Danny's Slanderous Lies (NEWBIE ALERT)
fabella
by Danny McEvoy. I have refuted them individually, for months.
This
post will serve as a guide to anyone who has not witnessed his
continual attacks on me as a writer, journalist, woman, and human
being.
THE LIE: Marty has been ever so nice there. Frankly is a pain
the arse. She witters on about how YOs doughnut smells like
chanel
no 5, and how big mates they were/are even though she didn't see
her for 32 years (on Sept 25th last year)..some reckon she's paid
to spin for YO..though Gondola Bob has pointed out (quite
nicely) that why would YO employ an idiot (though look at her
spokeman
Elliot Mintz).
TRUTH: Yoko and John lived with me and Paul from late July to
mid-August of 1968. When I contacted Yoko last year, she
immediately invited me to meet with her when I traveled to New
York. We share some very precious memories of the turbulent
summer of 1968. We met for a three hour dinner September 25,
1999. It was much more than a polite evening of reminiscence,
and we have been in touch ever since, exchanging messages and
gifts.
When not being attacked by creeps like Danny, I have written
many answers to specific questions about the summer of 1968,
from much more civilised posters (like Strabbo aka Marty). Also
please go to my web site and see links to online interviews by
Beatle Webmasters Steve Marinucci and Rob Fontenot. Like any
human being, I make mistakes, and one of the biggest I've
made in rmb is to defend myself and fight back against Danny and
others (Ny and GBob in particular).
THE LIE: Macca threw her suitcase over the wall of Cavendish
Avenue in 1968, no doubt coz he got sick and tired of her (I'm in
good company it would appear). Frankly said this never happened,
but then, well, she would wouldn't she?
TRUTH: In 1972, Body Count describes in detail the way my
relationship with Paul ended. No suitcase was thrown. Danny
provides
no evidence whatsoever to back up this vicious gossip tidbit. No
publication or book about the Beatles has ever asserted that Paul
ever did such a thing to me.
THE LIE: She makes ridiculous claims about Beatle songs being
written either about her, or for her, and it's just crap to gain
her
even more kudos so the YO spin works even better.
TRUTH: I do not work for Yoko Ono nor do I make claims in order
to gain "kudos". Read the book I wrote and judge for yourself.
Also, on my website I have reprinted a recent reader's comment
(from Amazon.com) about Hey Jude. Check that.
THE LIE: She has a high numbered White Album. If she was such
big mates with YO, how come she had to go down the local Mall
and fork out for the LP like everybody else.
TRUTH: I left England August 28, 1968. The White Album wasn't
finished. And this too, has nothing to do with Yoko Ono.
THE LIE: She looks like Andy Warhol but all the American's think
she looks like Barbara Bush. She threatens to leave every five
minutes or so, but never does, hence the old credibility factor
is bloody shaky.
TRUTH: A few people made a joke about my appearance in an E
Entertainment TV special on Beatle wives and girlfriends. It
aired
February 14, 1999 in the US and in June in the UK. It has been
pointed out to me by a long-standing regular poster here that it
was
my hair (which is snow white, and has been so since my forties)
that reminded them of Barbara Bush). Check the Annie Liebovitz
picture of me on my home page. Then click on the image and see
what I look like today.
Danny would like you to think that I "threaten" to leave the
newsgroup every five minutes. With rude creeps like him saying
these
sorts of things about me, would you blame me if I did?
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
John Whelan
news:0289a09c...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
> The following is a list of libelous statements (malicious lies)
> by Danny McEvoy. I have refuted them individually, for months.
> This post will serve as a guide to anyone who has not witnessed his
> continual attacks on me as a writer, journalist, woman, and human
> being.
>
More multi-tracking from Francie??
How many times are you gonna hit us with the re-play
button??
Regards,
j. in Canada
By the way, on another topic of the Beatles,
what was Francie's favorite song by the group?
How about Francie's fav choices...one from Paul,
one from John, one from George and one from
Ringo?
fabella
>"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0289a09c...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
>> The following is a list of libelous statements (malicious
lies)
>> by Danny McEvoy. I have refuted them individually, for months.
>> This post will serve as a guide to anyone who has not
witnessed his
>> continual attacks on me as a writer, journalist, woman, and
human
>> being.
>>
>> THE LIE: (Snip!)
>
> More multi-tracking from Francie??
>
What is that supposed to mean? A newcomer asked who I was,
Strabbo posted a brief answer, and then Danny turned the thread
into his 64th attack on me and Yoko (who wasn't even mentioned
in the header). I've been "tracking myself" for 25 years, and
haven't changed my tune.
> How many times are you gonna hit us with the re-play
> button??
>
As many times as it takes, or as long as Danny keeps posting the
lies and slander.
>
> By the way, on another topic of the Beatles,
> what was Francie's favorite song by the group?
> How about Francie's fav choices...one from Paul,
> one from John, one from George and one from
> Ringo?
>
>
>
>
My favorite Beatle song? Strawberry Fields Forever.
Fave Paul Song: Here There and Everywhere.
John: Revolution
George: Not Guilty
Rings: Don't Pass Me By
fabella
you.
J_M
news:zBoj5.3664$pq5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0289a09c...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
> > The following is a list of libelous statements (malicious lies)
> > by Danny McEvoy. I have refuted them individually, for months.
> > This post will serve as a guide to anyone who has not witnessed his
> > continual attacks on me as a writer, journalist, woman, and human
> > being.
>
to
> ever hit RMB, and it is critical that you get her story right. well, her
> version of it anyway. you will be tested.
How did you score and when do I get the test?
--Jamie M
---
"It really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right" --Lennon/McCartney
---
fabella
>>Sorry, alley, but this thread isn't about my disagreements with
>>you.
>
>
are. you NEVER
>answer a question that may implicate you. NEVER.
>
Did it ever occur to you that saying I'm full of shit is
unlikely to draw me into a discussion with you?
Ever heard the expression "You catch more flies with honey than
with vinegar"?
And when you misuse words like "implicate", I'm even less
inclined to reply. You seem to think you're a prosecutor, that
this is a
court of law, and that you know tort law.
>
>
>
>"Win some, lose some. That's the way of the world these days."
- Francie
>Schwartz, defending Yoko Ono's illegal actions.
>
>
A brief comment on your little quote and your distortion of the
context in which I said it.
I was talking about the fact that Yoko has not won every legal
battle she was engaged in.
Whether she initiated a lawsuit or was sued by someone else,
doesn't matter.
It is solely your personal opinion that she engaged in illegal
actions. Has nothing to do with the quote you misuse again and
again.
Pigeon
>by Danny McEvoy
funny. when you made libelous statements against me, and I addressed you about
it, you blew me off.
Hypocrite.
and you've been just as nasty to Danny as he has been to you, if not more.
go ahead. tell me i have no mind. i know you can't come up with anything
better.
:)
alley.
Maclen
"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0289a09c...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
Nyarlathotep
fabella <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry, alley, but this thread isn't about my disagreements with
> you.
Since when do *you* want thematic consistency in RMB threads,
Francie? You've evidently had some sort of epiphany.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pigeon
>you.
heh. oh man. never ceases to amaze me just how full of shit you are. you NEVER
answer a question that may implicate you. NEVER.
alley.
~~
Pigeon
i didn't misuse the word. you misread it.
alley.
eve plumb
<zBoj5.3664$pq5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Maclen" stated:
>
>
>"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0289a09c...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
>> The following is a list of libelous statements (malicious lies)
>> by Danny McEvoy. I have refuted them individually, for months.
>> This post will serve as a guide to anyone who has not witnessed his
>> continual attacks on me as a writer, journalist, woman, and human
>> being.
>
And don't forget as a comedian, in all seriousness, who's giving 110% up here!
<g>
Good lord, where is Bobby Bittman when you need him?
interstate5
eve plumb
<0289a09c...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>, fabella stated:
>
>The following is a list of libelous statements (malicious lies)
>by Danny McEvoy. I have refuted them individually, for months.
>This
>post will serve as a guide to anyone who has not witnessed his
>continual attacks on me as a writer, journalist, woman, and human
>being.
>
Francie, to coin a cliche, if Danny didn't exist, you'd have to invent him. All
you are doing is giving his posts free publicity and raising their scant
profile.
I'd be in favor of never seeing another post about Body Count or your personal
relationship with Paul or anyone else connected to the Beatles, and I'm sure
that would eventually silence Danny and the rest.
interstate5
fabella
Thank you for sharing, Trish. Unfortunately for you, Body Count
has been accepted by Beatle scholars, and thousands of fans, as
an important primary source on the period, and is mentioned in
most of the better bibliographies in the field. So I doubt that
my
nonparticipation in this ongoing discussion would eliminate all
references to me.
As for the desired effect, I'll say this much: I won't be
shouted down, I get lots of encouragement on and off this
board... and I won't
lay down for abuse from Danny or anyone else.
Mr Mustard
<g>
He do have a knack for it, heh?
Jim
fabella
>
>
>
>He do have a knack for it, heh?
>
>Jim
>
>
>
Jim, do you really find character assassination and sexist humor
funny?
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Whelan
> Thank you for sharing, Trish. Unfortunately for you, Body Count
> has been accepted by Beatle scholars, and thousands of fans, as
> an important primary source on the period, and is mentioned in
> most of the better bibliographies in the field. (SNIP!)
How sad. I really mean it too! I couldn't find your name
in the back index of Coleman's book "John Lennon". Your
nowhere to be found. And I couldn't find any significant quote
from you in "The Beatles An Oral History". I thought since
you're such a big chatty Cathy, that something would have
showed up from you in that book. Nothing. I mean, after all,
you were there with the Beatles for several months.
With regards to your opinion on your book "Body
Count" as been accepted by Beatle scholars, could you
please post the New York Times glowing book review
they did for you (does it exist?) or the one that the New
York Post did as well (does that one exist at all?).
I'd love to read the reviews they did as I'm always
amazed by the *vast number* of Beatle books that
made use of your book as a definitive Beatle reference
and where they acknowledge "Body Count" in the back
of their indexes in those books...just phenominal number
I came across in my collection! <g>.
How long did "Body Count" remain in the "#1 Best
Seller's List" in America? How many weeks?
> So I doubt that my nonparticipation in this ongoing discussion
> would eliminate all references to me.
>
> As for the desired effect, I'll say this much: I won't be
> shouted down, I get lots of encouragement on and off this
> board... and I won't
> lay down for abuse from Danny or anyone else.
>
> Francie
Francie, you can keep pounding your "bare breasts"
in public over these hot-button issues, but it's going to
become awfully tiring for you to so if you decide to
continue to post over the next while at Rmb. It is rather
pointless to try and put out every "flash fire" you see. Go
ahead and try, but mark my words, you'll tire out eventually.
And reading the same "multi-tracking" response from
you has become pretty predictable material. You say
you have an equal number here at Rmb who support you,
which is fine. But equally so, there are an equal number
you have put you in their "kill file".
Regards,
John in Canada
fabella
it), and as a matter of fact received rave reviews in the Village
Voice and "W" (formerly WWD). It wasn't trashy enough to make
the bestseller list, and I never claimed that it did. And wow,
you
chose two books that didn't refer to it. Aren't you proud of
yourself. What's your point, John?
If you don't like what I have to say, then you might as well
killfile me, too. I won't miss your twenty-five cent
psychoanalysis.
Francie
Mr Mustard
humor funny?"
Francie,
I've watched you two go back and forth for awhile now and tho I
wouldn't expect you two to be exchanging Valentines soon I
haven't seen Danny be malicious to you. There's a sense of fun
about it. I can't recall seeing an angry post from him...to
anyone. I don't think he would wish you harm or ill health.
You two have a kind of history now between you, one that you'll
probably never forget! Someday you may run into him and have a
good laff!(unlikely tho)
Danny is a funny guy. I've seen others go after you with cruelty
that has made me cringe and want to step in, but not
Danny...he's a good hearted bloke as far as I can tell.
Jim
thewalruswasDanny
fabella <waronsex
Waron sex? How come BC was printed in bloody Penthouse? So we could all have
a wank over it?
NOwaSPAM
No spam..what you mean like those voodoo annoy post card e-mail things that
folk got from little ole Frankly?
@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0289a09c...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
> The following is a list of libelous statements (malicious lies)
> by Danny McEvoy.
Well there not really. They're pretty balenced and gives the New poster a
pretty standard pic of the way you appear to some of us.
I have refuted them individually, for months.
Yes me too.
> This
> post will serve as a guide to anyone who has not witnessed his
> continual attacks on me as a writer, journalist, woman, and human
> being.
Like this:
Pencildick.(18/6/00)
You're really quite pitiful...(24/6/00)
Mr. CutesyPool. He doesn't
allow simple facts to get in the way of his blather production.(30/6/00)
with his pantsless housewife dance, flinging his patented sexist
insults (30/6/00)
putzo. (1/7/00)
assholes like you (1/7/00)
very sick (1/7/00)
unamusing and deeply manipulative (1/7/00)
the Neanderthal contingent (3/7/00)
moronic Northern bigot (3/7/00)
A piece of shit is what makes a cesspool a cesspool,
so naturally it doesn't mind. (10/7/00)
this tiny little person (21/7/00)
this boy's more than a bit thick(22/7/00)
truly semiliterate (24/7/00)
crybaby: Idiot (24/7/00)
you jerk (26/7/00) (forgery?)
your little pee brain (26/7/00) (forgery?)
Danny the DrunkPunk (2/8/00)
troll (7/8/00)
creeps like Danny (7/8/00)
I keep the collection going.
>
> THE LIE: Marty has been ever so nice there.
Marty was being nice.
Frankly is a pain
> the arse.
You are a pain the arse.
She witters on about how YOs doughnut smells like
> chanel
> no 5, and how big mates they were/are even though she didn't see
> her for 32 years (on Sept 25th last year)..
You do. You have never said a single word that even sniffs of negativity.
Her shit really does smell like Chanel No5 to you.
some reckon she's paid
> to spin for YO..
Some do.
though Gondola Bob has pointed out (quite
> nicely) that why would YO employ an idiot (though look at her
> spokeman
> Elliot Mintz).
Well he did point that out. That's not a lie, he did point that out.
>
> TRUTH: Yoko and John lived with me and Paul from late July to
> mid-August of 1968.
A month, no less than that isn't it?
When I contacted Yoko last year, she
> immediately invited me to meet with her when I traveled to New
> York.
I wonder why?
We share some very precious memories of the turbulent
> summer of 1968. We met for a three hour dinner September 25,
> 1999. It was much more than a polite evening of reminiscence,
> and we have been in touch ever since, exchanging messages and
> gifts.
"Gifts" eh? So that's what you call it.
>
> When not being attacked by creeps like Danny, I have written
> many answers to specific questions about the summer of 1968,
(snigger)
> from much more civilised posters (like Strabbo aka Marty).
Hey Marty you're civilised!! (wink wink)!
Also
> please go to my web site and see links to online interviews by
> Beatle Webmasters Steve Marinucci and Rob Fontenot. Like any
> human being, I make mistakes, and one of the biggest I've
> made in rmb is to defend myself and fight back against Danny and
> others (Ny and GBob in particular).
What exactly are you doing now then?..ah this is fun..hold on I just go and
have another cup of tea...put the kettle on..
>
>
>
>
> THE LIE: Macca threw her suitcase over the wall of Cavendish
> Avenue in 1968, no doubt coz he got sick and tired of her (I'm in
> good company it would appear).
Well I'm guessing about him getting sick and tired of Franks, but it seems
likely to me.
Frankly said this never happened,
> but then, well, she would wouldn't she?
Well you have said it didn't happen. If you call this statement a "Lie" in
big letters does that mean it did happen?
>
> TRUTH: In 1972, Body Count describes in detail the way my
> relationship with Paul ended. No suitcase was thrown.
But you've just said that my statement was a Lie. Make your bloody mind up!
Danny
> provides
> no evidence whatsoever to back up this vicious gossip tidbit.
Oh ok. In Many Years from Now, Macca talks about the incident referring to
you as "An American Groupie", also some Apple Scruffs can verify the story
and it's been talked about among the old scruffys for bloody years.
No
> publication or book about the Beatles has ever asserted that Paul
> ever did such a thing to me.
MYFN doesn't mention Frankly by name but..an "American Groupie"?? Make your
own minds up good people!
>
> THE LIE: She makes ridiculous claims about Beatle songs being
> written either about her,
Yes Hey Jude? Didn't you say that Hey Jude was about you at some point?
or for her,
Well you claimed that Old Brown Shoe was *for*you didn't you? All utter
Bull.
and it's just crap to gain
> her
> even more kudos so the YO spin works even better.
Well that's my theory anyway, I have no other explanation.
>
> TRUTH: I do not work for Yoko Ono nor do I make claims in order
> to gain "kudos".
Mmmmm "Gifts" eh?
Read the book I wrote and judge for yourself.
Read it done it been there bought the t-shirt.
> Also, on my website I have reprinted a recent reader's comment
> (from Amazon.com) about Hey Jude. Check that.
No thankyou. That Web site is very odd actually, what's with the picture of
your legs?Why do you go an and on about Paul McCartney when you split up
with him 32 years ago? It's a bit weird...bit sad in fact.
>
> THE LIE: She has a high numbered White Album. If she was such
> big mates with YO, how come she had to go down the local Mall
> and fork out for the LP like everybody else.
But you have got a high numbered WA!
>
> TRUTH: I left England August 28, 1968. The White Album wasn't
> finished. And this too, has nothing to do with Yoko Ono.
I thought YO was your bezzy mate? Wasn't YO JLs girlfriend. In fact isn't YO
like on the WA?
>
> THE LIE: She looks like Andy Warhol but all the American's think
> she looks like Barbara Bush. She threatens to leave every five
> minutes or so, but never does, hence the old credibility factor
> is bloody shaky.
Well you've done this twice since the start of the year.
>
> TRUTH: A few people made a joke about my appearance in an E
> Entertainment TV special on Beatle wives and girlfriends. It
> aired
> February 14, 1999 in the US and in June in the UK. It has been
> pointed out to me by a long-standing regular poster here that it
> was
> my hair (which is snow white, and has been so since my forties)
> that reminded them of Barbara Bush). Check the Annie Liebovitz
> picture of me on my home page. Then click on the image and see
> what I look like today.
So what's different to what I just said?
>
> Danny would like you to think that I "threaten" to leave the
> newsgroup every five minutes.
But you do!
With rude creeps like him saying
> these
> sorts of things about me, would you blame me if I did?
Ah here we go..I sense another "I'm leaving groove"..here we go round the
mulberry Barabara,
Danny
John Whelan
"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Body Count was a counterculture book (Rolling Stone published
> it), and as a matter of fact received rave reviews in the Village
> Voice and "W" (formerly WWD).
Then, my dear, by all counts the book isn't widely
regarded by historians, was it? As you're suggesting.
My point is, Francie, is that you tend to over inflate
your position, right? Of course you do, dear. Absolutely!
You wouldn't have it any other way here except that if the
New York Times or the New York Post had written a
review for you, you'd be correct in stating that "Body
Count" as being accepted by scholars and as primary
source of bibliographers. Two reviews doesn't make
the grade. If the book were accepted and reviewed
on an "international basis" from a large variety of
newpapers from the world over, then I'd say you're
definitely up there with your "Body Count" amongst
Coleman's "John Lennon" and Lewisohn's "Day By Day".
But this didn't happen. In fact, if I recall on a thread
somewhere here on Rmb, someone mentioned the
book didn't sell too well, which probably explains why
the book didn't get the "international coverage" you
expected. So, for you to boast about book as a "primary
source" for bibliographers is just your inflated ego
babling on...therefore, this is one Beatle fan who takes
what you say at times, with just a "pinch of salt". You
have a "self-serving bias" that interfers with your
objectivity on discussing the Beatles and for that matter,
Yoko Ono.
> It wasn't trashy enough to make
> the bestseller list,
Maybe this is why Beatle "bibliographers" don't refer to
your book as you just claimed it did in your previous
post. Seems likely and a pragmatic reason to me. ;-)
By the way, the Bible is still the number #1 selling book.
No trash written there, it sells because it is still widely
regarded by readers from around the globe. :-) So what's
your "real excuse" for "Body Count" not selling as big as
you thought it was going to do?
> If you don't like what I have to say, then you might as well
> killfile me, too. I won't miss your twenty-five cent
> psychoanalysis.
So why did you respond back to me? <g>
Regards,
John in Canada
thewalruswasDanny
remember it was because I didn't speak out publically against another
poster. That was it. Dear Trish. She who fires cannons in a storm and shoots
the captain of her own ship. I remember now.
> Francie, to coin a cliche, if Danny didn't exist, you'd have to invent
him.
Invent me! Like a light bulb.
All
> you are doing is giving his posts free publicity and raising their scant
> profile.
Scant profile, how hurtful! Isn't "scant" when people find something sexual
in faeces?
>
> I'd be in favor of never seeing another post about Body Count or your
personal
> relationship with Paul or anyone else connected to the Beatles, and I'm
sure
> that would eventually silence Danny and the rest.
Well no it wouldn't Trisha babe. I post about loads of fabaroonie topics not
just the Frankly Warts show. Would you like me to proove it to you?
Danny
Geek Of Araby
A look at some of the trashy books on the New York Times Nonfiction bestseller
list:
The Art of Happiness by the Dali Lama.
Adventures in Fatherhood by Al Roker (weatherman)
Duty : A Father, His Son, and the Man Who Won the War
by Bob Greene (about WWII, I think)
Flags Of Our Father - (about WWII, I'm sure)
The Greatest Generation by Tom Brokaw (WWII again)
In a Sunburned Country -( about living in the outback of australia.)
A Payne Stewart biography.
They have to sell most of those wrapped in brown paper, I bet.
>And wow,
>you
>chose two books that didn't refer to it. Aren't you proud of
>yourself.
I've been following the Beatles pretty close for about seven or eight years.
Subscribed to Beatlefan, BeatlefanXtra and GoodDay Sunshine for a long time. I
have a whole bookshelf of Beatle books.
Before you started posting here, I never heard of you.
fabella
>
>
>I've been following the Beatles pretty close for about seven
or eight years.
>Subscribed to Beatlefan, BeatlefanXtra and GoodDay Sunshine for
a long time. I
>have a whole bookshelf of Beatle books.
>
>Before you started posting here, I never heard of you.
>
>
Then I guess you haven't been reading Beatlefan, because Rob
Fontenot (about.com's Beatle Correspondent) did an interview with
me that was printed in Beatlefan in May of 1999. Plus I've had
three more articles printed in that magazine. One of them
appeared in the July, 1999 issue. I didn't start posting here
until November.
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
cranky
fabella <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Then I guess you haven't been reading Beatlefan, > because Rob Fontenot (about.com's Beatle > Correspondent) did an interview with me that was > printed in Beatlefan in May of 1999. Plus I've had
> three more articles printed in that magazine. One of > them appeared in the July, 1999 issue. I didn't > start posting here until November.
Aren't you just the master of contradictions.
You tell us that rmb is a feeble minded habitat which nobody takes notice of and then you point to your authoritative stamp on your place in Beatles history by pointing to a couple of interviews in a fanzine, which by its very nature, has a limited circulation.
Also, no disrespect to Rob Fontenot but he isn't the judge of what the masses interpret as what is essential
Beatles fodder, anymore than say, Bob Stahley.
I would never consider you anymore to the Beatles story than a mere footnote, and the casual fan and public at large are blissfully ignorant of you, no matter what Beatlefan has to say about it.
thewalruswasDanny
Oh I had. I always thought of her as a Macca hiccough...and there was those
pics in the Beatles Book, which must've been brave of Johnny Dean at the
time (I wonder why Johnny Dean never shows up in here?). I did know about
Body Count too, but that was always seen as a crappy kind of expose type
thing, especially as the News of the World ran the story. News of the world
is a tabloid British newspaper which is like the Sunday version of the Sun
(and mentioned in Polythene Pam). It's a bit like your National
Enquirer..but with a lot more tits. All this talk of me being sexist and
stuff by Frankly is really funny, I mean I haven't lapped up funds from the
news of the world!.I also haven't had pieces printed in Penthouse!..still
there you go..
I always thought of her as one of those Kiss and Tell type folk, like ex
girlfriends of Rod Stewart, that crop up in the NOTW telling the universe
how big a knob he's got and how many times he can fuck a night. Whilst Body
Count isn't quite like that I'd interested to read the NOTW story. The fact
that Macca has been completely silent about her, and I mean completely
silent, just (IMO) confirms what he thinks of her. In fact who can blame
him, if one of my exes made money out of a relationship I'd had with em, I'd
be pretty pissed off too.
Oh I wonder. Franks am I still a cute little Newbie?
Danny
fabella
For your information, I did not sell any part of my book to
NOTW. They ripped it off directly from my book without
permission and
without compensation, just as Chet Flippo did in 1988, and just
as the tabloid CANDID PRESS did in 1972. Glad you brought that
up.
I've been meaning to tell Paul about that.
Lord Tim Brent
>that Macca has been completely silent about her, and I mean completely
>silent, just (IMO) confirms what he thinks of her. In fact who can blame
>him, if one of my exes made money out of a relationship I'd had with em, I'd
>be pretty pissed off too.
>
Paul appearantly doesn't talk about his old girlfriends.
Tim
-----------------
Duchy Of Grand Fenwick
The Church Beatle will now pass among you
No foreign coins,please.
fabella
PS If I had written a book about my relationship with Paul for
the money, I would have put a helluva lot more than 16 pages into
the 120 pages. I'm neither rich nor famous, and very glad of it.
The chief rewards of BC have been hundreds of letters and emails
from readers plus the knowledge that in the 70's, the book was
used as part of a Modern Literature course in several liberal
arts
colleges. I think it's indicative of the general atmosphere
around here that I am flamed for "trashing" Paul, while Fred
gets away
with the most heinous accusations against John (for
Goldman/Giuliano). People like the flamers are suckers for
sleaze, they want to
believe the worst about people, so they make writers like G&G
rich. Fortunately, I don't have the same definition of success
as these
losers.
The wicked work harder to preach hell than the righteous do to
get to heaven.
~ American Proverb ~
Francie
More than 100 hits on the homepage today alone!
Six days til shutdown...
thewalruswasDanny
> "Jim, do you really find character assassination and sexist
> humor funny?"
Penthouse Frankly Penthouse.
> I've watched you two go back and forth for awhile now and tho I
> wouldn't expect you two to be exchanging Valentines soon I
> haven't seen Danny be malicious to you.
She may call my wordplayingness Malicious I suppose. I just think it's a
larf. Oh Mother life it's the only thing we got!
There's a sense of fun
> about it. I can't recall seeing an angry post from him...to
> anyone. I don't think he would wish you harm or ill health.
Not at all. I wish her good health in fact. You are right James, verily
verily.
>
> You two have a kind of history now between you, one that you'll
> probably never forget! Someday you may run into him and have a
> good laff!(unlikely tho)
Yes unlikely.
>
> Danny is a funny guy. I've seen others go after you with cruelty
> that has made me cringe and want to step in, but not
> Danny...he's a good hearted bloke as far as I can tell.
Cheers Jim. I appreciate the supportivenessness...I am merely human and
sometimes I like to be stroked. Like a gerbil. Grape anyone?
Danny
thewalruswasDanny
> You tell us that rmb is a feeble minded habitat which nobody takes notice
of and then you point to your authoritative stamp on your place in Beatles
history by pointing to a couple of interviews in a fanzine, which by its
very nature, has a limited circulation.
>
> Also, no disrespect to Rob Fontenot but he isn't the judge of what the
masses interpret as what is essential
> Beatles fodder, anymore than say, Bob Stahley.
> I would never consider you anymore to the Beatles story than a mere
footnote, and the casual fan and public at large are blissfully ignorant of
you, no matter what Beatlefan has to say about it.
Hey Cranks I thought you were supposed to be me!
Danny
cranky
thewalruswasDanny <wal...@myisp.co.uk> wrote:
> Hey Cranks I thought you were supposed to be me!
In that case I feel a song coming on, at the risk of
Fabellian damnation, 1- 2 -3- 4,
*SINGS* Frankly Warts Frankly Warts is not in this
bit. :) :) :) :) :) :)
Mr Mustard
Let's not get carried away there...
Jim
Pigeon
>up.
>I've been meaning to tell Paul about that.
yeah? wait on line :)
alley.
robertandrews
news:8mmnu3$d81$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>By the way, the Bible is still the number #1 selling book.
I got mine for free, & personally signed by R. Raccoon.
>No trash written there, it sells because it is still widely regarded by
readers from around the globe. :-)
Are these the same people who buy Sidney Sheldon, Jackie Collins, etc.?
It's blasphemy to use public opinion to prove the trashiness of the Bible
(Leviticus CH 909 VERSE 9).
Frank Booth
school book-fair.
DavisK
eve plumb wrote in message <8mm8pc$16...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>And don't forget as a comedian, in all seriousness, who's giving 110% up
here!
><g>
>
>Good lord, where is Bobby Bittman when you need him?
>
Howah ya!!?!! Heh Heh Heh!
jweb
> Sure, she takes EVERY
> opportunity (and then some) to promote her writings and her place (if there is
> one) in Beatle history
But self-promotion on usenet is WRONG!
Listen to my acid-drenched techno version of "Helter Skelter"
http://www.driveway.com/share?sid=ff2ec090.9eb46&name=Personal
>Read a few
>dozen posts and one knows exactly where she's coming from.... but what's wrong
with that, I'd like to know?
Cuz here I go agaaaaaaaaain!!!
Listen to my acid-drenched techno version of "Helter Skelter"
http://www.driveway.com/share?sid=ff2ec090.9eb46&name=Personal
D 28IF
> I think it's indicative of the general atmosphere
>around here that I am flamed for "trashing" Paul, while Fred
>gets away
>with the most heinous accusations against John (for
>Goldman/Giuliano). People like the flamers are suckers for
>sleaze, they want to
>believe the worst about people, so they make writers like G&G
>rich. Fortunately, I don't have the same definition of success
>as these
>losers.
If "flamers are suckers for sleaze," why wouldn't your stories be accepted just
as much as you think Fred's are? Seems a contradiction you're stating - you
write about Paul and are attacked for making him look bad. Fred write about
John and because it's sleaze the flamers here like what he writes. Doesn't add
up.
Lord Tim Brent
>If "flamers are suckers for sleaze," why wouldn't your stories be accepted just
>as much as you think Fred's are? Seems a contradiction you're stating - you
>write about Paul and are attacked for making him look bad. Fred write about
>John and because it's sleaze the flamers here like what he writes. Doesn't add
>up.
It adds up-because Fred attacks Yoko and knows he has an audience here
for trashing Yoko on the misconception that she broke up the Beatles.
People need a scapegoat and Yoko is it--therefore Fredd(who is sleaze
IMO) gets a lot of support.Plus all who support the rest of the
anti-Yoko crap in the Truth Commision.
Shobus
>giggle and remind myself that the book is *120 pages long*
>GB (never mind that no one bothered to keep this "resource" in print
>for years and years...)
I have not read Body Count, so I can't vouch for the quality - but why not
actually talk about the merits of the book when insulting its quality? You
have never read a great piece of literature that is less than 120 pages? Does
a work's length signify some measure of quality? Are only great/good works in
print and all of the trash is not in print?
-Shobus
Shobus
>from readers plus the knowledge that in the 70's, the book was
>used as part of a Modern Literature course in several liberal
>arts
>colleges.
>around here that I am flamed for "trashing" Paul, while Fred
>gets away
>with the most heinous accusations against John (for
>Goldman/Giuliano).
I think it is that so many just can't believe that one with your level of
knowledge would come to RMB just to share and not to have some evil, hidden
agenda. Heaven forbid that you should be positive about your experiences and
not stoop to spewing forth the trash and hatred that is so common in this
newsgroup.
-Shobus
D 28IF
>>If "flamers are suckers for sleaze," why wouldn't your stories be accepted
>just
>>as much as you think Fred's are? Seems a contradiction you're stating - you
>>write about Paul and are attacked for making him look bad. Fred write about
>>John and because it's sleaze the flamers here like what he writes. Doesn't
>add
>>up.
>
>It adds up-because Fred attacks Yoko and knows he has an audience here
>for trashing Yoko on the misconception that she broke up the Beatles.
>People need a scapegoat and Yoko is it--therefore Fredd(who is sleaze
>IMO) gets a lot of support.Plus all who support the rest of the
>anti-Yoko crap in the Truth Commision.
>
>Tim
Still doesn't make sense. If they're truly flamers, why wouldn't they be just
as happy with Paul sleaze as they are with John sleaze?
D 28IF
>I think it is that so many just can't believe that one with your level of
>knowledge would come to RMB just to share and not to have some evil, hidden
>agenda. Heaven forbid that you should be positive about your experiences and
>not stoop to spewing forth the trash and hatred that is so common in this
>newsgroup.
>-Shobus
>
>
And have you truly read all the posts Francie has made to this ng?
While she has definitely written some very informative posts, I dare say
they're outnumbered by those many could find as negative as those you say you
dislike.
Shobus
>
>While she has definitely written some very informative posts, I dare say
>they're outnumbered by those many could find as negative as those you say you
>dislike.
I don't read all the posts of any author - far from it. I only read a small
number of the posts on this ng (who could read all of those personal attacks
and still function in a civilized society?!) I can't comment on all her posts
- but she stays positive about this ng and her role in Beatles history. She
doesn't stoop to the levels of some others, and I find her to be a welcome
addition to this ng, unlike some others...
-Shobus
D 28IF
> I can't comment on all her posts
>- but she stays positive about this ng and her role in Beatles history. She
>doesn't stoop to the levels of some others, and I find her to be a welcome
>addition to this ng, unlike some others...
>-Shobus
>
>
I guess that's all a matter of opinion, then.
Pigeon
>doesn't stoop to the levels of some others, and I find her to be a welcome
you have to read more often, Shobus.
alley.
Ehtue
I don't see why one can't siphon the good from the bad. Sure, she takes EVERY
opportunity (and then some) to promote her writings and her place (if there is
one) in Beatle history (or histronics), but I enjoy her viewpoint. Read a few
dozen posts and one knows exactly where she's coming from.... but what's wrong
with that, I'd like to know?
-Ehtue
Ehtue
>> Sure, she takes EVERY
>> opportunity (and then some) to promote her writings and her place (if there
>is one) in Beatle history
>
>Listen to my acid-drenched techno version of "Helter Skelter"
>http://www.driveway.com/share?sid=ff2ec090.9eb46&name=Personal
Heh. Okay, I'll shut up.
-Ehtue
Geek Of Araby
>Paul appearantly doesn't talk about his old girlfriends.
Must have mentioned her quite a bit when he was interviewed by Miles for "Many
Years From Now". It's Paul's story "in Paul's words". And a lot of those words
were about her and her family.
More than there probably should have been, I think.
Pigeon
>dozen posts and one knows exactly where she's coming from.... but what's
>wrong
>with that, I'd like to know?
i think she does "stoop to the levels" of others, unlike what Shobus thinks.
and i voiced my opinion. not many people in this group treat people as badly as
Francie does.
alley.
John Whelan
news:20000807223029...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
Dear Shobus,
First off, the book did not sell very well. Period. Nor did
the book get rave reviews from book critics from around
the world. The book, from what I can determine in my
own collection of Beatle books, was not used by so-called
"bibliographers" as she claims -- none that I can find in my
personal collection nor can I find any direct reference to
"Body Count" with the recent Beatle books I borrowed at
the Library for a project I am currently working on. Not one
mention of Francie's book -- and I borrowed seven books.
The hallmark, if you will, as Gondola Bob so eloquently
pointed out, of an "excellent book", is keeping it in print,
year after year. Literally. Especially in this case where
we have an author here at Rmb who claims her book
is respected and used by bibliographers. But "Body
Count" did not sell well to begin with and so, as you can
see, Francie's comments is nothing more than "bullshit".
She tends to exaggerate greatly, her position and
importance with that book. Hence, take her comments
with a "pinch of salt."
The other point that I will make through this thread is
this: When you read the following comment from Francie,
this confirms how "bloody pompous" she is:
> Thank you for sharing, Trish. Unfortunately for you, Body Count
> has been accepted by Beatle scholars, and thousands of fans, as
> an important primary source on the period, and is mentioned in
> most of the better bibliographies in the field. (SNIP!)
This comment above is something you would normally
expect to find in a business letter written by an author
used mainly to identify "who they are" and "what they write
about" to an organization or company. I actually have
one such correspondence from Kristopher Englehardt
who wrote to an organization who clearly does this. Now,
believe me, Rmb has more than enough threads presented
from Francie on an on-going basis that it wouldn't take
long for a person to figure out who she is. But her reply
was the usual "smart-ass pompous response." Over the
five years I've been posting at Rmb, I've seen Allan Kozinn
from the New York Times write passionately about the
Beatles. And to Allan's credit, NOT ONCE, mind you,
NOT ONCE did Allan ever turn around during a
disagreement and claim he was superior because he
wrote a book on the Beatles which was widely "revered
by bibliographers" and therefore we should respect
for that reason. At least Allan kept his ego in check;
Francie does not. Her ego oozes with pomposity and
her overall importance she states about her book, is
greatly exaggerated.
Please check out some of the back indexes your own
Beatle books and see where the published author
credits Francie's book "Body Count" as a primary source
of research for their book. ;-)
Regards,
John Whelan
> Thank you for sharing, Trish. Unfortunately for you, Body Count
> has been accepted by Beatle scholars, and thousands of fans, as
> an important primary source on the period, and is mentioned in
> most of the better bibliographies in the field. (SNIP!)
robertandrews
>The hallmark, if you will, as Gondola Bob so eloquently pointed out, of an
"excellent book", is keeping it in print, year after year. Literally.
Excellent writing should not be judged on popularity alone -- it is merely
one reference, & often a highly inaccurate one. Should Shakespeare go out
of print, dare I say that some intelligent people will still extol the
merits of Hamlet & Lear. To convince me that "Body Count" is shoddy
writing, you'd have to explain why. It doesn't matter what Francie says, or
even the opinion of other Beatle biographers. I'm curious to know your
specific critiques.
If there's only one chapter on Paul, I'm not surprised Beatles fans have
overlooked the book. I'm more interested in the other chapters, & the way
she's expressed herself. Did the book move you? Did it provoke thought?
Was it nicely written, and why? What did you like, & what did you find
displeasing?
From the two or three celebrity bios I've read, I can produce detailed
answers to the above questions without referring to the NY Times Bestseller
list. Similarly, I can offer my critiques of the Beatles music without
referring to Billboard, or tell you why I dislike The Bible, Part Two even
though it's the most reprinted book in history. If I were interested in
Francie's affair with Paul (and other activities) I'd simply read the book
for myself.
I eagerly await a proper review of "Body Count."
jweb
> The hallmark, if you will, as Gondola Bob so eloquently
> pointed out, of an "excellent book", is keeping it in print,
> year after year.
Then how do you explain Lewisohn's "Beatles Recording Sessions" being
out of print?
--
John W. - Listen to my acid-drenched techno version of "Helter Skelter"
http://www.driveway.com/share?sid=ff2ec090.9eb46&name=Personal
fabella
"Catcher in the Rye" didn't sell very well when it came out. It
was a "cult" book like BC. In the first two years after
publication, BC
sold more than 80,000 copies and was purchased for more than 50
college and university libraries. A first edition is on offer in
the
UK for more than 100 pounds right now.
Whelan is correct, the Straight Arrow edition only sold about
8,000 copies (at $3 retail) - but the mass market edition sold
70,000.
Not bad for a book with minimal advertising, from an independent
publisher with very little clout.
In 1972, the trade paperback (perfect bound 5 1/2 x 8 inches)
was brand new, and Rolling Stone/Straight Arrow was an
independent "upstart" publisher of counterculture books - the
only "commercial" author on board was Hunter S. Thompson, who
published his hardcover classics under the Random House name.
Today the trade paperback is the meat and potatoes of the
book business (Lewisohn's reissue is an oversized trade
paperback). Back then, bookstores rarely had display shelves
sized for it.
For twenty years, that first edition was passed around, traded
as a Beatle memorabilia item, and I had no clue. Not until my
cousin sent me an ad from Beatlefan with a picture of the book
and a $60 price tag did I realize what had happened because I
stopped buying the Beatle books after SHOUT and TLYM. I was sick
about the way I'd been "footnoted" by sloppy 'historians' like
Peter Brown and Phil Norman and even sicker about the
plagiarists. Of course many books failed to credit me as a
source - even if
they used it (and there were plenty of those) freely. Writers
like these hate to be exposed. The copyright was violated by
tabloids
internationally and I was never compensated. That didn't bother
me because I didn't write it for "big money" or fame and
certainly
not to try to make myself look important in Beatle history! What
a joke.
I just wanted to be a writer, that's all -- because John Lennon
told me so many times that his work was his only justification
for
BEING. He told me and I understood - that if you want to do
something in life badly enough, you CAN.
I wrote BC because I had to. There was no choice in the matter,
and no "plan" to overthrow the Beatle history establishment.
But things do change. Right now Random House is starting up a
whole new division of digital books printed on demand exactly the
same way BC was in 1999, before the publishing world realized
that such a process could work.
Publishing is one of the toughest businesses on earth. But if
one learns it by doing, and takes chances, sometimes it brings
small
miracles.
Once again, I started over with a goal - to make BC available to
anyone who wanted it, with a decent price and faithful
reproduction of the first edition with the Annie Liebovitz photo
on the cover. Annie had no problem with it, for which I am
grateful
beyond words. Amazon sold the bulk of the books, because the
publisher had a lousy web site and little expertise in publicity
and
advertising. When I discovered that the publisher was skimming
off top of the proceeds, I didn't sign up for another quantity
and I
discovered that the printer was going to charge me approximately
$20 per book to print it for me, I bailed.
All this had the surprising effect of making BC a rarity
again... so it became more valuable as memorabilia and more
widely
recognized by folks like Mark Lewisohn, Westwood One, E! TV, and
most importantly, Beatle webmasters like Steve Marinucci and
Rob Fontenot put permanent links on their sites to the
interviews they did with me.
I'm still not rich (that wasn't the goal in the first place) and
I'm still not famous (neither was that) but I love what I do, my
family and
friends are proud -- and I know John Lennon was right. Life
isn't worth living unless you get to do what you love. And I
like that little
book, which stands up pretty damn well after 30 years as a
document of social history, a woman's trip through the 60's
without
embellishment and straight from the heart.
I don't mind being accused of self-promotion - in the 21st
Century that's the name of the game - anyone who thinks otherwise
needs a wakeup call. I don't mind not being a commercial success
because I care much more about being a successful human
being... one who's not beholden to anyone in my own works - and
who is free to live the way I dreamed of it in 1968 - as a writer
with a small crowd of appreciative readers. I'll take them where
I can get them -- even here in the largely hostile atmosphere of
Usenet.
If Whelan finds that pompous, so be it.
It's just the awful truth, to coin a phrase.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
Bungalow Bill
>but why not
>actually talk about the merits of the book when insulting its
>quality? You
>have never read a great piece of literature that is less than
>120 pages? Does
>a work's length signify some measure of quality? Are only
>great/good works in
Shobus, you should read the book then. I openly admit to have
only read the Chapter 8 portion that is specifically about the
Beatles. Though a moderately interesting book I would hardly
consider it literature or important Beatle reading. I think
Francie has a talent for prose when it's not the poison pen.
The book is a very quick read.
>Unfortunately for you, Body Count has been accepted by Beatle
>scholars, and thousands of fans, as an important primary source
>on the period, and is mentioned in most of the better
>bibliographies in the field. (SNIP!)
*LOL*
You've got to be kidding me. Name ONE...sorry...everyone can
name ONE. Name TWO! I have seen Francie's name referenced in
one or two books I've read. I have never seen her book
referenced. I wouldn't consider it to be this "cult" book she
claims it is. Comparable with Catcher in the Rye? I think we
need to get over ourselves here. It's not even really about the
Beatles, it's about her. I have no idea why this would be
considered important reading for Beatle fans, but who knows?
As far as footnotes, here's what I've come across. Lewisohn
mentions her briefly in Chronicle. I think it's a hand written
note from Paul giving a breakdown of Apple. No mention of Body
Count though. Goldman mentions Francie as the person that Jane
Asher caught Paul in bed with. Whether that's true I don't
know, but that's the only point she's mentioned in that book.
Other then that...?
Tim Brent mentioned that Paul didn't discuss his ex-
girlfriends. Not true Tim. He spoke of Jane Asher quite often
and flatteringly in Many Years From Now as well as in some
interviews. I think he didn't speak of all girls that he
saw...no. Would you? Why would you discuss someone you saw for
a short period of time? The only place I have seen of all the
intimate stories that are told about Francie and the Beatles is
right here at RMB. I've not read it anywhere else. I'm not
saying it's not true, it's just not documented, except in Body
Count. I would be interested to find out where else it IS
documented and not by someone who interviewed Francie.
Hey...by the way...I'd appreciate it Francie that if you want to
respond to me. Do it by post, not by e-mail. You're the one
that mentioned nettiquette. It's bad nettiquette to send
unsolicited e-mails. I'd like to be deleted from your list. I
don't want em!
ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
fabella
your head about that. And I haven't sent you any postcards. If
you
received anything on that order with my name on it, they were
sent by imposters.
As for Catcher in the Rye, I used that as an example of a cult
book that was not commercially successful in its first few years.
Obviously it's fiction (and short fiction at that). You're so
ready to diss me because you assume I'm comparing myself to
Salinger as
a writer. Simple logic will show that in order to choose an
exemplar that readers will recognize, it's necessary to pick a
book with
similar problems. At the time of its publication, the "language"
of Holden Caulfield was considered "Bad" language, a bad
example for young people - that's another similarity. Caulfield
was obsessive about "phonies" - another similarity. Salinger is
known
to most people as a writer of VERY short novels, novellas and
short stories... and the longer he lives, the less he writes. He
has also
been exposed by one of his young lovers, a fan who he lived with
for less than a year, and who he discarded when he had gotten
from her what he wanted. You might look into it. Joyce Maynard
is her name. She has a website, too. Should she be castigated for
telling her story? I don't think so.
It's interesting to me that you are so offended by my use of one
comparison.
Yesterday Donz posted excerpts from three books with references
to me. I could list many more books, on all levels of Beatle lit,
which not only reference me as a person, but which mention Body
Count. But I don't need to. All that I want to say right now is
that
in my definition of "literature" one of the criteria is
longevity. Body Count continues to be read by two generations of
young people,
and most of them are not because of the Beatle chapter, which
you yourself admit, is all you know of the book. When it was
first
published I received over a hundred letters from readers, 90%
positive. NOT ONE reader mentioned the Beatles or McCartney. That
told me something. And you yourself stated that the book is not
about Paul or the other Beatles - it's an autobiography, the
story of
my youth, coming of age in 1965 in America in L.A. and New York.
It really doesn't matter to any real writer whether a
prestigious label is applied to his or her work - as long as
people keep reading
it decade after decade. And if self-appointed Beatle historians
use that one chapter, whether they have permission or not,
whether
they credit me with "breaking the story" of the "hate note" or
not, I know what I wrote and why I wrote it, and I don't need
them to
admit that they dismissed the book as "tell-all" or "groupie"
lit. As time goes by, and there is some measure of objectivity
about the
Sixties and the Beatles, I feel certain that I will be
recognized. Mark Lewisohn doesn't need to add me into "Sessions"
and he wasn't
writing about the personal stories. It's enough for me that he
sought me out last year and considers me a primary source on the
pivotal summer in Beatles history. It's more than enough for me
that he published Paul's note placing me in the Publicity
department... in fact, I prefer that to the speculative and
grossly inaccurate paragraph summations in the books that have
been
quoted here.
If you read Ian Hammond's review of the book, you might have a
better idea of its place in the Big Beatle Picture.
If you bother to read the rest of the book, you might make an
informed decision for yourself about its value as social history.
As Paul used to say, "I don't mind."
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bungalow Bill
>your head about that. And I haven't sent you any postcards. If
>you
>received anything on that order with my name on it, they were
>sent by imposters.
OK...good. I'm feeling better already.
>As for Catcher in the Rye, I used that as an example of a cult
>book that was not commercially successful in its first few
>years.
>Obviously it's fiction (and short fiction at that). You're so
>ready to diss me because you assume I'm comparing myself to
>Salinger as
>a writer.
I'm not dissing you at all. I found the comparison humurous.
>Simple logic will show that in order to choose an
>exemplar that readers will recognize, it's necessary to pick a
>book with
>similar problems. At the time of its publication, the "language"
>of Holden Caulfield was considered "Bad" language, a bad
>example for young people - that's another similarity. Caulfield
>was obsessive about "phonies" - another similarity. Salinger is
>known
>to most people as a writer of VERY short novels, novellas and
>short stories... and the longer he lives, the less he writes. He
>has also
>been exposed by one of his young lovers, a fan who he lived with
>for less than a year, and who he discarded when he had gotten
>from her what he wanted. You might look into it. Joyce Maynard
>is her name. She has a website, too. Should she be castigated
>for
>telling her story? I don't think so.
I think those types of stories or nothing but crap. They are
nothing but stories to generate publicity and they cannot be
proven. I see your point about language though. That
comparison I don't necessarily disagree with. I said that the
book was a quick read and interesting.
>It's interesting to me that you are so offended by my use of one
>comparison.
Offended? I'm not offended. Did I say I was offended?
>Yesterday Donz posted excerpts from three books with references
>to me.
What books? Who's Donz?
>I could list many more books, on all levels of Beatle lit,
>which not only reference me as a person, but which mention Body
>Count.
List away!
>But I don't need to.
So let me get this straight...we claim and when asked to back up
what we say...we say...I don't need to. I'd be interested to
see what those books are.
>All that I want to say right now is
>that
>in my definition of "literature" one of the criteria is
>longevity. Body Count continues to be read by two generations of
>young people,
It does? OK...
>and most of them are not because of the Beatle chapter, which
>you yourself admit, is all you know of the book.
That is indeed what I said...yes.
>When it was
>first
>published I received over a hundred letters from readers, 90%
>positive. NOT ONE reader mentioned the Beatles or McCartney.
Great. I would bet you that is the ONLY problem that I would
have with the book, but I don't have the book. I had the
chapter...that's all.
>That
>told me something. And you yourself stated that the book is not
>about Paul or the other Beatles - it's an autobiography, the
>story of
>my youth, coming of age in 1965 in America in L.A. and New York.
Right. So why claim it's integral Beatle reading. It isn't.
Why tout that's it's referenced by all good Beatle bios? It
should stand on it's own and according to you...it does.
>It really doesn't matter to any real writer whether a
>prestigious label is applied to his or her work - as long as
>people keep reading
>it decade after decade.
It doesn't? Then why do you spend so much time attacking people
who question the book's importance?
>And if self-appointed Beatle historians
>use that one chapter, whether they have permission or not,
>whether
>they credit me with "breaking the story" of the "hate note" or
>not, I know what I wrote and why I wrote it, and I don't need
>them to
>admit that they dismissed the book as "tell-all" or "groupie"
>lit. As time goes by, and there is some measure of objectivity
>about the
>Sixties and the Beatles, I feel certain that I will be
>recognized.
Well...OK Francie. I'm not going to argue this point with you
because I'm not going to agree with you and vice versa. That
would be an excercise in futility. However, do you dispute the
fact that your portrayal of Paul is unflattering? Do you
dispute the fact that some of your assessments may have been
incorrect?
>Mark Lewisohn doesn't need to add me into "Sessions"
>and he wasn't
>writing about the personal stories. It's enough for me that he
>sought me out last year and considers me a primary source on the
>pivotal summer in Beatles history.
He did? Where can I get clarification of that? You say it, but
who else says it?
>It's more than enough for me
>that he published Paul's note placing me in the Publicity
>department... in fact, I prefer that to the speculative and
>grossly inaccurate paragraph summations in the books that have
>been
>quoted here.
Like what books? Quoted where?
>If you read Ian Hammond's review of the book, you might have a
>better idea of its place in the Big Beatle Picture.
Ian Hammond's review of the book is obviously biased if he
claims it is important in the Beatle picture. You have already
admitted that it's about You and not the Beatles. Your
relationship with McCartney, though obviously interesting, is
not that important in the big Beatle picture. Though you lay
claim that they wrote a few songs about you and you were
involved in recording sessions, I have yet to read that anywhere
else. You can say I'm slandering you, but I'm not. If I'm
wrong, then show me where I can find the Beatles or biographers
backing up your claims. I'm all ears! Prove what you say.
>If you bother to read the rest of the book, you might make an
>informed decision for yourself about its value as social
>history.
That has nothing to do with it's importance to the Beatles
though. That was my statement. It's value to social history??
Whatever. It's a fine book. It's portrayal of Paul was slanted
and unfair. The book's stories are interesting and the writing
is fine. I'll read the rest if I come across it someday.
>As Paul used to say, "I don't mind."
ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
UsurperTom
>He spoke of Jane Asher quite often
>and flatteringly in Many Years From Now as well as in some
>interviews.
He did in Q (1986) and Newsweek (1995).
Tom
thewalruswasDanny
It
> was a "cult" book like BC.
Compare and contrast Body Count with Catcher in the Rye. CITR is excellent,
Body Count isn't.
In the first two years after
> publication, BC
> sold more than 80,000 copies and was purchased for more than 50
> college and university libraries. A first edition is on offer in
> the
> UK for more than 100 pounds right now.
Because chapter 8 is about how you fucked Paul McCartney. No other reason
whatsoever.
>
> Whelan is correct, the Straight Arrow edition only sold about
> 8,000 copies (at $3 retail) - but the mass market edition sold
> 70,000.
> Not bad for a book with minimal advertising, from an independent
> publisher with very little clout.
Because chapter 8 is about how you fucked Paul McCartney. No other reason
whatsoever
>
> For twenty years, that first edition was passed around, traded
> as a Beatle memorabilia item, and I had no clue.
Because chapter 8 is about how you fucked Paul McCartney. No other reason
whatsoever.
Not until my
> cousin sent me an ad from Beatlefan with a picture of the book
> and a $60 price tag did I realize what had happened because I
> stopped buying the Beatle books after SHOUT and TLYM. I was sick
> about the way I'd been "footnoted" by sloppy 'historians' like
> Peter Brown and Phil Norman and even sicker about the
> plagiarists.
Sloppy Historians I thought there was some sloppy history in your own tome
wasn't there? Haven't you admitted that some of it is not quite the full
sack of potatoes.
Of course many books failed to credit me as a
> source -
Examples?
even if
> they used it (and there were plenty of those) freely.
Examples?
Writers
> like these hate to be exposed. The copyright was violated by
> tabloids
> internationally and I was never compensated.
(splutter)
That didn't bother
> me because I didn't write it for "big money" or fame and
> certainly
> not to try to make myself look important in Beatle history! What
> a joke.
(bigger splutter)...what on earth was all that nonsense about Old Brown Shoe
then?
>
> I just wanted to be a writer, that's all -- because John Lennon
> told me so many times that his work was his only justification
> for
> BEING. He told me and I understood - that if you want to do
> something in life badly enough, you CAN.
So you wrote BC because Lennon told you too?
>
> I wrote BC because I had to. There was no choice in the matter,
> and no "plan" to overthrow the Beatle history establishment.
Betcha Macca's over the moon about that!
>
> But things do change. Right now Random House is starting up a
> whole new division of digital books printed on demand exactly the
> same way BC was in 1999, before the publishing world realized
> that such a process could work.
Oh God, are we due for further self promotion from Warty.
>
> Publishing is one of the toughest businesses on earth.
Well shit shovelling is a lot worse.
>
with me.
Me me me me me me me me me me me me me. Flowing like wine..all through the
day...
Lets edit the next pazzygrafs and just leave the I's:
>
> I'm > I'm I I , my
I I
>
> I self-I I I . I'll > I
Quite funny that! Arty too eh, like YO!
>
> If Whelan finds that pompous, so be it.
>
> It's just the awful truth, to coin a phrase.
Well the last line is pompous. I called you pompous first I believe, beat ya
to it John!
Danny
thewalruswasDanny
No *all* of them save maybe your immediate family are reading your booklet
because you shagged a fab. Accept it. Live with it. It's the harsh truth.
Danny
thewalruswasDanny
> name ONE. Name TWO! I have seen Francie's name referenced in
> one or two books I've read. I have never seen her book
> referenced.
She's there, unfortunately festering in history. I can name one she's in and
spoken quite highly of too, Gilliano's Blackbird!
I thought the bit about Cather in the rye was dead funny too Bazz. A hoot.
What next War and Peace!?
Danny
saki
> As for Catcher in the Rye, I used that as an example of a cult
> book that was not commercially successful in its first few years.
Unfortunately, "Catcher in the Rye" doesn't fit the bill as a book that
was not commercially successful. Quite the opposite is true. "Catcher"
was released in July 1951, was immediately selected as a Book Of The
Month Club offering that same year, and reached number four on the New
York Times list of best sellers.
It stayed in the top ten for seven months after its publication, sharing
space with other best sellers of the time (such as James Jones' "From
Here to Eternity" and Herman Wouk's "The Caine Mutiny"). It also sparked
considerable excitement in the area of literary criticism during the
nineteen-fifties and -sixties. Remarkably, it still sells about a
quarter of a million copies per year.
Salinger was not unknown to readers of the early nineteen-fifties,
having published since 1940 in popular magazines such as The New Yorker,
Colliers, and the Saturday Evening Post. In fact, the character of
Holden (without the profanity) appeared twice previously in the New
Yorker and Colliers. Those interested may want to check out David
Remnick's collection "Wonderful Town: New York Stories from 'The New
Yorker'" (2000), which contains "A Slight Rebellion Off Madison", where
Holden exists in a much more benign form (this story has not been
previously officially anthologized).
> At the time of its publication, the "language"
> of Holden Caulfield was considered "Bad" language, a bad
> example for young people....
Correct, although the intended audience of "Catcher", at its time of
publication, included neither children nor teenagers, as was true of
Salinger's other 1950s publications. "Catcher" has the unusual
reputation of being one of the most banned books in twentieth-century
literature, yet censorship of the book didn't actually begin until the
nineteen-sixties, when it began to show up in high-school reading lists.
Both Ian Hamilton and Paul Alexander, in their works on Salinger,
investigate more fully the phonomenon of censorship that gradually grew
around "Catcher". And at that point, "Catcher" seemed to take on a more
recognizably cult, rather than mainstream, status, though its sales have
remained steady ever since.
> He has also
> been exposed by one of his young lovers, a fan who he lived with
> for less than a year, and who he discarded when he had gotten
> from her what he wanted.
It appears from Ms. Maynard's book that neither she nor Salinger got
much of what they wanted...if they knew what they wanted to begin with!
And her level of "exposure" remained at the tabloid level,
unfortunately.
One might have wished for something more insightful about Salinger's
latter-day unpublished work, which has been largely hidden from us since
his last official publication in 1965 ("Hapworth 16, 1924"). And
Salinger was first attracted to Maynard, it appears, by virtue of her
own writings; it might have been interesting to see more detail on that
as well. But their initial relationship turned passionate in a very
curious way and never ripened. Indeed, it seemed to embitter them both.
ObBeatles: It's too bad that an unfortunate circumstance involving a
madman, who egregiously misread Salinger's book, forever tainted
"Catcher" for young fans of the Beatles.
> It really doesn't matter to any real writer whether a
> prestigious label is applied to his or her work - as long as
> people keep reading it decade after decade.
That really is the crux of it, I think: the more a book appeals to
different generations, the more its message becomes timeless. That
happens best, I think, when a book reveals some universal truth that's
been otherwise hidden from the reader, and does so in a language that a
reader of any age or background can understand. It happens in music too,
and I think it's why the Fabs' music still excites the heart and mind so
profoundly.
----
"When I write my book I'll tell you all the tales I never told
before...."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jesse
For your information, I did not sell any part of my book to
NOTW. They ripped it off directly from my book without
permission and
without compensation, just as Chet Flippo did in 1988, and just
as the tabloid CANDID PRESS did in 1972. Glad you brought that
up.
I've been meaning to tell Paul about that.
What for? Do you think it would make much of a difference to him
that while you *did* write about your private relationship in a
book and *did* sell the story to RS you *did not* sell it to the
tabloids? I doubt he'd be very impressed with that kind of
ethics.....
jesse
I
stopped buying the Beatle books after SHOUT and TLYM. I was
sick
about the way I'd been "footnoted" by sloppy 'historians' like
Peter Brown and Phil Norman
But what did you expect, and what did you think was your place in
Beatle history? This is no judgment on your value as a person or
your achievments in life or whatever - but why do you think your
relatively short stay at Cavenbdish Avenue, your equally short
lived job at Apple and those few session you attended/took part
in deserve more than a passing reference? I can understand you
were not too thrilled about the characterisations in those
two books, though.
and even sicker about the
plagiarists.
Of course many books failed to credit me as a
source - even if
they used it (and there were plenty of those) freely.
And I certainly can see why you were pissed about this. And
rightly so.
robertandrews
>ObBeatles: It's too bad that an unfortunate circumstance involving a
madman, who egregiously misread Salinger's book, forever tainted "Catcher"
for young fans of the Beatles.
I never connect MDC & The Catcher in the Rye. So much of literature & the
Bible has been misused & misunderstood; this is really a very small example.
Nothing has been tainted, if anything, Salinger's message is more true to
today -- for Beatle & non-Beatle fans alike.
>That happens best, I think, when a book reveals some universal truth that's
been otherwise hidden from the reader, and does so in a language that a
reader of any age or background can understand.
I think I know what you want to say, but if the universal truth remains
hidden from the reader then nothing has been communicated. I think the
essential thing is the way it's imparted, & if people are moved by the
sentiment & ultimately believe it. Genius sometimes goes unnoticed until
future generations can accept the ideas, or the way they are told. There
are also different levels of meaning & truth.
fabella
>
>
>>Mark Lewisohn doesn't need to add me into "Sessions"
>>and he wasn't
>>writing about the personal stories. It's enough for me that he
>>sought me out last year and considers me a primary source on
the
>>pivotal summer in Beatles history.
>
>He did? Where can I get clarification of that? You say it, but
>who else says it?
>
OK, you asked for it. Ask Fred Lindgren, writer-producer of
Westwood One's "The Beatle Years". Beat...@aol.com is his addy.
Mark Lewisohn is the consultant to the show.
>>It's more than enough for me
>>that he published Paul's note placing me in the Publicity
>>department... in fact, I prefer that to the speculative and
>>grossly inaccurate paragraph summations in the books that have
>>been
>>quoted here.
>
>Like what books? Quoted where?
>
In rmb under one of these Francie threads. "SHOUT!" and "THE
LOVE YOU MAKE" and "UTIMATE BEATLES ENCYCLOPEDIA"
>>If you read Ian Hammond's review of the book, you might have a
>>better idea of its place in the Big Beatle Picture.
>
>Ian Hammond's review of the book is obviously biased if he
>claims it is important in the Beatle picture.
>
>
I suggest you read the entire review before you decide whether
Ian is biased.
As for the "accuracy" of what I wrote about Paul, the
perceptions were personal. There's no empirical proof. WYSIWYG.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
fabella
>fabella wrote:
>
>> As for Catcher in the Rye, I used that as an example of a cult
>> book that was not commercially successful in its first few
years.
>
>Unfortunately, "Catcher in the Rye" doesn't fit the bill as a
book that
>was not commercially successful. Quite the opposite is true.
"Catcher"
>was released in July 1951, was immediately selected as a Book
Of The
>Month Club offering that same year, and reached number four on
the New
>York Times list of best sellers.
>
You forgot to mention that it went out of print for quite a
while. And in 1951, the NYTimes Bestseller List was much more
influenced
by the critical reception it received (in the NYTimes!).
Compared to the standards for today's "blockbusters", CITR was
not a
commercial success. The 50's were, well, a different planet.
>.
>
>> At the time of its publication, the "language"
>> of Holden Caulfield was considered "Bad" language, a bad
>> example for young people....
>
>Correct, although the intended audience of "Catcher", at its
time of
>publication, included neither children nor teenagers, as was
true of
>Salinger's other 1950s publications. "Catcher" has the unusual
>reputation of being one of the most banned books in
twentieth-century
>literature, yet censorship of the book didn't actually begin
until the
>nineteen-sixties, when it began to show up in high-school
reading lists.
>
Ah, yes, the period to which I was referring, when the book had
elements of rebellion in it which appealed to my own generation
of
drug-crazed antisocial hippies <g>. Now you've brought this all
the way up to thirty-plus years ago when it really got to be
quite
popular.
>
>> He has also
>> been exposed by one of his young lovers, a fan who he lived
with
>> for less than a year, and who he discarded when he had gotten
>> from her what he wanted.
>
>It appears from Ms. Maynard's book that neither she nor
Salinger got
>much of what they wanted...if they knew what they wanted to
begin with!
>And her level of "exposure" remained at the tabloid level,
>unfortunately.
Hardly! She was on the cover of the Sunday New York Times
Magazine -- unless you think that's a tabloid.
>
>One might have wished for something more insightful about
Salinger's
>latter-day unpublished work, which has been largely hidden from
us since
>his last official publication in 1965 ("Hapworth 16, 1924"). And
>Salinger was first attracted to Maynard, it appears, by virtue
of her
>own writings;
LOL! She wrote to him and he treated her the way he seems to
have treated all his groupies. Under the guise of "helping" her,
he
drew her into his private web. I'm a lot more sympathetic toward
Maynard than you are. Remember the Beatles promised to help
unknown artists and writers and filmmakers. I brought a
script/treatment to Paul. The rest is of no interest to you, I
know.
it might have been interesting to see more detail on that
>as well. But their initial relationship turned passionate in a
very
>curious way and never ripened. Indeed, it seemed to embitter
them both.
>
Another similarity?
>ObBeatles: It's too bad that an unfortunate circumstance
involving a
>madman, who egregiously misread Salinger's book, forever tainted
>"Catcher" for young fans of the Beatles.
>
I think John Hinckley's obsession with Jodie Foster and his
reading of Catcher was much more damaging in the repressive
climate
of the 80's.
>> It really doesn't matter to any real writer whether a
>> prestigious label is applied to his or her work - as long as
>> people keep reading it decade after decade.
>
>That really is the crux of it, I think: the more a book appeals
to
>different generations, the more its message becomes timeless.
That
>happens best, I think, when a book reveals some universal truth
that's
>been otherwise hidden from the reader, and does so in a
language that a
>reader of any age or background can understand. It happens in
music too,
>and I think it's why the Fabs' music still excites the heart
and mind so
>profoundly.
>
I think that's why Body Count still grabs young people's hearts
and minds and gives them a look into the heart of the Sixties
ethos.
Thanks, saki!
John Whelan
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take a very "Magical Mystery Tour" trip on the Beatles
and their history at:
http://www.ncf.ca/beatles/timeline.html
Feel free to bookmark or create a link!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1fb0776d...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
John Whelan
"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message .
>
> If Whelan finds that pompous, so be it.
Absolutely I do find you pompous!
> It's just the awful truth, to coin a phrase.
>
> Francie
Anyone want to place a bet here?
When the "Anthology" book is released,
what do you think the first thing Francie
is going to do with the book?? Rush to
the back of the book, look up in the
index to see if her name is there! <g>
fabella
>
>"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
.
>
>>
>>
>
> When the "Anthology" book is released,
> what do you think the first thing Francie
> is going to do with the book?? Rush to
> the back of the book, look up in the
> index to see if her name is there! <g>
>
>
That "bet" is a loser, Mr. Whelan. I have lots of friends who
are more interested in the Anthology book than I am. I stopped
checking for my name in Beatle books at least 15 years ago. My
best friend, Nadine, is a serious Paul person (she attended
'Garland for Linda"s New York debut, paying big bucks for a
dinner ticket and plane fare) and a longstanding member of
macca-l (I noticed alley's warning to Jamie our newbie of the
week, and I think Nadine might be a good person to ask what
happened last year in that forum) who will get her copy and look
it up for her own reasons. Then she'll ask me if I want to know.
Save your money, folks.
John Whelan
"fabella" <waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid>"
>
> >
> >> It's just the awful truth, to coin a phrase.
> >>
> > When the "Anthology" book is released,
> > what do you think the first thing Francie
> > is going to do with the book?? Rush to
> > the back of the book, look up in the
> > index to see if her name is there! <g>
>
> That "bet" is a loser, Mr. Whelan. I have lots of friends who
> are more interested in the Anthology book than I am. I stopped
> checking for my name in Beatle books at least 15 years ago.
Absolute rubbish Francie! You'll buy a copy
like everyone else and you'll immediately look yourself
up. Don't be naive on us, Francie!
Regards,
John
fabella
>> >>
>> > When the "Anthology" book is released,
>> > what do you think the first thing Francie
>> > is going to do with the book?? Rush to
>> > the back of the book, look up in the
>> > index to see if her name is there! <g>
>>
>> That "bet" is a loser, Mr. Whelan. I have lots of friends who
>> are more interested in the Anthology book than I am. I stopped
>> checking for my name in Beatle books at least 15 years ago.
>
> Absolute rubbish Francie! You'll buy a copy
>like everyone else and you'll immediately look yourself
>up. Don't be naive on us, Francie!
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
>
>
If I can accept that you think I'm pompous, why can't you accept
the fact that I won't be buying (*or skimming*) the Anthology
Book?
It would be naive of me to imagine that my name would appear in
this "warts and all" presentation. And it's truly cynical folks
like
you who assume that it makes any difference to me at this point.
Francie
FIVE MORE DAYS!
J_M
--snip--
> macca-l (I noticed alley's warning to Jamie our newbie of the
> week
Hey, is that me your talking about!! :-) Where do I pick up my newbie of the
week award or will it be sent to me? Btw, Alley and I just may be getting
hitched. Stay tuned.
--Jamie M
--
"I am the greatest" -JL
--
paramucho
<barrymN...@midamericareps.com.invalid> wrote:
>>If you read Ian Hammond's review of the book, you might have a
>>better idea of its place in the Big Beatle Picture.
>
>Ian Hammond's review of the book is obviously biased if he
>claims it is important in the Beatle picture. You have already
>admitted that it's about You and not the Beatles. Your
>relationship with McCartney, though obviously interesting, is
>not that important in the big Beatle picture. Though you lay
>claim that they wrote a few songs about you and you were
>involved in recording sessions, I have yet to read that anywhere
>else. You can say I'm slandering you, but I'm not. If I'm
>wrong, then show me where I can find the Beatles or biographers
>backing up your claims. I'm all ears! Prove what you say.
If you don't read the whole book then you literally don't know what
you're talking about. Francie presents her impressions at an important
time in her life. One of the players in the book is McCartney, who
gets the same treatment as everyone else.
The reason I find the book interesting is because I have McCartney so
difficult to understand, as a person, at all. BC revealed something of
the human being in Paul McCartney to me and has led to a process that
has changed the way I think about him. Having read the book I have a
lot more respect and regard for Paul McCartney.
>>If you bother to read the rest of the book, you might make an
>>informed decision for yourself about its value as social
>>history.
>
>That has nothing to do with it's importance to the Beatles
>though. That was my statement. It's value to social history??
>Whatever. It's a fine book. It's portrayal of Paul was slanted
>and unfair. The book's stories are interesting and the writing
>is fine. I'll read the rest if I come across it someday.
The portrait of Paul is slanted but not unfair. What is slanted and
*unfair* is to sit in judgement on a single chapter without having
read the whole book. There's a lot of context there.
Anyway, here's my review from last year:
==========
Body Count
==========
Amazon delivered "Body Count" last week, an auto-biography that
chronicles Francie Schwartz's emotional rite of passage, including an
episode with Paul McCartney. It has this dry dusty style that hides
its passion by being brutally honest. Morrisette is somewhat similar.
Paul-wise, it's a gentle portrait and one which forgives him his
frailties before they appear.
Even if I stress the McCartney angle in this review, it's important to
see the context of the full book. This is not yet-another-insider-bio
for the meat market. Macca appears in but one of the twelve chapters
that relates the story of Francie's tense journey. He's a bit player,
but all the more real for that.
The Story
=========
Francie marries at an early age, for the usual reasons but loses the
child. After eighteen months of domesticity she leaves, only to be
left herself by the guy who goes back to his kids. The count has begun
of "the bodies that would pass through my life without touching my
soul". On the day after Kennedy's assignation she "lost that feeling
that everything was going to be alright" and begins the sixties ritual
of group therapy. This is a very "sixties" book.
Robert, Harry and others join the count as Francie enlists in the
advertising industry. "There were too many of them, and too many
without names." The process climaxes in 1967 in a haze of Speed, the
reappearance of her sister, her work, the bodies and her mind: "I lost
touch with everything. And so did my body".
On reading Apple's call for manuscripts, Francie ignores all warnings
and jets over The Pond, announcing her arrival via telegram. It's one
of those Right Time, Right Place things: when she walks into the Apple
office, with her script and leggy photo, She Saw Him Standing There:
Paul. They click. Still, a sluggish start prompts her to challenge "Mr
Plump", who responds.
In a few mad months, around the time of the WHITE ALBUM sessions,
Francie moves from girlfriend to house mate. She visits sessions at
Abbey Road, McCartney's relatives and helps him paint London in colors
of "Hey Jude". The relationship blows hot and cold:
As he climbed into bed, he gentled me to sleep, saying, "When this
LP is finished, I'll take you to the farm, and we'll rest."
"Oh, please mean that."
"That's what I said. I promise."
In the morning everything was different. My American accent was
wrong, my looks were wrong, everything was wrong.
Retreating to L.A., Francie's restarts her advertising career, her
life with her sister and the "count". After an article submitted to
ROLLING STONE is edited out of recognition she decides to write The
Book:
I had spilled my guts' secrets on paper and I knew I was Francie
Schwartz. Not a vending machine.
I didn't have to define myself by the men I'd loved. Even Paul
McCartney had taken more than he'd given. I'd always been secretly
glad to have been a catalyst in his life. He was afraid to let me
get under his skin. In that he wasn't much different to the rest.
Francie Schwartz, "Body Count", p115.
Francie finds her identity in writing the book that chronicles her
passage. She and her sister start over.
The Book
========
The sixties searched for less decorative ways of handling truth. Two
of the better films were the "The Knack and How To Get It" and the
incomparable "Alfie". Both depict relationships where love is not
communicated. The Four Letter Word syndrome.
Without mentioning the connection, I asked Francie about "Alfie":
Alfie is one of my fave 60s flicks... seen it dozens of times. Used
to be fixated on that period in Michael Caine's career. After 68 I
noticed Jane [Asher] more, of course... but Shelly Winters was
stellar in it.
Francie Schwartz, private e-mail
I had forgotten Jane Asher's role as the waif in "Alfie", a role which
resembles Francie's brief appearance in McCartney's life except that
Francie seems to have been more assertive.
Ultimately, "Alfie" (Lewis Gilbert, 1966) and "The Knack" (Dick
Lester, 1965) were both about men and were both comedies. Perhaps the
original script of "Alfie" was less romantic, which would explain the
lack of 'glam' roles in the movie. Francie's story, told with the
deadpan style of Dashiel Hammet, provides no palliatives, no
Hollywood ending and no redemption. All she asks is that "you not
understand it too quickly".
Alanis Morrisette shares something serious with Schwartz. Both banish
all taboos, stripping family and friends bare in a Faustian pact
they've signed with Honesty. Alanis's has a "cavalcade" track where
she enumerates her last half dozen partners. Like Francie, Alanis has
a tough self-aware center that allows her the luxury of walking on the
wild side of her own sanity. Both appear to have reckless regard for
their own safety.
Macca Count
===========
The Macca we meet in "Body Count" is dangerously adrift. The band,
which provided the core of his life, is falling apart; his regular
intimacy with Lennon is gone; his family treat him like a celeb rather
than a person; his picture-book relationship with Jane Asher has not
gone the distance.
An alienated and moody McCartney is submerged in his own Body Count of
friends/lovers who do not touch his soul. What was at one time the
breezy life of a London fop has become a meaningless ritual without
feeling. McCartney loses control at times, haunted by the distance
created by his fame.
Paul seeks his identity and 'contact'. During the search, McCartney
toils at a song, as he once had with "Yesterday". "Hey Jude" emerges
as a document of the painful process and a set of instructions to
himself. It's fruitful to compare the song with Lennon's "Nowhere
Man", which is similar.
Perhaps, in that moment at Apple, he saw something in Francie that
could help him. Francie contributes to the search and the song. We can
better understand the monumental power of "Hey Jude" when we
understand the process it reflects. At some point, McCartney tells
Francie that he's met someone with whom he has made 'contact': Linda.
Was she fond of him? Did she love him? Despite the twelve course naked
lunch we are served, that glass onion goes quietly unanswered. Perhaps
Francie is just as elusive and just as secretive as Paul himself. In
the end, total honesty is the best cloak because it leaves nothing
that could be hidden. Isn't it is what we hide that leaves us
vulnerable?
I've read a half dozen biographies of McCartney only to know less
rather than more. This is the one portrait that presents him as a real
human being. That's partly because Francie does not judge him,
rendering instead a remarkably clear report of the painful initiation
into adulthood of Paul McCartney. And of Franny Schwartz.
--
ian
copyright (c) ian hammond 1999 -- all rights reserved
this article will be archived at my website www.beathoven.com
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup
rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup,
please change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
Ian
Diana
>ObBeatles: It's too bad that an unfortunate circumstance involving a
>madman, who egregiously misread Salinger's book, forever tainted
>"Catcher" for young fans of the Beatles.
It really is a shame. So many teenagers (and adults) see themselves in that
book. Wynona Ryder, imho one of the best young actresses around and extremely
intelligent to boot, says she's read CITR....I forget how many times, but it
was a LOT! In AOL's books message board, when asked what 5 books you would
take to a desert island, Catcher in the Rye and various works by Shakespeare
made most lists. So there's hope!
It's not the book -- or the music or the art -- but how the mind relates to it.
- - - - -
"Why are you still crying?
Your pain is now through."
"Everyone has choice
When to and not to raise their voices
It's you that decides
Which way will you turn"
~~ George Harrison
paramucho
>In article <39908207...@ucla.edu>, saki <sa...@ucla.edu> writes:
>
>>ObBeatles: It's too bad that an unfortunate circumstance involving a
>>madman, who egregiously misread Salinger's book, forever tainted
>>"Catcher" for young fans of the Beatles.
I seem to recall that it was a prescribed rather than proscribed book
at the school I attended. In fact, that's the reason I could never get
to like the book: I figured any book the school recommended must be a
priori conservative.
Ian
paramucho
Harsh: yes, truth: no.
Shagging a fab might get you a brief newspaper mention, but that's
about it. There's no book in it.
Francie got a book out of it because, from what I can work out, she
was one of three women to live with Paul McCartney as a partner. And
because she is a writer.
So, to tweak your statement just a little: the reason that Francie got
Rolling Stone as a publisher was because she had been Paul McCartney's
partner and because she was a writer.
I had heard that BODY COUNT was the wild sexual reminiscences of a
sixties groupie. Alas, it was no such beast. Instead it's pretty
serious stuff. So while Francie might have got her lucky break with
Rolling Stone on the basis of McCartney's name, it's to her credit
that she didn't produce the pulp they were probably hoping for.
Now, the main reason that people purchase BODY COUNT these days is the
negative publicity generated in RMB. Very helpful stuff for an author.
Ian
UsurperTom
>I think John Hinckley's obsession with Jodie Foster and his
>reading of Catcher was much more damaging in the repressive
>climate
>of the 80's.
Hinckley also felt that his world ended when John was killed.
Tom
Geek Of Araby
book like BC.>>
That's a lie.
In 1951, the year the book was published, it was chosen as one of the main
selections for the Book-of-the-Month club. This was almost unheard of - first
novels are almost never chosen.
It was reviewed by the New York Times Book Review, Time, New Republic, The
Christian Science Monitor,Alantic Monthly, New Yorker, The Times Literary
Supplement and Spectator.
It was released in the spring and stayed on the New York Times bestseller list
for the entire year and through the spring of '52.
That's not a "cult" book that didn't do well at first.
John Whelan
> accept the fact that I won't be buying (*or skimming*) the
> Anthology Book?
>
> It would be naive of me to imagine that my name would appear
> in this "warts and all" presentation. And it's truly cynical folks
> like you who assume that it makes any difference to me at this
> point.
>
> Francie
Oh, you'll end up buying the book just like the rest
of us. You'll probably skim through it and the back indexes
before you purchase your copy. Do you really care?
Why, sure you do!! For you to say it doesn't make any
difference to you at this point in time in your life, that statement
is just "smoke and mirrors" on your part. Your above comment
would be the equivalent of Paul McCartney saying that he
never used the internet and surfed Beatle websites. Hogwash!
If you were as famous as Paul McCartney, wouldn't you be a
tad bit curious to know what others are writing about you?
Definitely so!! And considering you that you spent several weeks
at Apple, first being a wanna-be author that shows up, then
becoming Paul's hot flame and then becoming an employee at
Apple certainly suggests you have enough invested interest ...
enough to make you buy the book and gaze at the back indexes
to see if your listed there. It will be the very first thing that you do! ;-)
Regards,
John in Canada
fabella
>
>
> Oh, you'll end up buying the book just like the rest
> of us. You'll probably skim through it and the back indexes
> before you purchase your copy. Do you really care?
Wrongo! I *lived* enough of it 32 years ago to last me a
lifetime. I don't need the homogenized version you're going to
be paying
through the nose to hold in your hot little hands! LOL
> Why, sure you do!! For you to say it doesn't make any
> difference to you at this point in time in your life, that
statement
> is just "smoke and mirrors" on your part. Your above comment
> would be the equivalent of Paul McCartney saying that he
> never used the internet and surfed Beatle websites. Hogwash!
He doesn't surf and has never surfed Beatle websites. Source:
Mark Lewisohn (private email)
> If you were as famous as Paul McCartney, wouldn't you be a
> tad bit curious to know what others are writing about you?
Nope. And you diminish Paul by suggesting it.
> Definitely so!! And considering you that you spent several
weeks
> at Apple, first being a wanna-be author that shows up, then
> becoming Paul's hot flame and then becoming an employee at
> Apple certainly suggests you have enough invested interest
..
> enough to make you buy the book and gaze at the back indexes
> to see if your listed there. It will be the very first
thing that you do! ;-)
>
I recently spent $45 on a book... it's a big book with pictures
and everything! It's called "Edgar Brandt: Master of Art Deco
Ironwork."
John, you seem to be obsessed about this...but it's
understandable, since you have built up this encyclopedia of
Beatle myths.
From 1977 (when Body Count went out of print and I got the
rights back) to1999 I rarely even thought about Paul McCartney,
much
less searched the Internet or skimmed books for comments about
comments he may have made about me.
I know you may find this incredible, but there's a great big
wide world out here that has nothing to do with the Beatles. I
know, it's
shocking, but I managed to live in the nonBeatle universe for a
really really long time. I even wrote a book about it!
The Anthology Book isn't even on my Amazon Wish List. I don't
own the music Anthologies.
The only reminder of the Beatles I have on my walls is the 1964
picture of John taken by my friend Yoram Kahana.
You have some fantastic idea of who I am and what I think
about... it bears no resemblance to reality.
Besides, I'm fairly certain you (or some other rmber) will scan
the entire book and make a public announcement right here in rmb
about whether there's a reference to me. And that will save me a
pretty penny!
Francie
Dondello
> will scan
> the entire book and make a public announcement right
> here in rmb
> about whether there's a reference to me. And that will
> save me a
> pretty penny!
Heh, she's got you there.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Bungalow Bill
>what you're talking about.
Thats bull Ian and you know it. My comments were about the
importance of this book in the "Beatle" picture. I was
responding to comments about how all "good" Beatle bios have
Body Count in the bibliography. The rest of the book is not
relevant to this discussion.
>Francie presents her impressions at an important time in her
>life. One of the players in the book is McCartney, who gets the
>same treatment as everyone else.
I'm sorry to hear that. Obviously this is not a pretty
perspective on others as well...according to what you just
said. I wouldn't know. Again, it's not relevant to this
discussion. This discussion has snowballed into everyone
reviewing Francie's book. Sounds like self-promotion to me. I
haven't put that spin on this argument. I'm arguing the same
thing I started arguing...the fact that this book is not that
important when it comes to Beatle reading. As far as the time
period 1968-1969? I have no idea. It would be ignorant of me
to comment on the whole book...which I did not.
>The reason I find the book interesting is because I have
>McCartney so difficult to understand, as a person, at all. BC
>revealed something of the human being in Paul McCartney to me
>and has led to a process that has changed the way I think about
>him. Having read the book I have a lot more respect and regard
>for Paul McCartney.
I have no idea how you glommed that from the Chapter 8 that I
read. Maybe we read different books...*LOL*. There was no
glimpse at the "inner" Paul McCartney that I saw. Most of it
was just simply not a flattering depiction in my opinion. Again
we're talking about ONE chapter here that described her time
with the Beatles.
>If you bother to read the rest of the book, you might make an
>informed decision for yourself about its value as social
>history.
I never made a decision about it's value as social history so
don't accuse me of doing so. I only commented that it wasn't
valuable in Beatle history. I didn't get sucked into
the "social history" argument. I don't make valuations on such
topics if I have not read the whole book.
ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
fabella
>>If you don't read the whole book then you literally don't know
>>what you're talking about.
>
>importance of this book in the "Beatle" picture. I was
>responding to comments about how all "good" Beatle bios have
>Body Count in the bibliography. The rest of the book is not
>relevant to this discussion.
>
OUCH! Now *that's* what I call "contempt prior to investigation,
Bill. I thought you were smarter than that.
As someone who admits to reading what was obviously a bootlegged
(illegally copied and reproduced) copy of Chapter 8, you're
hardly in a position to decide whether the rest of the book is
relevant to this discussion of Beatle history. Beatle history is
not separate
and distinct from the cultural and sociological history of the
period. And neither is my experience of McCartney separate or
distinct from my own view of Beatle history.
Your dismissal of Ian's objective reading and analysis as BS is
glib and arbitrary.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
paramucho
<barrymN...@midamericareps.com.invalid> wrote:
>>If you don't read the whole book then you literally don't know
>>what you're talking about.
>
>Thats bull Ian and you know it. My comments were about the
>importance of this book in the "Beatle" picture. I was
>responding to comments about how all "good" Beatle bios have
>Body Count in the bibliography. The rest of the book is not
>relevant to this discussion.
Sorry, I retain my point of view. If you read the chapter without
reading the seven preceding chapters then you literally have no
context with which to judge that chapter in my opinion. It's not a
collection of isolated, interchangeable chapters. For example, you
need to see Francie's own development across the book as well to be
able to judge where she's at by chapter eight.
>>Francie presents her impressions at an important time in her
>>life. One of the players in the book is McCartney, who gets the
>>same treatment as everyone else.
>
>I'm sorry to hear that. Obviously this is not a pretty
>perspective on others as well...according to what you just
>said. I wouldn't know.
Exactly, you don't know.
> Again, it's not relevant to this
>discussion.
You may not think it relevant to this discussion, but I don't think
any of us get to decide that kind of thing here in RMB.
> This discussion has snowballed into everyone
>reviewing Francie's book. Sounds like self-promotion to me.
Francie's detractors provide her with heaps of promotion.
I
>haven't put that spin on this argument. I'm arguing the same
>thing I started arguing...the fact that this book is not that
>important when it comes to Beatle reading. As far as the time
>period 1968-1969? I have no idea. It would be ignorant of me
>to comment on the whole book...which I did not.
Let me reiterate my own position too: I don't think you can
conclusively judge the book without reading it in it's entirety.
That's my main point.
As to whether it's essential "Beatle reading": well, that would depend
on what you wanted to know about the Beatles. It's not essential for a
knowledge of the music or of the General History Of The Beatles.
However, if you want to understand Paul McCartney as a person then I
think it's required reading. Every other book that I've read about
Paul McCartney tells me almost nothing about him as a person. Perhaps
you'd care to name an alternative book?
>>The reason I find the book interesting is because I have
>>McCartney so difficult to understand, as a person, at all. BC
>>revealed something of the human being in Paul McCartney to me
>>and has led to a process that has changed the way I think about
>>him. Having read the book I have a lot more respect and regard
>>for Paul McCartney.
>
>I have no idea how you glommed that from the Chapter 8 that I
>read. Maybe we read different books...*LOL*. There was no
>glimpse at the "inner" Paul McCartney that I saw.
Perhaps you don't get that because you've missed the "practise" in the
preceding seven chapters. The book is about people and feelings, not
about times, dates and events.
<snip>
Mr Bungalow Bill, I am not trying to score points, just express my
opinion which is based on reading the whole book. I've said I found
the book extremely enlightening about Paul and came away with more
respect and understanding for the man within. You clearly haven't had
that experience and I suspect it's because you have read the chapter
out of context.
Ian
thewalruswasDanny
> >
> >No *all* of them save maybe your immediate family are reading your
booklet
> >because you shagged a fab. Accept it. Live with it. It's the harsh truth.
>
> Harsh: yes, truth: no.
>
> Shagging a fab might get you a brief newspaper mention, but that's
> about it. There's no book in it.
>
> Francie got a book out of it because, from what I can work out, she
> was one of three women to live with Paul McCartney as a partner. And
> because she is a writer.
>
> So, to tweak your statement just a little: the reason that Francie got
> Rolling Stone as a publisher was because she had been Paul McCartney's
> partner and because she was a writer.
Didn't I say that. She shagged a fab.
>
> I had heard that BODY COUNT was the wild sexual reminiscences of a
> sixties groupie. Alas, it was no such beast. Instead it's pretty
> serious stuff. So while Francie might have got her lucky break with
> Rolling Stone on the basis of McCartney's name, it's to her credit
> that she didn't produce the pulp they were probably hoping for.
They were hoping for...because she shagged a fab.
>
>
> Now, the main reason that people purchase BODY COUNT these days is the
> negative publicity generated in RMB. Very helpful stuff for an author.
True Ian true. ..but it exists and sells because Frankly shagged a fab. If
she hadn't nobody would give a toss about it.
Danny
Bungalow Bill
>without
>reading the seven preceding chapters then you literally have no
>context with which to judge that chapter in my opinion. It's
not a
>collection of isolated, interchangeable chapters. For example,
>you
>need to see Francie's own development across the book as well
>to be
>able to judge where she's at by chapter eight.
I see your point...fine. But, the fact is, the book is about
Francie...correct? I don't see why this is considered important
Beatle reading...nor do I think it gives a true glimpse at
Paul. It may, but in a negative and slanted light. That
comment I have every right to make based on what I have read.
Her development has nothing to do with that, though I understand
that you are saying that it is like coming into the middle of a
movie and trying to understand the plot...yes?
>>I'm sorry to hear that. Obviously this is not a pretty
>>perspective on others as well...according to what you just
>>said. I wouldn't know.
>
>Exactly, you don't know.
No I wouldn't.
>You may not think it relevant to this discussion, but I don't
>think
>any of us get to decide that kind of thing here in RMB.
??? You lost me there. I don't feel that her time not with the
Beatles is relevant to the discussion as to whether the book is
important Beatle reading.
>Francie's detractors provide her with heaps of promotion.
Yes I've noticed that.
>Let me reiterate my own position too: I don't think you can
>conclusively judge the book without reading it in it's
>entirety.
>That's my main point.
I didn't judge the BOOK!
>As to whether it's essential "Beatle reading": well, that would
>depend
>on what you wanted to know about the Beatles. It's not
>essential for a
>knowledge of the music or of the General History Of The Beatles.
Thank you. That WAS my point.
>However, if you want to understand Paul McCartney as a person
>then I think it's required reading.
I disagree with you there and considering he only shows up in
Chapter 8, then I have a right to my opinion.
>Every other book that I've read about
>Paul McCartney tells me almost nothing about him as a person.
>Perhaps
>you'd care to name an alternative book?
Many Years From Now. Written by Miles who is a friend of Pauls,
knows him intimately and Paul comments throughout. A truly
wonderful book.
>Perhaps you don't get that because you've missed the "practise"
>in the
>preceding seven chapters. The book is about people and
>feelings, not
>about times, dates and events.
And not really about the Beatles...which was my point. Your
point is taken. I don't have the book so I cannot read it.
Though to be honest I'm not really interested in reading about
Francie's life...I don't really care. I was interested in
reading her account of her time with Paul to find out what all
the fuss was about here. I did that. I'm not interested in the
preamble...it's not relevant to anything I care about. I stand
by my comment that I don't think this is required Beatle
reading. I think that is a bit of an overstatment. To call
this book a "cult" book is probably accurate. Obscure Beatle
reading would be what I would classify it as. But that's my
opinion.
>Mr Bungalow Bill, I am not trying to score points, just express
>my
>opinion which is based on reading the whole book.
I get that. That's fine. I understand your opinion and the
fact that it is definitely more informed then mine.
>I've said I found
>the book extremely enlightening about Paul and came away with
>more
>respect and understanding for the man within. You clearly
>haven't had
>that experience and I suspect it's because you have read the
>chapter
>out of context.
Maybe so. Maybe not. I found her depiction of Paul to be
somewhat self-serving as she was the person who could save him
from himself and he just didn't recognize that. She painted
herself as the innocent victim who everyone loved except him who
treated her like crap. He was a clumsy lover and unappreciative
of her though secretly he loved her. They had some nice moments
at the beginning, but that changed due to pressures of the band
and drinking. She could take it no longer, so she left.
That's what I got.
Barry
ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
Bungalow Bill
>Bill. I thought you were smarter than that.
Contempt? I showed no contempt towards Ian. I was defending my
position which I am prone to do. Should I fear Ian? Are you
saying that I am heaping flames on myself by doing so? I expect
that from some, but not from him. He seems to be a very
reasonable person as am I. I expect a response that takes into
account what I have said.
>As someone who admits to reading what was obviously a bootlegged
>(illegally copied and reproduced) copy of Chapter 8
Get over yourself Francie. I highly doubt there is a huge
bootleg market for your writing...maybe I'm wrong. I think you
take yourself too seriously. You have no idea where I came
across that book. How do you not know that the "library"
doesn't have it? Gimme a huge break. Where the book came from
is irrelevant and don't incinuate a lawsuit at me for reading it
either because that is ludicrous. It's only illegal if someone
is selling it Francie and you know it. If that wasn't the case,
there would be no libraries.
>you're
>hardly in a position to decide whether the rest of the book is
>relevant to this discussion of Beatle history. Beatle history is
>not separate
>and distinct from the cultural and sociological history of the
>period. And neither is my experience of McCartney separate or
>distinct from my own view of Beatle history.
I'm not deciding anything on the book. I commented that the
book was about You and I don't feel that "required Beatle
reading". You agreed that it is indeed about You. How is that
required Beatle reading? I have a right to that opinion and the
fact that I have taken the time to actually read what you have
to say on the matter should prove that I'm not being ignorant
about it. I realize there are some on this board who are.
Though I find your accounts of time with the band interesting
and facinating, I hardly think that they are pivotal events in
the band. I saw nothing different in your book.
>Your dismissal of Ian's objective reading and analysis as BS is
>glib and arbitrary.
I didn't dismiss Ian's objective reading. I dismissed his
characterization of my argument as ignorant.
d.[northcut@mindspring.com]
>The portrait of Paul is slanted but not unfair.
Francie admits to presenting at least one major lie, IMO the dramatic climax of
that
chapter, as fact. You call the intentional smearing of a person's character as
"slanted but
not unfair"?
--
d.
fabella
>>OUCH! Now *that's* what I call "contempt prior to
investigation,
>>Bill. I thought you were smarter than that.
>
>Contempt? I showed no contempt towards Ian.
No, you show contempt toward a book without prior investigation.
>
>>As someone who admits to reading what was obviously a
bootlegged
>>(illegally copied and reproduced) copy of Chapter 8
>
>Get over yourself Francie. I highly doubt there is a huge
>bootleg market for your writing...maybe I'm wrong. I think you
>take yourself too seriously. You have no idea where I came
>across that book. How do you not know that the "library"
>doesn't have it? Gimme a huge break. Where the book came from
>is irrelevant and don't incinuate a lawsuit at me for reading it
>either because that is ludicrous. It's only illegal if someone
>is selling it Francie and you know it. If that wasn't the case,
>there would be no libraries.
>
Excuse me. I insinuated no such thing. If you don't understand
the violation of copyright law that's you're problem. No
reproduction
of any kind is legal without expressed written permission. The
chapter was reproduced and distributed among people like yourself
who assumed that there is nothing interesting about my life
aside from Paul McCartney. And I know human nature well enough to
know that no one who actually gets the whole book can avoid
looking at the rest of it. You're the one who's taking himself
too
seriously, Bill. If you think any author doesn't take his own
published work seriously, you're clearly operating without maps.
>>you're
>>hardly in a position to decide whether the rest of the book is
>>relevant to this discussion of Beatle history. Beatle history
is
>>not separate
>>and distinct from the cultural and sociological history of the
>>period. And neither is my experience of McCartney separate or
>>distinct from my own view of Beatle history.
>
>I'm not deciding anything on the book.
You certainly are... without reading any of it except Chapter 8,
you decide it's of no interest or significance to Beatle history
(in fact,
the most explosive period of same) as if Beatle history could
reasonably be considered out of context of cultural/social
history. It
can't -- except by simple-minded fans who don't care what else
was happening in 1968. Anyone who wishes to understand the
significance of the Beatles as a phenomenon must understand the
social context.
I commented that the
>book was about You and I don't feel that "required Beatle
>reading". You agreed that it is indeed about You.
Most autobiographies *are* about the author. That has nothing to
do with your argument. In fact, the more you insist the book is
about Me, the more you dispute the general argument that I wrote
it to cash in on my five months in London. We can't have that,
now can we?
How is that
>required Beatle reading? I have a right to that opinion and the
>fact that I have taken the time to actually read what you have
>to say on the matter should prove that I'm not being ignorant
>about it. I realize there are some on this board who are.
>Though I find your accounts of time with the band interesting
>and facinating, I hardly think that they are pivotal events in
>the band. I saw nothing different in your book.
>
I leave it to others (like Ian, Mark Lewisohn, the Village
Voice, Beatlefan Magazine) to say whether the book presents
unique
information. They think so. Until Danny Fields' book on Linda,
no one else had ever talked about the "hate note" Paul wrote to
John
and Yoko. He claims John talked about it many times... which is
untrue. And there's plenty more information in my book that has
never been *attributed* to it, but which has appeared in other
books which were "all Beatle".
>>Your dismissal of Ian's objective reading and analysis as BS is
>>glib and arbitrary.
>
>I didn't dismiss Ian's objective reading. I dismissed his
>characterization of my argument as ignorant.
>
>
>
Now *you're* talking nonsense.
Your argument is falling apart.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bungalow Bill
I showed no such thing Francie. Your doing a hell of a job to
try and say I am though. I said that the book was moderately
interesting (what I read of it), but had a negative slant on
Paul...which it does. I also said I didn't see how it could be
considered "important" Beatle reading. Whether it is
important "time-period" reading...well who knows?
Interesting...yes probably...important?...pivotal?...I don't
think so, but I'm just one person. Who cares what I think?
>Excuse me. I insinuated no such thing. If you don't understand
>the violation of copyright law that's you're problem.
Well OK I guess it's my problem. I didn't read a copied version
of the book. I found someone who lent the book to me.
>No
>reproduction
>of any kind is legal without expressed written permission. The
>chapter was reproduced and distributed among people like
>yourself
>who assumed that there is nothing interesting about my life
>aside from Paul McCartney.
I never said that at all. I said I'm not interested in reading
about the rest of your life. Are you interested in reading
about mine? Really? I doubt that. Why should I be interested
in reading about your life Francie? I don't know you at all and
it doesn't effect me really except here. I'm interested in the
Beatles...that's why I'm here.
>And I know human nature well enough to
>know that no one who actually gets the whole book can avoid
>looking at the rest of it. You're the one who's taking himself
>too
>seriously, Bill.
I avoided the rest of it because I wasn't interested. I'm not
taking myself too seriously.
>If you think any author doesn't take his own
>published work seriously, you're clearly operating without maps.
I never said you didn't take your work seriously, nor should you
not. I said not to take yourself too seriously. There is a
difference...you know what? I'm really not interested in
discussing this at all. You've taken my comment to be a
personal shot at you and your book. My comment wasn't meant
that way at all. OK France...you win...you're book is required
reading for any avid Beatlefan to get a true glimpse of Paul
McCartney...happy now?a
>You certainly are...
I AM NOT!
>without reading any of it except Chapter 8,
>you decide it's of no interest or significance to Beatle history
>(in fact,
>the most explosive period of same) as if Beatle history could
>reasonably be considered out of context of cultural/social
>history. It
>can't -- except by simple-minded fans who don't care what else
>was happening in 1968. Anyone who wishes to understand the
>significance of the Beatles as a phenomenon must understand the
>social context.
I agree with you, but you are assuming yourself an expert on the
time period. Where are your qualifications to be considered as
such? Why is it that your book should be required Beatle
reading? I understand that the Beatle phenominon had as much to
do with the time period as it did the music...no argument here.
But why is your book more important then say...Ron Schaumburg's
book? Because you had a live-in relationship with Paul? I'm
not buying...but that's me...what do I know?
>Most autobiographies *are* about the author. That has nothing to
>do with your argument. In fact, the more you insist the book is
>about Me, the more you dispute the general argument that I wrote
>it to cash in on my five months in London.
I NEVER EVER said that. Point to the point in this blabbady
blabbady discussion where I made that statement. Don't assume I
have malice in my opinion. I don't.
>We can't have that,
>now can we?
Of course you can. Why not write a book for money? I'm all for
that, but I never said you did that for that reason. Your
confusing my argument with someone else I think.
>I leave it to others (like Ian, Mark Lewisohn, the Village
>Voice, Beatlefan Magazine) to say whether the book presents
>unique
>information. They think so. Until Danny Fields' book on Linda,
>no one else had ever talked about the "hate note" Paul wrote to
>John
>and Yoko. He claims John talked about it many times... which is
>untrue. And there's plenty more information in my book that has
>never been *attributed* to it, but which has appeared in other
>books which were "all Beatle".
OK fine. I never said that people should take my word as
gospel. You said that, not me.
>Now *you're* talking nonsense.
Oh...OK.
>Your argument is falling apart.
My argument is not falling apart. What is happening is that you
are defending a different argument. You are trying to make the
case that I criticized the book as a whole. I didn't...I don't
claim to be a expert on the book, nor literature in general.
I'm questioning the comment that you made that your book is
required Beatle reading. I disagree with you. I'm not going to
agree with you. If you think it is...good for you. If Ian
agrees...good for him. I also disputed your statement that it
is referenced in many bibliographies of respected Beatle bios.
I've not seen it referenced yet. I didn't read "Shout" as I
know it has a negative McCartney slant to it (ironic eh?) and I
know he was not pleased with the way he was portrayed. I also
know it's dated and there are errors in it...according to
reviews I've read.
Don't paint me in a manner I'm not...that pisses me off. I'm
not painting you as some type of blathering idiot. I never
have. If you don't agree with me...fine. To be honest...I'm
done arguing this Francie...you win. Body Count is required
Beatle reading! It gives a true intimate portrait of the real
Paul McCartney and a bystander glance at the Beatles as a band.
The life of Francie Schwartz was pivotal to understanding the
late 1960's. Body Count gives a clear understanding of the
types of issues that people dealt with. The author is an expert.
Hows that?
ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
Bungalow Bill
my own ignorance:
"SHOUT!": I've not read this book as I read reviews about it
stating that Paul was unhappy about the negative light in which
he is portrayed in this book. I also read a review stating that
it was old and there were errors in it. Whether that's true I
don't know. I may read it as I know it is more accurate then
some books written prior to it.
"THE LOVE YOU MAKE": I've heard of this book, but don't know
anything about it.
"UTIMATE BEATLES ENCYCLOPEDIA": I've heard of this book and
again no nothing about it.
I personally consider required Beatle reading to be:
Revolution in the Head - Ian MacDonald
The Beatles - Hunter Davies
Many Years From Now - Miles with Paul
The Playboy Interviews of John and Yoko
The Complete Beatles Chronicle - Mark Lewisohn
The Beatles After the Breakup - Keith Badman
Lennon Remembers - Jann Wenner
Lennon - Ray Coleman
The Last Days of John Lennon - Fred Seaman
I Me Mine - George Harrison
The Beatles: A Diary - Miles
These writings seem to give a very clear picture as to what was
going on in the Beatles and after as well as during the 60s and
70s. That is my own personal opinion though. Take it as that.
My comment to you Francie "I AM NOT" should have been preceded
so here is my comment again in context.
>>I'm not deciding anything on the book.
>You certainly are...
I AM NOT!
Thanks.
fabella
You are in no position to opine as to the importance of BODY
COUNT as "Beatle reading material" unless you've read the entire
book.
OK?
Context *is* everything.
And you left out two of the best books on your list:
It Was Twenty Years Ago Today
As Time Goes By
Both by Derek Taylor.
France
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------
saki
> You forgot to mention that it went out of print for quite a
> while.
So far as I know, none of Salinger's books have ever been out of print,
"Catcher" included. Rather remarkable for a fellow whose regular
publishing career ended in 1961!
> And in 1951, the NYTimes Bestseller List was much more
> influenced by the critical reception it received (in the NYTimes!).
It was unusual to have a book that was both a critical and popular
success, in the New York Times and in other literary environments...not
to mention its remarkable longevity.
> Compared to the standards for today's "blockbusters", CITR was
> not a commercial success. The 50's were, well, a different planet.
And it's an essential planet if one is discussing a book's popularity in
its context. :-)
By today's standards the Beatles' haircuts are not in the least
shocking. They were indeed unusual, however, in 1964, and that's the
focus we need if we're to understand why so many contemporary (1963-64)
reviews of the Fabs talk at length about their hair, often to the
exclusion of commenting on their music. Similarly, you won't fully
comprehend a book's popularity in 1951 by comparing it to what sells
today.
> >And her level of "exposure" remained at the tabloid level,
> >unfortunately.
>
> Hardly! She was on the cover of the Sunday New York Times
> Magazine -- unless you think that's a tabloid.
I was referring to her book, "At Home In The World". Maynard didn't
mention Salinger in her 1972 New York Times article; she claimed she'd
never read his works at that time.
> LOL! She wrote to him and he treated her the way he seems to
> have treated all his groupies.
As I recall, he wrote to her, not the other way 'round. And while
Salinger had pilgrims who attempted to visit him, I don't recall him
having groupies. His reclusiveness is legendary.
> I'm a lot more sympathetic toward
> Maynard than you are.
Perhaps you do, and I certainly understand why that would be.
> Remember the Beatles promised to help
> unknown artists and writers and filmmakers. I brought a
> script/treatment to Paul. The rest is of no interest to you, I
> know.
It interests me, but it's not a major part of Fabs history, and is less
of interest to me than, say, looking at the Fabs' music, which I think
is a lot more revealing about their artistry than looking at their
personal lives. But that's just me. Some folks find biographical
sourcebooks the better choice.
> I think John Hinckley's obsession with Jodie Foster and his
> reading of Catcher was much more damaging in the repressive
> climate of the 80's.
It's truly amazing that a simple book---with what would seem to be a
very straightforward message---has been so misread, and resulted in such
tragic circumstances.
> Thanks, saki!
Anytime...happy to help clarify things!
----
"As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer...."
------------------------------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
fabella
>In article <3995a3bb...@news.remarq.com>,
i...@beathoven.com says...
>
>
dramatic climax of
>that
>chapter, as fact.
Absolutely wrong, d. I admitted nothing of the kind. If you are
referring to the "leaving me in the car" paragraph, which is
hardly
the dramatic high point of the chapter, I NEVER said in rmb or
anywhere else that I lied in the book. There are no lies in my
book.
NONE. The dramatic high point is unquestionably the "Hate Note"
Paul left for John and Yoko.
I don't know, d. You seem to be setting yourself up here, and I
will not return to the ridiculous argument you and laura tried to
mount some time ago.
You call the intentional smearing of a person's character as
>"slanted but
>not unfair"?
>
>--
>d.
>
>
If you want an example of character assassination or "smearing"
you may as well work on Giuliano or Goldman (or their prime
sources, Seaman and Hair). If the worst thing I "accuse" Paul of
being is a mediocre lay and a closet racist, that hardly makes a
scratch on the polished surface of his public image.
It was a personal book about my personal experiences. If Paul
had felt that I smeared him, he had plenty of oppotunity to sue
me
or deny anything I said in the book twenty five years ago.
Francie
Bungalow Bill
>you may as well work on Giuliano or Goldman (or their prime
>sources, Seaman and Hair).
I have to comment and ask a question here.
I don't know about the Guliano book as I have not read it nor do
I intend to.
I did read Goldman's book though and I didn't get the impression
that one of his "main" sources was Fred. Yes Fred was a source,
but most of his later information seemed to come from either Sam
Green, John Green or Marnie Hair. Yes or no? Also...who is
Marnie Hair (at the risk of sounding uninformed)? Fred's book
doesn't cast John into the light that Goldman's book does.
Consequently, I have a hard time believing that all that
negative garbage came from Fred. That seems to have come from
another source.
ALL THE CHILDREN SING!
Bungalow Bill
>
>You are in no position to opine as to the importance of BODY
>COUNT as "Beatle reading material" unless you've read the entire
>book.
>
>OK?
(Grudgingly and Skeptically) Ok...
>Context *is* everything.
Sometimes yes it is.
>And you left out two of the best books on your list:
>
>It Was Twenty Years Ago Today
>As Time Goes By
>
>Both by Derek Taylor.
You know, I would definitely read those books, but I haven't
seen them anywhere. It was extremely sad to hear of his death
after watching him in the Anthology Videos (he died right?).
There is someone who truly loved them. I was impressed with the
incredible professionalism that he always showed.
I've also been told that "All You Need is Ears" is quite a good
book.
Suzie Q.
>
>You are in no position to opine as to the importance of BODY
>COUNT as "Beatle reading material" unless you've read the entire
>book.
>
>OK?
>
Jesus Jumpin' Christ! The poor guy is in a position to opine all he wants on
the damn book and how it relates to "Beatle reading material". He doesn't think
it's required reading. OK? It's his opinion.
Btw, I did read the whole thing and I agree with him. It's your story. Your
book. It's not the definitive last word on *anything*, be it Beatles or the
60s.
Get over it already!
fabella
>
>By today's standards the Beatles' haircuts are not in the least
>shocking. They were indeed unusual, however, in 1964, and
that's the
>focus we need if we're to understand why so many contemporary
(1963-64)
>reviews of the Fabs talk at length about their hair, often to
the
>exclusion of commenting on their music. Similarly, you won't
fully
>comprehend a book's popularity in 1951 by comparing it to what
sells
>today.
Rather thin analogy. I think most people who were reading about
the Beatles in the early Sixties would disagree.
I think my comprehension of the popularity you describe is just
as complete as yours. The Times Bestseller List is seriously
"weighted" by selective measurement of sales in certain markets,
plus under the table "pre-orders" which are actually placed by
the publishers in concert with booksellers. Nothing like this
ever went on in the Fifties. And the number of books it took to
make the
top ten was minuscule compared to today's numbers. Catcher is
probably the most famous "cult" book of all time. Nevertheless,
it
will never fit into the same category as a Gone With the Wind or
any of Tom Clancy's blockbusters.
>
>> >And her level of "exposure" remained at the tabloid level,
>> >unfortunately.
>>
>> Hardly! She was on the cover of the Sunday New York Times
>> Magazine -- unless you think that's a tabloid.
>
>I was referring to her book, "At Home In The World". Maynard
didn't
>mention Salinger in her 1972 New York Times article; she
claimed she'd
>never read his works at that time.
I'd like to see you cite her statements to that effect.
>
>> LOL! She wrote to him and he treated her the way he seems to
>> have treated all his groupies.
>
>As I recall, he wrote to her, not the other way 'round. And
while
>Salinger had pilgrims who attempted to visit him, I don't
recall him
>having groupies. His reclusiveness is legendary.
He used young women as groupies, whether you think of them as
literary groupies or not.
Maynard was lauded for her early work, in the New York Times.
Can you cite a single instance of her book about him being
excerpted or quoted in any tabloid publication? I'd say your
characterization of her "Salinger" book was inaccurate as well as
unkind. Maynard herself has written several letters to the New
York Times (which were published, I might add, in the Book Review
section) and has documented the stories of other women he used
in the same way he used her. If any author living today can be
said to have groupies, it's Salinger.
>
>> I'm a lot more sympathetic toward
>> Maynard than you are.
>
>Perhaps you do, and I certainly understand why that would be.
>
Oh really? And what is your understanding of why I'm more
sympathetic toward her than you are?
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots
on. ~ James Watt ~
-----------------------------------------------------------