10 Unpleasant facts about John Lennon

Read it. Fume. then discuss.
http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-...t-john-lennon/

To be honest, except for the one about Julian, I can counter most of these and will do so.

Dear misfit, thank you for bringing this to our attention. But, you know, as Lennonistas/ists I think we are all aware of the many bright and dark sides of John's persona. It was the complexities that made him so fascinating. The struggles to right the wrongs, or to fight the bad. Instead of delving into that darkness and doing something destructive, he chose to focus his energy on POSITIVE and extremely meaningful messages.

Anyone who gives enough of a care to humanity the way John did does not deserve to have every sin listed out and aired for the public to pounce on, but it happens. Sad reality of being an icon.

But when I hear people singing along to his words, humming his music, and using his songs and art to spread messages that give light, happiness, and joy out into the world...I just look at these negative a-holes/non-entities who have accomplished nothing but disparaging nastiness and, well...



Let me recycle a confession I actually made to the Beatles Confessions tumblr a while back. I meant it then and every word stands now:

The man was human just like the rest of us.He was no saint.He made mistakes,which one of us here didn't!Who ever this jackass is didn't know him.He's been dead for 31 yrs. for crying out loud!Let him rest in peace!He's not here to defend himself!
The other comment about being "talentless",really pisses me off!You might not be a fan of his or The Beatles but say they sucked is total BS!!I'm not a fan of Bob Dylan or Jimi Hendrix but,I know how much they changed music and their impact on it!At least acknowledge it!!

Ugh, whoever wrote that list is a total idiot! It's like the Encyclopedia for the Completely Uninformed View of John Lennon. (Or maybe it was written as a joke to provoke anger from us old Beatles fans. )

Anyway, yeah, John did some of those things... but the generalizations that the author makes reveal a narrow-minded bigotry. If John Lennon was a wife-beater, then why not call George and Ringo the same? They were both known to have hit a woman or two. Abused his son? Well, Ritchie was not exactly the most attentive and loving parent to young Zak and Jason... Politically clueless? What does that even mean? Was he running for Senate or something? No, he was an artist in the '70s... politics was theater, politics was infused into everyday life... John just reflected that back to us. He never claimed to have any answer. Talentless?! The author lost all credibility with that one... and the other idiotic claims.

But the total zero of a claim is that John was a pathological liar. Poor memory, perhaps... an embellisher, yeah okay. But not a f@@@in' liar.

Here are the author's claims:

He claimed he had been a working class lad from Liverpool before the Beatles; he was actually raised in a comfortable middle-class home. He denied being married during his early years of stardom. He claimed to have met Yoko Ono at an art show and their love blossomed spontaneously; in fact, Ono had stalked him for months before he gave in to her advances. He claimed to have lost interest in the Beatles due to Paul McCartney’s tendencies toward pop music and dominant role in the group, as well as his desire to do his more avant-garde work outside the band; in fact, he had all but left the band in its last two years as the result of a serious addiction to heroin. When he emerged back into the public eye shortly before his death, he claimed that he had been spending time baking bread and being a stay-at-home dad; in fact, he had been living in a drug-induced haze most of the time.

1. John never denied that he was from a suburban home "a half an inch" higher in the perplexing (to an American) British class system than Paul's council estate.

2. He did first meet Yoko at the Indica Gallery. Her supposed "stalking" of him occurred after that. (And even if they did meet before November '66, tell me one couple who doesn't have an established--if questionable--"creation myth.")

3. "He claimed to have lost interest in the Beatles due to Paul McCartney’s tendencies toward pop music and dominant role in the group" -- Uhhhhm, no. He claimed that he grew bored, that he knew that the end of touring meant the end of the Beatles, that the loss of Brian Epstein meant the loss of some mystic glue that kept them together, that the Beatles just grew apart. He was John Lennon... a more restless spirit you will not find. And he was not addicted to heroin for the last two years of The Beatles.

I'm sorry, I was misled by the term 'fact' in there. I guess it depends on which side of the looking glass you're standing on, one man's fraud is another's hero.


Besides, he was one of the front men for the fucking Beatles, why would he need to embellish or lie about his life?

Originally Posted by Serena

I'm sorry, I was misled by the term 'fact' in there. I guess it depends on which side of the looking glass you're standing on, one man's fraud is another's hero.


Besides, he was one of the front men for the fucking Beatles, why would he need to embellish or lie about his life?

as a cool funk buddy of mine in the 70s said.."right on, right on , right on"

gk.

10.Wife-beater-I think it's a fact that he hit Cynthia once in the 50's but she specifically said she never hit her again. I don't think there's ever been any reliable or credible evidence that he hit Yoko so that's that.
9.Emotionally Abused His Son-Yeah. It's pretty much beyond dispute that he wasn't very attentive to julian throughout his life. That's not emotional abuse though. Millions if not billions of dads are suprisngly akward and emotionally distant to their children esp. sons. My dad hardly said a word to us when we were growing up. He just sat there at the dinner table with a miserable look on his face. That's life.
8.Pathological Liar-"Everyone does this to some extent". Nuff said.
7.Broke Up the Beatles-Actually that's sorta true but as John himself said "It's not the end of the world" or a crme against humanity. It's not even immoral!!!
6.Politically Clueless-I actually pretty much agree with this. I find his behaviour around the end of the 60's early 70's a bit embarrasing. He was being arrogant and dogmatic and to acheive things politically you need to think and act with a sophisticated stratergy not jut go round saying whatever you think.
5.Talentless-Strangely enough he wasn't. He actually wrote aand co-wrote a rich and varied collection of songs throughout his life some of which were indisputably works of complete and utter genius. He also had the talent to pick up other people's songs, obviously Paul's mainly, and perform on them with remarkable ease.
4.Follower Not a Leader-He also wore the same style of hat as Bob Dylan for a while.
3.Mindless Conformist-Maybe some truth in that but so what?
2.He happily went along with the Beatles’ haircuts, suits, and calculated image-He went along with it. True. He wasn't happy about it though. Hardly 'unpleasant' though.
1.Hypocrite-Mmh! Maybe some truth in some of that esp. the possessions but it's not like it really matters when it comes to listening to his music.

So what? Hey, I'm sure we could find 10 unpleasant 'facts' about Mother Theresa if we tried!

^You wouldn't have to try so hard....but nevertheless the whole of character is still greater than the sum of its parts.

Who the hell is this guy?

I guess the thing that bothers me most is that many of these online articles are created by those who can hide behind the powerful mask of anonymity on the 'net. So when they publish this BS and feed it to a bunch of thirsty fangirls/boys who aren't able to distinguish truth from fiction, there is the issue of taking everything at face value. I think you have to be a brighter person. Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, most bloggers/commenters on these articles aren't the smartest. They have no problem with believing anything on a list without questioning the source, or trying to understand the motive.

This is a case of:



And that says more about society nowadays than anything that could be true/untrue/exaggerated about John. SHM...

Originally Posted by Colonel Angus

Who the hell is this guy?

That would definitely NOT be John.

^ I think that guy is the "John" in some tribute band.

Originally Posted by TheEggman

6.Politically Clueless-I actually pretty much agree with this. I find his behaviour around the end of the 60's early 70's a bit embarrasing. He was being arrogant and dogmatic and to acheive things politically you need to think and act with a sophisticated stratergy not jut go round saying whatever you think.

I keep hearing this argument and I think it just shows that people still misunderstand what John was trying to accomplish. His was an artistic statement, not a political one. He was definitely naive at times about things, but he was not so naive as to think that he would bring the Vietnam War to an end single-handedly.

Here in the U.S., the right has been very successful the past 30+ years (especially since Karl Rove joined forces with the W) in selling certain ideas to the working and middle classes, even though many of their ideas run contrary to the economic interests of those people. They've appealed to people's fears and organized a massive advertising campaign, aided by right-wing anti-intellectuals on the radio, where truck drivers and construction workers can listen to them as they work.

John tried to do his version of that... using the "advertising" space he received for free by the media to send a message of peace (as opposed to fear). Now you can say that he was not successful because the entire world is not at peace, but in many ways he did achieve a measure of success. First of all, it's true he did not organize... and had he organized a massive campaign, he may have been able to do more. BUT, he did get the message out... he is forever linked with the peace movement, he has people thinking about what "peace" really means... and his work influenced countless people (including yours truly) who decided to live their lives and dedicate their work to creating a more peaceful and socially just society. And I pass that message along to the thousands of students who are under my charge, who hear a message of peace among the violence they live in... they learn that "peaceful solutions to problems are the only way to accomplish your goals."

F**king amen Maia. Why the f**k are people biting on John over his political naivete? It wasn't like he was elected as anyone's leader, though he absolutely was one. But to make such a GAWDA** deal out of one man's wrong choices boils my blood. John's intent wasn't to overcome war and bring peace instantly on earth. I think we all know he wasn't that crazy. He was trying to REFOCUS the people, to remove their a$$es from the gun barrels for a second and redirect them to something that was a great deal more worthy and less destructive.

I noticed that most of the critics are the ones who didn't do a f**king thing. I mean, someone actually posted some soldier's reminisces on John somewhere on this board and it broke me down. Here is someone who actually risked their own life, who went through it, defending John's motives and explaining why he loved them. I guess I'm biased because I always KNEW John was selling peace like a product and it never bothered me. In fact I always thought it was an act of pure genius- no one else ever had the balls and the other three Beatles included. I said it and I meant it.

Originally Posted by hibgal

So what? Hey, I'm sure we could find 10 unpleasant 'facts' about Mother Theresa if we tried!

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Fly

F**king amen Maia. Why the f**k are people biting on John over his political naivete? It wasn't like he was elected as anyone's leader, though he absolutely was one. But to make such a GAWDA** deal out of one man's wrong choices boils my blood.

Well that's your tough luck! You can't actually stop people having that opinion about him not even someone who's a fan of John Lennon like me. I just don't care that much about politics and peace. I just like his songs and his zinging! I get irritated by people like you who use language like 'boils my blood' because you're so tied in with adulation towards John Lennon that something as inconsequential as people's negative opinions about what he did and said 40 odd yrs. ago gets turned into somekinda blashpemphous heresay! He was just a guy who had a talent for making music. Nothing more nothing less.

Yes, but what if we sincerely agree with John's intentions and we're merely defending our reasoning? I don't need to be accused of being unreasonable and not accepting criticism if it's something I personally feel was tremendously positive and affected many in a good way. Do I?

In any case, I respectfully disagree with you, Eggman, but we've disagreed in the past with no hard feelings, eh?

Ya know, I could pretty much refute all of these so-called facts but I'm not gonna waste my time. We did this quite thoroughly and eloquently already in a nice little thread called Myths lo many moons ago....the person who wrote it can go choke on the fast food of their choice for all the intellectual heft displayed.

Bor-ing...

Originally Posted by TheEggman

Well that's your tough luck! You can't actually stop people having that opinion about him not even someone who's a fan of John Lennon like me. I just don't care that much about politics and peace. I just like his songs and his zinging! I get irritated by people like you who use language like 'boils my blood' because you're so tied in with adulation towards John Lennon that something as inconsequential as people's negative opinions about what he did and said 40 odd yrs. ago gets turned into somekinda blashpemphous heresay! He was just a guy who had a talent for making music. Nothing more nothing less.

I respectfully disagree as well. I see not harm to show great admiration for an artist - whoever it may be - and this not only for his work, but also for his personality and the influence he had during his lifetime.

And in all modesty, I think that John Lennon still represents a little bit more to many people than "just a guy who had talent for making music".

Snoopy

Originally Posted by Snoopy66

lifetime.

And in all modesty, I think that John Lennon still represents a little bit more to many people than "just a guy who had talent for making music".

Snoopy

Well it's a free world and if they wanna get carried away with all that kinda thing then fair enought. I'm pretty fed up of tbh. It all just sounds so shrill. If anything I prefer to downplay artists talents and successes. I mean I like most of Paul's music but it'd never say something like he has 'immense talent'. What good does that do anyone? All it does it ratchet up peoples feelings unnecessarily which then leads to tension and conflict when those feelings are hurt.