Article about John Lennon

[acebackwords]

http://www.cal-list.com   This is a slightly controversial newspaper article I wrote about John Lennon thats an excerp from my "Acid Heroes" book. (scroll down to "The Ace Backwords Report")

[mervap]

It took a while to read, quite lengthy, but well-written. I don't think anybody here would dispute John Lennon's bad sides....there were many. What I came away with from your article reinforces something I was taught a long time ago: Be careful who or what you follow...because if you follow, you can't see where you're going.

[acebackwords]

Be careful who or what you follow...because if you follow, you can't see where you're going.

Very true.  Or as Dylan put it: "Don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters." Or as I put it in my book: "You may swallow the public image, but you digest the actual person."

[Greg]

That guy, Rosen, who had the diaries and read them over and over, he said that John often wrote about wanting to be back with May Pang and wanted to, but couldn't connect with Julian.  He also was surprised that Lennon had more of a rivalry with Paul than he ever thought.

I think John's life in his 50's and 60's + would have been way, way better than his 20's and 30's.  What?  You 're saying his 50's would have been better than being a Beatles, Greg?  Yep

(That was a heck of an article.  It is often the case that people will be very angry on a message board that criticizes the very subject of the message board.  This forum is really something else.)

[Paperback Writer]

Ace; congrats on great research and writing.

Just as easily, you - or someone else could (or has)  write an opposing view - when selected facts, stories, accounts are written out of context - conclusions can be convincing.  Now John was as crazy and complex and cruel as depicted - but that was probably a part of him, not his totality.  Listen and watch Paul  sing Here Today - does that mean Paul is a phoney? Crazy? Co-conspiritor?

Believe the art - not the artist -  is how I deal with John and any other great performers - not expecting some personal guidance from anyone, but will acknowledge accomplishment/talent for what it is.

Anyone who blames Jerry and the Dead for acid burn-out, or Lennon - or anyone - for anything is copping out.  Wasn't POB by John, all about not being blindly led? Ironic.

My take, I don't think John did any of this stuff you document, on purpose in a plotful, methodical, manipulative way.  He probably was undiagnosed Bi-Polar, with personality disorders -featuring rage - but blessed with brilliant artistic talent and flourishes that were extremely erratic.
Now add all the booze and speed to this fragile psyche,  Soak this in Beatlmania (As George stated was a total donation of their nervous systems), coat in Acid, then more variety of drugs, divorce, YOKO! falling out with Paul - don't forget death of Brian Epstein - and you have the mess you depict.

BUT despite it all, was the music, charisma,  and intuitive genius and gift of gab.  For my money, I think he had some help and health towards the end, judging by his looks and promising (sometimes great) music.
We'll never know, but that WAS John.

Nonetheless, thanks for sharing your excellent writing and interesting views.  I bet you could have an interesting (less typical) take on Paul using the same type of research and specific point of view/angle.

 

[acebackwords]

Ace; congrats on great research and writing.

Just as easily, you - or someone else could (or has)  write an opposing view - when selected facts, stories, accounts are written out of context - conclusions can be convincing. 

Appreciate the thoughtful and generous response to my Lennon article.  And what you say is exactly true.  I don't mean for my take on Lennon to be taken as the last word on the subject.  Certainly, my take is slanted towards the critical and the negative, but thats only one side of Lennon.  An extremely multi-faceted person.  And it doesn't negate all the great things one can also write about Lennon.  But I just figured everybody already knows about that side of him, so why re-hash it.

[acebackwords]

I think John's life in his 50's and 60's + would have been way, way better than his 20's and 30's.  What?  You 're saying his 50's would have been better than being a Beatles, Greg?  Yep

(That was a heck of an article.  It is often the case that people will be very angry on a message board that criticizes the very subject of the message board.  This forum is really something else.)

This is all speculation, but I suspect if Lennon had lived into his 40s he would have completely cracked up and self-destructed.  He had so many close calls over the years, and he was such a great "jumper-off-of-cliffs" (as McCartney described him) that its almost a miracle he made it as far as he did. In Lennon's last interviews he sort of portrays himself as a man who's coming to terms with his demons, making peace with himself. But its so hard to ever tell the Lennon public relations spin from the actual reality. He was one of the great spinners of the Beatles myth after all.  Even as he was one of the great Beatles de-bunkers the other half of the time.  Fred Seaman portrayed Lennon as basically a "tortured, lonely and isolated person" in his last years.  I suspect he was probably headed for more of the same if he had lived on.  But who's to tell with such an unpredictable character as Lennon.

Hopefully Beatles fans won't be too upset with my slightly scathing depiction of Lennon.  I'm a Beatles fan myself, after all.  And I didn't mean it as an Albert Goldman kind of "drag-the-idol-off-his-pedastol-into-the-muck" kind of thing.  It was more a matter of this guy having such a profound effect on me during my youth. And then later, feeling the need to probe deeper and find out who this guy really was, as opposed to the myth that I largely thought he was.

[Greg]

Well, yeah, AceBackwards.  Good point on the possible self-destruct path.  I suppose he was gonna go one way or the other.  That whole house-husband thing, I think, is a myth.  Sounds great but not accurate.  I've always looked at Elliot Mintz as just missing some kind of believe-ability.  John had pretty much lost Pete and Paul and George.  Ringo was in no shape to be a good influence.  He "lived with freaks who told him he was king" or whatever that line was that was meant for Paul. 

I just thought he'd get away from Yoko, eventually get to know Julian, get to see and talk to Mimi, his sisters, and come to realize that he's a guy from Liverpool that needs to become a real person.  ...and I know he had amazing qualities.  I have my own weirdnesses.  I shouldn't be talking.
Pete and the other Quarrymen would have been good for him.  I guess there was no way that would ever be John's life again. 

Anyway, I really didn't express enough just how impressive that article was btw.   

[mervap]

Hopefully Beatles fans won't be too upset with my slightly scathing depiction of Lennon.  I'm a Beatles fan myself, after all.  And I didn't mean it as an Albert Goldman kind of "drag-the-idol-off-his-pedastol-into-the-muck" kind of thing.  It was more a matter of this guy having such a profound effect on me during my youth. And then later, feeling the need to probe deeper and find out who this guy really was, as opposed to the myth that I largely thought he was.

It's always interesting to read about other's Beatles experiences...especially someone who was alive at that time. I missed that by a few years and am fascinated by the many ways the Lads affected folks. We later-comers can read all the books we want, but first-hand accounts are as close as we can get. Thanks again for the article!

[mervap]

That was a heck of an article.  It is often the case that people will be very angry on a message board that criticizes the very subject of the message board.  This forum is really something else.

Thanks, Greg! The check is in the mail! 

That's the very reason this place was created...good to know our aim is true, eh?