Paul McCartney biography by Philip Norman due in May

Because Francie had better legs than Hamish?

 

Yes. Personally I think a biographer should maintain a certain distance and stick to surnames, except when it seems too awkward, but I can see that it's a contentious point. But really, the Linda 'Lin' thing is surely just inappropriate for someone who was not even a personal acquaintance.

 

In MY book, I refer to Linda as "the blond hippie chick" and to Ringo as the "ham-fisted drummer". ...

 

You are correct.

Huh, my copy of Doggett's book, he calls Ringo "Richie" throughout for the same reasons Danby Delight said.

 

Weird. Maybe it's different editions? I just searched in the online version of Doggett's book via Amazon and it uses "Ringo" repeatedly.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Could be. I have the US paperback edition and he mentions in the foreword why he calls Ringo "Richie" throughout the book and then proceeds to do just that.

 

Maybe he refers to him by a different name in each territory. 'Ricardo' for the Spanish market, etc.

 

Just found another review of the book in a journal I've never head of called No Depression: The Journal of Roots Music.

Another Beatles Biography, This Time about Paul McCartney »

The review is not all that detailed or positive -- calling the book "rambling" and criticizing Norman's "plodding prose." It also questioned whether we really needed another Beatles book rehashing all the same old stories. But the review does include an interesting quote I don't recall reading before from the singer Tony Sheridan (the reviewer mistakenly calls him an "actor") who told Norman:

There you go: More grist for the debate about whether John or Paul would have made it alone.

 

And in the French edition, Ringo is referred to as "Gros Nez".

 

In Germany, grosse schnauzer? (pardon my horrific phonetic German!)

 

In the epilogue which you can see via the Amazon 'look inside' feature which you can access here (and you see more if you have an Amazon account and login by the way) http://www.amazon.com/Paul-McCartne...qid=1460984213&sr=8-5&keywords=paul+mccartney

Norman mentions that after he wrote the open letter your referring too in 2003 that he was amazed to find that McCartney was prepared to help him with his Lennon book and that Paul rang him to assist him. He said that when he met Paul many years later, Paul still recalled the phone call and mentioned to Norman that they had spoken on the phone. Norman appears to have been taken aback by McCartney's magnanimousness, especially given previous events, so this was somewhat of a turning point in his attitude.

It would seem McCartney was actually able to charm him and turn one of his most vehement critics into someone who now claims to respect and admire him? Perhaps we need to send Macca to the Middle East

 

I enjoyed Norman's book Shout and his Elton John bio although in the former case, I think he took too many liberties with the facts and often speculated with some truly absurd ideas (they were considerably more responsible than Goldman's although the speculation about Brian Epstein's "murder" seemed exactly that--there was nothing to substantiate it and it seemed to be designed strictly to sell the book) having said that I think he got a good feel of who the band was.

 

Let's not forget--it was The Beatles charm that helped get them signed by George Martin in the first place.

 

At least he didn't say "adorkable."

 

He seems nice.

 

To be fair, in his foreword, after quoting that poem, he admitted it was in poor taste and said "talk about completely burning your bridges." So he's at least self-aware enough to know what he did was in poor taste and one of the reasons Paul had so much animus toward him.

 

Have you explored the Maureen Cox, Tony Cox, Peter Cox (are there more?) family conspiracy in your book?

 

I've come across "doe-eyed", "cow-eyed" and "puppy dog eyed". Are there others?

 

Pie eyed.

 

I noticed:

"Koala bear-eared"
"C Moon-faced"
"Aardvark-nosed"
"Horse-mouthed"

 

Thanks for this I've just read the foreword and a little of the beginning of the book and the end. I had a flick through the Table of Contents and index too.

I think I'll probably read it once I have a copy as I'm very curious now to see how the biography itself turns out. Still reading his explanation for why he was so biased and nasty over the years places me in the odd position of wanting to read a book by a man I think is basically a twat. I'm sure I've read many books by many twats but I'm usually blissfully unaware.

He comes across as his own special mix of a self important, jealous and nasty. He seems to have been motivated by envy and a man-crush that had left him bitter and twisted for reasons all his own. I can understand that some people blamed Paul for the end of the Beatles because of the stories in circulation at the time but he kept the animosity going for 34 years!?

Still it would seem the simple gesture of a personal phone call, because it made him feel important and special and as if Paul was talking to him 'bloke to bloke' just turned the turkey right around didn't it. "Sir McCartney you're a lovely fella really and I just love you to bits now that you've rung me in 2004 when I attacked you in the pages of one of the nation's paper for having the audacity to be rude to a photographer harrassing you in 2003. Sorry about saying John was 75% of the Beatles and lapping up everything Yoko said and taking mean-spirited and cheap shots whenever I could. Oopsie." Hmmm odd. However, everyone is entitled to a change of mind and heart.

If he really has done a complete 180 as he suggests then that's a pretty big about face and it's a credit to Paul I guess. It is good to see that Norman has finally recanted and admitted the less than admirable reasons for his past behaviour, at any rate.

 

Looking forward to the chapter in the book where Norman describes how McCartney has destroyed his legacy by not changing his concert setlist enough.

 

Well said. It is quite a shocking admittance, and is further evidence of what forum member Andy Nicks wrote about for his degree course; Paul was vilified by certain parts of the rock music press because he had the nerve to sue the other Fab's in order to defeat Klein. They reviewed Paul more than they reviewed his music it seems.

 

I forgot to say above but reading the preview did make me wonder, given the absolutely awful obit Norman penned when George died, if Norman also had a big man-crush on George, wanted to be him as well and blamed him for the break-up too or at least blamed him for not being John which was a fairly big fault the other Beatles seemed to suffer from. Clearly, judging by that cheap and nasty excuse for an obituary, George never realised he just needed to ring Philip Norman up and help the incredibly important cultural icon out with something