Talk:The Lives of John Lennon

Wrong focus

The notations about Lennon's alleged homosexuality and Ono's alleged prostitution are merely sensationalist soundbytes that miss the essential character of the book, which was to destroy the carefully constructed narrative that John had selflessly sacrificed five years of his superstar career to raise his son, Sean, and that now he was somewhat self-sufficient, Lennon and Ono were free to re-enter the recording and touring industry and lifestyle. As I've enumerated in my additions, Goldman sought to pose an alternative narrative. The truth of that narrative maybe debated, but the character of the book is exactly that, and the bulk of it is supposed facts and testimony supporting Goldman's assertions. It seems to anger some moderators to see these assertions in print. Many people have rebutted them, and rebuttals could be posted, but they are not really germane to an article about the book, It should not be for Wikipedia to prove or disprove Goldman. It should be for the wiki to accurately report what the book was about. I believe I have added a great deal to that reporting, and have done so from the text itself.

I can quote more text verbatim if anyone doubts the veracity of this fact. The sensationalist stuff misses the point entirely.71.100.13.236 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your claim about the "essential character of the book" is your POV. Regardless of how much space Goldman devoted to certain allegations, they are there nonetheless. How can the sensationalist stuff "miss the point entirely" when Goldman (and possibly his editors, whose actions we know nothing about) was (were?) entirely responsible for every word in the book?

Someone is expressing a POV if he/she says Goldman thought Lennon and Ono's greatest fraud of all was the househusband period in which Lennon "selflessly sacrificed" five years of his career and life. Goldman devoted many pages to that phase of Lennon's life because it lasted five years. He devoted very little space to such incidents as Ono's alleged orchestration of Paul McCartney's January 1980 arrest and detention in Japan because that incident lasted approximately ten days or maybe two weeks if you account for Ono spying and making overseas phone calls. Why, of course Goldman devoted less than a page to it! What else could he possibly say? BTW, I added this claim by Goldman to the article today including a source from the McCartney article on exactly how much cannabis McCartney was caught smuggling.

Biased, redundant text

. "...in spite of her litigious past history."

"past history" is redundant and incorrect; history is by nature in the past, or "passed" as it should be. Additionally, to say that Ono's history is litigious is an opinion. Perhaps replace it with a phrase the points out specifically that in the past, she has brought litigation against individuals who she alleged slandered or libeled her husband's legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.69.213.41 (talk • contribs)

the teen prostitute claim

I removed the word "teen" from the prostitution claim on Yoko Ono. She was at least 20 by the time she is alleged to have been a prostitute. 12.96.162.45 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

re: canadialinux reverting my edits

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you think I fabricated this material, you are free to read the Amazon reviews for verification if you don't believe I got it from the book. I have no internet links to the material, its taken from the book itself, which should be a valid reference to an article about the book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lives-John-Lennon-Albert-Goldman/dp/1556523998

You might not LIKE the material I have added, but its valid, true and informative. 71.100.13.236 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

From the Come Together article: Lawsuit

"Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Chuck Berry's music publisher, Morris Levy, because one line in "Come Together" closely resembles a line of Berry's You Can't Catch Me: (i.e., The Beatles' "Here come ol' flattop, he come groovin' up slowly" vs. Berry's "Here come up flattop, he was groovin' up with me"). After settling out of court, Lennon promised to record other songs owned by Levy, all of which were released on Lennon's 1975 album Rock 'n' Roll. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ok fair point, I reworded it. I checked the text and found I had misremembered some of it from when I first read it years ago. I'm in the process of re-reading the entire book and will be able to quote more germane passages.

What is the limit of quoting text for fair use? 71.100.13.236 (talk)

Here is Wikipedia's policy on fair use. Wikipedia:Fair_Use --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it just says "brief". That's kind of vague. 71.100.13.236 (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

I have removed this unsourced edit by IP70.188.142.63. See [1]. See also this biased contribution by the same IP. Onefortyone (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he knows the meaning of "penultimate" either, that is obviously no accurate in any sense and should not be included. Jones8888 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

81000 Words Removed from Book

According to the Blender music magazine article, Rock's 25 Most Dastardly Villains (published September 15, 2002), Goldman himself claimed he "didn't much like Lives, either; he complained that his editors cut 81,000 words of his more balanced manuscript." The same magazine quotes Yoko Ono as saying "I'm not aware that there were 81,000 words of positive material removed from the book at the editing stage. That's like saying [Lennon's killer Mark David] Chapman had some very positive things to say about John which weren't reported." WikiPro1981X (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Cleaning up

I’m cleaning up some inaccuracies in the article that reading Goldman’s book cleared up. First, Goldman did not charge that Lennon was “instrumental in the murder of a sailor.” The quote on page 107 reads “One attack lay heavy on his conscience because he had gone mad and beaten the sailor so badly that John feared he had left the man for dead … John could never be sure that his victim had died … study of the Hamburg press reveals no record of such an event.” According to Goldman, Lennon felt guilty about this incident and supposedly thought he himself would die a violent death. There is no allegation that he murdered a sailor. Same is true of Sutcliffe’s death – look at pages 118 and 119. According to a story Lennon supposedly told, he once got in a fight with Stu and beat him up. John felt guilty about Stu’s death several months later. Once again, there is no direct allegation that Lennon was responsible, just that he felt guilty. In the previous paragraph, Goldman discusses a story of a beating Stu allegedly received from a gang of thugs at Litherland Town Hall. Goldman presents these events, and does not allege either were directly responsible for Sutcliffe’s death.

Also, according to the book, the "kick to the belly" was while she was pregnant with Sean, not in 1968. (Page 554) On page 319, Ono is claimed to have told her assistant that her first miscarriage in 1968 was "triggered by a beating she received from John." So the end result is the same, but details are jumbled.

The statement that Goldman largely dismisses Lennon’s work is also inaccurate. He does criticize the song “Imagine,” and a few of his solo works are given a lukewarm appraisal, but he’s generally positive regarding Lennon’s artistic output. I didn’t see any part of the book where Goldman claimed Lennon’s best songs were a product of mental illness or drug abuse. As for melodies being “stolen,” there was the legal action regarding “Come Together” which is detailed in the text. Other than that, Goldman put forth the following observation - “If John Lennon was the music game’s slickest pickpocket, he was also a thief with a hole in his own pocket because he always left more at the scene of the crime than he took.” (p. 137) This roughly translates to the idea that Lennon was an expert at borrowing just the right amount from earlier material in creating his own original songs. This is not a putdown – Goldman appears to be making the case that this brand of “synthesis” is a rare skill. It’s a major stretch to claim Goldman is stating that Lennon did this for every song he wrote, but even if he did, it’s not a putdown.

In time, I might balance the text with some other sources that show Goldman had much admiration for Lennon's talent, but not so much admiration for him as a man. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)