John/Brian
saki
out of hand, if you'll pardon the expression.
Over the past few weeks, as the "What Did Pete Shotton Know and When
Did He Know It?" controversy has burgeoned, it appears that great leaps
of imagination have been taking place. So much so that it seems, in
some minds, we're well beyond deciding whether John and Brian were
secret lovers in Spain and now we're trying to pinpoint what exotic
sexual technique they employed.
No, no closed minds here. But I'd like to offer that we may be better
off turning the discussion back to its start point...because, truth
to be told, we haven't finished with that one yet. Seems to me we'd
at least like to explore that part of it more thoroughly before
moving on to speculations about the Epstein/Lennon Kama Sutra.
I notice a lot of discussion about Pete Shotton's testimony but
no delving into other accounts. There may be varying impressions
about Shotton as a trustworthy source, but doesn't the subject
deserve a broader examination? And maybe a look at varying sources?
It's not even debatable whether Shotton can be included as a
historical source---of course he can. The question remains: how
accurate are his versions of his and John's personal histories?
Are there conflicts or holes in his testimony? Can anyone
corroborate what he says? Maybe another question worth asking
ourselves: is there some virtue in knowing not *how* Pete Shotton
knows what he claims to know but *why* he knows it?
All in good time....:-)
It's hard enough to pin down this kind of story anyway. Even if
it were less seamy, the mythologizing in the Beatles' past started
so early (long before their popularity) that truth is often utterly
fragmented. From the earliest point in Lennon's life as a would-be
rock star (beginning even before that, perhaps), John was taken with
the subject of his own legend: what he had been, what he would be.
It's not every youngster who tells his aunt not to throw out his
scrawls and drawings because someday he'll be famous. As a boy,
John had a vision of his own impending greatness---maybe because
visualizing life without it would have been too grim.
We know John was a little hellion in school, but his aunt was inclined
to say otherwise---he was, more correctly, "happy as the day is
long"; and moreover, Mimi declared to the beleaguered Hunter Davies,
she wouldn't have him writing that her beloved nephew swore as a
child. So the "authorized" biography, where the author had apparent
access to some of the best sources, was forced to spread falsehood.
Perhaps revisionism was a characteristic of the Stanleys. :-)
Shotton's tales of his and John's adolescent sexual experimentation
rings more true than Mimi's view of John as a decent lad who
wore his proper school blazer and sang in the church choir. The
latter is Mimi's memory, the former Shotton's. Neither version excludes
the other. Neither are tales so outrageous that we can't even get
them to correspond to the historical boy John must have been.
And we know, after many years of different versions of the story,
that Brian was homosexual. But to hear an old girfriend of his
tell it, that wasn't always the case. Her experiences with Brian
had nothing to do with leather bars, but with passionate necking
sessions of a type, as Vera Brown put it, which Brian "was well
up on what to do and how to go about it." Brown, who was married
at the time of her liaison with Epstein in 1962, describes him
as "...very emotional. He always gave the impression of being
cold and icy, but he was very softhearted, very tender, very
gentle, and he had a lot of feelings. And he was all man, I don't
care what they say" (Ray Coleman, "The Man Who Made The Beatles",
1989). An interesting point is that Vera could well be describing
John Lennon here---the would-be Ted whose rough exterior is said
to have been developed as a counterpoint to the pain of losing
people close to him early in life. There's sufficient testimony
in Ray Coleman's biography of Lennon to suggest that he was less
the tough-guy and far more the intuitive, sensitive artist whose
yearnings were so expressively communicated in "You've Got To Hide
Your Love Away", "Girl", or "I'll Be Back."
Interesting to note, too, that there's more in common between
John and Brian than one would imagine on the surface.
Coleman makes this point quite clearly. In terms of personality
and upbringing, the two were very well matched: both from "nice"
middle-class backgrounds, both having a vulnerable core to hide,
both at loose ends when it came to deciding life-directions. John
could have been nothing but a musician, he makes it clear, though
there was no guarantee John would ever succeed; and Brian foundered
through several careers before finding something he could be properly
passionate about; and both John and Brian had a limitless drive
to see the Beatles succeed.
Success meant, in those days more than it does now, image. And image
was all. It meant controlling almost every aspect of the neophyte
pop star's life, from press biographies to haircuts to suits to
behavior, on-stage and off. Even John's first marriage to Cynthia
Powell had to be kept under wraps, the theory being that "fans are
funny that way", fickle creatures who would stop buying records if
they found out their Fave Rave was already taken. Brian Epstein was,
by all accounts, fanatical himself about his Boys' image, and especially
so about John, whose sense of rebellious spirit did not always harmonize
with wholesome pop stardom. Coleman suggests, too, that Brian was
particularly concerned about John's marriage being kept secret so
that questions about Brian's own private life did not surface.
And this is an important point to recognize. Brian was, by this time,
discreetly involved with the underworld (such as it was) of homosexual
encounters; and was ribbed about it, good-naturedly and otherwise,
by the Beatles and others. But it was a dangerous element in Brian's
life. Not only could it harm the group for which he was desperately
seeking fame, but homosexuality was illegal in England at the time,
and punishable, on prosecution, by a significant prison sentence. It
wasn't just an attempt on Brian's part to spare his own parents the
pain of knowing their son would never marry; and not just to protect
himself; but to escape the unpleasant possibility of a criminal record
and to prevent similar accusations from being made against his Boys.
Considering the fact that Brian's sexual preferences were known
but kept basically hidden in most circles, and that the Beatles
were climbing the pop ladder with remarkable success in 1963,
it was a most peculiar time for Brian to suggest that John accompany
him, alone, on holiday. Coleman suggests that Brian's good sense
deserted him; he obviously didn't consider how this would look.
John's wife had just had a baby that April, and apparently didn't
mind John's absence; and it's true than both John and Paul had been
working hard and each needed a holiday. John knew Brian was gay;
why did he go off with such a companion on such a trip, risking
the inevitable gossip and potentially hurting the Beatles' success?
I suppose it's this question that remains the most puzzling. Reading
Shotton's account of John's "confession" years after the fact,
you'd almost feel that devil-may-care Lennon in 1963 was ready for a
fling of a different type. You know those artistic-types---always
looking for the new experience. But is that the only possible
motivation? Is this what John was after?
The question, clearly, has never been over whether John was secretly
bisexual, or even a closet gay himself. His insistent pursuit of
women, from adolescence onward and despite his marriage, would
easily belie such an assertion. His admiration of McCartney's
love-'em-and-leave-'em attitude (Paul's modus operandi prior to meeting
Jane Asher in 1963) has been attested as well. He was worried (and
said to to Cynthia) that naming their son Julian would give the
poor kid a "poofy" monicker. And he relentlessly battered Brian
with cruel jokes (as did the other Beatles) about Brian's secret
lifestyle. So what's with John? Is this his "true nature" coming
out at last? Is he finally, in April 1963, ready to get in touch
with the miraculous androgyny of life? Is he suddenly able to
embrace passion from a different direction altogether?
Paul was once asked by London's Capitol Radio why John would
consider such an excursion with Brian. According to Paul, it
was John's attempt to show Brian who was really the group
leader, to impress upon his manager with whom the decision-making
power should rest. To some extent that was already decided; Paul
admits "John was very much the leader in that kind of sense,
although it was never actually said, we were all sort of leaders.
But in truth...John was probably the deciding vote." Paul opined that
John's motive was to "impress upon Mr. Epstein who was the boss of
this group....So they say he went on holiday with someone who
was gay and therefore he is gay."
Not quite; the issue isn't whether John was gay; the issue is:
a) why did he go to Spain with Brian and b) what really happened?
We stand a better chance of understanding a) than b). In fact,
barring some late-breaking revelation from the hotelier in Spain
who reveals he saw it all through a peephole Norman-Bates-style,
b) can never be proven. The two men who could tell us for sure
are no longer living. We're left with hearsay. Shotton's account
is really no better than this, despite the vividness of his prose
style---the recreated dialogue (quoted so thoroughly so long after
the fact) is a stumbling block. It's his recollection of what John
told him. And here we have another couple questions to ask: does
Pete remember accurately? And if he does, did he ever question
why John revealed it to him?
It's this question of *why*, you recall, that concerned me earlier.
If we accept the notion that Pete is telling the truth here about
what he heard from John, should it occur to us to ask *why* John
told him? Told Pete, who was a close friend but not (one could hardly
argue) as close as Paul McCartney? Told Pete and no one else?
It's not out of the realm of possibility to suppose that John wasn't
entirely serious when he made this startling, revelatory admission
to Pete. Remember John's propensity toward reinventing history and
mythologizing his past. Was there a motivation in John to appear
kinder, in a way, toward Brian than he knew he had been? I have
to admit that the story, as Pete Shotton tells it, is one of a
friend doing a favor for another---John deciding to finally give
Brian a chance to fulfill the adoration Brian certainly had for
John. Did this soften John's past cruelty toward his late manager?
Perchance it did. Was that John's intent? It's as likely as anything
else so far...considering that the likelihood of one scenario over
another is all based on speculation, not pure fact. *We have no
facts.*
What we *do* have is circumstance. Some of it sounds damning, too.
We know that rumors of the John/Brian Spanish Holiday started up
around Liverpool before the fellows even returned. We know that
John was taunted about this event by none other than Bob Wooler,
Cavern compere and long-time friend, at Paul's birthday party in
June 1963...and that John, under the influence of too much to
drink, bashed his friend severely, so much so that Brian drove
the injured Wooler to hospital and engineered a telegraphed message
of apology from Lennon shortly thereafter. John was obviously
incensed about the innuendo. Was he outraged because it was true,
or because someone close to him had had the audacity to suggest
that John was "a bloody queer", something that would not sit too
easily in the mind of an innebriated, admittedly macho Liverpudlian?
Either interpretation is valid. You may have one of your own.
The reality is that there's more than one interpretation of the
events here, and they're not all based on Pete Shotton's account.
His depiction of the events may make the most sense to you, but
before accepting his report as factual (since we have no facts
concerning the event itself), consider other possibilities. For
motivations for the trip, you have your choice. Maybe John was
truly intrigued by a chance to try an alternative lifestyle. Maybe
he was flattered at being singled out this way by Brian---it was
an expenses-paid chance to get away from the pressures of new
fatherhood and relentless touring. Maybe he thought it *was* a
chance to get Brian to listen more seriously to his leadership
ideas. Maybe, in his own way, John was as naive as Brian was
about the gossip such a trip would unleash. But you can't
determine, from the events that followed and the talk that
ensued, what really happened on that trip. There are equally
as many possibilities as there are theorizers on this net---and
anything from a friendly handshake to a full-fledged affair can
be part of the speculative package.
Paul says he once asked John whether he'd ever tried homosexuality;
John is said to have answered, "No, I haven't met a fellow I fancy
enough!" It sounds like the last word...and it would be, if *it*
weren't hearsay too. :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------
"It'll be the usual rubbish but it won't cost much."
----------------------------------------------------
saki (dmac...@agsm.ucla.edu)