Wonderful Tonight

I found it on Friday and finished it yesterday and I really enjoyed reading it. I kinda felt sorry for her in the 70s & 80s since it seems like she had a real rough time. The only thing I could say is that it got a little confusing because she didnt go totally in chronological order. she'd jump ahead and then go back to something else. But overall I liked the book and thought it was written well.

I am currently reading it and I will be posting a review shortly.

OBC, you have 2 sections of photos in your book? I have the American version, Wonderful Tonight and it just has the one. Some of the chapters are heralded with a photograph.

I do feel sorry for Pattie and truth be told, I would never trade places with her for anything in creation. Her family sounds wonderful - they sound like truly good people and are also very interesting.

Originally Posted by beatlebangs1964

I have the American version, Wonderful Tonight and it just has the one. Some of the chapters are heralded with a photograph.

don't tell me you even have this with books...

I am finding the book hard to read. So far in chapter one, she has distanced herself from her biological father for no real reason. She speaks repeatedly about money matters, who has money and who does not, and about fashion. She tells how her great grandmother dies, which is one sentence, but then the following three or four sentences are about the fabulous car her grandfather bought subsequently.

She shares that her father suffered a terrible accident, but the tone is like parlor chatter. She then goes on say he was depressed and quiet in the hospital, and how hard that was on her mother. Hmmm...

Her poor father then is sadly rejected by her maternal grandmother, who is disappointed he is not weathly, as was assumed when the marriage was arranged. Pattie seems to find her grandmother's "furious" attitude towards her father quite understandable? Pattie never considers her father's feelings in any matter. When they are all living under the same roof, she prefers her grandmother because she was jolly and cooked nicely. Pattie almost waxes sentimental about her grandmother, basically saying she was the closest, most caring one to her. Immediately after, she talks of how horrified she was when the same grandmother arrived to pick her up from boarding school- Pattie was afraid the girls would see how old her grandma looked!

Her language seems so irritating and snobbish.

Those are my first impressions?

I have given in to temptation and have ordered the UK titled WOnderful TODAY and it has been posted yipeeeeee! So should be able to read it and post my thoughts shortly.

I agree with most of the comments so far. I think it's very well written. I like how it flows & so far I haven't learned a lot of new stuff. Much of this has been around over the last 40 years that I've been a fan & her memories of the time periods are much like my own.

I'm still finishing it up, but I think Pattie is being honest & genuine about what she remembers & even covers her bootay a lot in the foreword, explaining that these are just her memories & that she's not out to offend anyone. She's simply telling what so many have requested her to tell.

I'm always glad to hear the "down to earth" stories. It's sometimes nice to be reminded that our Fab Four were "just four lads from Liverpool" (as they always tried to tell us).

There's not nearly enough stories about George and Pattie's
adventures together. I would like to read just silly little
unimportant things that Pattie remembered about George,
just funny little memories that people like to tell about their
loved ones. I would like to know what she loved most about
George.

I agree, GG. But I think that's where she drew the "privacy line".

Originally Posted by Asha

I agree, GG. But I think that's where she drew the "privacy line".

I"LL tell her where to draw the line!

that and the fact that she could write a whole separate book on George alone. As this was mainly about her and her life, and dealing with George and Eric, there were probably space constraints. although I would have liked a little more info on George too.

I think we all would have liked more about George. I would have liked more about the senior Harrisons and there was absolutely NO mention of Lou, George's only sister. What's up with that?

Hari's Chick, I found your assessment interesting. I am having mixed feelings about the book. I sense that Pattie was often lonely and wished that she had not been sent to boarding school. I thought that parts of the book sounded like like the voice of loneliness and perhaps just a tiny bit of self pity. Perhaps I am wrong. I do think her memories with George are bittersweet as their marriage did not work out and the Eric union also went bust....still, it is an interesting story. I liked the part where she said Harold, Sr. had a "new lease on life" when he discovered people wanted to talk to him.

I would think Harold Sr. would be an interesting person - not only because he was George's father, but think of his life experiences. The man lived through 2 world wars; traveled around the world with the White Star Line; was blessed with 4 children and, from all accounts a good marriage; he was plainly an intelligent, practical man and I would think that his input would be of interest to many.

Originally Posted by beatlebangs1964

I think we all would have liked more about George. I would have liked more about the senior Harrisons and there was absolutely NO mention of Lou, George's only sister. What's up with that?

I think all I saw (at least so far) was just a mention that Lou had moved to America. Maybe Pattie didn't really know her as well as the rest of the family due to the physical distance?

I read the book quickly after receiving it from Amazon.com. I preordered it back in May because I was so excited when it came out. When I started reading it I had a difficult time. She shares her family history all the way back to her great grandparents. But it jumps around enough that you lose track of who is who.

As far as the comments regarding her self-pity or confusing and sometimes snobbish retelling of her childhood. I would agree that it sometimes seems like misplaced values in who she preferred in her family and whose point of view she most understood. But I guess I see it as she is retelling her childhood and sometimes as children we don't understand the full picture and we see things in a skewed way. It was ni reading her childhood that I realized how different this book would be.

For anyone looking for a factually correct chronoglogical retelling of Pattie's life with either George or Eric, this isn't it. But I immensely prefer what this book does. It tells you her impressions of people, places and things. Instead of giving you information it allows you to see a whole world and time period from her eyes. It's almost like looking at a painting and feeling what the painter was feeling when they painted it.

Yes at times it does feel shallow. I don't think it is because she is shallow, I think it's because she loves people and life. So she remembers things according to the people she knew and interacted with. Again sometiems confusing because she mentions people I will never remember...ah well.

the abscence of chronological order makes it downright confusing at times, but when you readit, don't read it for trying to figure out where she is. Instead simply soak in her life as she knew it. That is what this book is about. What she felt, experienced, saw and thought. Who cares if she tells it in order?

My review? I wholeheartedly reccomend it to anyone who can read it with an open mind. It reads less like a biography and more like sitting with an old friend over tea and listening to them reminisce about days gone by!

Hope my review helps! :)

I started it this morning and am more than half-way through it. It's full of lots of fun tidbits, lots of stuff you've heard before and and few surprisingly wrong facts (for example, the Beatles were not on tour in February of 1967). But it's great read! I just wish there was more on George!

Awesome review, Daisy, I really enjoyed reading it.

Originally Posted by SpaceDaisy42

Yes at times it does feel shallow. I don't think it is because she is shallow, I think it's because she loves people and life. So she remembers things according to the people she knew and interacted with.

This part, what you say, really catches me. I have to think about this more.

Do you mean she is more 'simple' than 'shallow'?

Daisy, you gave an excellent and fair minded review.

People, regardless of age do have preferences in people. It is only natural for any child to prefer people who have been kind to her or who have left a good and positive lasting impression on her. I don't think it is disloyal; I think it is a reflection of and a telling of who influenced that child for the better.

To me there are two sides to this book.

One is a story about Pattie as a person which is probably interesting to know.

Yet another side is the background to the publishing. She said herself in a recorded interview that she wanted to let her friends and cousins know about her life.

Ok, all fine too.

Then there is the press who have written about this book as if George has been with other girls very often and very much and how “lonely” she felt. And how George would lock himself up meditating or being in his studio whilst she was waiting for attention.

Those parts..if they come back in the book, irritate me so much. Why why why does she publish all that about Maureen for instance…consulting Ringo for the name or not.. who cares.. it only brings more chit chat along… even amongst George’s fans… which she seems after.. “Oh I have been so hurt and that is why from George I went to Eric after he invited me to his private home to listen to a song and Oh I could not resist falling in his arms and then from Eric I went to xx and from him I went to xx” and “I was so lonely when George was meditating” where she seems to be the one who suggested the India trip so then why can she not understand the result of that trip but focus only on me me me me?

Pattie may be a nice person and no doubt she is, but to me… what really bothers me… without having read the book which I decline to do but having read the experts which seem to be well copied from the book, well then I just wanna defend the Harrisons as probably the only one here and think that as a person she should not have brought forward to the public in writing how George has been with some other women in the time they were together. We could also focus on her going to Clapper and what hurt that brought to George but the glossy public prefers other sides to the story and even here at Links I see people who seem to dream about George being with other women…ok all fine but for now George is someplace else not being able to give his side of some stories and Olivia and Dhani will get some of this maybe which just does not seem right to me also when again I point out what made Pattie write the book. For her cousins and friends to get to know her. Think about that. Could’nt she just rent a cottage for a weekend and sit on a chair saying “this is me”? No doubt the money for the book and the usual publishers saying “can’t you please juice this story a bit up Pattie?” was more inviting?

I have seen some “live” interviews with Pattie the past weeks and she seems like the nice woman but why all these details and doesn’t she even understand herself that for instance by going on about George hiding himself at Friar Park for meditation and recordings that as I do hope some people will understand that what he did then was just George being George? So the fact she did not understand that is more a degrading side to herself?

People who like the glossy things like all the women Paul is dating will steam them up no doubt, and I see people here saying how steamed up they get from knowing George was sleeping around...ok all very nice but... was this all necessary?

If Pattie wants her story out that's fine. If she just tell her side of the story and how she viewed things, then I think it's fair to not expect only the positive sides of her relationship with George. But yes it could show that she just didn't understand George and that that's why they drifted apart. I will not buy the book, I have so many other stuff yet to read, books about George's songs and recording sessions etc... I hope that despite some negative thoughts she had, all is written with respect and she has thought carefully what to put in the book and what not, as to not hurt anyone.

ok all fine but for now George is someplace else not being able to give his side of some stories and Olivia and Dhani will get some of this maybe which just does not seem right

I felt Pattie was very fair if not reserved in the telling of this story, mindful of everyone's feelings. I didn't find the sequence of time difficult to follow, but there were a few awkward breaks in the narrative.

She was married to George and I can't really question her life with him. If that's what happened, that's what happened. And it's a biography, so what can she do but report what she recalls happening?

I found the book bittersweet and it stayed with me a few days. I don't think she was in the least disparaging to Olivia or Dhani, if anything, she said little about them and focused on her time with George, not their time with him.

Originally Posted by Hari's Chick

Awesome review, Daisy, I really enjoyed reading it.



This part, what you say, really catches me. I have to think about this more.

Do you mean she is more 'simple' than 'shallow'?

Not really, because simple, as with shallow draws a negative connotation I don't wish to attribute to her. It's like this, we don't say a fashion designer is shallow because they like clothes and enjoy designing clothes. Yet we would say someone who enjoys clothes is shallow.

We don't say an artist or painter is simple because they put some color and shapes on a canvas. We don't condemn them for loving beauty instead of logic or numbers.

What I guess I am saying is at first I had it cross my mind after reading the book that perhaps Pattie was shallow. She talked a lot about the people she knew and the clothes certain designers made. I felt highly uncomfortable with that thought. There could be one of two reasons for that discomfort.

1. I had held her in high esteem previously and it would be difficult to continue doing so while also seeing her as shallow.

Or

2. I didn't feel like the term shallow really jived with what else I knew about her.

What I mean is, we George fans can be a bit snobbish about people who aren't philosophical enough, or religious minded enough, or "deep" enough. I say we because I am most definitely including myself in this. My friend Erin will probably be the first to tell you she has experienced my occasional disdain for "fluffy" lyrics or songs of Paul's. Truthfully we are all drawn to the Beatle we most connect with so most people drawn to George are the contemplative, religious minded, philosophical type people. And when someone isn't like that, we are quick to deem them shallow or simple.

Pattie isn't like that. But I don't think she is shallow, I think she is attracted to beauty, to color, to relationships, to interaction, to experiencing people, places and things. She doesn't want to just muddle through, she wants to truly live. Sometimes it is hard for us philosophical types to understand because we are searching for meaning and purpose and contentment drawn from something bigger I suppose you could say. A person like Pattie seems to me like a person who acts in the moment and enjoys life as it comes. Sometimes that is good and as is evident by some of her painful life experiences, sometimes that is bad. But should I label her as simple or shallow because of that? I don't think so, I think there is more to her than that. And in all honestly having to think through these things regarding Pattie has made me realize perhaps I haven't given people I know in my everyday life a fair shake. Maybe it is not a matter of us vs. them. The thinkers vs. the non-thinkers (an unfair label, perhaps I should call them "feelers" instead?), but perhaps it is all just about what drives an individual or makes them tick. If it is beauty that gives color to someone's world, then is that so wrong? We would not think so with Picasso, Van Gogh or Waterhouse (the last being my particular favorite, lol). In PAttie's case I get the feeling the things that really drive her are the relationships in her life both meaningful and fleeting. People seem to really make her tick.

I guess the long and the short of my answer is, her introduction was spot on in saying that this was truth as she experienced it. And I found that after reading the whole book and considering it all that I am thankful for the opportunity not to hear more facts about her and her marriage to George, but rather to be helped to feel what she felt, see things as she saw them and experience moments in life as she experienced them.

I have heard so many complaints from critics regarding the way the story is told but in truth that is how I think. I don't remember things chronologically first. They are more often indexed by moods, feelings, snippets of memories of people, places and things that I have loved. And honestly, on occasion my memory is a bit off. In fact quite often it is way off, lol. After reading the book she seems more real to me. More like a human, less like a demi-goddess in the Beatles' Pantheon. And for that I am quite satisfied. The things that drive me and bring me enjoyment may be different than those that do the same for her. But in the end we are all human and we all remember and experience life according to those things.

I hope you can understand what it is I am saying and that my generalizations of Beatles fans does not offend anyone. LOL, I most assuredly do not exempt myself from such generalizations, I can be more full of myself than I care to admit most days.