Entertainment For Lively Minds
The Lennon biography by Philip Norman
Posted by Kit Hogue on 16 December 2009 - 8:57pm.
I've just finished Philip Norman's biography of John Lennon. I thoroughly enjoyed it, even though I'd expected to despise Lennon by the end of the book. But here's the thing - I realised that I actually quite liked the man.
Certainly, he could be crass, insensitive, violent, and self-centred, but it seems that by the end of his life, he'd actually made a real effort to reform himself, and come to terms with his own shortcomings. Above all, this was a man who was never ever dull.
Anyone else read it/care to share their thoughts/disagree violently?
- More from Kit Hogue.
- Login or register to post comments









Havent got to the
book yet but I love Lennon, precisely because of all the shortcomings that you list as well as all the gifts that he had.
He rarely tried to hide any facet of his personality - and yes, I concede that anybody in his line of work MUST be in some way an act of contrivance - and made it pretty clear to his disciples that he was every bit as much of a fuck-up as they were and that no, he didn't have any answers either.
Although his solo work is the very definition of patchy, he was always intriguing, a living contradiction and pretty much willing to expose himself as something of a cock. And to expose his cock for that matter, which is a rather less appealing matter, but these tortured artists eh?
Some of the more Messianic pop stars we've seen since could take a leaf out of his book and be rather more forthcoming about their shortcomings rather than telling the rest of us whhat to do all the time.
12 years ago...
I had a lot of long journeys and got a bit fascinated at to what Lennon was up to in his last few years. In the early days of the web I managed to get to chat to May Pang and Fred Seaman and have noticed since that we are being fed an 'official' version of those last few years. The idea that Lennon became a house husband etc.
How does Norman cover this era?
Does he mention May Pang having postcards from Lennon in the late 70's from Hong Kong and Sth Africa or that she claims he visited her a few times.
I haven't read it
but I've read Norman's 'Shout', probably still the definitive Fabs book. I admired it, but Norman himself makes clear in the preface that he's a 'John person'. I found that bias obvious in the book in places, and it detracted slightly from my enjoyment.
I just think you should bear Norman's self-declared bias on this subject in mind when assessing Lennon.
I read it when it first came out
I agree with the point ' he'd actually made a real effort to reform himself', and I rather enjoyed the fact that Yoko signed off on the book and then when it was released she was mad at him for what he wrote.I guess the part about fantasizing about having sex with his mom (Julia) was pushing it.
I also read an interview with the producer Jack Douglas some years ago, and he saw Yoko as trying to control Lennon and isolate him from any outside influences.Cheap Trick started out making Double Fantasy with Lennon ( listen to their version of I'm losing you with Lennon)and he was having so much fun he started to talk about touring again.He thought he would get together with some of his old friends - the Fabs - (I hate HJHM) and record songs with them on their solo albums.Unfortunately, Yoko got out of the car first, and was standing in front, instead of instead of the back of Lennon.
"Unfortunately, Yoko got out of the car first,...
and was standing in front, instead of the back of Lennon."
That's nice Andrew.Wishing someone else had been murdered instead.Merry Xmas (War Is Over)
Andrew
grow up..soon!
It was my holiday reading this summer
and I was utterly absorbed, largely because, as you say, Lennon was never dull. However, I was struck by how superficial the book was. Despite being a rather large book, Norman never seems to dwell on anything and I found that when things get interesting, he seems to skate over the details. I found this especially with regard to the music, Norman's observations on which I thought were almost invariably trite and sketchy.
It made me think how incredibly big a really satisfying biography of Lennon would have to be.
try
The Albert Goldman one..this,I Imagine,is rather closer to the truth than all the others
Really? Honestly?
I haven't read it, but (from the reviews and discussions about it when it was published) I took it to be a cynical hatchet job written by a woeful desperate hack who knew that causing a controversy could only help sales.
To be fair, I guess I should read it and judge for myself; but that would involve buying it and reading it and the problem is that I'm currently saving all my spare pennies for the mono box set and I'm just starting the Gormenghast trilogy and ... oh, you get the idea ;-)
It was a pretty good read
It was a pretty good read but I, too, found it ultimately superficial. Which, as you point out, is odd given how big the book is. Perhaps the problem is that it felt like the book was vetted entirely by Yoko. It was like Norman wrote it wondering, How honest can I be without marring the Lennon/Ono marketing machine? (I'm aware that Yoko distanced herself from the book, saying Norman was "mean to John." Frankly I think she did that to give the book credibility because it so exactly tows her line throughout.)
What I found most lacking was the post-Beatles section of the book. There are enough contradictory accounts of that period of Lennon's life that I expected/hoped for a more balanced approach, rather than the Yoko-approved version: Lennon was a happy househusband, yada yada. Plus it bothered me immensely that Sean Lennon gets a final epilogue in the book to reflect on his father. Well, what about Julian Lennon? Once again, it's as if Julian doesn't exist.
I also think Shout is way overrated because of Norman's obvious bias toward Lennon. I read an updated edition of Shout from the library and in a new chapter at the end, Norman actually called George Harrison mediocre. Because god forbid any other Beatle compete with Lennon for sainthood. I prefer Gould's Can't Buy Me Love (and of course Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, which, while not a bio, does give a lot of great background info about the four).
The Goldman
is too far unbalanced the other way though as its based on dubious sources and dodgy ones at that (slimy twatty thief Fred Seaman for one)
Norman's is the most balanced bio of Lennon I've read and getting Macca to agree to answer some questions for it is a minor miracle after his "Shout=Shite" quote. I found his avoidance of discussing the music in depth a bit of a relief as I've already read several books examining those with a fine comb so didn't need any fresh perspective.
I bought a copy from the ailing Borders for half price as an Xmas gift as its one of the best and most engrossing books I've read all year
Goldman biog of Lennon
I read the Goldman (sorry excuse for a) book a long time ago and while I managed to finish it I would never recommend it to another living soul. It was mean spirited from the start and painted Lennon in the worst light at all times. As other have said, some of the main sources have been exposed and (properly) undermined, so let's leave that hack job to its fate. I am almost ready to give up reading any more Beatle books so I have held off on the Norman book - although it may find its way to me via a seasonal gift. It will prove useful for when another auto-tuned poX-factor artiste tries to push their over produced over polished slime on me. By that I mean that I'll read the book and try to blot the spectacle out...
Ian McDonald pretty much stopped the show for me with Revolution In The Head. It's about the music. Fascinating as it used to be, I have now really given up on the subsequent attempts to write and rewrite the Beatles' history and their individual lives. It's about the music.
The Beatles were human beings, flawed like us all, but when it came to their music, their unparalleld genius was collective and while some of this genius continued into some of their solo work, it just proved what a talented group of artists they were to start with, with instincts and fate bringing George Martin to them at a crucial stage.
A lifelong Beatles fan, I have probably become more of a Lennon fan over the years because of the flaws he exhibited. Great art is not always made by great human beings...
Nollaig Shona!
A "John" person
What strikes you about the book is not the anti-Paul bias; it's more the fact that Norman rarely has anything nice to say about George Harrison, who comes across as whiny, ill-mannered and tight-fisted.
The book rounds up the last part of his life ie after Sean's birth, in about 40 pages, partly because I suspect there's not as much first hand witness to go on. I think maybe Norman paints this as a short-lived "happy ever after" phase because it rounds off the narrative, but the fact remains that Lennon does seem to have done a lot of growing up in this period. Looking after a small child seems to have been the best therapy for ten years in the Beatles - which, let's face it, would have made anyone a bit self-centred.
More 'Anti-Paul' than Norman
is surely Chet Flippo's biography of the cute one which emerged snarling and spitting out of its publishing house sometime during the eighties. What a sneering, nasty piece of work that book was. Anybody else read it?
ok, a freudian slip
I apologize to all who were offended, and I should have said, unfortunately for John, Yoko got out of the car first.