Listen HERE
SYNOPSIS: This is a look at Tune In’s most positive descriptions of John and Paul respectively. All examined passages will be from the text, i.e. the author’s own depictions of John and Paul.
By comparing how Lewisohn chooses to describe John versus Paul, we will reveal many undeniable discrepancies in word choice, enthusiasm, depth, and tone.
What do these discrepancies mean? We’ll discuss!
SOURCES
Beatles Anthology (2000)
Beatles Authorized Biography by Hunter Davies (1968)
John, Paul and Me: Before the Beatles by Len Garry (1997)
PLAYLIST
Side By Side RAY CHARLES and BETTY CARTER
Personality JOHNNY MERCER
Deed I Do PEGGY LEE
Young at Heart FRANK SINATRA
Clarabella THE BEATLES
In Spite of All the Danger THE BEATLES
Twenty Flight Rock EDDIE COCHRAN
Crazy Man Crazy BILL HALEY & THE COMETS
Lawdy Miss Clawdy ELVIS PRESLEY
You Can’t Take That Away From Me ELLA FITZGERALD & LOUIS ARMSTRONG
I’ll Be On My Way THE BEATLES
ANOTHER KIND OF MIND 
I have about 25 minutes to go, but the first time I heard the passage that says “ALL [of his friends],” I bristled. I haven’t read the book (I honestly don’t want to); but even out of context, this is not good — what’s up with such absolutes?! (A historian should know better. Serious question: Do we know his creds as far as historical method goes? I couldn’t find anything.)
Also, I’m loving these songs you’re using for background.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So glad you are taking on the Cult of Lewison. … I noticed how he glossed over the fact that John was mugging drunks in Hamburg, and ignored the circle jerks they used to do, and I suspect its because it does not fit in with his hero worship of John, the Lifeforce. I hope the Mimic gets better treatment in later books. I was really disturbed to learn he used a footnote deceptively in order to paint young Paul as being very thin skinned. Thanks for this important work.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I recently learned that he habitually uses footnotes deceptively. He also cobbles quotes together from separate sources as if they were one quote in order to imply something other than what was originally said. Or he will paraphrase someone’s words but present it in quotation marks as if it was what they actually said.
The most egregious example of this is when he misconstrued Mrs Harrison’s words about the aftermath of John’s mother’s death. She said that she would send George around to fetch John to play with the others so that he wouldn’t brood too much, which Mark paraphrased as sending him there to visit because she was worried he would be all alone with his thoughts. They seem very similar, but they’re actually very different and because he prefaced this “quote” with a statement that Paul didn’t remember much from that time and speculated that he didn’t see very much of John during that summer because he was off hitchhiking with George, you get the impression that Paul and George abandoned John in his time of need, but that George would go round to check on him on occasion at the behest of his mother, like he didn’t care. I am also paraphrasing, but at least mine keeps the original meaning. She is saying that John was less motivated to hang out and play with the others and she was worried about him, so she made sure that he was brought round to practise at their house, where the boys could support each other. Mark is saying that John was all alone apart from the occasional visit by George, where presumably they sat in the garden? He is trying to portray Paul as unfeeling and unsupportive and absent.
LikeLike
I recently learned that he habitually uses footnotes deceptively. He also cobbles quotes together from separate sources as if they were one quote in order to imply something other than what was originally said. Or he will paraphrase someone’s words but present it in quotation marks as if it was what they actually said.
The most egregious example of this is when he misconstrued Mrs Harrison’s words about the aftermath of John’s mother’s death. She said that she would send George around to fetch John to play with the others so that he wouldn’t brood too much, which Mark paraphrased as sending him there to visit because she was worried he would be all alone with his thoughts. They seem very similar, but they’re actually very different and because he prefaced this “quote” with a statement that Paul didn’t remember much from that time and speculated that he didn’t see very much of John during that summer because he was off hitchhiking with George, you get the impression that Paul and George abandoned John in his time of need, but that George would go round to check on him on occasion at the behest of his mother, like he didn’t care. I am also paraphrasing, but at least mine keeps the original meaning. She is saying that John was less motivated to hang out and play with the others and she was worried about him, so she made sure that he was brought round to practise at their house, where the boys could support each other. Mark is saying that John was all alone apart from the occasional visit by George, where presumably they sat in the garden? He is trying to portray Paul as unfeeling and unsupportive and absent.
LikeLike
The comparison of them as performers really rubbed me the wrong way because it clearly was setting up the theme that John was a star and Paul was a wannabe. Mark clearly says that John is not a phony, thereby implying that Paul IS a phony. I agree with Mark about John’s voice, but why should that reflect badly on Paul?
LikeLike