Pauline Lennon and Alf
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
In 1967, John had obviously made an attempt to forgive his father for
being absent during his childhood. He invited Freddie to live with he,
Cynthia and Julian in his Kenwood mansion in London. John even gave
Pauline a job as an au pair and let her live at Kenwood. John invited
Freddie and Pauline to attend the premier of Magical Mystery Tour with
he and the other Beatles. He also began paying Freddie an allowance
equivalent to his earnings as a waiter. Finally, he bought and gave
Freddie a house in Brighton following his marriage to Pauline and the
birth of their first child. However, Pauline paints all of this in a
dark light because she feels John owed much more to his father. Most
likely the events of 1970 forever changed her opinion of John and she
can no longer see the good things that John had done for Freddie.
Anyone read her book "Daddy Come Home"?
Any info on John's half brothers?
Did John owe his father more?
topaz...@gmail.com
Hello I hope you are doing well. I have not read the book however in
general I am under the impression that Freddie magically appeared and
tried to rekindle his father-son relationship only when JOhn was very
successful. Money and fame have a way of luring all kinds of relatives
out. Probably the same thing happens when someone wins a big
lottery. IMO a "great"way to find out who your real family is, is to
have a loss of income or health and then see who appears to help you.
I just do not have alot of sympathy for Freddie however I could be
wrong and I am sure there are others who know more about John's dad.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trying to figure out the love interest by Pauline, 18 years old and
Alf, 50 something. They had two sons..so Freddied was still ready I
suppose.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll second that EW.
Fattush
> In 1967, John had obviously made an attempt to forgive his father for
> being absent during his childhood. He invited Freddie to live with he,
> Cynthia and Julian in his Kenwood mansion in London. John even gave
> Pauline a job as an au pair and let her live at Kenwood. John invited
> Freddie and Pauline to attend the premier of Magical Mystery Tour with
> he and the other Beatles. He also began paying Freddie an allowance
> equivalent to his earnings as a waiter. Finally, he bought and gave
> Freddie a house in Brighton following his marriage to Pauline and the
> birth of their first child. However, Pauline paints all of this in a
> dark light because she feels John owed much more to his father. Most
> likely the events of 1970 forever changed her opinion of John
What happened in 1970?
and she
> can no longer see the good things that John had done for Freddie.
>
> Anyone read her book "Daddy Come Home"?
No, but I'd like to.
> Any info on John's half brothers? No except that he had two little ones.
> Did John owe his father more?
Owe his father more? Hell, no. Alf was a father in name only . . . .
not a real dad.
Fattush
>
> - Show quoted text -
According to the new Lennon bio by Norman, John was supportive of this
relationship which I think is sweet. It shows how accepting he is.
Pauline's mom was horrified.
Fattush
>
> - Show quoted text -
As I said before, John was one of the few people who did not say EW.
who?
> In 1967, John had obviously made an attempt to forgive his father for
> being absent during his childhood.
He did?
He invited Freddie to live with he,
> Cynthia and Julian in his Kenwood mansion in London.
Interesting, cause I've never heard this.
John even gave
> Pauline a job as an au pair and let her live at Kenwood. John invited
> Freddie and Pauline to attend the premier of Magical Mystery Tour with
> he and the other Beatles. He also began paying Freddie an allowance
> equivalent to his earnings as a waiter.
Really?
Finally, he bought and gave
> Freddie a house in Brighton following his marriage to Pauline and the
> birth of their first child. However, Pauline paints all of this in a
> dark light because she feels John owed much more to his father. Most
> likely the events of 1970 forever changed her opinion of John and she
> can no longer see the good things that John had done for Freddie.
>
> Anyone read her book "Daddy Come Home"?
No, not me.
> Any info on John's half brothers?
> Did John owe his father more?
I don't know how to comment..cause I haven't read the book..and there
are so many books out there..that I don't know what to believe. But if
this book is for real,
IMO, I think John might have owed him just a little more..cause of the
fact that John's father gave him life..but not much more.
who?
Thanks, Jim..for posting this stuff. I have never heard any of this
before. Alf's wife was only 18? No wonder things turned out so strange.
Fattush
> dad of the 18-yr-old in a situation like that.
>
> But the 'ew' is more than the just age difference, it's the general
> sleaze factor in all that is Alf. Yes, I know. We all have our good
> qualities. Alf seemed prone to dramatics himself.
>
> You'd think JL would have stored up lots of good public acceptance
> karma for his relationship with Yoko with that little nonjudgmental
> "good deed" wouldn't you? But no, no he didn't.
>
> ;-)-
Yes, I guess one could say John did a good deed by just accepting his
father's choice. But my first impression with all this was that John
was uninhibited, especially when it came to sex and relationships.
topaz...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
So that would make Fred's 2 sons half brothers to John. Goodness I did
not realize all this. JOhn's "stepmother " was 18?? And I thought
there was quite an age difference between John and Yoko! Do you know
how long the marriage of Pauline and Freddie lasted and did Fred
Lennon die before John?
topaz...@gmail.com
> dad of the 18-yr-old in a situation like that.
>
> But the 'ew' is more than the just age difference, it's the general
> sleaze factor in all that is Alf. Yes, I know. We all have our good
> qualities. Alf seemed prone to dramatics himself.
>
> You'd think JL would have stored up lots of good public acceptance
> karma for his relationship with Yoko with that little nonjudgmental
> "good deed" wouldn't you? But no, no he didn't.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good point about the karma. I wonder what kind of father he was to
his 2 sons with Pauline compared to the kind of father he was to John.
topaz...@gmail.com
Thanks for this on topic post. Very interesting.
I Love George's Bow Legs
Weren't you the same person who criticized Julian for being
"disrespectful" of his father? You seemed to think Julian owed John
respect just because John was his father and for no other reason.
ILGBL
Fatass
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, Alf died of stomach cancer years before John did.
Fatass
John could have been a better dad to Julian, true. However John was an
excellent provider to Julian and did spend time with him. Further in
the last years of his life, I believe John was sincerely trying to
improve his relationship. Unfortunately he was murdered. I don't
think John was that much different than other men involved in a
divorce and living a long distance from their children. Unfortunately
this situation happens pretty often.
Alf hardly had anything to do with John at all and disappeared when
John was about 4. He hardly ever provided any financial support. He
reappeared in John's life when he was rich and famous.
F Parella
I obtained a copy of Pauline Lennon's book once through the library
and found it one of the most interesting Lennon books I had read. I
should read it again.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is it available on the market? Would love to read it.
F Parella
It's pretty rare. I'd say try ordering it through the best library
system you've got access to. That's what I'll be doing.
Fatass
>
> - Show quoted text -
But she hardly knew John. What was the book about?
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you....I'll search.
Stephen X. Carter
>Is it available on the market? Would love to read it.
www.abebooks.com is your friend!
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just another piece of the puzzle...she at 18 thought it was alright to
marry a 56 year old man...John's father. Just another take.
PS If a daughter of mine came home with a toothless old man AND
MARRIED HIM....our relationship would be over.
John's half brothers interest me...what they do for a living, ect.
F Parella
It was largely about Freddie Lennon, with emphasis on Freddie's
relationship with his son. Pauline did, as was mentioned at the start
of this thread, live at Kenwood for a while. She also provides more
evidence that primal therapy did John more harm than good (he returned
from it threatening his father with death - a threat Freddie took dead
seriously). There's a lot of fascinating stuff in the book. Freddie
eventually gave John his diaries, according to Pauline, which allowed
Lennon to at least understand where his father had been coming from.
I'm not sure if there was ever a reconciliation, per se - but again, I
need to reread the book.
Fatass
Really? I'd be unhappy, but to me, my child is my child.
>
> John's half brothers interest me...what they do for a living, ect.- Hide quoted text -
Fatass
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sounds fascinating. As far as Primal Therapy, Janov did say that
through Primal Therapy they had "opened John up." However since he
refused to continue the treatment, they never had the chance to close
him up again. I wonder if that affected his personality during his
last years.
Janov also said that John was "badly damaged." I can't recall the
exact words, but essentially Janov said he was one of the sickest
patients he had ever seen.
I hope Janov does a book one day . . . . but he probably can't talk
about his patients.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well it hasn't happened and probably won't....so you do not have to
face such a "treat". Thankfully.
F Parella
Janov has trouble talking period, I've heard (he has a problem with
his voice). Seriously, of course you're right, there are rules about
therapist-patient confidentiality, although they've changed over the
years, and I'm not sure what the deal would be about discussing a
deceased patient.
I have heard that Janov concluded Lennon needed to end his
relationship with Ono. (Lennon mentioned that Ono and Janov didn't
get along; maybe this is one reason why!)
Also, Janov has talked about how harmful LSD can be to people. I've
always suspected he considered Lennon was one such damaged individual.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:48:10 -0800 (PST), BLACKPOOLJIMMY <Blackpoolji...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Is it available on the market? Would love to read it.
>
>
> --
> steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
> Nothing is Beatle Proof!!http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*
and so are you, Thanks.
This is what they show:
12 Results (Displaying results 1 - 12) Sort Results By: Author A-Z
Author Z-A Bookseller Rating Highest Price Lowest Price Newest Title A-
Z Title Z-A
1. Stock Photo Daddy Come Home: True Story of John Lennon and His
Father (ISBN: 0207169969 / 0-207-16996-9)
Pauline Lennon
Bookseller: Ascoli Trading Ltd
(Rossendale, ., United Kingdom)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 1.00
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 3.70
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: Angus & Robertson (UK), 1991. Paperback. Book
Condition: Good. Bookseller Inventory # mon0000031110
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
2. Stock Photo Daddy Come Home: True Story of John Lennon and His
Father (ISBN: 0207169969 / 0-207-16996-9)
Lennon, Pauline
Bookseller: Ann Isherwood
(Enniskillen, ., United Kingdom)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 4.58
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 4.07
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: Book Condition: Used: Acceptable. Laminated
HARDCOVER, exlibrary, book appears to have suffered dampness. pages
wavy, a few minor marks/stains on pages and edges tanned. Bookseller
Inventory # 0425R747200
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
3. Stock Photo Daddy, Come Home (ISBN: 0207169969 / 0-207-16996-9)
Lennon, Pauline
Bookseller: Alexander Books
(Hayling Island, Hants, United Kingdom)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 6.10
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 4.96
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: Angus and Robertson, London, 1990. Soft Cover. Book
Condition: Very Good. No Jacket. First Edition. 12mo - over 6�" - 7�"
tall. One crease to spine. Story of John Lennon's relationship with
his father, by his step-mother. Bookseller Inventory # 009123
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
4. Bookseller Photo Daddy, Come Home The True Story of John Lennon
and His Father (ISBN: 0207169969 / 0-207-16996-9)
Lennon, Pauline
Bookseller: D. Cassidy
(London, LON, United Kingdom)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 6.10
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 4.96
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: Angus & Robertson, London, England. Soft Cover. Book
Condition: Very Good. No Jacket. Explores the background to John's
traumatic childhood experiences and his attempts to resolve his
painful relationship whith his father. Written by the girl who made
front-page news when as a 20 year old she married the 55 year old
Freddie Lennon. 8 pages of b/w photographs. 400 grams when packed.
Bookseller Inventory # 002454
[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask
Bookseller a Question]
Kat
"BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Chippa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f8f69e36-bf44-47f6...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> In 1967, John had obviously made an attempt to forgive his father for
> being absent during his childhood. He invited Freddie to live with he,
> Cynthia and Julian in his Kenwood mansion in London. John even gave
> Pauline a job as an au pair and let her live at Kenwood. John invited
> Freddie and Pauline to attend the premier of Magical Mystery Tour with
> he and the other Beatles. He also began paying Freddie an allowance
> equivalent to his earnings as a waiter. Finally, he bought and gave
> Freddie a house in Brighton following his marriage to Pauline and the
> birth of their first child. However, Pauline paints all of this in a
> dark light because she feels John owed much more to his father. Most
> likely the events of 1970 forever changed her opinion of John and she
> can no longer see the good things that John had done for Freddie.
>
> Anyone read her book "Daddy Come Home"?
> Any info on John's half brothers?
> Did John owe his father more?
I believe Fred died around 1975.
Kat
"Kat" <k...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:YF%el.9478$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
Alfred "Alf" Lennon (14 December 1912 - 1 April 1976) was the father of
English musician John Lennon. He spent many years in an orphanage-with his
sister, Edith-after his father died. Alf was known as being very witty and
musical throughout his life-he sang and played the banjo-but not as being
very dependable. Although always known as Alf by his family, he later
released a record as Freddie Lennon, and was quoted in newspapers under that
name.
Alf and Julia Stanley married in 1938. Lennon was their only son together,
but Alf was often away at sea during World War II, so consequently did not
see much of Lennon during his infancy. Alf later found out that Julia was
pregnant with another man's child and offered to look after Julia, Lennon
and the expected baby, but Julia rejected the idea. Alf had very little
contact with Lennon until Beatlemania, when they met again, but later had
intermittent contact with each other. Alf died in Brighton, where he had
gone to live after marrying the 19-year-old Pauline Jones.
Kat
Without Leave) in 1943. He claimed that he had sailed from America to Bône,
North Africa,[33] but was arrested for stealing one bottle of beer from the
ship-consequently serving nine days in a military prison. After his release
he became involved in various "shady deals", and was supposedly rescued from
a criminal gang of Arabs. He eventually served on a troop ship from North
Africa to Italy before finally boarding a ship that was making its way to
England, in 1944.[8] In 1949, Alfred's career at sea ended when he was
sentenced to six months imprisonment. He had been drinking when, late at
night, he saw a mannequin in a wedding dress in a shop window. He broke the
window, picked up the mannequin, and danced with it in the street until he
was arrested.[11]
In 1958, when Alf was working with Charlie Lennon in The Barn Restaurant in
Solihull, their brother Sydney sent a newspaper clipping from The Liverpool
Echo reporting that Julia had died. A saddened Alf left Solihull for London,
but kept in touch with Charlie by phone.[29]
Alf made no real attempt to contact his son [Lennon] again until the height
of Beatlemania (claiming he didn't know who they were). Alf was working as a
kitchen porter at the Greyhound Hotel in Hampton, South London, when someone
pointed out a photograph of Lennon in a newspaper and asked if Alf was
related to Lennon.[34] Alfred and Charlie visited one of the The Beatles'
Christmas shows at the Finsbury Park Empire in London.[4] When The Beatles
were filming a scene for 'A Hard Day's Night' in the Scala Theatre in Soho
in April 1964, Alf walked into Brian Epstein's NEMS office in Argyle Street
with a journalist. "I'm John Lennon's father", he explained to the
receptionist. When Epstein was informed, he "went into a panic", and
immediately sent a car to bring Lennon to NEMS office.[35] Alf was
shabbily-dressed, with his unkempt, balding grey hair greased-back. He stuck
out his hand, but Lennon did not take it, saying "What do you want?" Alf
placated Lennon somewhat by saying, "You can't turn your back on your
family, no matter what they've done." Their conversation didn't last long,
as Lennon soon ordered Alf and the journalist out of the NEMS office.[36]
The Beatles' personal stories were kept out of the newspapers-by agreement
with journalists who were offered exclusive stories in return-but one day
Lennon opened a copy of The Daily Express and saw a photo of his
father.[37][38]
A few weeks later, Cynthia opened the door of Kenwood (Lennon and Cynthia's
home in Weybridge) to see a man who "looked like a tramp", but alarmingly,
with John's face. Cynthia invited Alf in, and gave him tea and cheese on
toast until Lennon came home, which he was expected to do in an hour or so.
Whilst waiting, Cynthia offered to cut Alf's "long, stringy locks" of hair,
which he allowed her to do. After waiting for a couple of hours, Alf
left.[39] Lennon was annoyed when he came home, and told Cynthia (for the
first time) about Alf's visit to the NEMS office a few weeks before.[40]
Lennon relented slightly and contacted Alf over the next few months, telling
Cynthia that Alf was, "Alright, Cyn. He's a bit 'wacky', like me." After
Christmas, in 1965, Lennon was embarrassed to hear that Alf had made a
record: "That's My Life (My Love and My Home)", released on 31 December
1965.[41][42] Lennon asked Epstein to do anything he could to stop its
release, or becoming a hit. The record never made it into the charts, and
was soon forgotten.[43]
[edit] Pauline Jones
The cover of Pauline Lennon's book, "Daddy Come Home", which she wrote after
Alf's death.
Three years after meeting Lennon in the NEMS office, Alf (who was then
56-years-old) turned up at Kenwood again, with nineteen-year-old student
Pauline Jones, who was Alf's fiancée. Pauline had been an 18-year-old Exeter
University student when she met the 54-year-old Alf in 1966.[44] They said
that they were in love and wanted to get married, although Pauline's mother
was horrified and totally against the idea. Alf asked Lennon if he could
give Pauline a job, so Pauline was hired to help looking after Julian Lennon
and also the piles of fan mail. Pauline spent a few months living at Kenwood
in the attic bedroom, but Cynthia remembered Pauline, "crying all the time
and arguing with her mother on the phone".[44][45]
Alf and Pauline grew tired of trying to convince Pauline's mother to allow
them to get married, so they eloped and were married in Gretna Green,
Scotland.[45] Alf and Pauline moved to a flat in Bourne Court, London Road,
Patcham (in a suburb of Brighton) before relocating to Ladies Mile Road,
Brighton, in November 1969. Alf had two sons with Pauline: David Henry
Lennon and Robin Francis Lennon, half-brothers whom Lennon never
met.[46][47]
[edit] Death
Late in his life, Alf wrote a manuscript detailing his life story which he
bequeathed to John. It was Alf's attempt to fill in the lost years that he
had not been in contact with his son, and to explain that it was Julia, and
not Alf, that had broken up their marriage. Lennon commented: "You know, all
he wanted was for me to hear his side of the story, which I hadn't
heard."[46] By 1976, Alfred had contracted terminal stomach cancer. Pauline
contacted Lennon via Apple to make sure that he knew that his father was
dying. Lennon sent a large bouquet of flowers to the hospital and phoned Alf
on his deathbed, apologising for his [John's] past behaviour. When Alf died,
Lennon offered to pay for the funeral, but Pauline refused, and paid for the
arrangements herself.[46] In 1990, Pauline published a book called "Daddy,
Come Home", detailing her life with Alf and his meetings with Lennon.[48]
Pauline later remarried, and is now known as Pauline Stone.[49]
The Walrus was Danny
> It's pretty rare. I'd say try ordering it through the best library
I've got it, read it etc etc. It's a bit anti-mimi, but then it would
be I spose. An interesting read though. When Lennon senior was holed
up in Kenwood, he was really miserable being used to the city and
hustle and bustle, so they got him and pauline a basement flat before
the house in Brighton. The House in Brighton was on Ladies Mile Road
btw, I know somebody who lived next door to it when Fred was there.
Apparently they used to deliever all apple releases to the address so
as to keep Fred up to date with what was happening.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
> But she hardly knew John. What was the book about?-
She knew him pretty well, she was his and Cyn's maid in Kenwood. The
two half brothers are still out there somewhere as is Pauline I
suspect.
Danny
F Parella
I remember reading that, on arriving at Ascot (because he ministered
to the Lennon's twice, first in England and then in Hollywood), Janov
insisted that Ono and Lennon physically separate. Ono and Lennon both
soon developed cravings for huge amounts of ice cream. Hmm.
Lennon & Ono did a long interview w/ Howard Smith in 1970 where they
discussed their PoB albums and Primal Scream Therapy. Lennon
mentioned that he had never actually screamed during therapy; instead
he did a lot of crying.
F Parella
wrote:
Thanks for the info. IIRC, Lennon made death threats against Freddie
and took back the house in Brighton upon returning from primal therapy
in the states.
Fattuchus
I have cravings for ice cream all the time. :-)
>
> Lennon & Ono did a long interview w/ Howard Smith in 1970 where they
> discussed their PoB albums and Primal Scream Therapy. Lennon
> mentioned that he had never actually screamed during therapy; instead
> he did a lot of crying.-
Poor lad.
Fattuchus
According to the Norman bio, Lennon did take back the house.
Fattuchus
> letter that Freddie wrote after his life had been threatened. He took
> the threat seriously and wanted evidence of it in a safe place.
>
> Reading the letter, it seems Freddie was a bit of a drama queen like
> his son.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps he just wanted to keep it for leverage if he needed it
later . . . . . you know, his son was a rich man.
The Walrus was Danny
> Pauline would be, what, 50 or 60 at this point? So his half-brothers
> would be somewhere in between Sean and Julian's age...
40ish I do believe. I don't have the book with me. One of em is called
David I think. Sacks knows...Sacks?
Danny
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
wrote:
Robin Frances....I believe
rwalker
<Chippa...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jan 26, 6:38?pm, The Walrus was Danny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net>
>wrote:
>> > Pauline would be, what, 50 or 60 at this point? ?So his half-brothers
>> > would be somewhere in between Sean and Julian's age...
>>
>> 40ish I do believe. I don't have the book with me. One of em is called
>> David I think. Sacks knows...Sacks?
>>
>> Danny
>
>Robin Frances....I believe
According to Lennon.net, John's half brothers are:
Robin Frances Lennon, born 1973
David Henry Lennon, born 1969.
Their mother, Pauline Jones Lennon, was born in 1948, so she'd be
approaching 61.
F Parella
> On Jan 26, 11:20 am, FParella<f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> letter that Freddie wrote after his life had been threatened. He took
> the threat seriously and wanted evidence of it in a safe place.
>
> Reading the letter, it seems Freddie was a bit of a drama queen like
> his son.
Could very well be. I'll have to read the whole letter (I've read the
parts quoted by Goldman). Freddie's account may be exaggerated, but
it's interesting that both he and Pauline seemed to believe Lennon's
threat was for real, and that they both promptly got out of John's
life till Freddie was on his deathbed.
I Love George's Big Brown Eyes
Well, I'm glad John didn't go through with his threat. What a black
mark that would be. Every time you would see clips of the Beatles,
people would point at John and say "That's the guy who killed his
dad".
ILGBBE
F Parella
Yes, instead of, "That's the guy who posed nude with Yoko Ono, called
for peace in bed, and wore a Kotex on his head."
RichL
You really hate the guy, don't you?
Sean Carroll
> In 1967, John had obviously made an attempt to forgive his father for
> being absent during his childhood. He invited Freddie to live with he,
> Cynthia and Julian in his Kenwood mansion in London. John even gave
> Pauline a job as an au pair and let her live at Kenwood. John invited
> Freddie and Pauline to attend the premier of Magical Mystery Tour with
> he and the other Beatles. He also began paying Freddie an allowance
> equivalent to his earnings as a waiter. Finally, he bought and gave
> Freddie a house in Brighton following his marriage to Pauline and the
> birth of their first child. However, Pauline paints all of this in a
> dark light because she feels John owed much more to his father. Most
> likely the events of 1970 forever changed her opinion of John and she
> can no longer see the good things that John had done for Freddie.
>
> Anyone read her book "Daddy Come Home"?
> Any info on John's half brothers?
> Did John owe his father more?
John didn't owe his father a damn thing. He couldn't be bothered to do so
much as send an occasional cheque home to take care of him and his mother,
let alone see either of them, while he was off adventuring around the seas,
being AWOL and getting thrown into various gaols. And when he finally did
show up, out of nowhere, all he did was try to kidnap John, then cruelly
force him to choose between his mother and father, and then vanish back into
the aether for another 20-some-odd years, only making any effort to
reestablish contact after John was rich and famous.
Why should John owe him anything? Except for shooting off one lucky sperm,
and then leaving him scarred with a deep-seated lifelong feeling of having
been abandoned and unloved, his father never gave a damn thing to him -- or
to Julia, for that matter.
--
--Sean
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profile
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
'I am extremely disappointed. I send you out for exciting new designer
drugs, and you come back with tomato sauce.' --Dr Gregory House
[looking at a child's stuffed toy] 'Okay, elephants are not purple. This is
WRONG.' --Dr Temperance Brennan
Sean Carroll
> PS If a daughter of mine came home with a toothless old man AND
> MARRIED HIM....our relationship would be over.
Does having dentures count as being 'toothless'?
I'm only asking because my grandpa wants to know whether he should withdraw
his proposal to your daughter or not ...
who?
> "BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Chippandf...@aol.com> wrote
Oh, be quiet, Sean. We all came from a squirt..some of us from the
Clinton "Wad popping administration"....and
none of us could help it. :-)
>
> --
> --Seanhttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profilehttp://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Sean Carroll
> Oh, be quiet, Sean.
Good thing you didn't say 'piss off' -- Lizz has the copyright and all.
--
--Sean
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profile
F Parella
Um, no. But let's be honest, he'd become fairly unstable by the late
1960s.
RichL
I interpret it more as "purposefully unconventional". There was a lot
of that going around in those days, even among the non-famous, and if
the term "unstable" had been accepted as an explanation, a lot more
people would have wound up in asylums than was actually the case.
rwalker
wrote:
snip
>I interpret it more as "purposefully unconventional". There was a lot
>of that going around in those days, even among the non-famous, and if
>the term "unstable" had been accepted as an explanation, a lot more
>people would have wound up in asylums than was actually the case.
>
Absolutely. It astounds me how many people don't understand that.
RichL
> Absolutely. It astounds me how many people don't understand that.
I suspect most of them understand it perfectly well when it applies to
anyone but Lennon.
Crisstti
Why do you consider posing nude and calling for peace example of that
lack of stability?.
In fact, I don't understand why some people here have such a problem
with the Two Virgins cover. I think it wasn't a bad idea.
Crisstti
> "BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Chippandf...@aol.com> wrote
>
> 'I am extremely disappointed. I send you out for exciting new designer
> drugs, and you come back with tomato sauce.' --Dr Gregory House
>
> [looking at a child's stuffed toy] 'Okay, elephants are not purple. This is
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, John was not a much better father to Julian. And at least
John's father wanted him to live with him, which doens't seem to be
the case with John.
Of course, it was just incredibly irresponsible from both Julia and
Fred to tell a 4 year old to choose between them... what could they
have been thinking.
Crisstti
John's half sister, Julia's daughter?. she wrote a book as well, I'm
quite sure.
who?
In 1969, it didn't go over well. By the late 70's---80's...all kinds
of things were happening, and it would have been no big deal. For
people that were born after the
Beatles breakup...it would be very hard for them to relate..just like
I can't relate to the 50's..cause I was born in 1955.
Fattuchus
> "BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Chippandf...@aol.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > In 1967, John had obviously made an attempt to forgive his father for
> > being absent during his childhood. He invited Freddie to live with he,
> > Cynthia and Julian in his Kenwood mansion in London. John even gave
> > Pauline a job as an au pair and let her live at Kenwood. John invited
> > Freddie and Pauline to attend the premier of Magical Mystery Tour with
> > he and the other Beatles. He also began paying Freddie an allowance
> > equivalent to his earnings as a waiter. Finally, he bought and gave
> > Freddie a house in Brighton following his marriage to Pauline and the
> > birth of their first child. However, Pauline paints all of this in a
> > dark light because she feels John owed much more to his father. Most
> > likely the events of 1970 forever changed her opinion of John and she
> > can no longer see the good things that John had done for Freddie.
>
> > Anyone read her book "Daddy Come Home"?
> > Any info on John's half brothers?
> > Did John owe his father more?
>
> John didn't owe his father a damn thing. He couldn't be bothered to do so
> much as send an occasional cheque home to take care of him and his mother,
> let alone see either of them, while he was off adventuring around the seas,
> being AWOL and getting thrown into various gaols. And when he finally did
> show up, out of nowhere, all he did was try to kidnap John, then cruelly
> force him to choose between his mother and father, and then vanish back into
> the aether for another 20-some-odd years, only making any effort to
> reestablish contact after John was rich and famous.
I agree.
There are two sides to almost every story, and I suspect Alf's side
would be kinder and gentler . . . . I believe his version of events is
that he did want to see John and start a relationship, but Mimi
supposedly threatened him and "forced" him to say away.
SID
Sometimes the worst people hide behind the "apron of motherhood".
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I imagine Mimi had John's best interests at heart. I assume she truly
loved John and felt he had a happy, stable home with Mimi and Uncle
George. (and from everything I've read, John did) She may have
thought, "Why confuse the poor boy more?"
However, from everything I have read, Mimi and her family disliked
Alf from the beginning. They did not want Julia to get involved with
him; they felt he was beneathe their "higher class" family. So that
was probably an additional motive. Why should John get to know his
"lower class" father when he now enjoyed a "middle class" up bringing?
F Parella
That's precisely how I feel. If it were some relatively unknown
person resorting to these antics, most people would readily agree that
this guy had taken a few too many hits of acid - or had otherwise lost
a few marbles. But since it's Lennon, a lot of people feel obliged to
rationalize his embarrassing doings in one way or another ("Oh,
everyone was doing it back then"; "Oh, what's wrong with peace?", et
cetera).
How about the "music" of "Life with the Lions" and "Two Virgins"?
(Before you say, "Oh, everyone's done stuff like that," remember that
this was the same person who had previously written so many of those
great Beatles songs!) Or the "Self-Portrait" film, where Lennon
filmed himself struggling - and failing - to get an erection?
Yes, other people resorted to similarly odd behavior. And most of
them were nuts, acid-casualties, and attention-seekers.
Fattuchus
> On Jan 30, 10:00 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > > Absolutely. It astounds me how many people don't understand that.
>
> > I suspect most of them understand it perfectly well when it applies to
> > anyone but Lennon.
>
> That's precisely how I feel. If it were some relatively unknown
> person resorting to these antics, most people would readily agree that
> this guy had taken a few too many hits of acid - or had otherwise lost
> a few marbles. But since it's Lennon, a lot of people feel obliged to
> rationalize his embarrassing doings in one way or another ("Oh,
> everyone was doing it back then"; "Oh, what's wrong with peace?", et
> cetera).
FP you are so correct. However I did want to add that putting aside
the fact that John was very famous and a rock n roller (so he could
get away with a lot!) even McCartney said that John would do things
that were quite loveable. So, yes, he could be a nut and a pain in
the ass, but then turn around and be very sweet, caring, vulnerable,
etc.
May gives plenty of examples in her book. One minute John could be a
violent, loud mouthed drunk. The next he could be sobbing like a
child, asking for forgiveness.
>
> How about the "music" of "Life with the Lions" and "Two Virgins"?
Baahaaaaahaaaaaaaa.
> (Before you say, "Oh, everyone's done stuff like that," remember that
> this was the same person who had previously written so many of those
> great Beatles songs!) Or the "Self-Portrait" film, where Lennon
> filmed himself struggling - and failing - to get an erection?
I would love to see that in 3 D on the big screen! Do you think that
will be released one day? Perhaps they can show at in Diamond Vision
at a Mets game at the new Citifield.
Fattuchus
> On Jan 30, 10:00 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > > Absolutely. It astounds me how many people don't understand that.
>
> > I suspect most of them understand it perfectly well when it applies to
> > anyone but Lennon.
>
> That's precisely how I feel. If it were some relatively unknown
> person resorting to these antics, most people would readily agree that
> this guy had taken a few too many hits of acid - or had otherwise lost
> a few marbles. But since it's Lennon, a lot of people feel obliged to
> rationalize his embarrassing doings in one way or another ("Oh,
> everyone was doing it back then"; "Oh, what's wrong with peace?", et
> cetera).
>
> How about the "music" of "Life with the Lions" and "Two Virgins"?
> (Before you say, "Oh, everyone's done stuff like that," remember that
> this was the same person who had previously written so many of those
> great Beatles songs!) Or the "Self-Portrait" film, where Lennon
> filmed himself struggling - and failing - to get an erection?
Your comments inspired me to start a thread about "Self Portrait."
Take a look.
Sean Carroll
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I interpret it more as "purposefully unconventional". There was a lot
>>of that going around in those days, even among the non-famous, and if
>>the term "unstable" had been accepted as an explanation, a lot more
>>people would have wound up in asylums than was actually the case.
> Absolutely. It astounds me how many people don't understand that.
As John once said, 'The world is run by insane people for insane objectives
... But I'm likely to be put away as insane for saying so. That's what's
insane about it!'
--
--Sean
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profile
F Parella
> On Jan 31, 11:34 am, F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:00 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > > > Absolutely. It astounds me how many people don't understand that.
>
> > > I suspect most of them understand it perfectly well when it applies to
> > > anyone but Lennon.
>
> > That's precisely how I feel. If it were some relatively unknown
> > person resorting to these antics, most people would readily agree that
> > this guy had taken a few too many hits of acid - or had otherwise lost
> > a few marbles. But since it's Lennon, a lot of people feel obliged to
> > rationalize his embarrassing doings in one way or another ("Oh,
> > everyone was doing it back then"; "Oh, what's wrong with peace?", et
> > cetera).
>
> FP you are so correct. However I did want to add that putting aside
> the fact that John was very famous and a rock n roller (so he could
> get away with a lot!) even McCartney said that John would do things
> that were quite loveable. So, yes, he could be a nut and a pain in
> the ass, but then turn around and be very sweet, caring, vulnerable,
> etc.
>
> May gives plenty of examples in her book. One minute John could be a
> violent, loud mouthed drunk. The next he could be sobbing like a
> child, asking for forgiveness.
That's right. Lennon also often needed May to tell him in the morning
what crazy behavior he had gotten up to after drinking the previous
night. At one point he confided to her that he believed all the drugs
he had taken in the 1960s had made it difficult for his system to
process alcohol.
Albert Goldman once admitted that getting into the mindset of someone
who had taken as much acid as Lennon had was one of the biggest
challenges he'd faced with his Lennon bio.
And Cynthia Powell once said that, around the time Lennon met Ono, he
had taken to surrounding himself with so many crazy individuals that
she took Ono for just another such person; she could not discern Ono
for the threat she was.
> > How about the "music" of "Life with the Lions" and "Two Virgins"?
>
> Baahaaaaahaaaaaaaa.
>
> > (Before you say, "Oh, everyone's done stuff like that," remember that
> > this was the same person who had previously written so many of those
> > great Beatles songs!) Or the "Self-Portrait" film, where Lennon
> > filmed himself struggling - and failing - to get an erection?
>
> I would love to see that in 3 D on the big screen! Do you think that
> will be released one day? Perhaps they can show at in Diamond Vision
> at a Mets game at the new Citifield.
I suspect that that's something we're not doing to get a "director's
cut" of; I'd bet even Ono wishes that one would go away.
One final comment on the Lennon's "Bed Peace"/"Hair Peace" campaign:
In the late 1980s, Ono was asked about it by Mike Wallace on "60
Minutes." Ono explained, "Well, we were just clowning."
Sean Carroll
> F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Um, no. But let's be honest, he'd become fairly unstable by the late
>> 1960s.
> Why do you consider posing nude and calling for peace example of that
> lack of stability?.
Because he's a raving maniac who thinks everything that has even vaguely to
do with Yoko Ono is automatically pure evil. Since John in his post-Beatle
years was in love with Yoko, that automatically makes everything he did the
result of her eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil manipulations.
What, you wanted a *rational* reason? You're treeing up the wrong bark on
that one, most definitely.
> In fact, I don't understand why some people here have such a problem
> with the Two Virgins cover. I think it wasn't a bad idea.
It was a perfectly good artistic statement. The problem is with the minds of
people, not with the cover.
Americans are so hypocritical. We throw pictures of girls in the tiniest
bikinis physically possible at you all day long, to sell beer and cars and
Baywatch. But goddess forbid someone show a whole nipple or dick as part of
a legitimate artistic project. That's obscene!!
Sean Carroll
>>>I interpret it more as "purposefully unconventional". There was a lot
>>>of that going around in those days, even among the non-famous, and if
>>>the term "unstable" had been accepted as an explanation, a lot more
>>>people would have wound up in asylums than was actually the case.
>> Absolutely. It astounds me how many people don't understand that.
> As John once said, 'The world is run by insane people for insane
> objectives ... But I'm likely to be put away as insane for saying so.
> That's what's insane about it!'
Also, as Fox Mulder once said, 'Sometimes the only sane response to an
insane world is insanity.'
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
With regard to the bed peace campaign, I do recall J & Y claiming
years later that they were being clowns for the world. Frankly, I
think they realized their campaign failed. By claiming they were
merely clowning around, they were gracefully trying to distance
themselves from it.
Fattuchus
> "Crisstti" <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Um, no. But let's be honest, he'd become fairly unstable by the late
> >> 1960s.
> > Why do you consider posing nude and calling for peace example of that
> > lack of stability?.
>
> Because he's a raving maniac who thinks everything that has even vaguely to
> do with Yoko Ono is automatically pure evil. Since John in his post-Beatle
> years was in love with Yoko, that automatically makes everything he did the
> result of her eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil manipulations.
>
> What, you wanted a *rational* reason? You're treeing up the wrong bark on
> that one, most definitely.
>
> > In fact, I don't understand why some people here have such a problem
> > with the Two Virgins cover. I think it wasn't a bad idea.
>
> It was a perfectly good artistic statement. The problem is with the minds of
> people, not with the cover.
>
> Americans are so hypocritical. We throw pictures of girls in the tiniest
> bikinis physically possible at you all day long, to sell beer and cars and
> Baywatch. But goddess forbid someone show a whole nipple or dick as part of
> a legitimate artistic project. That's obscene!!
>
> --
> --Sean
I'm not convinced that J & Y posed nude on Two Virgins for purely
altruistic, artistic reasons. IMO John liked to be provocative and he
was going through an "enfant terrible" stage. It was his way of
telling the world, "I am no longer a cute Beatle." He was being
provocative. Plus John was heavily into drugs at the time which IMO
may have skewed his judgement.
He had been warned that it would get bad reviews and would prove to be
embarrassing but John went ahead with it anyway.
John lived to regret it . . . . Fred Seaman reported that when he
worked for John, John would send him to Beatlefests or similar such
things to buy up every Two Virgins cover he could find. John wanted
it off the market.
Sean Carroll
> I'm not convinced that J & Y posed nude on Two Virgins for purely
> altruistic, artistic reasons. IMO John liked to be provocative and he
> was going through an "enfant terrible" stage. It was his way of
> telling the world, "I am no longer a cute Beatle." He was being
> provocative.
You're entirely missing the point.
Being intentionally provocative is almost be *definition* an artistic
statement. (In this context, that is.)
The whole point of art is to express something, or to make people feel
something. Which is exactly what a provocative statement like the Two
Virgins cover does.
You describe what he was doing, but you just don't seem to grasp the simple
fact that what you're talking about is an artistic statement. Yes, of course
he was being provocative. That was the artistic statement! Provocativeness
(is that a real word?) is a feeling, and art is about feelings.
I can't argue about the 'altruistic' thing, because I have no idea what the
hell altruism has to do with anything even remotely related to what we're
talking about.
who?
>
> > F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Um, no. But let's be honest, he'd become fairly unstable by the late
> >> 1960s.
> > Why do you consider posing nude and calling for peace example of that
> > lack of stability?.
>
> Because he's a raving maniac who thinks everything that has even vaguely to
> do with Yoko Ono is automatically pure evil. Since John in his post-Beatle
> years was in love with Yoko, that automatically makes everything he did the
> result of her eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil manipulations.
>
> What, you wanted a *rational* reason? You're treeing up the wrong bark on
> that one, most definitely.
>
> > In fact, I don't understand why some people here have such a problem
> > with the Two Virgins cover. I think it wasn't a bad idea.
>
> It was a perfectly good artistic statement. The problem is with the minds of
> people, not with the cover.
>
> Americans are so hypocritical
The truth is Sean, we all are at times. Not just Americans.
. We throw pictures of girls in the tiniest
> bikinis physically possible at you all day long, to sell beer and cars and
> Baywatch. But goddess forbid someone show a whole nipple or dick as part of
> a legitimate artistic project. That's obscene!!
>
> --
> --Seanhttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profilehttp://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Sean Carroll
news:c85a6d8f-4643-49bd...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>"Sean Carroll" <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Americans are so hypocritical
> The truth is Sean, we all are at times. Not just Americans.
Um ... very true ...
but I don't quite get your point.
--
--Sean
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profile
who?
> "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c85a6d8f-4643-49bd...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >"Sean Carroll" <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Americans are so hypocritical
> > The truth is Sean, we all are at times. Not just Americans.
>
> Um ... very true ...
>
> but I don't quite get your point.
cause you said just us "Americans" are so hypocritical. :-)
>
> --
> --Seanhttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profilehttp://spclsd223.livejournal.com
RichL
> It's funny, when I first saw that it made almost no impression. I
> didn't know or care who either of them were and was too young to make
> judgments about their attractiveness or lack thereof.
>
> I thought "Oh, those must be 'hippies'." And that was about it.
Same here, when it came out. They were doing the same thing that
several of my friends were doing, or would have done if they had the
cojones.
Fattuchus
> On Jan 31, 10:39 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 12:16 pm, "Sean Carroll" <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Crisstti" <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > > > F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> Um, no. But let's be honest, he'd become fairly unstable by the late
> > > >> 1960s.
> > > > Why do you consider posing nude and calling for peace example of that
> > > > lack of stability?.
>
> > > Because he's a raving maniac who thinks everything that has even vaguely to
> > > do with Yoko Ono is automatically pure evil. Since John in his post-Beatle
> > > years was in love with Yoko, that automatically makes everything he did the
> > > result of her eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil manipulations.
>
> > > What, you wanted a *rational* reason? You're treeing up the wrong bark on
> > > that one, most definitely.
>
> > > > In fact, I don't understand why some people here have such a problem
> > > > with the Two Virgins cover. I think it wasn't a bad idea.
>
> > > It was a perfectly good artistic statement. The problem is with the minds of
> > > people, not with the cover.
>
> > > Americans are so hypocritical. We throw pictures of girls in the tiniest
> > > bikinis physically possible at you all day long, to sell beer and cars and
> > > Baywatch. But goddess forbid someone show a whole nipple or dick as part of
> > > a legitimate artistic project. That's obscene!!
>
>
> didn't know or care who either of them were and was too young to make
> judgments about their attractiveness or lack thereof.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the idea "Oh, those must be hippies" sums it up.
Fattuchus
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I'm not convinced that J & Y posed nude on Two Virgins for purely
> > altruistic, artistic reasons. IMO John liked to be provocative and he
> > was going through an "enfant terrible" stage. It was his way of
> > telling the world, "I am no longer a cute Beatle." He was being
> > provocative.
>
> You're entirely missing the point.
>
> Being intentionally provocative is almost be *definition* an artistic
> statement. (In this context, that is.)
>
> The whole point of art is to express something, or to make people feel
> something. Which is exactly what a provocative statement like the Two
> Virgins cover does.
You are not the first one to express that sentiment. It's not a bad
idea. I guess I have a problem with the idea of being provocative for
the sake of being provocative. I'm not sure I would call that art. To
me, that's a cry for attention. Two Virgins was a crap album with a
cover which John admits was his statement "I am an ordinary person. "
In other words, he wanted the world to know he and Yoko were not
glamorous and they both had sex organs.
If I may draw an analogy to writing. Sometimes people write something
and it is thought provoking yet informative, funny, or has some other
positive quality. However sometimes someone writes something (such as
a troll on a NG) and it has little merit other than to cause trouble.
>
> You describe what he was doing, but you just don't seem to grasp the simple
> fact that what you're talking about is an artistic statement. Yes, of course
> he was being provocative. That was the artistic statement! Provocativeness
> (is that a real word?) is a feeling, and art is about feelings.
I'm still not convinced that being "in your face" for the sake of
being "in your face" is really art or good art. For example, if a
member of PETA sees someone wearing a fur coat and throws red paint or
blood on the coat to protest, is that "art"? I would say it is a form
of protest . . . . but I'm wrestling with idea that it is art.
The Walrus was Danny
> Because he's a raving maniac who thinks everything that has even vaguely to
> do with Yoko Ono is automatically pure evil. Since John in his post-Beatle
> years was in love with Yoko, that automatically makes everything he did the
> result of her eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil manipulations.
I suppose her manipulations were evil in a way, they were definately
selfish and geared toward her gaining money and fame. Her objective
was met, essentially the girl did well, she got everything she could
have hoped for and more. The shooting was the cherry on the cake.
Danny
rwalker
<sean...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"rwalker" <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote
>> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>I interpret it more as "purposefully unconventional". There was a lot
>>>of that going around in those days, even among the non-famous, and if
>>>the term "unstable" had been accepted as an explanation, a lot more
>>>people would have wound up in asylums than was actually the case.
>
>> Absolutely. It astounds me how many people don't understand that.
>
>As John once said, 'The world is run by insane people for insane objectives
>... But I'm likely to be put away as insane for saying so. That's what's
>insane about it!'
And I think he was right.
Crisstti
> "Crisstti" <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Um, no. But let's be honest, he'd become fairly unstable by the late
> >> 1960s.
> > Why do you consider posing nude and calling for peace example of that
> > lack of stability?.
>
> Because he's a raving maniac who thinks everything that has even vaguely to
> do with Yoko Ono is automatically pure evil. Since John in his post-Beatle
> years was in love with Yoko, that automatically makes everything he did the
> result of her eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil manipulations.
>
> What, you wanted a *rational* reason? You're treeing up the wrong bark on
> that one, most definitely.
>
LOL...
> > In fact, I don't understand why some people here have such a problem
> > with the Two Virgins cover. I think it wasn't a bad idea.
>
> It was a perfectly good artistic statement. The problem is with the minds of
> people, not with the cover.
>
Yeah, I think so too...
> Americans are so hypocritical. We throw pictures of girls in the tiniest
> bikinis physically possible at you all day long, to sell beer and cars and
> Baywatch. But goddess forbid someone show a whole nipple or dick as part of
> a legitimate artistic project. That's obscene!!
>
> --
> --Seanhttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profilehttp://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Crisstti
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mmm... from what I remember, I think you're putting that out of
context... I think they were saying that they noticed that many people
were going to laugh at them for that, but that promoting peace was
important enough for them so that they were willing to being clowns
for the world as the price...
I'm not saying those were their words, but that that is what I
remember understanding they meant when I read it a while ago.
In any case John's and Yoko's later statements about their campaign
doesn't explain why you or others here would think it was some kind of
proof of John's alleged instability.
Crisstti
There's no reason why artistic and provocative should not go together
here... all the opposite.
> He had been warned that it would get bad reviews and would prove to be
> embarrassing but John went ahead with it anyway.
>
So he should just have gone for the safe thing?.
If every artist would do that... we would be missing on much...
> John lived to regret it . . . . Fred Seaman reported that when he
> worked for John, John would send him to Beatlefests or similar such
> things to buy up every Two Virgins cover he could find. John wanted
> it off the market.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, maybe in some moment he regretted it. Maybe he felt embarrassed
that people would see him nude. Maybe he was going through a more shy
period or something...
He also regretted putting the line about Mao in Revolution, he said so
in a 1970, 1971 interview. Then in 1980 he seemed pleased with it
again. I don't see why it should be different with the Two Virgins
cover. He could just have been in a period when he regretted it.
Plus, that doesn't mean the cover proves a lack of stability.
F Parella
> On Jan 31, 3:34 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 12:06 pm, FParella<f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 12:54 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
There are a couple of occasions where J&Y (or just Y) defended their
bed-ins. You seem to be thinking of the one that appears in the
"Imagine: John Lennon" film, where Lennon (looking wired and talking
a mile a minute) suggested that other forms of opposition to war had
become "too intellectual."
In an interview with Mike Wallace in the late 1980s, Ono admitted that
the bed-ins had made them look "ridiculous."
> In any case John's and Yoko's later statements about their campaign
> doesn't explain why you or others here would think it was some kind of
> proof of John's alleged instability.
I don't think anyone suggests that the bed-ins themselves are "proof"
of Lennon's instability. One has to take them in conjunction with all
of the other loopy antics Lennon had gotten up to (e.g., the heroin
use, the delusion that he was Jesus Christ, the wretched "Two Virgins"
and "Life with the Lions" albums of noise, the death-threat against
his father, the film of himself struggling to get an erection, et
cetera).
Crisstti
Then maybe she changed her mind again, since she included it on
Imagine.
In any case, I think their campaign was great, as was their logic to
justify it, and in no way a hint nor anything like that of Lennons
lack of stability (not that I'm saying he was that stable...).
>
> > In any case John's and Yoko's later statements about their campaign
> > doesn't explain why you or others here would think it was some kind of
> > proof of John's alleged instability.
>
> I don't think anyone suggests that the bed-ins themselves are "proof"
> of Lennon's instability. One has to take them in conjunction with all
> of the other loopy antics Lennon had gotten up to (e.g., the heroin
> use, the delusion that he was Jesus Christ, the wretched "Two Virgins"
> and "Life with the Lions" albums of noise, the death-threat against
> his father, the film of himself struggling to get an erection, et
> cetera).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But why would the bed ins be even a hint of instability... some of the
other things, maybe.
Crisstti
John's half sister?.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
> By the way, can someone tell me if Pauline Lennon wasn't the name of
> John's half sister?.
Pauline was Alf's wife. Julia Baird was John's half sister.
saki
And he had another half-sister, Jacqueline (Julia Lennon's and John
Dykin's other daughter).
Yet another half-sister was Victoria Elizabeth, born in 1945 to Julia
Lennon and a fellow called Taffy Williams. Victoria was adopted by a
Norwegian couple and her name changed to Ingrid Maria Pedersen.
John also had two half-brothers, David and Robin, sons of Alf and Pauline.
----
sa...@ucla.edu
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
It seems this is the only child put up for adoption (Victoria.) Do you
know the reason for this?
saki
> It seems this is the only child put up for adoption (Victoria.) Do you
> know the reason for this?
Family pressure from Mimi Smith and her sisters (Julia's siblings) seems
to have been the principal motivating force at the time. Julia wasn't in
a relationship with the Victoria's father as she was with John Dykins
later on, and the family was somewhat disconcerted with Julia's
free-spirit lifestyle in Alf's absence---she was still married to him,
after all.
John was living with Julia at this point, and there was a sentiment
expressed by the family that an additional (illegitimate) child would
not contribute to a wholesome upbringing.
Sounds silly in this day and age, perhaps, but this was sixty years ago....
----
sa...@ucla.edu
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
F Parella
Their stated object was to promote peace. In what way does sitting in
bed for extensive amounts of time - typical junkies' behavior, BTW -
advance that cause? I don't see much of a relationship between
sitting in bed and effecting peace. I doubt very much that many
proponents of war changed their minds after watching John and Yoko
spout platitudes from bed.
During one of the bed-ins, Ono said she would have halted World War II
by having sex with Hitler. That didn't strike me as a particularly
viable strategy either. Neither did their posters proclaiming that
"War is over if you want it." That strikes me as more of Yoko's
childish wishful thinking. One doesn't bring about a state of affairs
through merely wanting it.
The Arranger
All of it looked pretty silly at the time, and it looks even sillier
decades later. It's a pretty easy target. The real achievement was
that Al Capp, surrounded by such foolishness, was able to make of
himself the biggest ass in the room.
> Neither did their posters proclaiming that
> "War is over if you want it." That strikes me as more of Yoko's
> childish wishful thinking. One doesn't bring about a state of affairs
> through merely wanting it.
It's simplistic but there's a kernel of truth in it in a
republic...When enough people wish a certain state of affairs, their
elective representatives tend to move in that direction. No one's mind
is changed, one would think, by someone chanting a foolish rhyming
slogan, or carrying a placard with a simplistic message, or by John
and Yoko
Of course, the chances that someone of John Lennon's fame affecting
the opinion of strangers through a bed-in are exponentially greater
than the chances you or I have of changing anyone's opinion on decades-
old debates, but that hasn't stopped us, either.
The Arranger