland https://www.lgbtyouth.org.uk/news/purple-friday-2017   https://archive.is/cRTpz 

Purple Friday 2018 – LGBT Youth Scotland https://www.lgbtyouth.org.uk/purplefridayorder2018   https://archive.is/55JSa 

LGBT History Month | Friday 26th Feb is… Purple Friday!       http://www.lgbthistory.org.uk/blog/2016/january/friday-26th-february-is-purple-friday/  https://archive.is/y4vIu 

Early day motion 909 – PURPLE FRIDAY 2017 – UK Parliament  https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/909    https://archive.is/b64cL 

Purple Friday – Grove Academy – Dundee  http://grove.ea.dundeecity.sch.uk/news/purple-friday     https://archive.is/zTtJJ 

JAMES RENNIE & LGBT YOUTH SCOTLAND

https://twitter.com/calamiTcat/status/915727225265250304   https://archive.is/JdAAh 

Scottish paedophile ring found guilty of more than 50 charges https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/scottish-paedophile-ring-guilty-child-abuse  https://archive.is/k6kiY 

Paedo gang trial: How MI5 helped bring Scotland’s sickest perverts to justice  http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/paedophile-gang-trial-how-mi5-1021744     https://archive.is/2mVFl      

Common Purpose trained James (Jamie) Rennie Paedophile https://www.cpexposed.com/documents/common-purpose-trained-james-jamie-rennie-paedophile-previously-scottish-lgbt     https://archive.is/vudHd 

AND THEN ADD THIS   http://lgbt.wikia.com/wiki/Scottish_Minorities_Group

I MEAN SERIOUSLY?? WTF? They MUST have checked if anyone else was using it, or they must know by now certainly.  THEY COULDN’T FAIL TO SEE IT!  Cause the links above & MANY MORE are all RIGHT THERE on page 1 of google search purple friday

James_Rennie_Paed_Sky_Report.pdf     https://archive.is/bBxpq

IAN CAMPBELL DUNN & LGBT YOUTH

Ian Campbell Dunn – Founded and run by self-confessed paedophiles, the SMG – also known as the Scottish Homosexual Rights Group and later as Outright Scotland – have been promoted by the BBC and were active with Trade Unions, the Scottish Government, and other Scottish public institutions such as the NHS, Police, and Justice System until around 2006 [1][2]. Their role has since been taken over by the Equality Network and Stonewall Scotland, both linked to and affiliated with the SMG. Two or three months after founding PIE, Dunn promoted it publicly by organising the First International Gay Rights Congress in Edinburgh in 1974. PIE was openly advertised as a proposed participant:  Dunn is also notable for establishing the Edinburgh LGBT Centre in 1974, editing the Gay Scotland magazine, and later publicly criticising the Aberdeen police in 1997 for a sting operation that uncovered local paedophiles abusing a thirteen year old boy in public toilets. After his death in 1998 of a suspected heart attack, Dunn was posthumously given the pride-scotia award by the LGBT community in recognition of his accomplishments.   https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=295869         https://archive.is/gN4eq

http://www.solvesecret.co.uk/chapter10.html    https://archive.is/KQSYM

MORE ON IAN DUNN & LGBT

Robin Cook, Gordon Brown, Ian Dunn & PIE    https://archive.is/4KVhr 

https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/pie-documentary-evidence-6-chairpersons-report-197576/    https://archive.is/5nkOm

  THE PURPLE “REVOLUTION” WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED BY SOROS & CLINTONS

DO I NEED TO SAY ANY FUCKING MORE?!!

The Color Purple Revolution: Hillary’s Elite Cult Wants War

Soros, the Purple Revolution and The Caviar Eating Fake Left

more FB screenshots from Graham Coffey’s & co & Victoria Myers

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Going back to the same shatter boys blog,  https://shatterboysuk.wordpress.com/blog/   https://archive.is/qBwqC    It then goes on about someone called BILLY WALDEN

https://billyarthurwalden.com/

https://www.facebook.com/BillyArthurWalden/

And if you look at the bottom of his page, you find JAYNE WALDEN pops up  

& we can see from Billy’s Linkedin that he is in fact Jayne’s son. 

It also states Jayne is Shatter boys “North West manager”   

But under her Voicing CSA vid it says she is Shatter Boys “Campaign Manager”

So WHO KNOWS?!

JAYNE WALDEN, TWEETER OF ALL KINDSA NASTY (see bottom of page)

Billy Walden’s site  It states “Just made this bench for Chris Harper who plays Nathan in Coronation Street”    Chris Harper – google images

CHRIS HARPER ON LOOSE WOMEN https://videopress.com/v/1AtDf7Dv

Christopher William Harper (born 19 August 1977) is an actor and director who played Nathan Curtis in ITV soap Coronation Street in a high profile teenage grooming  & exploitation storyline.[1]

Under the heading Charity work, it goes on to say

“Alongside appearing in the soap, the actor has helped raise awareness of child sex abuse through charity work[8] and as patron for the charity Voicing CSA,[9] which helps adult survivors of child sexual abuse to speak out.”

Victoria Myers also posted about the Coronation street storyline NUMEROUS TIMES here  here  here 

VOICING CSA

https://voicingcsa.uk/

It is Voicing CSA on Vimeo that have a heap of shatter boy videos on Vimeo Including the 2 Victoria Meyers vids (see above)  AND Jayne Walden’s Vid (above) AND ALSO one of Chris Harper on Loose Women (above)  https://vimeo.com/search?q=voicing+csa

Voicing CSA is registered as a Community Interest Company (№ 10059644)

wiki quote “CICs must be limited companies of one form or another. A CIC cannot be a charity, an IPS or an unincorporated organisation.”

https://archive.is/9DesL 

Victoria Myer supports & has posted from & about voicing csa here  here

AND about The Truth Project  here   here  here (a few samples of all her relevent posts)

THE TRUTH PROJECT

(Site shut temporarily for maintainance)  http://www.thetruthproject.org

For feedback from those who have attended and more information about the Truth Project on the project’s website, please visit: https://www.truthproject.org.uk/i-will-be-heard

Please also see the links to the Truth Project: What to Expect (PDF) and a fact sheet which includes details of how victims and survivors of child sexual abuse can contact the project.   There is also a video which explains more about the IICSA.

https://twitter.com/Esther9982/status/942429608787488773

https://twitter.com/Esther9982/status/942430674463739905

MORE TWEETS HERE 

QUICK SUMMARY

PURPLE FRIDAY – & I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT THAT OTHER THAN WTF?!

& THEN WE HAVE VOICING CSA, THE TRUTH PROJECT, GRAHAM COFFEY & CO, CHRIS HARDY, VICTORIA MYER, SHATTER BOYS & PURPLE FRIDAY 

ALL INTERLINKED & BACKING EACH OTHER UP OVER EVERYTHING

THE TRUTH PROJECT IS FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT 

CLAIMS OF PHIL LAFFERTY (OWNS HALF OF VOICING CSA CIC)  BEING LESS THAN SQUEAKY CLEAN & PHIL IS ON THE IICSA PANEL BUT I DONT KNOW WHETHER HE IS PAID TO BE OR NOT

SHATTER BOY LTD HAS NO ACCOUNTS WHAT SO EVER & THE MONEY WHO KNOWS WHERE. BUT WE’RE TOLD AT LEAST 1 CHEQUE WENT TO SHATTER BOYS TOP DOG DANIEL. WHO IS FAR FROM SQUEAKY CLEAN. & HE IS ALSO ON THE IICSA PANEL & GETS PAID BY THE GOVT.

& THEN WE HAVE THE AMBULANCE CHASERS WHO I SUSPECT ARE RAKING IT IN.  & ARE PROMOTED SO HEAVILY BY DANIEL THERE ARE 3 VIDEOS OF HIM & MYERS DOING THE WHOLE SALES PITCH

CLEARLY THERE’S LOTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE FROM SURVIVORS? WHO KNEW?!  CAUSE IT WOULD NEVER EVEN OCCUR TO MOST PEOPLE TO GAIN MONEY FROM THE HORRORS SURVIVORS HAD TO ENDURE

& HERE’S ME THINKING A PERSONS LIFE ISN’T A MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY

https://twitter.com/i/moments/941711745269288961

Ambulance Chasers, “Charities”, Survivors & Purple LINKS SCREENSHOT   Victoria Myers  {Graham Coffey & Co} Victoria Myers sales pitch 1