debs

[forgetbacktome]

Visit Original Link

Imagine by John Lennon sped up and Band On the Run by Paul McCartney slowed down.

[soundsof71]

Forever reblog McLennon’s subconscious psychic connection

[goeshome-to-a-cactus]

OH MY GOD EVEN THEIR SOLO MUSIC BLENDS PERFECTLY TOGETHER.

How much more proof do we need that they were soulmates?!!?????

[bambi-kinos]

Hi! Thank you very much for your last post, it was very informative. It led me to wonder what will happen after Yoko (and Paul) die, and what will be revealed about a) John and Paul relationship; b) the last five years of John’s life. What is the most likely scenario according to you? Do you think Sean will say something? Do you think all the Beatles’ offspring will stick together to maintain the official narrative (which, let’s be honest, is very safe and lucrative to this day)? Do you think new sources will be made available? Do you think there will be a collective reconning that will completely change the public perception of the Beatles, or that it won’t matter all that much for the public at large?

There's lots of moving pieces to consider and not all of them within the control of the Beatle estates.

We have the Lennon and McCartney estates who all have a vested interest in keeping John and Paul cleanly hetero for public consumption.

The Harrison and Starkey estates will probably continue to stay subservient to Lennon & McCartney and will promote the solo stuff for George and Ringo...but eventually Dhani or someone from George's and Ringo's past may open up about how they were affected by John and Paul's relationship.

The rest of the industry will have its say which can't be controlled by the estates. They simply don't have the resources to sue everyone who has a piece of the story. As far as we can tell, John and Paul had tons of rumors and unsubstantiated gossip going around even in the 1960s about their relationship and they may have been an open secret at one point?? Many of their peers are still alive and will probably open up about being in John and Paul's orbit while their affair was going on once Yoko and Paul have passed away. Paul is deeply respected and well liked but there's no reason not to talk about it when he passes on.

The offspring themselves are wild cards. Out of Paul's children, I think Stella is the one most likely to talk but otoh I wouldn't count on it. (She's the most defensive of her father and will have a vested interest in correcting the record.) Sean could very well say something and I wonder about Julian all the time. Dhani seems content doing his thing though I do think he may be forthcoming about his father went through as time goes on which will mean talking about John and Paul eventually. Of all the Beatle kids, Ringo's children seem happy to avoid the limelight and are pretty good at staying out of difficult situations. Smart, they're just like their father.

It's hard to say if there will be a massive public retconning of the Beatles if solid evidence of the McLennon affair comes out and I'm actually sorta inclined to say that it's not possible? Like even if we got an uncensored high definition sex tape of John nutting in Paul's ass, I don't know if it would make much of a blip aside from the novelty of two twinks from 60 years ago having gay sex. There's plenty of celebrity controversies to keep people occupied. And honestly since we currently live in Hell World, even a madly entertaining case like Cardi B dragging that security guard in court doesn't get a lot of traction. So who knows if "John Lennon and Paul McCartney were gay and totally doing it in the road" would even trend on Xitter, the everything app.

But on the other hand, that's my American perspective and we're obviously very screwed up and insular here so take what I say with a grain of salt! If there is a sex tape and it's high fidelity and we get to finally witness John's cum drip out of Paul's ass, the UK could very well explode and change the entire world once again. Heterosexuality will be outlawed, a gay Beatles pride flag for every home, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

Please keep in mind that I'm simply an enthusiastic fan like everyone else, I don't have industry connections, I don't have insider gossip, I just watch/read the gossip blogs like everyone else. So I don't have special insight, I'm just very obsessed with these four guys and how they changed the world and I've tried to learn a lot about them. So keep that in mind when reading this.

I still stand by what I said nine months ago when I said that I believe Paul has copies of John's diaries that were stolen after John was murdered and that he has plans for them. I believe Paul has something up his sleeve regarding the handling of the Lennon-McCartney legacy after Yoko dies (though that doesn't mean it's a confession or a tell all about loving John! Gotta keep expectations in check here. Paul still has a lot of reason to believe keeping this a secret is better than the alternative so while it would be really amazing and brave of Paul to do that, I'm hesitant to get my or anyone else's hopes up. I am not pulling a Victoria Bitter so help me God.)

I think that whatever big thing happens next, it will not happen until Yoko passes away. Paul wants to take back the narrative and reassert his supremacy over her when it comes to John and their relationship. Whatever happens with the Beatle kids will be subservient to that and then it will send waves and changes through the entertainment industry. Sean and Paul are on good terms and Paul has been trying to get in touch with Julian per Julian's interview with Bill Maher. Peter Doggett still wants to publish Prisoner of Love. Paul is talking openly about the librarian who manages his MPL archive and I suspect that there is a special collection archive of John's papers and possessions.

And for the record I do not know anything about the inner workings of the Lennon library, only that most likely exists! So I don't have any special insights, just that Sean and Yoko invested in preserving John's things from his time in the Dakota. Peter Doggett must have looked at it when writing Prisoner of Love. I'm just saying this because I don't want this to get overhyped. Famous people and subject matter experts like John will have archives for their materials as a matter of course, it's industry standard.

So while a lot of interesting stories will come out after Paul passes and the Beatle kids have to choose a direction, I genuinely believe that Paul is going to do something monumental once Yoko has passed away and he's paid his respects to her. Paul has balanced the entire globe on the tip of his finger more than once and he's going to do it one more time. For John's sake.

And I'm not trying to go full " the Johnlock conspiracy" here so if I'm wrong then I'll reblog this post and beg you guys to throw tomatoes at me and laugh! But I truly think Paul is going to turn the entire world upside one last time, and he's going to do it for John and for the sake of their love affair and he's going to correct the mistake he made so many years ago when he ran away from John. And we will be living in a very different world after that happens which means it's impossible to predict what happens once Paul and Yoko pass away.

[amoralto]

Visit Original Link

Louis Menand’s Iron Law of Stardom holds that no show-business career can be sustained for longer than three years. After that time creativity is exhausted and public affection begins to flag. Menand defends his theory against Beatles exceptionalists by pointing out that they actually had a six-year career divided into two: three years as cheery mop tops immediately followed by three years as psychedelic adventurers. […]

While that second three-year career is not without its delights, the first period was actually when the Beatles’ collective genius was operating at full tilt. To fully appreciate it from the vantage point of today we have to shrug off our infatuation with fashionable gloom and shed the illusion that true artists are all complex and impenetrable. We must accept the fact that the greatest pop group of them all didn’t consider it beneath them to make their records for fourteen-year-old girls. When they made their classic records the false opposition between rock and pop hadn’t yet been invented. The wall between the two has been the refuge of scoundrels and snobs ever since. To appreciate why we still underrate the Beatles you have to shrug off that prejudice and travel back to 1963, when they were far from a done deal. 

— David Hepworth, Nothing is Real: The Beatles Were Underrated And Other Sweeping Statements About Pop. (2018) (Note: Listen to the audio clip for the full essay!) 

[lope-lane]

— the beatrice letters, lemony snicket

[bodhbdearg]

Book review: The Making of John Lennon

The Making of John Lennon by Francis Kenny (2018) is a biography that is a bit different from most. The author, an academic from Liverpool, attempts to analyse John's personality through the lens of social class and childhood trauma. It's an interesting and worthy endeavour that doesn't quite come off, but includes a lot of insight.

The book has the feel of being self-published, even though it supposedly was released on an imprint. It has a few typos and a lot of errors, as well as repetition that an editor should have tackled. It's still reasonably readable, but the errors and repetition can be annoying.

Kenny looks to John's disrupted childhood as the source for his later anti-social behaviour and emotional problems. In this, he sees Mimi as an entirely negative influence. Drawing on accounts by John's half-sister Julia Baird, Kenny portrays Mimi as a snobbish social climber who acquired Mendips via squatting, and similarly plotted to purloin John from her sister's care so as to complete her ascent into perfect middle-class life. Once she had him, Kenny maintains Mimi kept him isolated, impeding his social development and giving him little affection or care. This led John to retreat into himself and his imagination, and also led to his acting out once he got to school, intent on having control over his gang of boys as a way of compensating for the lack of control at home.

I've always been sceptical that Mimi was the firm but kindly figure she portrayed herself as - even by her own account she can come across as narcissistic, dishonest, manipulative and sometimes very cruel. The actual story by which she came to assume guardianship of John remains mysterious, with Mimi's own version (that she was obliged to due to Julia's unsuitability as a parent) being adopted by most historians and biographers. Kenny provides a valuable counterpoint in highlighting the oddness of the situation, even if his conclusions are no easier to prove than Mimi's.

John's relationship with Mimi was certainly conflicted: he sometimes expressed frustration, privately had rows with her, didn't see her in person for the last nine years of his life, but at the same time remained largely loyal to her version of events (in public, at least). Kenny frames John's internal struggle as being between the view of the world imparted to him by Mimi's class-bound, suspicious prejudice, and the open, rambunctious, friendly world of working-class Liverpool (represented by Teddy Boy fashion and, later, rock 'n' roll), and some of John's conflicted views of people as originating from that struggle.

Kenny also identifies psychological splitting and projection in John's feelings about Julia/Freddie and Mimi. In Kenny's assessment, John eventually accessed the deep pain and anger he felt as a child, but directed it against the wrong target - framing Julia and Freddie as the ones who harmed him and retaining a semi-idealised view of Mimi, when his issues in fact stemmed from Mimi's cruel treatment. It's an interesting perspective that could have something to it. But I think Kenny falls victim to the same kind of psychological splitting that he astutely describes John as suffering under. As Mimi is the villain, thus Julia is the hero. Julia is portrayed in only positive terms, as a warm, encouraging, lively person who only ever wanted good things for John. Freddie is also viewed fairly positively. This is too simplistic. Julia was not a monster or an angel. Accounts describe her displaying inappropriate behaviour towards her son and his friends, perhaps a symptom of her own mental illnesses. As John was in her care during the first five years of his life, it's not unreasonable to speculate that her parenting was less than ideal. Not that that justifies his being taken away from her, but it is context.

Similarly, Mimi being a cartoon villain is unhelpful. I would have liked more context for why she behaved the way she did. There is some Stanley family background, but not enough to get a sense of what kind of environment the sisters grew up in. Meanwhile, Uncle George is identified as another victim of Mimi. Kenny speculates (probably accurately) that George was gay and a covert alcoholic and gambling addict, but he was just respectable enough to be instrumentalised by Mimi in her quest to join the middle classes. Kenny sees him as submitting to her tyranny as a form of cover, but still providing young John with something resembling parental kindness in an atmosphere where it was otherwise absent, a description that broadly jibes with others' observations of George. While insightful in some ways, this assessment of Mimi and George's relationship suffers from the same splitting as Kenny's view of Mimi and Julia, with a clear villain and a benevolent, suffering victim.

Kenny's analysis of social class in Liverpool and its relevance to John's psyche is quite interesting. It's not an angle that's explored often enough. He makes the argument (quite convincingly, I think) that John was always insecure about the fact that he was essentially "pretending" to be working-class, and combined idealisation of working-class Liverpool life with a snobbish contempt for it inherited from Mimi. Much of this was unconscious but it manifested itself in his attitudes to friends and his self-perception as a rocker vs. an artist.

Kenny makes an interesting case that John's attraction to Stuart (and to a lesser extent Cynthia) was part of his unconscious longing to be a sophisticated, middle-class-coded artist/writer. In contrast to that, Kenny posits that John's friendships with Paul and George could only be that of them being his "junior partners" because of their class position and age. Kenny also maintains that John's relationship with Paul only flourished when the latter wasn't trying to compete with John for the "leadership" of the Beatles. He also says that Stuart and Brian were genuine confidantes of John's partly because of their class position being closer to his own, while Paul and George were never proper confidantes in the same way. Later, Kenny sees John's attachment to Yoko as another example of him finding a higher-class "confidante", and also feeling free to lean into his (really Mimi's) upper-class aspirations, in the form of avant-garde art and music, while retaining a love-hate relationship with the earthy delights of rock 'n' roll.

I can see why Kenny would come to these conclusions, and I don't think they're entirely without merit - but they feel incomplete. To support his theory, he has to leave out much primary source information about the development of John and Paul's (and John and George's) relationship over the years. It ignores John and George's bond over LSD, John and Paul's creative collaboration (in favour of just seeing rivalry) and even sees Ringo as somehow dominant over John, which I don't think is borne out by the evidence. The theory gets even more stretched by the time we get to the breakup, as Kenny has to find ways to explain why John stayed in the band so long even though he had seemingly already "defeated" Paul by deciding to leave and go off with Yoko. One explanation given is that John only agreed to record Abbey Road so that Apple/The Beatles would raise enough money to buy controlling shares in Northern Songs! This technically could be true, but I've never heard anything like it before, and the main loss of controlling shares had already happened before recording started on Abbey Road. Kenny provides citations for some claims but not others, so I can't help but assume that the uncited claims are just his opinion, stated as fact (Yet again I come across this exhausting tendency!). Tellingly, Kenny doesn't go into the final breakup being announced by Paul, or the lawsuit, perhaps because they don't align with his theories.

With that said, I can believe that John and Paul's relationship suffered from a lack of straightforward communication. Get Back and "Days We Left Behind" seem to provide support for the sense many fans have gotten that the two tended to communicate in music, code and "bits". That seems to have been a central part of their intimacy, something only they (and to a lesser extent, the other Beatles) shared, but it is also inadequate for communicating about major life changes and relationship challenges, as I speculated in my Hey Bulldog post. I can see a scenario where John was more likely to speak openly about his feelings with people like Stuart, Brian and Yoko, and that that willingness could have been (partially) influenced by unconscious class-bias. Yet I don't think John, consciously or unconsciously, looked down on Paul. Well after the breakup, John spoke in an interview of Paul's intelligence and scholarly potential, even joking that he (John) "ruined his life" by tempting him to a career in rock 'n' roll. Nor do I believe, as Kenny does, that their relationship was primarily one of rivalry and competition. Those aspects certainly existed and were prominent, but it's not the full story.

The book has a glowing foreword by Bill Harry, old friend of the Beatles and publisher of some of John's earliest surreal writings, so we can assume that Harry subscribes to the general thrust of Kenny's argument. Seeing as he knew both of them, Harry could be said to be in a better position to know about John and Paul's relationship than most, but even people who knew the Beatles well have blind spots and make assumptions based on later myth rather than what they actually observed.

I think The Making of John Lennon is worth reading for the interesting and often astute observations Kenny makes about John's early life and the role of social class in his psychological make-up, but care should be taken not to accept all Kenny's assertion as definite fact, as they are his own opinions. It would be helpful if he (like countless others) was willing to tell the reader when he is offering his opinion rather than provable fact.

The book includes a quote I found particularly interesting. Kenny is quoting psychiatrist and author Anthony Storr, who wrote about the therapeutic effects of creative expression:

"[The creative] work may be a much more valid piece of self-expression than what is revealed in action or conversation in 'real life'"

This aligns with my own belief that the emotional truth of both John and Paul's life can be found more easily in their art than in their quoted interviews or the bare details of their lives.

[sem1-sw33t]

can someone explain to me the entire mclennon lore??? i’m not a beatles fan or enjoyer but i do love and enjoy yaoi, so i would like to know

[the-boney-rolls]

YOU KNOW WHAT, FUCK IT I'M GONNA DO IT. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

Background: John and Paul were bandmates, friends and songwriting partners who met in 1957 in Liverpool. John asked Paul to join his band, which would eventually become the Beatles. They wrote all their songs under the joint moniker Lennon-McCartney. They had a close and complicated relationship that fans and historians have been trying desperately to figure out this whole time (brothers? rivals? platonic soulmates?). They've also been trying to figure out Why the Beatles Broke Up. They can't figure it out because they're not factoring in All the Gay Shit that was happening.

For years, there was a very mythologized story about the first time they met at a village fete, but Paul later admitted that he'd seen John around town a few times and "thought he looked cool." Sounds like a crush! They met briefly even, though John probably didn't remember. When they did meet, John thought Paul looked like Elvis (whose poster was on his wall) and Paul was charmed by John getting the lyrics to songs wrong, but in a clever way. Many stories have been told about this meeting and it's clear that sparks were flying immediately. Love at first sight. The song "I've Just Seen A Face" captures it perfectly.

By all accounts (from biographers and people who knew them) their bond was immediately intense, especially once they realized they liked writing songs together. They literally could not spend enough time together. They bribed Paul's brother to leave them alone in the house together. Their guardians were extremely disapproving, believing each was a bad influence on their kid. At one point, Paul's dad encouraged Paul to get a job, which meant he had less time for the band. John gave him an ultimatum - the job or the band. Paul chose the band and John gloated that Paul chose HIM over his dad.

Around this time, John and Paul and the rest of the band would engaging in wanking games, jerking off together while they shouted out names of hot women, seeing who could last the longest. John would shout "Winston Churchill!" to throw people off. Later, when the Beatles went to Hamburg, they would have sex in the same room as each other. At one point, John and Paul had sex with two women in the same bed. There are rumors that John hooked up with another bandmate, Stuart Stutcliffe, in Hamburg. John and Stu were very close at this time, and Paul was jealous. They got into a fight on stage at one point.

There's a lot of mystical shit and mirroring in their story - a shared dream of finding gold coins just after meeting each other. One big one is that both their mothers died when they were teens. Paul's at 14 just before meeting John, and John's at 17 just after meeting Paul.

A big moment is when John took Paul to Paris for his 21st birthday. It's a whole thing. John paid for everything except when Paul bought him a burger for his birthday. Paul had a lot of banana milkshakes. They took a lot of pictures of each other (including one of John sleeping that Paul had framed) and slept in a single twin bed. In a page from Paul's diary at the time, he joins their names together (something they would both do over and over again). This is considered their honeymoon of sorts and many people believe it's when they first had sex, or crossed some kind of line. It was clearly very important to both of them, they would reference it again and again throughout their lives. After they were broken up, at a meal with John, his girlfriend, Paul and his wife, John was asked if he missed England and he said "frankly I miss Paris." Many years after John died, Paul was asked about his idea of the afterlife and he said "a trip to Paris via Spain." (they had been meaning to continue on to Spain).

Speaking of Spain, in 1963, the Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein, a gay man, took John on a trip to Spain just the two of them. It's widely believed Brian had feelings for John and that something happened between them on this trip. There are several second hand accounts from friends of John that he told them so. After the trip, during Paul's 21st birthday, someone made a comment about it to John and John nearly beat him to death. He would later say about the incident that he'd been "afraid of the fag in me."

Paul's queerness is less overtly on display but at one point the Beatles met bisexual poet Royston Ellis who told them that one in four men is queer and Paul said that he looked around at them and wondered "is it me?" Royston also recited a poem to them about gay sex and 60 years later Paul and Royston met again and Paul quoted the poem back to him verbatum.

Throughout the Beatlemania years, 63-66, John and Paul spent a lot of time in hotel rooms "writing songs together." There's a narrative that they never shared a room, but articles at the time and other accounts have proven that wrong. A bit "they doth protest too much." There's a ton of footage and photos of them from this time that paints a very clear picture: them unnecessarily crowding into each others' space, sly references that John would make, and endless images of the way that they looked at each other so obviously in love. They were also writing love songs for each other. Even most non-mclennon fans accept that "In My Life" is about Paul. John wrote "If I Fell" on the back of a Valentine's card for Paul. Paul wrote "Here, There and Everywhere" at John's house while waiting for him to wake up, has said it wasn't about Jane Asher his girlfriend but "anther person I was in love with." John told Paul it was a favorite of his and Paul almost always cites it as his favorite of his songs. There are way more examples. Quite possibly, nearly all the songs are about each other, at least partly.

oh god this is only the beginning but this is already so long and I can't believe I did this. should I do a part 2 hahahaha

[saintprey]

upside-down

[undying-love]

Hi!!! Are there any mclennon facts/theories that most people don’t know

I know that a lot of you are already aware of many of the following things. That said, I obviously can’t know who’s familiar with what, so I’m including everything anyway. You might already know most of them, and maybe a few will surprise you. Either way, it’s fun to see them all in one place! ❤️

Paul and John were seen a few times swimming together naked in a river during their stay in India.

Carl Pekins said Linda told him that she and Paul visited John a few weeks before his death.

Before Paul left India, he and John gave each other a warm hug and said their goodbyes affectionately, according to Paul Saltzman. So the theory that some comfrontation happened between them and that this was the reason why Paul left early seems unlikely to me.

A former EMI executive (David Ambrose) said that Paul "became slightly nuts" after John's death.

Bob Spitz said that Paul told him that he regretted not kicking Yoko out of the studio. He believed the Beatles would have continued if he had done that.

The "John's princess" nickname Yoko claimed to have heard around Apple wasn't first said by her. Francie mentioned it on a 1969 article, and a book released in 1972 said the same thing.

Tony King said that John refered to Paul as his "estranged fiance" (and used similar terms) all the time, not just at the Madison Square Garden.

This except from Paul's book, The Lyrics.

Steve Holley said that Paul was depressed about missing John, deeply, while recording "Arrow Through Me."

Paul reportedly told someone that he misses John more as time goes on and that it doesn't heal.

In early 1980, after a studio session, Paul started drinking and then began murmuring John's name over and over.

John would ask poeple in the 70s, "What do you think Paul is doing right now? Do you think he thinks about me at all?"

When someone asked Yoko if she thought John and Paul were soulmates, she replied, "ask Paul."

Alice Cooper said that in the 70s, John "would take a swing at anyone who spoke badly about Paul." He also said that if anyone said something derogatory about John, Paul would get up and leave the room.

Paul first spoke to John way before the church fete, outside a newsagent where he worked as a paper boy. Paul admitted this very reluctantly and didn't want people to know the location of the newsagent. He later showed it in the music video for Fuh You, which was filmed in Liverpool.

A journalist claimed that in the 70s he went to the McCarteny home. He had a list of all the questions he wanted to ask Paul, but Linda crossed out all the questions related to John.

Maggie allegedly said that while she was dating Paul, he would often call to John's house to ask for him, and when he couldn't reach him he would start theorizing about what John was doing, who he was with and where, and get angry about it.

Paul said that Yoko told him that John would sometimes sit down, play Paul's song and cry, while saying things like, "there you are", and "I like him...really."

John wrote in his diary that he often dreamed of Paul and Liverpool.

Paul said that when he first saw John singing at the fere, he thought "He looks good! I wouldn't mind being in a group with him."

The audio tape of John "calling out 'Paul...Paul...Paul..." in a subserviant, pleading way", as Yoko put it, was played in the studio in 1968.

Ray Connolly said that he witnessed "bizarre and revealing" moments between John and Paul.

After talking to Jane, Connolly concluded that to Paul, his partnership with John was "more important to him than his relationship with Jane."

According to Francie, each time John visited Paul's house in 1968, he couldn't stop talking about how much he loved Yoko, which "disturbed Paul."

John and Yoko heard the news of Paul's marriage on the radio while he was on his way to visit his aunt Mimi. He decided right there than he and Yoko had to get married as soon as possible.

According to someone who worked on the album Some Time in New York City, in 1972, Paul and John often talk on the phone "for hours", often interrupting the studio sessions, while the newspapers claimed they hated each other.

A guy who claimed to have met John at a bar in 1974, said that John was making moves on him, asking him if he was gay, and told him "Your'e prettier than Paulie. You got a nicer mouth than him. Paulie's got a small mouth."

Diana Ross apparently told someone that she saw John and Paul at a gay bar in LA in 1974.

Paul and John were seen backstage, talking and laughing together, at the 1974 Grammys in LA, days before the famous jam sessions.

Paul's father made a rule that John couldn't be alone with Paul at the house without him being present.

In 1965, John was asked if all the Beatles were close friends off-stage. He said that "there might be two of them who sort of go off and are friends, you know...." George immediately said "What do you mean by that?" And John replied , "Strictly platonic, of course."

In his diary, John mentioned Paul just as often as he mentioned Sean and Yoko. He went on and on about him, wondering what he was doing, commenting on Paul's songs he heard on the radio, and thinking he had a psychic connection to him.

He supposedly contacted his oracle because he wanted to be reassured that Paul and Linda's marriage was in trouble.

When questioned about how his and John's marriages happened just a week after the other, Paul said, "We spurred each other into marriage." He said that he felt left out by John being so tight with Yoko, so he got with Linda.

Bob Spitz said that he once asked Paul when did he miss John the most and when does John come into his mind. He said Paul couldn't answer him, teared up, and "completely lost it."

Paul said I Wanna Hold Your Hand wasn't about Jane, but inspired by "someone he was in love with at the time."

In the 70s, Paul kept photos of him and John in a bulletin board in his kitchen.

This poem Paul wrote.

Paul said he often buys drawings and writings made by John and puts them all over his walls, "so he can see them all the time."

Pauline Stuttcliffe said that she believed the reason why Paul disliked Stu so much was because he suspected John and Stu were lovers.

Marianne Faithful implied there were homoerotic undertones to John and Paul's relationship, compared it to Mick and Keith, and pointed out the fact that both groups had bisexual/gay managers.

[teacups-andtime]

You know, I've had an entire essay inside me about "I Will" for years at this point. It's what got me off my ass and made me write and post my first McLennon fic ever but I'll just briefly say: He's been waiting longer than 70 years. Longer than the fete, long before that. He's been waiting forever. Because to Paul it's an eternal, cosmic thing that predates him actually meeting John, or knowing John's name. "For if I ever saw you, I didn't catch your name, but it never really mattered. I will always feel the same. Love you forever and forever, love you with all my heart. Love you whenever we're together, love you when we're apart."

He's been waiting for John for a whole lonely lifetime and "when at last" he finds John (aspirational, future tense, almost utopian), John's song will fill the air. Their song. And then that lonely lifetime will be over. But in the meantime, you know, he's waiting. He's still waiting to this day. He JUST told us he's still fucking waiting. That lonely lifetime man. "But it never really mattered," because Paul will "always feel the same." He will always feel the same! Always! He means that!

[crownics]

— Part 1.

Summary: Interpreting Lennon/McCartney in the context of an open secret, based on concepts of social psychology, queer theory and marketing. [Written without any scientific intent.]

Word count: +15K

───────────────────────────────────────────

I.

“When it comes to human relationships in the entertainment scene, an open secret refers to a situation where a couple (or romantic/sexual involvement) is widely known or strongly suspected by insiders, the press or even the fans, but never officially confirmed by the people in question. In practice, these relational dynamics tend to break free from traditional social labels and operate in a gray zone where visibility and invisibility overlap, being recognized by some specific groups while remaining unacknowledged in the dominant culture.

As a rule, open secrets are rarely referenced in formal statements, press releases or marketing materials. This systematic silence, upheld by the couple and those in their inner circle, functions as a mechanism of control. Because these relationships are never publicly acknowledged, they occupy no sanctioned space within institutional narratives commonly created by communication channels and mainstream media. This absence of explicit acceptance can operate in two ways: at times it is an intentional and powerful cultural act, consciously maintained to regulate visibility and protect certain interests; at other times, it is less deliberate, emerging as the unexamined effect of social conventions and normative frameworks that dictate what may or may not be recognized. In both cases, the silence contributes to shaping how these relationships are perceived and experienced in the broader community. Consequently, they are excluded from public discourse and erased from collective memory, remaining in a scenario of marginalization and, as a result, subjected to a persistent lack of existential validation.

Especially in contexts where LGBTQ+ identities or non-normative relationships are stigmatized, the paradoxical contradiction of open secrets exemplifies what queer theorists describe as a glass closet. Unlike the traditional version, which implies total secrecy, the glass closet points to a more complicated reality. Rather than a space of absolute concealment, it functions as a stage where queerness is performed and experienced, but without formal recognition or cultural legitimacy. Behavioral practices that reinforce this mode of self-presentation are expressed in various ways. Some people can read them clearly, noticing cues and subtext, while others may genuinely fail to perceive or consciously choose to ignore them. This duality allows queer existence to persist within a culture that otherwise represses it, even only under certain conditions where survival depends on identity erasure and the constant risk of denial. Here, the focus is less on whether people know or don’t know, and more on the social rules of knowledge — how it circulates, who is allowed to acknowledge it, under what conditions it may be mentioned and when it must be denied.

Open secrets — not very different from a glass closet — are sustained by everyone’s participation in maintaining the ambiguity. No one fully confirms or denies them, which makes them continue under the radar, quietly structuring social dynamics and perceptions. More than simply as a form of repression, both can equally be conceived as a survival strategy in response to censorship: It makes space for queer intimacy while avoiding the dangers of direct exposure; breaks the binary between being completely ‘out’ and being completely ‘hidden’; and allows the couple to manifest their relationship in a publicly semi-open sphere, revealing themselves on their own terms without ever crossing the threshold of formal disclosure. Yet, this partial invisibility also provides a subtle demonstration of resistance, enabling the relationship to be authentically lived within intimate or subcultural settings, beyond the reach of mainstream narratives.

In short, an open secret is:

Known, but unspoken: Many people in the relevant circle (friends, colleagues, industry insiders and sometimes even fans) know the truth, but it’s never officially confirmed. The unspoken rule is to let the secret stay ‘secret’ in name only.

Maintained by silence & etiquette: Those ‘in the know’ choose not to talk about it publicly. This can be out of respect, fear of scandal, legal or contractual issues, or cultural norms.

Protected by institutions: Media outlets, studios or organizations may actively avoid publishing proof, either to protect reputations, preserve marketability or avoid lawsuits.

Hints and signals: The truth often clues through indirect signs, but never with full confirmation.

Mutual agreement: Even without formal discussion, there’s often a tacit agreement among insiders to ‘play along’ and keep the appearance intact.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

II.

“An open secret persists because a complex mix of personal, cultural, legal and economic forces work together to maintain its status as ‘unofficial’, even when it is widely known by many. These combinate factors act collectively to ensure that the relationship remains unconfirmed and unacknowledged, creating a delicate balance between  private knowledge with public silence and forming a barrier that lets it exist in plain sight without crossing into formal recognition. The result manifests as a paradoxical space where knowledge circulates silently — shared but unspoken, tolerated yet never legitimized.

Contributing to the maintenance of the open secret, this multifaceted phenomenon is closely related to:

Privacy concerns or emotional safety: Some artists simply want parts of their personal life to remain theirs alone, especially if publicity would invite judgment, harassment or intrusion. In Hollywood’s golden age, even straight relationships were sometimes hidden to maintain mystery and avoid public interference. Beyond this, choosing not to confirm a relationship can also be an act of self-protection.

Image management: Public figures are ‘branded’ by shaping their public image into a marketable persona — like a character type. A relationship (especially one outside norms) can clash with that brand and risk alienating audiences. Studios in the past were notorious for arranging or hiding relationships to protect a star’s marketability.

Contractual obligations: Some stars had clauses in their contracts controlling public appearances, relationship disclosures or morality clauses that could terminate employment if certain ‘scandals’ became public. This gave studios legal power to suppress information.

Social taboos: In earlier decades, queer relationships, interracial couples or partners with big age gaps often faced intense stigma. Even rumors could destroy careers, so silence was a survival strategy.

Cultural norms of the age: What’s ‘shocking’ changes over time. In one era, being divorced was controversial; in another, being openly queer was career-ending. People navigated their relationships according to the risks of their own period in history.

Strategic branding considerations: Sometimes secrecy is part of creating intrigue and mystery is used to fuel interest. The ‘are they or aren’t they?’ dynamic can fuel publicity without confirming anything. This works for romantic rumors as well as creative partnerships.

Control over reality: By avoiding explicit confirmation, people can choose which version of reality to live in. This gives a sense of autonomy, once you engage with the version that best serves your needs — whether it’s truth, half-truth or pretense.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

III.

“In marketing contexts, ‘testing the waters’ helps manage uncertainty, minimize potential fallout and adapt strategies based on real-time feedback, measuring the extent to which information can be disclosed. By carefully observing audience reactions, brands are able to gauge tolerance levels, identify emerging opportunities and adjust their positioning without committing to irreversible choices. This process creates a buffer against risk, allowing experimentation while preserving credibility, and transforms uncertainty into actionable insight. Ultimately, testing the waters operates as both a protective mechanism and a strategic tool, ensuring that innovation does not outpace acceptance, but instead stretches the limits in a calculated, sustainable way.

A similar logic applies to the management of open secrets, particularly in social or cultural environments where direct recognition could lead to exposure. In this scenario, the expression refers to the deliberate practice of sending out subtle signals or tentative messages to observe how the public or a particular audience reacts before making a full and explicit commitment or announcement. This approach allows individuals or groups to gauge the level of acceptance, resistance or interest without fully exposing themselves to risk or backlash. By doing so, they can determine whether a later, more direct acknowledgment or action would be safe, strategically advantageous or even welcomed. These subtle signals might take the form of carefully worded hints, indirect references or ambiguous statements that can be interpreted in multiple ways. This ambiguity provides plausible deniability if the reaction is negative while opening the door to further engagement if the response is positive.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

IV.

“When the couple themselves in an open secret deliberately communicate through coded language during interviews, this interaction typically functions as a carefully choreographed mutual performance — serving simultaneously as a private game and a calculated public strategy. These signals can vary widely in their subtlety, ranging from almost imperceptible hints to bold, theatrical gestures, yet they always maintain a crucial element of plausible deniability. This built-in ambiguity allows the couple to engage with the subject without ever making direct admissions, preserving their privacy while still acknowledging shared truths with those attentive enough to decode the messages. This communication model is made up of:

Layered messaging: Superficially, words and anecdotes that seem innocent or casual to most listeners, so it doesn’t raise suspicion (i.e., public layer). Beneath the surface, certain references, phrasing, stories, jokes or ways of saying things carry a special and hidden meaning that only people ‘in the know’ can understand (i.e., insider layer). This creates a ‘split audience’ effect — different groups take away different meanings.

Control of narrative: By choosing when and how to ‘slip’ hints, the couple can shape public perception without ever openly confirming anything. It lets them manage curiosity and speculation rather than be passive subjects of it.

Emotional & relational function: This kind of coded communication can be a bonding ritual — like an inside joke stretched across years. It can also be a way to claim a subtle public acknowledgment of the relationship in an environment where direct affirmation isn’t possible or safe.

Defensive plausible deniability: If pressed, they can insist the code ‘meant nothing’, which preserves privacy and avoids professional or social repercussions. The ‘gray zone’ is maintained — it’s never official, but it’s never entirely hidden either.

The open secret is sustained not only by the couple’s own signals but also by the participation of friends, colleagues and the media. In this setting, the press contributes to the layered communication through their own use of coded language when interacting with the couple. The style and purpose of these codes depend on the specific context of the interview. Journalists often adopt a nuanced or suggestive manner, enabling them to address sensitive subjects or hint at underlying realities without stating them outright. This shared linguistic dance creates a dynamic in which both parties convey meaning beyond the surface, preserving professionalism and discretion while engaging in a subtle exchange of information and knowledge. It raises the topic without prompting public confirmation or denial, keeping the interaction socially acceptable and avoiding direct confrontation. 

The questions framed by journalists tend to share certain traits:

Indirect phrasing: They address the topic without naming it directly, employing general, allusive or suggestive terms that hint at the subject while preserving deniability. This approach allows communication of meaning without committing to an explicit statement.

Euphemisms & soft language: Direct words are replaced with neutral, romantic or softened expressions, reducing social pressure or potential discomfort. By choosing language that is less confrontational, the speaker maintains subtlety while still signaling awareness.

Playful or joking tone: Humor serves as a protective shield. If the person being addressed refuses to respond, the statement can be dismissed as a joke, allowing the speaker to gauge reactions safely and maintain social cohesion.

Rumor-based framing: Statements are framed as circulating gossip or ‘what people are saying’, creating distance between the speaker and the claim. This strategy enables discussion of the topic while avoiding direct responsibility for the assertion, protects them from accusations of ‘spilling the secret’.

Metaphors or comparisons: Open secrets are transformed into analogies, turning sensitive or taboo subjects into interpretive scenarios. By using metaphorical language, the communicator provides insight while leaving room for multiple readings, preserving ambiguity and plausible deniability.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

V.

“In the context of an open secret, insinuations serve as a strategic ambiguity — allowing the press, industry insiders, and sometimes even the individuals themselves, to signal truth without ever ‘officially’ declaring it. They operate via subtle communication, enabling those ‘in the know’ to recognize the situation while preserving plausible deniability. This communicative posture relies on a blend of coded messaging, selective storytelling and careful framing.

When insinuations come from the couple themselves or people of their social circle, it adds a whole new layer of complexity and purpose to the open secret dynamic. Instead of just being external hints or speculation, these are deliberate smoke signals — often called ‘leaks’ or ‘breadcrumbs’ — that are strategically placed to influence public perception, while keeping the tension alive without full exposure. In essence, the use of insinuations is a deliberate dance across visibility and secrecy, leveraging the power of suggestion to capture the audience’s attention while carefully guarding the line between the private life and the public persona. This verbal resource relies on mechanisms such as:

Indirect language & strategic ambiguity: They may allude to their relationship through jokes, metaphors, euphemisms or double meanings, rather than explicit confirmation. Such comments are deliberately framed so they could be interpreted as innocent remarks or as coded confirmation — depending on the listener’s knowledge.

Narrative control & protect privacy: By hinting at the truth themselves, they steer the story on their terms, deciding what to reveal and what to keep private. Insinuations also maintain boundaries by never fully confirming, preserving some personal space.

Test the waters or create buzz: Subtle signals gauge public reaction without full commitment, letting them see if a public acknowledgment is safe or desirable later. Keeping the mystery alive can work as a deliberate marketing strategy because humans are naturally curious — when something is left unexplained or only hinted at, people want to know more.

Signal solidarity: To fans and insiders, hints are a way of showing connection and authenticity without words. Sometimes, insiders intentionally feed information to the press in a way that keeps it unofficial. These leaks are a marketing tool — the open secret can keep public interest alive without the risks of a public confirmation.

Psychological tension as stimulation: Oddly, the not saying can make life more interesting. The unspoken creates intrigue, subtle drama and a sense of playing in a coded social game. Some even enjoy the cat-and-mouse of pretending not to know.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

VI.

# Euphemism: is a softened, indirect or playful way of describing the real situation so it can be acknowledged without being openly admitted. In an open secret it works like a social magic trick, hiding the truth in plain sight and allowing people to communicate sensitive realities safely, smoothly and with shared understanding. Euphemisms serve as signs that let people “talk about it without talking about it”, avoiding direct confession. For example, if everyone knows two co-workers are romantically involved but it’s unofficial, instead of saying “they’re dating”, someone might say “they’re very close” or “they spend a lot of time together”. To the uninformed, it sounds casual. To those “in the know”, it’s a wink.

# Minimization: sometimes called mitigation or softening, is closely related to euphemism and often operates in conjunction with it in the context of open secrets. It’s the process of using language or behavior to reduce the impact, harshness or seriousness of the matter when it’s discussed. This makes it feel more acceptable, less threatening or scandalous — usually by choosing softer words or phrases and framing the situation in a positive or neutral light, while downplaying negative aspects or introducing humor and understatement. This “soft filter” tones down negativity and makes it easier to discuss or hint at the subject, without a full confrontation.

# Euphemism and minimization: are two complementary sides of the same coin. Together, they create a strategy that allows people to acknowledge sensitive truths indirectly while preserving social harmony and protecting everyone’s face. Euphemisms offer coded, indirect language that conceals the matter in plain sight with masquerade wording, turning potentially awkward or controversial realities into expressions that sound casual, neutral or even charming to an uninformed listener. Minimization softens how that wording is delivered, ensuring that even if the underlying meaning is guessed, it arrives wrapped in politeness, warmth or humor, reducing its emotional weight. This framing aims to ease discomfort, prevent conflict and make delicate realities safer to address within social groups, allowing communication to flow without confrontation and helping everyone preserve dignity, privacy and respect.

# Generalization: is the act of extending something in a particular situation to apply more widely. When a couple is in the spotlight but keeps their relationship officially unconfirmed, they often rely on generalizations as a softening tool — avoiding direct confirmation and creating socially acceptable ambiguity that allows them to navigate public curiosity. These strategic linguistic choices preserve the gray zone, where everyone senses that something is happening but no official statement is required, keeping the mystery alive and fueling speculation while still maintaining plausible deniability. They shift the focus of questions or responses and redirect the narrative toward safer topics, using careful phrasing to subtly guide the tone of the conversation. When journalists or fans press for details, generalizations help ease external pressure and act as an emotional shield, protecting the couple from having to issue a direct and unequivocal denial. This approach minimizes unnecessary exposure, reduces the risk of damaging misunderstandings and allows the couple to conduct the situation on their own terms, deciding themselves when — or if — the truth will ever be made public.

# Metaphor and comparison: they represent some of the most elegant and nuanced forms of “code” that can be employed in interviews or other media contexts, allowing only those aware of the situation to truly understand the underlying message. These linguistic tools enable the couple to speak publicly and openly, while carefully avoiding any explicit or “official” admission of the truth. Such mechanisms hold particular power within the framework of open secrets because they operate on a dual-track level of communication: on the first track, the general public hears a romantic or flattering comment that appears straightforward; on the second track, the private audience perceives a subtle confession. Beyond this, metaphors and comparisons help create a shared, coded language that the couple can revisit and reuse across multiple interviews, or even over many years, effectively transforming these phrases into a quiet but distinctive trademark. Their strategy functions through hiding in plain sight, where a metaphor sounds like normal artistic or personal expression but carries a second, private meaning for those “in the know” allowing deniability — since, if questioned, the speaker can claim it’s “just an image” or “just poetry” — and helping them feel emotionally safe, because talking indirectly about love or intimacy makes it harder for outsiders to weaponize the information.

───────────────────────────────────────────

1. Floating in a gray zone: Not officially “out” but not exactly “hidden” either

Visit Original Link

“PARKINSON: Was it always a spiky relationship? I mean, you say you loved him and that love comes through in the book. Did he love you? PAUL: Yeah, I think he did actually. We’ll check, excuse me for a moment… ‘John, come on baby, did ya…? Yes!’ — No, I think he did, yeah. It wasn’t actually a spiky relationship at all. It was very warm, very close and very loving, I think, of all The Beatles. We used to say — I think we were amongst the first men to come out openly, ‘cause remember, you know, it was quite strange in those days and it was a long time ago. Homosexuality was still sort of largely illegal. We used to say I love him on interviews and interviewers would get slightly taken aback, you know, a man saying he loves him. But I think, quite generally, I think we really did and I still do.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Michael Parkinson for Parkinson’s Sunday Supplement [21:53] on BBC Radio 2. (October 12, 1997) 

On John Lennon’s birthday, Sir Paul McCartney takes bride No. 3

On John Lennon's birthday, Sir Paul McCartney takes bride No. 3

Sir Paul McCartney is expected to wed his American fiancee Nancy Shevell on Sunday, at the same venue where he married his first wife Linda

“Sir Paul McCartney is expected to wed his American fiancee Nancy Shevell on Sunday, at the same venue where he married his first wife Linda 42 years ago. The date the couple have chosen — Oct 9 — is particularly poignant because it would have been John Lennon’s 71st birthday.”

Sir Paul McCartney remembers pal John Lennon at wedding reception

Sir Paul Mccartney remembers pal John Lennon at wedding reception

Sir Paul Mccartney raised a toast to his friend and former bandmate John Lennon during his wedding reception and also dedicated a speech to

“Washington: Sir Paul McCartney raised a toast to his friend and former bandmate John Lennon during his wedding reception and also dedicated a speech to the star. The singer married American heiress Nancy Shevell on Lennon’s 71st birthday. Shevell’s cousin, newswoman Barbara Walters, mentioned in her chat show that there was a toast that McCartney made to John. ‘There was a party later on in the tent at Paul’s house, (it’s a) beautiful backyard. There was a toast that Paul made to John Lennon, his 71st birthday it was, and Paul’s son James made a toast and Nancy’s son (did too)’.”

“Then also we were like married, so you got the bitterness. It’s not a woman scorned this time, it’s two men scorned — probably even worse. And I had to make way for Yoko. My relationship with John could not have remained as it was and Yoko feel secure.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Duncan Fallowell for Chicago Tribune: “Paul McCartney today? A content and wealthy daddy”. (October 14, 1984)

“I’d like to thank Elton and the boys for having me on tonight. We tried to think of a number to finish off with so I can get out of here and be sick, and we thought we’d do a number of an old, estranged fiancé of mine, called Paul. This is one I never sang, it’s an old Beatle number, and we just about know it.” 

— John Lennon introducing “I Saw Her Standing There” at Madison Square Garden in New York City, at Elton John’s concert. (November 28, 1974) 

───────────────────────────────────────────

2. Collective confidentiality: A tacit agreement of silence

“Q. Have you ever fucked a guy? A. Not yet, I thought I’d save it til I was 40, life begins at 40 you know, tho I never noticed it. Q. It is trendy to be bisexual and you’re usually ‘keeping up with the Jones’, haven’t you ever... there was talk about you and PAUL... A. Oh, I thought it was about me and Brian Epstein... anyway I’m saving all the juice for my own version of THE REAL FAB FOUR BEATLES STORY etc... etc…”

— John Lennon, “Interview with by/on John Lennon and/or Dr. Winston O’Boogie” for Interview Magazine. (November, 1974)

“I have some juicy stuff I could tell about John. But I wouldn’t. Not when Yoko’s alive, or Cynthia. John would. He would grab, go for the action, say the first thing in his head. We admired him for that. It was honesty; but it could hurt. And it wasn’t really all that honest. He knew he could hurt.”

— Paul McCartney, private phone conversation w/ Hunter Davies. (May 3, 1981)

“I knew in my heart that John and Stu had a sexual relationship. [...] I’ve wondered many times over the years if that’s what some of the antagonism between Stuart and Paul might have been about, whether Paul suspected something. None of us directly connected to the Beatles have publicly acknowledged that John had less than conventional sexual attachments. We all thought that to ignore such things would go down better with the world, forgetting that to deny these parts of John — and John had been open to others about himself — would be to deny another level of complexity to John’s personality.”

— Pauline Sutcliffe, Stuart Sutcliffe’s sister. (“The Beatles’ Shadow: Stuart Sutcliffe & His Lonely Hearts Club”, 2001)

“‘The Love You Make’ was first published in 1983, having been written by Steven Gaines and Peter Brown, who was the personal assistant to the band’s manager Brian Epstein and stepped in to oversee the band’s affairs when Epstein died. But the band were left ‘furious’ by the revelations made in the book, with Gaines recalling: ‘Paul and Linda [McCartney] tore the book apart and burned it in the fireplace, page by page. There was an omertà, a code of silence around the Beatles, and they didn’t think anyone would come forward to tell the truth.’”

— Jacob Stolworthy for Independent: “Beatles book reveals John Lennon encounter that made Mick Jagger ‘very uncomfortable’”. (April 6, 2024) 

“Q: You’re planning on another book to focus more on Beatle material. What will that book have that ‘Body Count’ doesn’t? A: My publisher in 1972 asked virtually no questions about John & Yoko. He ignored all the information I would have gladly shared [...]. Nevertheless, he may have done me a favor, because I didn't have the skills I have now, and I was still quite worried about breaking the unwritten, unspoken vow of silence, in case it would upset Paul! The Beatles ‘inside world’ was and is sort of like a Cosa Nostra. I’m the only woman who talked.”

— Francie Schwartz, interview for Abbeyrd’s Beatles Page: “An interview with Francie Schwartz | The author of ‘Body Count’ talks about life with John, Yoko, Ringo, George and Paul”. (1999?)

* Cosa Nostra is the name commonly used to refer to the Sicilian Mafia. Literally meaning “our thing” in Italian, it designates a criminal organization originating in Sicily that operates according to a strict code of secrecy, loyalty and family ties.  Omertà is the code of honor followed by those organizations. At its core, it is a vow of silence that leads mafiosi to protect other members of the group, preventing them from cooperating with the authorities. A Sicilian proverb sums up well how omertà is respected and strictly followed: “He who speaks little will live a hundred years.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

3. Communication as strategic ambiguity: A deliberate dance between visibility and secrecy

“REPORTER:  How do you like not having any privacy? PAUL: We do have some, you know. JOHN: We just had some. We just had some before, didn’t we, Paul? You tell them.”

— The Beatles, Press Conference & Silent B-Roll [2:37] in San Francisco Airport. (August 18, 1964)

“We were away. The boys had relaxed. As we walked off to do the next scene, I heard them joshing each other, like schoolboys on the way to class. ‘Are those jeans tight, Paul?’ That was John.  ‘What do you mean tight?’ ‘I can see your suspender belt through ‘em and your stockings. You’ve got ladders in them.’”

— Victor Spinetti, “Up Front…: His Strictly Confidential Autobiography”. (2006)

“PLAYBOY: Do you stick pretty much together off-stage? JOHN: Well, yes and no. Groups like this are normally not friends, you know. They’re just four people out there thrown together to make an act. There may be two of them who sort of go off and are friends, you know, but… GEORGE: Just what do you mean by that? JOHN: Strictly platonic, of course. But we’re all rather good friends, as it happens.”

— The Beatles, interview w/ Jean Shepherd for Playboy: “A candid conversation with England’s mop-topped millionaire minstrels”. (February, 1965)

“JOHN: Well I read more about myself than you probably do, and I’ll tell you there was [newspaper articles about his separation from Yoko]. I see them all, because I’ve got a clipping service and I get all the newspapers, and you can bet your life somebody’s going to send you the clippings… Q: Yeah, your friends… JOHN: Yes, all your best friends let you know what’s going on. I was trying to put it ‘round that I was gay, you know — I thought that would throw them off... dancing at all the gay clubs in Los Angeles, flirting with the boys... but it never got off the ground. Q: I think I’ve only heard that lately about Paul. JOHN: Oh, I’ve had him, he’s no good. [We laugh]”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Lisa Robinson for Hit Parader: “A conversation with John Lennon”. (December, 1975)

“The next night Elliot took us out with a friend of his, Sal Mineo, and we all went to a gay cabaret/discotheque. John was oblivious to the gay ambience. He was curious about everyone’s sexuality and liked to gossip about who was sleeping with whom, whether they were gay or straight. John made no judgments about homosexuality but was really curious about who was and who wasn’t gay.  He knew that his appearance at a gay club might start rumors about his own sexuality, and it made him laugh. He told me that there had been rumors about him and his first manager, Brian Epstein, and that he usually didn’t deny them. He liked the fact that people could be titillated by having suspicions about his masculinity. Then I was the one who was laughing. ‘How could anyone believe a man who likes women as much as you do is gay?’, I told him.” 

— May Pang, “Loving John: The Untold Story” (1983)

“JOHN: Well, that’s rubbish, you know. Because nobody controls me. I’m uncontrollable. The only one that can control me is me, and that’s just barely possible. But that’s what life is about. And that’s the lesson I’m learning. Because nobody ever said anything about Paul having a spell over me, when I was with him for a long time. Or me having a spell over Paul. They didn’t think that was abnormal, two guys together.  YOKO: They might have. [laughs] JOHN: Or four guys together. In those days? Why didn’t anybody ever say, ‘How come those guys don’t split up? I mean, what’s going on backstage? I mean, what is that Paul and John business? Why — you know, how can they be together so long?’. YOKO: [laughs] Yes.  JOHN: We spent more time together than John and Yoko, in the early days, the four of us sleeping in the same room, practically in the same bed, in the same truck... living together night and day, doing everything together. Nobody said a damn thing about being under the spell.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“I don’t actually know the truth of the John rumor. [Almost laughing] I mean, all I can ever say about that is that I slept with John, a lot. Just ‘cause you had to sleep and, you know, you didn’t have — you know, more than one bed. And to my knowledge, John was never gay.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Brian Epstein Story” [0:59]. (1998)

“Sum up John Lennon in one sentence… A wild and woolly genius who it was my pleasure to [work with, walk with, talk with and] occasionally sleep with.”

— Paul McCartney for Q Magazine: “John Lennon’s 70th Birthday Issue”. (November, 2010)

“Q: If John Lennon could come back for a day, how would you spend it with him? [Mark Wilson, Deeside, Flintshire] A: In bed.”

— Paul McCartney, answering fan questions for Q magazine: “Cash For Questions”. (January, 1998)

“Q: What was John Lennon’s special quality?  A: Balls! Mind you, in putting it in one word, ‘balls’ is a helluva quote, but it’s incomplete. There was balls. But there was smart. The real truth is that it was balls with smart.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Duncan Fallowell for The Magazine: “You get on with Yoko? ‘Medium’, says Paul”. (January 20, 1985)

“Opposites attract. I could calm him down, and he could fire me up. We could see things in each other that the other needed to be complete.” 

— Paul McCartney, “The Lyrics: 56 to the Present”. (2021)

“I was the polar opposite to John. If there was a cliff to be jumped off, John would jump! He would just dive into things, and I would sometimes have to rescue him [...]. But then it was very exciting to be around someone with such a different personality. That was part of the fun and attraction.”

— Paul McCartney, “You Gave Me The Answer: What has been your biggest professional risk?”. (March 3, 2023)

—  THE PICTURE OF TWO BEETLES COPULATING IN THE BACK COVER OF RAM. (1971)

“Q: Do the copulating beetles on the sleeve of RAM stand for F**k The Beatles? [Luc Van de Wiele, Wemmel, Belgium] A: It happened to be a picture Linda had taken. We couldn’t resist it just because of the way it looked. She’d caught these two beetles f*king, and then the significance hit us. We saw that pun, yeah, thought why not?”

— Paul McCartney, answering fan questions for Q magazine: “Cash For Questions”. (January, 1998)

“‘Please Please Me’ was a John idea. John liked the double meaning of ‘please’. Yeah, ‘please’ is, you know, pretty please. ‘Please have intercourse with me. So, pretty please, have intercourse with me, I beg you to have intercourse with me.’ He liked that, and I liked that he liked that. This was the kind of thing we’d see in each other, the kind of thing in which we were matched up. We were in sync.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Lyrics: 56 to the Present”. (2021)

“In a marriage, or a love affair — when the seven-year-itch or the twelve-year or whatever these things that you have to go through — there comes a point where the marriage collapses because they can’t face that reality, and they go seeking what they thought they should be having, still, somewhere else. I get a new girl, it’ll all be like that again; I get a new boy... But for all marriages, all couples, it’ll all be the same again. But what you lose is what you put into that... relationship. [...] The early stuff — the Hard Day’s Night period, I call it — … what I’m equating it to is the sexual equivalent of the beginning of a relationship, of people in love. And the Sgt. Pepper-Abbey Road period was the period of maturity in the relationship. And maybe had we gone on together, maybe something more interesting would have come out of it. It would not have been the same. It would have been a different thing. But maybe it wouldn’t either. Maybe it was a marriage that had to end. Some marriages don’t get through that phase. It’s hard to speculate about what would have been.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“And yet... a different kind of thing comes in. It’s like a love affair. When you first meet, you can have the hots twenty-four hours a day for each other. But after fifteen or twenty years, a different kind of sexual and intellectual relationship develops, right? It’s still love, but it’s different. So there’s that kind of difference in creativity too. As in a love affair, two creative people can destroy themselves trying to recapture that youthful spirit, at twenty-one or twenty-four, of creating without even being aware of how it’s happening. One takes to drugs, to drinks, to knock oneself out… [...] Well, [the period between 1966 and 1970] it was fertile in the way a relationship between a man and a woman becomes more fertile after eight or ten years. The depth of the Beatles’ songwriting, or of John and Paul’s contribution to the Beatles, in the late Sixties was more pronounced; it had a more mature, more intellectual — whatever you want to call it — approach. We were different. We were older. We knew each other on all kinds of levels that we didn’t when we were teenagers. The early stuff — the ‘Hard Day’s Night’ period, I call it — was the sexual equivalent of the beginning hysteria of a relationship. And the ‘Sgt. Pepper-Abbey Road’ period was the mature part of the relationship. And maybe, had we gone on together, maybe something interesting would have come of it. It wouldn’t have been the same. But maybe it was a marriage that had to end. Some marriages don’t get through that phase. It’s hard to speculate about what would have been.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“I’ve compared to a marriage a million times and I hope it’s... understable. For people that aren’t married. Or any relationship. It was a long relationship. It started many, many years before the American public, or the English public for that matter, knew us. Paul and I were together since he was 15, I was 16.”

— John Lennon, 1976. (“Understanding Lennon/McCartney: The Last Dance” [1:18:52])

“Q: If you got — I don’t know what the right phrase is... ‘back together’ now, what would be the nature of it? JOHN: Well, it’s like saying, if you were back in your mother’s womb... I don’t fucking know. What can I answer? It will never happen, so there’s no use contemplating it. Even if I became friends with Paul again, I’d never write with him again. There’s no point. I write with Yoko because she’s in the same room with me. YOKO: And we’re living together. JOHN: So it’s natural. I was living with Paul then, so I wrote with him. It’s whoever you’re living with. He writes with Linda. He’s living with her. It’s just natural.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)

“In 1958, the notion of ‘Lennon and McCartney’ came from Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe and the other songwriting duos of renown, but by September 1962 it was much more Goffin and King, the young New York husband-and-wife team whose songs, all post-1960, John and Paul revered like no others. [...] Their influence on the music of Lennon and McCartney — especially the songs of the next couple of years — would be pronounced. John could not have made the connection or aspiration any clearer when he said (in 1971), ‘When Paul and I first got together, we wanted to be the British Goffin and King.’”

— “The Beatles: All These Years: Tune In [Vol. 1]” by Mark Lewisohn. (2013) 

“I always had this dream of meeting an artist woman that I would fall in love with, and all that, even from art school. [...] I just realized that [Yoko] knew everything I knew, and more, probably, and it was coming out of a woman’s head. It just sort of bowled me over, you know? And it was like finding gold or something. To find somebody that you can go and get pissed with, and have exactly the same relationship as any mate in Liverpool you’d ever had, but also you could go to bed with him, and — it could stroke your head when you felt tired, or sick, or depressed. It could also be Mother. And obviously, that’s what the male-female — you know, you could take those roles with each other.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)

“The only thing ever lacking in working with another artist and they were usually male — whether it was Stuart Sutcliffe (my art school friend) or Paul McCartney (my musical friend) — is that the relationship only goes as far as the front door and after that you are alone in bed. It’s a plus not a minus. The plus is that your best friend can also hold you.”

— John Lennon, “The Other Side of Lennon” by Sandra Shevey. (1990)

“It’s a plus, it’s not a minus. The plus is that your best friend, also, can hold you without… I mean, I’m not a homosexual, or we could have had a homosexual relationship and maybe that would have satisfied it, with working with other male artists. An artist — it’s much better to be working with another artist of the same energy, and that’s why there’s always been Beatles or Marx Brothers or men, together. Because it’s alright for them to work together or whatever it is. It’s the same except that we sleep together, you know? I mean, not counting love and all the things on the side, just as a working relationship with her, it has all the benefits of working with another male artist and all the joint inspiration, and then we can hold hands too, right?”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Sandra Shevey in New York City. (Mid-June?, 1972)

“I’ve only selected to work with — for more than a one night stand, say with an odd thing with [David] Bowie, or an odd thing with Elton [John], or anybody who was hanging around — two people. Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono. Okay? I brought Paul into the original group, The Quarrymen, he brought George in, and George brought Ringo in. I had a say in whether they did join or not, but the only initial move I ever made was bringing Paul McCartney into the group. The second person of that much interest to me as an artist, and somebody who I could work with, was Yoko Ono.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Jonathan Cott for Rolling Stone. (December 5, 1980) 

“I was saying to somebody the other day, ‘There’s only two artists I’ve ever worked with for more than a one night stand, as it were. That’s Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono.’ And I think that’s a pretty damned good choice! [...] Now George came through Paul, and Ringo came through George, although of course I had a say in where they came from. But the only — the person I actually picked as my partner, who I’d recognised had talent, and I could get on with, was Paul.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Dave Sholin for RKO Radio. (December 8, 1980)

“Q: Let’s talk about the Beatles’ breakup, and the falling out between you and Paul. A lot of people think it had to do with the women in your lives. Is that why the Beatles split up? JOHN: Not really. The split was over who would manage us — Allen Klein or the Eastmans — and nothing else really, although the split had been coming from Pepper onward.” “Q: When did you first meet Linda? JOHN: The first time I saw her was after that press conference to announce Apple in America. We were just going back to the airport and she was in the car with us. I didn’t think she was particularly attractive, I wondered what he was bothering having her in the car for. A bit too tweedy, you know. But she sat in the car and took photographs and that was it. And the next minute she’s married him. Q: Was it the suddenness of Linda’s arrival on the scene that disrupted things? JOHN: Well, Paul had met her before [the Apple press conference], you see. I mean, there were quite a few women he’d obviously had that I never knew about. God knows when he was doing it, but he must have been doing it. Q: So, John. You and Paul were probably the greatest songwriting team in a generation. And you had this huge falling out. Were there always huge differences between you and Paul, or was there a time when you had a lot in common? JOHN: Well, we all want our mummies — I don’t think there’s any of us that don’t — and he lost his mother, so did I. That doesn’t make womanizers of us, but we all want our mummies because I don’t think any of us got enough of them. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there — but Paul always wanted the home life, you see. He liked it with daddy and the brother… and obviously missed his mother. And his dad was the whole thing. [...] So it was always the family thing, you see. If Jane [Asher] was to have a career, then that's not going to be a cozy family, is it? All the other girls were just groupies mainly. And with Linda not only did he have a ready-made family, but she knows what he wants, obviously, and has given it to him. The complete family life. He’s in Scotland. He told me he doesn’t like English cities anymore. So that’s how it is. Q: So you think with Linda he’s found what he wanted? JOHN: I guess so. I guess so. I just don’t understand… I never knew what he wanted in a woman because I never knew what I wanted. I knew I wanted something intelligent or something arty, whatever it was. But you don’t really know what you want until you find it. So anyway, I was very surprised with Linda. I wouldn’t have been surprised if he’d married Jane Asher, because it had been going on for a long time and they went through a whole ordinary love scene. But with Linda it was just like, boom! She was in and that was the end of it.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)

‘“When we sang together’, John went on, ‘Paul and I would share the same microphone. I’d be close enough to kiss him. Back then, I didn’t wear me specs onstage — Brian Epstein said they made me look old. So we’d be playing these concerts, in front of thousands of people, but the only thing I could see was Paul’s face. He was always there next to me — I could always feel his presence. It’s what I remember most about those concerts’. ‘Paul and I had our differences early on, mostly creative ones, but we always got over them. Then I met Yoko and we fell in love. When I invited her to the recording studio during the Let It Be sessions, none of them took it well. This was a men’s club, and no women were allowed in the recording room. But Paul seemed the most bothered about Yoko, and part of me felt it was because he was jealous. Because up till then, he had all me attention, all me love when we were recording. And now there was another. Now there was Yoko.’”

— Elliot Mintz, “We All Shine On: John, Yoko, and Me”. (2024)

“Meeting Paul was just like two people meeting. Not falling in love or anything. Just us.”

— John Lennon, “The Beatles” by Hunter Davies. (1968)

“In a late wee-hour-of-the-morning talk, [John] once told me: ‘I’m just like everybody else, Harry, I fell for Paul’s looks. George knew more chords, so he was in. And Ringo, he's just Ringo.’”

— Harry Nilsson, “The Ballad of John and Yoko: Harry Remembers”. (Rolling Stone Magazine, 1984)

“I understood what happened when he met Yoko. He had to clear the decks of his old emotions. He went through all his old affairs, confessed them all. Me and Linda did that when we first met. You prove how much you love someone by confessing all that old stuff. John’s method was to slag me off.”

— Paul McCartney, private phone conversation w/ Hunter Davies. (May 3, 1981)

“It simply became very difficult for me to write [with John] with Yoko sitting there. If I had to think of a line I started getting very nervous. [...] I’m not blaming her. I’m blaming me. You can’t blame John for falling in love with Yoko any more than you can blame me for falling in love with Linda. We tried writing together a few more times, but I think we both decided it would be easier to work separately.  I told John on the phone the other day that at the beginning of last year I was annoyed with him. I was jealous because of Yoko, and afraid about the break-up of a great musical partnership. It’s taken me a year to realise that they were in love. Just like Linda and me. [...] Last year John said he wanted a divorce. All right, so do I. I want to give him that divorce. I hate this trial separation because it’s just not working. Personally, I don’t think John could do the Beatles thing now. I don’t think it would be good for him. John’s in love with Yoko, and he’s no longer in love with the other three of us.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Ray Connolly for Evening Standard: “Paul on ‘Why the Beatles broke up’”. (April 21, 1970)

“SALEWICZ: Well, I always found it interesting the fact that he got — I mean, it seemed too much like coincidence to me, the fact that he got married a week or month after you. You know what I mean? PAUL: Yeah. I think we spurred each other into marriage. I mean, you know. They were very strong together, which left me out of the picture. So I got together with Linda and then we got strong with our own kind of thing. And I used to listen to a lot of what they said. I remember him saying to me, ‘You’ve got to work at marriage’, which is something I still remember as a bit of advice. I still remember that. And then yeah, I think they were a little bit peeved that we got married first. Probably. In a little way, you know, just minor jealousies. And so they got married [...]. SALEWICZ: —and then one of them finds a girl and then the other — or maybe the other one does, or whatever. There’s like a lot of — you know, the friendship often breaks up. There’s quite a lot of bitterness and acrimony that goes down, and it seemed like one of them.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Chris Salewicz. (September, 1986)

“INTERVIEWER: But your relationship with John, in every way, as a Beatles — as a band, you were very, very close. I mean, that must have been very painful in that respect, not only the Beatles breaking up, but I mean that particular relationship breaking up. PAUL: Mm. It was, yeah. Um, in our songwriting, I had signs that the group was gonna break up, because… I mean, I think really what it was, really all that happened was that John fell in love. With Yoko. And so, with such a powerful alliance like that, it was difficult for him to still be seeing me. It was as if I was another girlfriend, almost. Our relationship was a strong relationship. And if he was to start a new relationship, he had to put this other one away. And I understood that. I mean, I couldn’t stand in the way of someone who’d fallen in love. You can’t say, ‘Who’s this?’ — You can’t really do that. If I was a girl, maybe I could go out and… But you know I mean in this case I just sort of said, right — I mean, I didn’t say anything, but I could see that was the way it was going to go, and that Yoko would be very sort of powerful for him. So we all had to get out the way. I don’t blame her. You know, you can’t blame her for being the object of his love.”

— Paul McCartney, interview for German TV show Exclusiv. (April 3rd?, 1985)

“COSTAS: You were an ex-Beatle by the time you were twenty-nine, so this extraordinary rush of world-wide fame, and extraordinary experiences had happened to you and John Lennon as very young men. And ever since that time, people — some with knowledge, some without knowledge — have speculated on the nature of that collaboration, the nature of that relationship. What sense are you about to make of it now? PAUL: Well, you know, I think in life it’s not that easy to... analyze your relationships with people. Not just John, I think with anyone, it’s not that easy. And as you say, when there’s— when fame’s in there, as one of the factors, it can get even more complicated.”

— Paul McCartney interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)

“Well, I’m sure Brian was in love with John, I’m sure that’s absolutely right. I mean, everyone was in love with John; John was lovable, John was a very lovable guy.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Danny Fields: “Linda McCartney: A Portrait”. (2001) 

“The theory is that when John went off to Spain on holiday with Brian, that’s what it was about — John trying to get his position clear as leader of the group. Also, I’m sure Brian was in love with John. We were all in love with John, but Brian was gay so that added an edge.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Beatles Anthology”. (2002)

“I think, largely looking back on it, I think it was mainly John [who] needed a new direction [...]. And you can’t blame him. Because he was that kind of guy, [the kind who] really wanted to live life and do stuff, you know. There was just no holding back with John. And it was what we’d all admired him for. So you couldn’t really say, ‘Oh, we don’t want you to do that, John. You should just stay with us.’ We felt so wimpy, you know. So it had to happen like that.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ DJ Roger Scott for Capitol Radio. (November, 1983)

“MCKAY: But other groups of the same period have survived and gone on, perhaps with some changes — The Who, The Rolling Stones… PAUL: Yeah. True. But we broke up. Although I think it was a natural thing, I don’t think we could’ve. Think the thing was we were eighteen, kids, growing up, and we did sort of our ten years in the army thing, and then we had to go our separate ways. We had to look at life, instead of just this group. We had to find women, for one, uh, which we all sort of did. And then we had to give time to that new life, you know, because with the Beatles it prohibited any other thing. You just had to go with the group and there wasn’t any time for anything else.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ BBC reporter Mike McKay for the 20th anniversary of “Love Me Do”. (October[?], 1982)

“Q: When the rift started [between you and John], it was more like a divorce, like a love/hate relationship, coming apart. Is that true? PAUL: Yes. It sounds weird when you use that analogy because then it takes on another meaning. But yes, it’s true. What I mean is that there was that kind of deep feeling and deep heat [laughs]. Then we started arguing about the business and we just started to drift apart, as you say, like a kind of divorce. [...] So it started to split apart. We got very estranged because John went to live in New York with Yoko and they were very much their own couple and there weren’t many people that could get into that thing. [...] It wasn’t too easy for all of us, because he was sort of leaving us and going off on a new life and, whether you like it or not, we felt that each one us had been each other’s crutches for a long time.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Ray Bonici for Music Express. (May, 1982)

“He came to live in New York, he kind of threw over all his English contacts and everything. And, you know, can’t blame him! That’s what he wants to do in his life. So we had to kind of… fade into the background to allow [John and Yoko] to have their relationship. What were we going to do, ringin’ him up — ‘Hey, John!’ Y’know, ‘Hey, come and see me. Leave Yoko!’. I mean, that was obviously never gonna happen.”  

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)

“There’s no hard feelings or anything, but you just don’t hang around with your ex-wife. We’ve completely finished. ‘Cos, you know, I’m just not that keen on John after all he’s done.”

— Paul McCartney interviewed by student journalist Ian McNulty for the Hull University Torch, May 1972. [From The McCartney Legacy, Vol. 1: 1969 – 1973 by Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair (2022)]

“The end of the Beatles, he says, was like getting a divorce. ‘You just don’t want to know about your ex-wife or ex-husband. After all the bitchiness, you feel the desire for a complete break.’”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Richard Williams for The Times: “The Times Profile – Paul McCartney”. (January 4, 1982)

“[‘Dear Friend’] was written for John, to John. It was like a letter. With the business pressures of the Beatles breaking up it’s like a marriage. One minute you’re in love, the next minute you hate each other’s guts.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia” by Bill Harry. (2002)

“It’s just like divorce. It’s that you were so close and so in love that if anyone decides to start talking dirty — great, then Pandora’s box is open. That’s what happened with us.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Anthony DeCurtis for Rolling Stone: The Paul McCartney interview. (November 5, 1987)

* According to author Mark Lewisohn: “Paul sometimes says ‘we’ in interviews when he means ‘I’”. (Footnote in “The Beatles: All These Years: Tune In [Vol. 1]”, 2013) According to author Ian Leslie: “Paul [...] could see that Epstein was besotted by Lennon. He understood what that felt like. As he put it later, ‘I’m sure Brian was in love with John. We were all in love with John.’ (John & Paul: A Love Story In Songs, 2025)

“That’s my first attempt at a ballad. Proper. That was the precursor to ‘In My Life’. [‘If I Fell’] it’s… semi-autobiographical, but not that conscious, you know. It’s really about — it’s not about Cyn, my first wife. […] So that shows that I wrote sentimental love ballads — silly love songs, as you call them — way back when.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“But I always heard [‘Hey Jude’] as a song to me. If you think about it... Yoko’s just come into the picture. He’s saying, ‘Hey, Jude — hey, John.’ I know I’m sounding like one of those fans who reads things into it, but you can hear it as a song to me. The words ‘go out and get her’ — subconsciously he was saying, ‘Go ahead, leave me’. On a conscious level, he didn’t want me to go ahead. The angel in him was saying, ‘Bless you.’ The devil in him didn’t like it at all because he didn’t want to lose his partner.”  “At that time I was still in my love cloud with Yoko. I thought, ‘Well, I’ll just say something nice to Paul, that it’s all right and you did a good job over these years holding us together’. He was trying to organize the group and all that, so I wanted to say something to him. I thought, ‘Well, he can have it, I’ve got Yoko. And thank you, you can have the credit’. The line [‘the Walrus was Paul’ of ‘Glass Onion’] was put in partly because I was feeling guilty because I was with Yoko and I was leaving Paul. It’s a very perverse way of saying to Paul, ‘Here, have this crumb, this illusion, this stroke — because I’m leaving.’”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“I’m not aiming, I am not aiming at 16 year olds. If they can dig it, please dig it. But when I was singing and writing [‘(Just Like) Starting Over’] and working with her, I was visualizing all the people of my age group from the 60s. Being in their 30s and 40s now, just like me, and having wives and children, and having gone through everything together. I am singing to them! I hope the young kids like it as well, but I’m really talking to the people that grew up with me and saying: ‘Here I am now, how are you? How’s your relationship going? Did you get through it all? Wasn’t the 70s a drag?’ You know, ‘Here we are, let’s try and make the 80s good’, you know, ‘because it’s still up to us to make what we can of it. It’s not out of our control’.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Dave Sholin for RKO Radio [2:00]. (December 8, 1980)

“I was a very possessive and jealous guy, and the lyrics explain that pretty clearly. Not just jealous towards Yoko, but towards everything, male and female — incredibly possessive.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Wigg for BBC radio show Scene And Heard [0:02:06]. (February 6, 1970)

“It was a weird time. [...] In the end, I think John had some tough breaks. He used to say, ‘Everyone is on the McCartney bandwagon.’ He wrote ‘I’m Just A Jealous Guy’ and he said that the song was about me. So I think it was just some kind of jealousy.”

— Paul McCartney, Interview w/ Diane de Dubovay for Playgirl Magazine. (February, 1985) 

“I think [John] was very hurt. There were people turning him against me. It was his way of defending himself. He was quite pissed off about the ‘McCartney bandwagon’ as he once called it, y’know? He was a jealous guy. […] And I think we would all have continued the Beatles, but Yoko came along, John fell wildly in love with her, he needed a big, big change in his life and he got it!”

— Paul McCartney interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)

“If I’m writing a song and I’m stuck, I might then go, ‘OK, what would we have done?’ But it’s not like, ‘Johnny, help me baby.’ You know, it’s not quite like that. ‘Yes, Paul, put that word in.’ You know, it’s actually come out a little bit like that, so I’m playing that down now. You know, it always informs you.” 

— Paul McCartney, interview for CBS News’s Sunday Morning: “Now he’s 64”. (September 17, 2005)

“Q: There is a very beautiful song called ‘The End Of The End’, the way you talk about your whole ending, and the lyric goes: ‘It’s a start of a journey to a much better place.’ You mean, better than England? PAUL: It’s basically a start of a journey to France. Or Spain through France. Yeah, that’s what it is. It’s a much better place, Paris.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Antoine de Caunes for Canal Plus [6:52]. (October 22, 2007)

“... but the main thing [about ‘Early Days’] is it’s a memory song. It’s me remembering walking down the street, dressed in black, with the guitars across our back. I can picture the exact street. It was a place called Menlove Avenue. [Pauses] Someone’s going to read significance into that: Paul and John on Menlove Avenue. Come onnnnnnn. That’s what it’s like with the Beatles. Everything was fucking significant, you know? Which is okay, but when you were a part of the reality, it just wasn’t like that. It was much more normal.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Simon Vozick-Levinson for The Rolling Stone: “The Long and Winding Q&A”. (July 17, 2014)

“Just because I was involved with Jane at the time doesn’t mean this song [‘I Will’] is addressed to, or about, Jane. [...] It’s a declaration of love, yes, but not always to someone specific. Unless it’s to a person out there who’s listening to the song. And they have to be ready for it. It’s almost definitely not going to be a person who’s said, ‘There he goes again, writing another of those silly love songs.’ So, this is me in my troubadour mode.” “‘I Want to Hold Your Hand’ is not about Jane, but it was certainly written when I was with her. To tell you the truth, I think we were writing more to a general audience. I may have been drawing on my experience with a person I was in love with at the time — and sometimes it was very specific — but mostly we were writing to the world.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Lyrics: 56 to the Present”. (2021)

“BIAL: There’s a lot of speculation about John’s inspiration for the lyrics of ‘Now and Then’. But when you sing ‘If I make it through, it’s all because of you’, who are you thinking of? PAUL: [...] I’m thinking of the group. I’m thinking of four men, boys, who made the record. I don’t know if John was making the song for Yoko, which is possible. Or if he was making it for us. And that it’s the speculation that you are talking about. Some people — a lot of good people… Peter Jackson thinks this was John speaking to me directly — and you know what? It’s very nice for me to think. So I’ll have that. Thank you John!”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Brazilian journalist Pedro Bial for talk show Conversa com Bial [26:35]. (December 2, 2023)

───────────────────────────────────────────

4. Suspicious public interactions (beyond all the ones we already know)

— JOHN FLIRTING WITH PAUL AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY HE HAD.

“I could even hear what they were saying off-mike. ‘Oh Paul, you’re so cute tonight.’ ‘Sod off, Lennon.’”

— Joan Baez on accompanying The Beatles to their concert in Red Rocks Amphitheatre, Denver. (August 26, 1964) |  Mojo Magazine: The Beatles Red Issue 1962-1966.

Visit Original Link

“I remember we were going down to the studio [...] and there was a great crowd pressing against the car. John was sitting in the back and he said, ‘Push Paul out first. He’s the prettiest.’”

— Victor Spinetti in the documentary “You Can’t Do That! The Making of A Hard Day’s Night” [35:53]. (1995)

Visit Original Link

“REPORTER: Hey. Hey, go a bit down. PAUL: Oh, yes. Go a bit down. REPORTER: Go a bit down. Yeah. JOHN [in the background]: Go down on me.”

— Press conference with The Beatles in Hamburg, Germany. (June 26, 1966)

— JOHN SINGING “IF I FELL” TO PAUL (WHILE KNEEL IN FRONT OF HIM).

— JOHN AND PAUL POSING LIKE A COUPLE IN DAVID BAILEY’S 1965 PHOTOSHOOT.

“There was no set dressing, few props, and little sense of artifice. Instead, just people, invited to pose however they wished, emanating charisma.” 

— Alastair Sooke for The Thelegraph: “Bailey’s Stardust, National Portrait Gallery, review”. (February 4, 2014)

— JOHN AND PAUL OPENLY CALLING EACH OTHER BY AFFECTIONATE NICKNAMES.

Visit Original Link

“JOHN: I’m playing, baby! Don’t stop me now. PAUL: Oh, no… JOHN: I’m not looking at you, am I? PAUL: You were! I know! JOHN: Well… I can laugh. PAUL: I know I can’t stop laughing when you’ve got tears(?) in your eyes. JOHN: Well, I’m laughing over here. PAUL: I know, but I can see —(?) and everything.

— The Beatles, Studio Outtake of “I’ll Follow The Sun”. (1964)

PAUL: What’s the matter, John love? Blue meanies?

— All Together Now | Special Edition Film Master. (1968)

PAUL: Are you listening, babe?

— Introduction of “Here Today” in tribute to John at the first show of the “Good Evening Europe” tour in Hamburg. (December 2, 2009)

Visit Original Link

PAUL: Well, happy birthday John. We miss you, baby. I miss you.

— Massage for the “Imagine: John Lennon 75th Birthday Concert”. (2015)

— JOHN POSING IN WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PAUL’S “FAMILY” PHOTOSHOOT WITH JANE (?).

* Paul framed the photo they took together and hung it on the wall of his personal Apple office.

— JOHN AND PAUL NATURALLY ACTING LIKE A COUPLE (SOMETIMES EVEN IN FRONT OF JOURNALISTS).

“‘Uh, I need another drink, baby’, says John.  Paul goes to the phone. ‘Hello? Yeah, send us six single Scotches — No, make it doubles, yeah, doubles.’”

— Michael Braun, “Love Me Do!: The Beatles’ Progress”. (1996)

* Michael Braun was an American journalist who spent time with the Beatles during their 1963 tour of the UK and also accompanied them on part of their early travels, gaining a behind-the-scenes look at their lives before they exploded internationally with Beatlemania.

“At the Sheraton, Malcolm Searle was given privileged access for his daily 3AK bulletins. Reporting from the kitchenette of the penthouse suite, he chatted to Paul, John and George, as Paul cooked steak and spuds for his and John’s dinner. The conversation turned playfully camp when Searle called Paul ‘a regular little housewife’ and described the gingham apron he was wearing. ‘Does he cook for you very much?’ John (indignantly): ‘Don’t say it like that, it sounds funny.’”

— “When We Was Fab: Inside the Beatles Australian Tour 1964” by Andy Neill and Greg Armstrong. (2024)

* Malcolm Searle was an Australian radio and TV host active in the mid-20th century. He conducted an interview with John Lennon at Melbourne’s Southern Cross Hotel in June 1964, and provided on-site radio reports from the suite where the Beatles were staying.

───────────────────────────────────────────

5. Private acknowledgment and widespread awareness

“The sad thing is that John and Paul both had problems and they loved each other and, boy, could they have helped each other! If they had only communicated! It frustrates me to no end, because I was just some chick from New York when I walked into all of that. God, if I’d known what I know now… All I could do was sit there watching them play these games.”

— Linda McCartney, interview w/ Joan Goodman for Playboy: “Paul and Linda McCartney’s Whole Story”. (December, 1984) 

“They weren’t opposites, they were so alike. The sad thing is John isn’t with us anymore and who knows what would have happened. You know, it’s the press. You read about history and you know it’s not really what happened… that’s why I’m glad I got pictures of them smiling together and I got to show people that, you know, they loved each other… they were friends, way before I met Paul, they were friends and carried on being friends, and it was deeper than any of us will ever know.”

— Linda McCartney [3:23]. (198–?)

“After the initial embarrassment, now Paul is being very nice to me. He’s nice on the level, straight sense. [...] And like, I can see that he’s just now suddenly changing his attitude, like he’s being — he’s treating me with respect. Not because it’s me — but because I belong to John. I hope that’s what it is, because that would be nice. [...] I’m sure that if he had been a woman or something, he would have been a great threat — because there’s something definitely very strong between John and Paul. And probably among those three people of George and Ringo and Paul, Paul is the only one that I can sort of feel the vibration [from]. Like, sort of sense it, you know, that something is among that.”

— Yoko Ono while The Beatles are recording and mixing ‘Revolution 1’ at EMI Studios. (June 4, 1968)

“To sum it up, Paul is a good songwriter and also he was John’s partner before I became John’s partner. And as John put it: ‘The first I picked Paul as a partner and next Yoko. First Paul McCartney and next Yoko Ono’, something, I think, he said.” 

— Yoko Ono. (November, 1985 [1:24])

“I think that it’s like [John] was married to Paul, and now he was married to me... So it was a situation that he didn’t feel like he wanted to go back, really. John had a lot of respect for Paul, and of course, love.”

— Yoko Ono, interview for BBC Radio 6. (1990)

“I’m sure that in the case of Paul there’s that feeling that I’m the woman who took away his partner — it’s like a divorce.”

— Yoko Ono [around the year 2000], “You Never Give Me Your Money: The Battle for the Soul of The Beatles” by Peter Doggett. (2009)

“Indeed, John’s wounded anger was more that of an ex-spouse than ex-colleague, reinforcing a suspicion already in Yoko’s mind that his feelings for Paul had been far more intense than the world at large ever guessed. From chance remarks he had made, she gathered there had even been a moment when — on the principle that bohemians should try everything — he had contemplated an affair with Paul, but had been deterred by Paul’s immovable heterosexuality. Nor, apparently, was Yoko the only one to have picked up on this. Around Apple, in her hearing, Paul would sometimes be called John’s Princess. She had also once heard a rehearsal tape with John’s voice calling out ‘Paul… Paul…’ in a strangely subservient, pleading way. ‘I knew there was something going on there’, she remembers. ‘From his point of view, not from Paul’s. And he was so angry at Paul, I couldn’t help wondering what it was really about.’”

— “John Lennon: The Life” by Philip Norman. (2008)

“The disruption really came with the women anyway. Where you have very close personal relationships between two men, and one of them goes off and gets a girl, and the other one goes off and gets another girl, and the two women don’t particularly like each other… then there’s a divergence. I don’t think Paul minded Yoko — Yoko’s fine, nothing wrong with Yoko — except that she was always there. [...] I think that was the beginning of it. And almost in self-defense, Paul got Linda.” 

— George Martin, interview w/ Chris Hodenfield for The Rolling Stone: “George Martin Recalls the Boys in the Band”. (July 15, 1976) 

“I wasn’t involved in the arguments, I was just hurt by it. I mean, I was a bystander. And I knew darn well that if I got involved, on either side... It was like a marital breakup. You know, if a husband and wife are fighting it up and someone tries to interfere, then both the husband and wife gang up on the other guy interfering: ‘Get out of our business!’.” 

— George Martin, Lost Lennon Tapes | Episode #155: The Disintegration Of Lennon & McCartney. (July 1st, 1991)

"I think they were all feeling a little paranoid. When you have a rift between people — if you go to a party and the husband and wife have been having a row — there’s a tension, an atmosphere. And you wonder whether you are making things worse by being there. I think that was kind of the situation we found with Ringo. He was probably feeling a little bit odd because of the mental strangeness with John and Yoko and Paul…” 

— George Martin, The Beatles Anthology. (2002)

“When I first auditioned them I said, ‘Who’s going to be the leader, is it John or Paul?’ Such an odd couple really, because they were different and yet very similar, both had big egos, both very good songwriters, but they needed each other like mad.”

— George Martin, interview w/ Jim Irvin for The Mojo Magazine: “Sir George Martin: The Mojo Interview”. (March 2007)

“More important to Paul than his relationship with Jane, was his partnership with John Lennon, whom he’d met shortly after his mother died of breast cancer when he was 14. [...] And when John’s mother was also to die in a road accident just over a year later, the friendship had intensified with a shared sense of loss. And so it was to remain as adulthood and fame arrived, and the girls came and went. And, in John’s case, a wife as well.” “Exactly a year after their first encounter, Paul met Linda again when he contacted her while he and John were on business in New York. [...] A few weeks later Paul called and invited Linda to join him at another business meeting in Los Angeles. [...] Slowly but surely, they were coming together, just as certainly as John and Paul were breaking apart.  John had fallen in love with Yoko Ono, and, increasingly fuelled by hard drugs, seemed bent on destroying what Paul saw as their creation. Losing interest in the Beatles, John had less time for Paul. The two could no longer write or record freely together without Yoko offering advice. Her presence put Paul off and John didn’t care. Paul was finding himself abandoned. Outwardly super-confident, inwardly he was growing increasingly insecure. There were girls all around him, of course. He couldn’t get rid of some of them, but he needed someone special at his side. He sent for Linda. [...]” “[...] Paul had always played on stage with his best friend. He couldn’t play with John Lennon anymore, so he turned his new best friend, Linda, into a keyboard musician in his new group, Wings.” 

— Ray Connolly, “The Ray Connolly Beatles Archive”. (2016)

“It’s like a marriage, you know. These two broke up. Paul took a long time to get over it. And probably John too, although he was too macho to show it. They had a marriage before Yoko arrived, you know. Although they both had girlfriends, a lot of girlfriends, and all that stuff.”

— Ray Connolly, interview for One Sweet Dream Podcast: “New Lens Series | Beatles go-to journalist Ray Connolly on his time with Lennon, Ono and McCartney” [00:26:00]. (March 24, 2021)

“One week and one day after Paul married Linda, I received a phone call from John. He and Yoko were at the Hôtel Plaza Athénée in Paris and wanted to get married, immediately. People believe that John’s desire to get married so soon after Paul’s marriage was a knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps it was psychologically about breaking up with Paul. [...]” “In the inner circle of Liverpudlians, we thought of Cynthia as family, and Yoko’s ascension as First Lady of the Lennons was jarring. John’s pal Magic Alex asks in his transcripts, ‘Why her? [...]’. The reason, many people believed, was that more than a trophy wife, a model or an actress, John needed a chum. His love affair with Paul McCartney was ending.”

— Peter Brown, “All You Need Is Love: The Beatles in Their Own Words”. (2024)

“I didn’t realise how sensitive the other Beatles were to John’s opinion. Paul worried about what John would say [in the event Lennon died before being interviewed] and was still longing for his friendship. [...] Those interviews were done before John’s death and Paul’s heart was broken, even then. It wasn’t just the break-up of the Beatles. It was more personal than that.”

— Steven Gaines, interview w/ Will Hodgkinson for The Times: “Why the Beatles split up — in their own words”. (April 6, 2024)

“[Yoko] was a very strong influence on John, and may well have been telling him that he could do best on his own, but I still think that on the back of John’s mind would be this sort of fascination with wanting to get back with the first girlfriend, if you’d like [laughs], and it was to get back with Paul that he had so much history with.”

— Tony Barrow, “The Beatles’ Biggest Secrets”. (2004/2007)

* Others quotes [but with no source]: TONY BARROW: They loved each other more than most couples do, and when they split it was more wrenching than most divorces.

“My impression is that Paul and John kind of knew that they were growing apart. And Let It Be was almost like a marriage that’s failing, and they wanna go on their date nights again.”

— Giles Martin, interview for 60 Minutes. (2021)

“John and Paul can shoot looks at each other and exchange thoughts. John, full of Da Vinci-esque chutzpah and Lewis Carroll whimsy and Joycean logic, projects authority, sovereignty. Can you dig that Paul is his princess?”

— Francie Schwartz for Rolling Stone Magazine #46: “Memories of an Apple Girl”. (November 15, 1969)

“Paul wasn’t happy. But the big things that were driving him mad were beyond me. He kept on working and writing, but when John came over, all he could talk about was how much he loved Yoko. That disturbed Paul. In spite of John’s obvious happiness, Paul stifled his jealousy with not-very-cute bursts of racist crap.”

— Francie Schwartz, “Body Count”. (1972)

* Danny Fields, who was Linda’s friend for 30 years until her death, said in the biography that he wrote: “Francie Schwartz has memories of Yoko that are kinder than most other people’s. But her account of the Big Rupture between Paul and John is probably quite accurate. The same story was told many times by John himself. Francie wrote a version of it in ‘Body Count’, and she told it to me.”

“I think once Paul and John’s differences came to the surface, the vibe really changed. Once that division had happened, they were finally able to articulate their hostility towards each other. Are we looking at a divorce, here? Are Mom and Dad going to be breaking up? And what’s gonna happen to us?”

— Richard Di Lello, Apple Records press assistant | “Z is for Zapple”: BBC Radio documentary narrated by Barry Miles. (June 18, 2004)

“‘John was in love and happy’, she said. ‘Paul wasn’t happy at all.’ His own relationship was crumbling... For Paul [...], the breakup with Jane was yet another blow at time when he had both to deal with John and Yoko and try to (at least as he saw it) to keep the group going the wake of Brian’s death. ‘He was desperate to settle down’, said Maggie McGivern. ‘He was terribly lost — he needed that foothold of security.’” 

— “Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World” by Steven D. Stark. (2013)

“That’s  very hard to delve into. They were great friends, and had great mutual respect, but they were also quite different from one another. I don’t know. Human relationships are tough to analyze. It’s like trying to talk about someone else’s marriage.” 

— Peter Asher, interview w/ Russell Hall for The Gibson: “Peter Asher Talks ‘60s, Beatles and Apple’”. (November 19, 2010)

“He and the world had just lost someone very dear to them. I had lost my Uncle John [...]; Julian and Sean had lost a father; Cynthia, her knight in shining armour; Yoko, a fellow artist, contemporary and house husband… and Paul? Well, call me crazy, but he lost the wife. I’m certainly not implying anything of a carnal nature here, but to almost all intents and purposes (as John would have put it), what they had was a marriage. Mark David Chapman’s selfish quest for his Warhol-esque fifteen minutes of fame was the fatal wound to an injured relationship that had lasted almost 23 years. This unconventional partnership, much like a paradigmatic marriage, had endured its sundry situations… [like] it’s honeymoon period [and] the tender temptations of Jane, Cynthia, Yoko, Linda, May Pang and others.” “Then on the 9th February, 1964, [...] The Beatles had conquered America. For the next two and a half years, John and Paul, (together with George and Ringo), would travel, eat, rehearse, write, play, record and ‘sleep’ (again, not literally) together.”

— Ruth McCartney,  “The Chemistry of Lennon and McCartney: An Essay”. (2002)

“Q: How did you view the troubles the Beatles have been going through these last few years? SMITH: I don’t know all this business between John and Paul is about and I don’t dare ask John. [...] I’m sure they’ll get back together soon. This is just a phase they’re passing through.” “Q: What do you think changed John so much from his early days as a carefree kid? SMITH: She’s responsible for all this, Yoko. She changed him, and I’m sure she and Linda are behind the split between John and Paul.”

— Interview w/ Aunt Mimi Smith. (Bournemouth, 1970) 

“Remember, [John] was twenty-one when he married Cynthia; he was twenty-eight when he married Yoko. Now, at the cusp of thirty-three, for the first time in his adult life, he didn’t have a wife (or, for that matter, three other partners) who made up his extended family. He was a free man.”

— Elliot Mintz, “We All Shine On: John, Yoko, and Me”. (2024)

“Lennon had attitude, and, taking his lead from Lennon, McCartney could be similar. At times, they reminded me of those well-to-do Chicago lads Leopold and Loeb, who killed someone because they felt superior to him. Lennon and McCartney were ‘superior human beings’.”

— Bob Wooler, “Best of Fellas: The Story of Bob Wooler | Liverpool’s First D.J., The Man Who Introduced ‘The Beatles’” by Spencer Leigh. (2002)

* Leopold and Loeb were two wealthy University of Chicago students who, in 1924, kidnapped and murdered 14-year-old Bobby Franks in what they called the “perfect crime”. There is strong historical evidence that Leopold and Loeb had a romantic and sexual relationship. 

“PAULINE: What do you think [The Beatles] did to one another? What do you think Paul and John’s current feud is still about? Q: Probably money. Whatever feud exists between Paul and Yoko maybe centers around billing… who gets top billing. Instead of Lennon-McCartney; McCartney-Lennon. PAULINE: Well, they’ve got enough money, don’t you think? I suppose enough is never enough for some people.”

— Pauline Sutcliffe, interview w/ Gary James for Classic Bands.

“The trial and acquittal bonded Mick and Keith — but it created a very odd dynamic. For Keith it was just an alliance within a group, but for Mick it was a lot more than that. It has all the irrationality and passion of a love affair. Lennon and McCartney had a similar bond between them. Not as strong, of course, but both groups had these duennas, these strange bisexual — almost witchy — figures as managers. Brian Epstein and Andrew Oldham.”

— Marianne Faithfull, “Faithfull: An Autobiography”. (1994)

“As the meeting was drawing to a weary close, John, not this day with Yoko, who hadn’t seemed particularly connected with what was going on, said he wanted to play us a tape he and Yoko had made. He got up and put the cassette into the tape machine and stood beside it as we listened. The soft murmuring voices did not at first signal their purpose. It was a man and a woman but hard to hear, the microphone having been at a distance. I wondered if the lack of clarity was the point. Were we even meant to understand what was going on, was it a kind of artwork where we would not be able to put the voices into a context, and was context important? I felt perhaps this was something John and Yoko were examining. But then, after a few minutes, it became clear. John and Yoko were making love, with endearments, giggles, heavy breathing, both real and satirical, and the occasional more direct sounds of pleasure reaching for climax, all recorded by the faraway microphone. But there was something innocent about it too, as though they were engaged in a sweet serious game. John clicked the off button and turned again to look toward the table, his eyebrows quizzical above his round glasses, seemingly genuinely curious about what reaction his little tape would elicit. However often they’d shared small rooms in Hamburg, whatever they knew of each other’s love and sex lives, this tape seemed to have stopped the other three cold. Perhaps it touched a reserve of residual Northern reticence. After a palpable silence, Paul said, ‘Well, that’s an interesting one.’ The others muttered something and the meeting was over. It occurred to me as I was walking down the stairs that what we’d heard could have been an expression of 1960s freedom and openness but was it more likely that it was as if a gauntlet had been thrown down? ‘You need to understand that this is where she and I are now. I don’t want to hold your hand anymore’.”

— Michael Lindsay-Hogg, “Luck and Circumstance: A Coming of Age in Hollywood, New York, and Points Beyond”. (2011)

“The Beatles were having severe problems then, with Yoko Ono apparently having driven a wedge between Paul McCartney and the most important person in his life, John Lennon.” “It was clear to Paul by this point that Yoko had become by far the most important person in John Lennon’s life; even were she to somehow vaporize, John would not come running back to Paul after that unfortunate disappearance.” “The wedding [of Paul and Linda] was front-page news all over the world [...] and, like an answering move in a chess game, John and Yoko were married in Gibraltar eight days later.”

— Danny Fields, “Linda McCartney: The Biography”. (2001)

“It was a divorce. It was, no doubt, both classic and inevitable — unless they had all refused to grow up into their adult lives. It was certainly hardest for Paul. He and John were emotional partners in a powerful, creative and loving way.”

— Paul Saltzman, “The Beatles in India”. (2005/2018?)

“I didn’t realise how sensitive the other Beatles were to John’s opinion. Paul worried about what John would say and was still longing for his friendship. [...] Those interviews were done before John’s death and Paul’s heart was broken, even then. It wasn’t just the break-up of the Beatles. It was more personal than that.” 

— Steven Gaines, interview w/ Will Hodgkinson for The Times: “Why the Beatles split up — in their own words the sunday times”. (April 6, 2024)

+ BONUS: RINGO COMMENTING THAT PAUL HAD A FRAGILE MASCULINITY.

“PAUL: George... I’ve got to see him. INTERVIEWER: How you did? PAUL: A short time before he died. [...] We sat and just stroking hands like this. And this is the guy, you know. I known since I was a little kid. We don’t stroke hands with guys like that, you know. It was just beautiful. RINGO: Not unless you’re secure. [Both look at each other and laugh at the same time.]”

— Interview with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono, Olivia Harrison and Guy Laliberté: First Anniversary of Cirque du Soleil’s The Beatles LOVE Show | Larry King Live (CNN) [7:34]. (June 26, 2007)

* Pattie Boyd and Elton John have also made “strange” comments about John and Paul.

───────────────────────────────────────────

6. What are they planning to do (and why)?

— PAUL ADMITTING THAT HE WATCHES FAN-EDITED YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF HIMSELF AND JOHN. (2017)

PAUL: I’ve seen a couple of YouTube videos that fans made that just reminded me of how good friends we were.

— JOHN’S INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT MAKING A SEQUENCE OF POSTS WITH THE LYRICS OF “IN MY LIFE” ON PAU’S 80TH BIRTHDAY. (June 17, 2022)

— SEAN LENNON CONFIRMING THAT HE IS AWARE OF EVERYTHING WE DISCUSSED ON TUMBLR. (June 2, 2024) 

FAN: You should look through the McLennon tab on Tumblr and report back to us if you care this much. SEAN: I’ve seen everything. Trust me.

— MIKE McCARTNEY REACTING TO THE SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE COVER FEATURING PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED EXCERPTS FROM “JOHN & PAUL: A LOVE STORY IN SONGS”. (March 16, 2025)

MIKE: My fab pic on the cover of The Sunday Times Magazine 2day. I hope u like it. ❤️

───────────────────────────────────────────

— Personal comments.

(1) The concepts of open secrets and the glass closet are historically and culturally specific. They emerge from entertainment industries, media practices and heteronormative social systems, particularly in Western societies during the 20th and 21st centuries. Norms of public acknowledgment, visibility and legitimacy vary across time, geography and social contexts. What counts as an open secret or glass closet in Hollywood or pop culture may look different in other countries, cultures or historical periods. 

In this case, we’re talking about the sixties. And we know that homosexuality was criminalized and stigmatized in Great Britain, so open secrets served both as protection and as a survival mechanism for the LGBTQ+ community. For many, the glass closet became the only viable way to exist, as it allowed a public — even if circumscribed — expression of their sexual identities. It was almost an absolute necessity, not merely a strategy, to navigate the system without being completely erased. At that time, this whole setting made sense for John and Paul’s reality. It seems that, from what I could gather, the main problem was always that this information reached the fans in general.

(2) The Beatles’ style marketing communication — especially in their prime years — was unusually layered and self-aware, with sarcastic jokes and puns. They didn’t just answer interview questions: they treated press conferences, TV spots and fan interactions as performances in their own right. If you stop to think, it maps surprisingly well onto open secret communication, because both rely on double layers of meaning and audience segmentation.

Beyond this, all of them also had a playful — and sometimes mischievous — relationship with the public, often blurring the line between truth and deliberate misdirection. Two famous examples are the song “I Am the Walrus” and the “Paul is Dead” conspiracy theory. In both cases, The Beatles demonstrated their talent for myth-making. Whether through lyrical chaos or mysterious visual symbols, they cultivated an aura of enigma that kept the press chasing stories and the fans searching for secrets — turning this act of deliberately redirecting our attention away from the intended target into an art form.

Haven’t you ever wondered why they only released the previously unpublished sketches of “Now and Then”, with the line “I’m still in love with you”, in 2023? They voluntarily kept it hidden for decades — and our first glimpse only came through John’s header on his official X/Twitter account, in a very implicit and scattered way. It looks like that they have control over everything and intentionally play with our minds, because they knew we would notice the “signs”. 

(3) As we can see, the majority  — and Paul’s itself, on many occasions — follow a similar behavioral pattern, maintaining ambiguous communication. However, this doesn’t mean everything is rehearsed, scripted or planned. Sometimes these processes can happen unconsciously, while people are in autopilot mode or even acting spontaneously. An open secret is established through a combination of mechanisms that gradually “teach” everyone involved how to handle it — often without a single explicit conversation. It’s less about a formal agreement and more about a shared set of cues, incentives and unspoken rules that solidify over time. Eventually, this behavior stops feeling like a conscious choice and becomes “just how things are”, like any natural phenomenon in our daily lives. All that was presented is yet another reason why we shouldn’t consider Yoko’s quote that Paul rejected John as an absolute truth. Like the others (e.g., Ruth McCartney and Marianne Faithfull), she also maintains an ambiguous narrative pattern of insinuation accompanied by minimization. 

(4) Did you see how John and Paul act like a married couple in Michael Braun’s presence, with Paul automatically knowing “baby” refers to him and obeying John’s commands? This is one of my favorite moments of them. It’s so casual and domestic. I have an impression that, in certain situations, they simply were what they were, and saw no need to formalize it to anyone around them. After the Beatles broke up, and John was murdered, everything between them kind of became public. It shocks me that in 2025 many fans continue to turn a blind eye to it.

(5) If you pay attention, you’ll notice that John and Paul — as well as the other people close to them, like Yoko and Sean — practically use the same communication strategies when speaking about their sexualities. The lyrics of songs that they wrote for each other in the 70s also can be read as a form of open communication, but coded so that only they (or those who “know” the truth) can understand it.

(6) Something interesting I accidentally realized is that, when you gather all the material about John’s affair with Brian, you’ll see that it was also an open secret because of the way both — and the Beatles’ social circle in general — acted around the subject.

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ PART 2 →

[bylerswheel]

what the fuck.

[imisscloudsimiss-you]

what the hell what the hell what the hell what the hell what the hell what the hell.

[thatgirlalt]

Operation Cycle-Break Part II: Final Boss cont'd - shame + birthdaygate

Mike: “I guess it’s up to us again.” Will: “It always is, isn’t it?”

Will: “Don’t tell the others. They wouldn’t understand.” Mike: “El would.”

Indeed, it will all come down to the resolution of Byler, that includes El, and here’s why.

Fittingly broken up into four gates parts:

I. What is the Upside Down and Vecna to Mike? II. What is the Upside Down and Vecna to Will? III. Why so Many Names? IV. What is the Upside Down and Vecna to the Town of Hawkins?

CW: this post will allude to CSA and CA implied within ST. Please read with care <3

This is Part II of the Cycle-Break series. Part I here.

To start: oh, I can’t believe how blind I have been. birthdaygate has taken even me victim, just as Will would have wanted, to be honest.

For the better part of the last week, I’ve done a lot of reading of theories and analyses. I read through all of bobgate (@cara-ti-amo your mind is truly nothing short of brilliant!) and I read quite a few posts regarding Will’s trauma (here and here). Of course, as we know, Will is taken to this horror dimension and pursued by monsters, that is trauma enough for a twelve-year-old boy.

But just as I suggested in Part I, that the manifestation of the horror and supernatural plot coming from Mike, the same can be said for Will. What is the Upside Down and the monsters that come from it a manifestation of if not Will’s shame rooted in his childhood trauma? The thing about shame is, unlike fear, it’s rooted in the past (put a pin in that).

When Will and Mike share a look on that one fateful November 6, 1983 evening, I think they both had a certain revelation about their feelings for each other being different and that’s what sets off the events of the entire show. I already talked about Mike’s side, but Will plays an equal part in unraveling and resolving the plot and, better yet, the story of Stranger Things.

What is the Upside Down and Vecna to Mike?

In Part I, I talk about how there is something that goes unspoken between Mike and Will in their first scene together. They are given a close moment by themselves, aside from the rest of the party. While Lucas tells Will to lie to Mike about the roll because it’s just a game, and Dustin is preoccupied offering Nancy the last slice of pizza, Mike and Will’s first scene together stands out as a unique connection between these two boys specifically.

Will honours the cardinal rule of their friendship, friends don’t lie, and the two boys share a look, setting off the electricity in Mike’s garage. And as Steve would put it a season later, electricity is synonymous with romantic chemistry, attraction and/or a deep connection. I talk about how I’m certain this exchange suggests Mike realizing, in that moment that Will honours their cardinal rule even when it’s something as trivial as a roll of a D20 dice, that his relationship with Will is different. Hence, the electricity surging. I didn’t, however, consider that this was the exact moment Will realized the same thing.

In Mike’s case, he doesn’t understand the meaning of his feelings just yet, only that they are different and that fact alone scares him. Thus, an abstract supernatural phenomenon and a faceless monster manifest. And as Mike’s feelings for Will become more realized, the supernatural reveals more of its depth and lore, eventually putting a personified (and one day humanized?) face to it all – Vecna.

To avoid repetition, I do suggest reading Part I to understand how the supernatural unravels in tandem with Mike’s feelings, and therefore his fears, becoming more realized with every season.

Vecna and Mike

As much as Henry/Vecna is a mirror character for Will, I think he is nearly as much of a mirror character for Mike. Allow me to elaborate.

Henry’s last name itself, Creel, means “weaver” or “weaving”. As in, spiders and spiderwebs? I would imagine, yes. How about as in, story weaving? As in, we have a Story Weaver (Henry) and a Story Teller (Mike)? Okay, I’ll be so normal about this.

Story-weaving: “the art of intricately connecting multiple narrative threads, characters, and themes into a cohesive, rich, and layered tapestry”. Not much different from Story-telling: “the interactive age-old art of using narratives, comprising plot, characters, and emotion, to share experiences, entertain, and convey values”.

A weaver is also a small bird, known for constructing elaborate nests. A bird you say? @walkablepurse50, what’s that about queer subtext of flying? Put a pin in that. In Part V, we are flying, indeed.

@newgipestel also pointed out to me that a weaver, the wheeled device to spin textiles, spindle is what puts Sleeping Beauty into eternal slumber. And we have this imagery in Mike’s basement, the couch and garbage bin. I said oh, I’m sure!

And while we’re on the topic of name etymology, let’s talk about Mike Wheeler himself. A wheeler, as you can imagine, is a wheel-maker and repairer. No, Mike, we are trying to break the wheel, I repeat, we are trying to break the wheel. More on breaking the wheel in Part IV.

All that being said, I think the show has evidence to suggest that Henry/Vecna is not only a reflection of Will, but of Mike, too. In Part IV, I’ll talk more about what Vecna represents at his core. Mike ending up a conformed shell of his former self - a reflection of the depression that comes with repression - by the epilogue, is more or less him becoming another Vecna, less evilly depicted obviously but, in my opinion, just as unsettling.

What I can’t get past is Mr. Whatsit and Mike Wheeler having the same initials. Mike ending up with a nearly identical appearance to that of Mr. Whatsit; Mr. Whatsit and Mike having the same leg limp. And Mr. Whatsit sat at the head of the table like Ted who, up until this point, Mike is seemingly abhorrent and critical of all throughout the show.

I can’t shake this feeling that Mr. Whatsit is a split in Henry’s being that is meant to mostly reflect Mike. Besides the parallels mentioned above, Mr. Whatsit and Mike, whether it’s obvious or not, whether our characters like it or not, are controlling the narrative of s5. More on Mike the Storyteller in s5 here.

Holly says Mr. Whatsit was trying to protect her and the other kids from the monsters in Hawkins that go after kids like her. For that reason, I believe Mr. Whatsit is convinced he is operating with good intentions, just as Mike does, when they have both trapped their respective parties in the worlds that they have built on lies. Mr. Whatsit and Mike both believe that, by trapping their parties in their worlds built on lies, they are protecting and saving them from the scary truth. But they are both motivated, consumed even, by fear.

What is the Upside Down and Vecna to Will?

So, from Mike’s perspective and how he affects the supernatural plot, we talked a lot about fear. The thing about fear, is that it’s undetermined anxiety of what is unknown. Fear is rooted in future uncertainty, the anticipation of danger, whether real or imagined. Fear makes you want to not change, not grow, not take risks, and more than anything, it makes you want to run away. This sounds like our Mike.

Unlike shame; which upon reading so many analyses on Will recently, makes all the difference in Will’s perspective, interpretation, and manifestation of the supernatural plot. You see, shame is rooted in past trauma, that has made someone feel disgraced, guilty and unworthy. Shame makes you want to withdraw, to hide, to disappear, to forget and to be forgotten. This sounds like our Will. :(

So, when Will also has a revelation about Mike and his relationship on November 6, 1983, it’s not an unknown fear of the uncertain like the one that starts brooding in Mike, that then manifests itself in the supernatural. Rather, in Will’s case, it’s a reminder of his shame.

When Will first suspects his feelings for Mike are different, it triggers this feeling that Will is a mistake, broken, and wrong, as his abuser Lonnie would have him believe. When Will realizes something is different, becoming aware of his queerness, he associates that feeling with Lonnie’s abuse. It’s a complicated, delicate and vicious realization for Will. He associates his queerness with his trauma, and because of that he equates his queerness as wrongness. With this realization of his feelings and therefore a reminder of his trauma, Will’s shame starts to manifest. And what did we say about shame? It makes you want to disappear.

As much can be analyzed about the implications of Mike’s jumping off the quarry cliff being a reflection of his mental after realizing his feelings for Will and then losing him, among other things, a lot can be said about Will’s mental in a similar context. But remember, Mike’s is rooted in fear of the future, and Will’s is rooted in shame from the past.

For Mike, I’ll reiterate, it’s a reflection of his fears; the crippling uncertainty of what it means to have such feelings for his best friend (and no doubt being bullied his whole life plays a part in it) and the anticipation of the worst-case scenario - losing said best friend, the one person who seems to best understand and see Mike truly for who he is. But otherwise, Mike is the most privileged, seemingly the most “normal” and from the most conservative family of his friends which makes his repression all the more reasonable. We often see Mike depicting the responses to fear. Fight – fighting with Lucas in s1, challenging the bullies, his crash-out to Hopper in 2x09 all come to mind. Flight – run away, turn away, run away, turn away, run away, need I say more? And Fawn – eventually yielding and conforming by s5.

Whereas, Will, we know is prone to the responses of shame: shrinking and downplaying himself, hiding and withdrawing. And in s1, it’s less literal than Mike’s jumping off of a cliff. But if I’m correct in that Will realizing his feelings for Mike in their first scene together reminds him of his shame, then that realization makes him want to disappear. You can hopefully see where I’m getting at here. The song that plays when Will is “brought back to life” is a song centered in isolation and depression, wanting to escape the world and finding peace in doing so. It’s lyrics “I don’t want to swim forever” playing as the conclusion of s1 hangs in the air, Will may or may not come back. He does come back, as we know, thanks mostly to his mother, and I’ll say it again, I think Joyce makes all the difference here (and, yes, surely Mike and El play a part).

I believe Will’s shame will be revealed in more detail in new content and it does pertain to Lonnie, who we know had a history of abuse, making Will feel inadequate, unworthy, guilty, a mistake, wrong, broken. In Will's case, Vecna is a reflection of Lonnie's abuse.

Lonnie’s actor was featured in a table read video for s4, and I’ve heard (although I’ve not seen it myself) that Noah said Lonnie will have a big influence on Will’s storyline in s5 during press (if anyone has a reference to that, please share so I can link!)

With that being said, Henry, who at twelve when we meet him for the first time, becomes corrupted by the Shadow, the same shadow that first visited him on/around his 8th birthday. Surely, you may know where I’m getting at here. As in, I think we will get some revelations of both Henry and Will’s backstories, specifically revisiting birthdays. I think something really traumatic happened to both of them on their respective 8th birthdays (the real first shadow).

“It wasn’t you. You were just a kid, a kid like me, and it used you.” Will to Henry in 5x08.

 I believe Will has these particular memories blocked out, just as Henry can’t face the truth of his own cave memory, just as there is a wall up in the Upside Down, and hence the Nina Project plotline about repressed trauma. Just as Mike is not fully aware of what his feelings mean, Will doesn’t know why exactly he associates his feelings with shame. Thus, both of the boys’ respective interpretations of the supernatural plot is very abstract and faceless in the beginning, but unravels more with the series’ progression.

I fear this is the real birthdaygate, and why Will would rather forget his birthday, and sadly, to some extent, his existence altogether. The supernatural unravelment, and that includes birthdaygate, manifests from Will’s shame too. That’s why he is so evidently side-lined in the finale, when Will is one of the biggest players in “defeating” Vecna and the supernatural. Why Will is replaced by Max in the DnD finale shot, why he disappears from scenes in the credits. I believe it’s Will that is actively erasing himself because he has become consumed by shame, the feeling that makes you want to disappear, forget and be forgotten.

That’s Too Many Names

I think part of the reason Henry – 001 – Vecna – Mr. Whatsit has so many names to begin with is each one is a different split of the same being. And each split a reflection of a different character(s) and how they perceive him. (As well as the HIV initials).

With Mr. Whatsit, we have Mike for all the points mentioned in section I. A leader who has been weakened by fear so he depends on lies to delegate, hoping no one will see through his façade. Thinking that by concealing the truth, he is protecting, even saving, his group from the “evil” supernatural. Mr. Whatsit and, in the end, Mike are consumed by fear.

With Henry, we have Will for all the points mentioned in section II. Henry, who was just a kid like Will and was used and abused. Henry, who had something really traumatic happen to him as a child that ruined his innocence. Just a boy, who at twelve years old, is revisited / reminded of the shadow, and therefore comes to the brink of his humanity. Will and Henry, two boys consumed by shame.

With 001, we have El. Another test subject abused by Papa. An authority figure to El, not unlike Papa, who builds trust with her, only to reveal it was all a manipulation tactic. Another example of a male figure using El as a means to their end. But someone that trusted her enough to disclose his own backstory and motivations with her. Someone that empathizes with her because they are both different. A conflicting dynamic and power struggle. A reflection and a constant reminder to El the delicate balancing act between monster and superhero. If I suspect a pattern here, I would reckon 001 and, by the end, El are consumed by alienation.

I will have a whole post about El the "alien" coming out at some point. I think it will be Part III or IV of this series.

So, we have Mike the Storyteller, the unreliable leader as Mr. Whatsit, overcome by fear; Will, the visionary, the artist, the Builder as Henry, overcome by shame; and El, the monster and the superhero as 001, the one who opens the door, overcome by alienation.  

And finally, with Vecna, we have the Town of Hawkins.

The Town of Hawkins – On the Outside Looking In

The Town of Hawkins at large does not and refuses to understand Vecna’s presence and the supernatural as a whole. It is a town consumed by ignorance, and in some cases, consumed by hate. Surely, there are a select few who try to understand it (the party) because it is more or less affecting them. But otherwise, Hawkins is careless, disregarding, ignorant, and hateful of it all.

I do suggest reading this post to understand how the general public and people in power’s response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic unravels similarly to the supernatural plot of Stranger Things. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest we should interpret it as such; the plot suspiciously follows that of the exponential progression of HIV/AIDS crisis from 1983-1986 (s1-s4) and how the Town of Hawkins' response to Henry – 001 – Vecna is reflective of that.

It’s not until s4, when there is a face to the supernatural, a story-weaver of its lore, that the Town has no choice but to face it and then vilify it immediately, which fair enough, it is killing teenagers.

But here’s the thing about the teenagers that are cursed by Vecna: they are all similar to Mike in that they are all running away from their “problems” and in some cases, are dealing with the complexities of Survivor’s guilt, which is a recurring feeling for Mike. And they are all (but Fred?) similar to Will, in that they all feel deep shame that’s rooted in child abuse. They are all traumatized characters that are pretending not to be, and Vecna is the monster that holds up a mirror to them.

Again, I think that Vecna thinks he is saving them, although in a very horrific and disturbing way, by holding up a mirror to them. And better yet, with his plans in s4, Vecna is bringing the horror of the Upside Down to the surface, making the Town see, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the awful, ugly truth that is the reflection of their misunderstanding, ignorance, and hate.

Vecna is a reflection of what this Town hates, a dark revelation. As his monikers’ initials would suggests, Vecna is the monstrosity of HIV (more generally gay men), which causes mass hysteria and what reinforces the vilification and ostracization of gay people. El is the monster of “being different” (queerness), locked away from Hawkins for almost the whole show, but what is saving the town repeatedly, in every season, from behind the curtain. Mike and Will are two boys navigating what it is that makes them “different”, one responding from fear and running away, and one responding from shame, wanting to disappear.

Take Nancy, ever the investigator, as the representative of the Town of Hawkins here:

“I see you’ve been looking for me, Nancy. You were so close, so close to the truth.”

And what is the truth, and therefore the resolution? It will take more than El and more than Will to “defeat” Vecna; they are not the ones who originally vilified him so. Again, I think it comes down to Mike returning to Hawkins, re-assuming his role as leader and heart of the party, a real leader. Mike will become the representative of the Town, like Nancy the season prior.

More importantly, Mike facing his fears to see the truth, and that the truth is not what Hawkins has made it out to be: a truth that is still scary to face if you’re Mike, yes, but not monstrous. (Will and El have their own truths to face too, which will complete the puzzle.)

It’s only then that all three: El, Will, and Mike can “defeat” Vecna.

It will take a lot to humanize him, because not only do we have to overcome alienation, shame, fear, but we have to have understanding to overcome hate and break the cycle. And to have understanding, we have to find a missing piece of the puzzle, a big one. And, only then will we have the truth. But more on that in the next part.

As always, thank you for reading!

[nightnut]

I have a feeling that ST will end up being the most powerful queer show on the planet after all………..

[thatgirlalt]

My Faith Has Never Been So Incredibly, Indisputably Unshakeable

Yes, it is absolutely that deep.

There is absolutely more to this story and it absolutely revolves around queer love and, by extension, Byler of course.

Upon really diving into the allegories and character personifications, especially El, Henry, and the Mind Flayer, I essentially came to this conclusion of what this story is truly about. The TLDR:

Part one and, I think even more importantly, part two of these analyses.

We've known since its inception, this show is an "homage" to the eighties. But I think it's actually meant to be more of a fictionalized expose and critique of the decade.

As any important media that has stood the test of time, this is a commentary, this is a statement, it makes an impact, it leaves a legacy, because it makes people think, or better yet, rethink everything; changes the way we think, changes the way we see everything.

Remember just yesterday, Randy Havens posted this:

So, you're probably asking, okay so what has made your faith so incredibly, indisputably unshakeable?

To cover all my bases and for my own peace of mind, I wanted to see what research I could do on the Duffers. See if there is anything that could support this idea of mine of what the show is really about.

And lo and behold, right there, on their already humbly condensed wikipedia page, the evidence I was looking for to support my TLDR sitting there all along.

The Duffer Brothers' father, Allen Pace Duffer Jr., made his living as a Project Director for Research Triangle Institute (RTI). RTI is a nonprofit organization whose efforts in the eighties went towards HIV/AIDS funding, research and possible treatment.

This has to be something, right? Like actually something undeniably linked to the story being unfinished.

And more proof that the fake ending, more than anything else, must be a commentary on queer stories/queer history being erased, ignored, sidelined, right? I mean, the commentary on critiquing media is also very important here too. Because media should always have a message, but people will watch a show for ten years and not even once consider or pay attention to its story. And yes, I mean story, because I suppose you could like the plot without even considering the story, and that is an important distinction.

And Stranger Things' message, its story, must be one of an expose and critique of the eighties decade, a sci-fi - fantasy - horror retelling of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. And, hopefully, some time soon (lovewinsgate), somewhat of a retcon where queer love and compassion save the world in this case. "We go back and re-write history", right?

[upsidedownlurker]

MIKE THE STORYTELLER

(his story has been turned upside down…)

Part 1 (Reality = reversed), Part 2 (Will/Robin), Part 3 (12 Episodes), Part 4 (MWTFDYD), Part 5 (Rainbows), Part 6 (Mike and Wileven)

Have you ever wondered why Season 5 is listed in reverse?

These 8 episodes are a fake version of the real story, told out of order; flipped upside down. 

Mike is the storyteller of Season 5, and he’s a very unreliable narrator. It’s not his fault though; right now, he’s trapped in a fake world, based on his own memories. 

"The storyteller keeps telling stories."

EVIDENCE?

It’s not Holly who was kidnapped into a fake world – it was Mike. All the episodes we experienced are based on things that really happened to him, but they’re out of order. Wrong.

Part memory, part story. 

So, for this theory to make sense, what happened to Holly must be what happened to Mike. Are there any similarities or details that suggest this?

Production:

Holly is aged up, and replaced by a different actor

Holly’s character arc completely replaced Mike’s. Most of the time, Mike’s just watching everyone else do stuff. No personal development.

Holly has more screen time than even Will, let alone Mike. 95 entire minutes – for someone who's usually a side character!

Interesting, but there’s plausible deniability here. It could all be the result of poor writing. So let’s test that by examining the way Holly is actually written in the show.

In-Show:

Max tells Holly, “You’re not like your brother, you are your brother”.

Holly the Heroic mirrors Mike the Brave. They wish they could become fearless like their characters, but they both feel like they’re not good enough.

Mike and Holly both tell the kids, “Eyes on me.”

Holly’s head wound in Camazotz mirrors Mike’s head wound from MAC-Z.

Holly the Heroic wields a fire poker, like Mike the Brave wields a sword.

Holly and her best friend Mary in the basement on Halloween while Vecna was watching mirrors Mike and his best friend Will in the basement on Halloween while Vecna was watching.

Holly and her friends replace Mike and his friends in the final D&D scene.

Okay, so not only are they written with a TON of similarities, but Max literally tells us straight-up that they are the same character. This doesn’t point to bad writing, it points to very intentional writing! The Holly/Mike switch has evidence, and lots of it!

Taking all of this into account, I can only conclude that Mike is literally Holly. He tells the tale of Camazotz from Holly’s perspective, but really, he is stuck in a fake world.

Why it Makes Sense

We all agree here that at least part of Season 5 is an illusion. But which parts? When does it start? Who is in the illusion? The exact details are extraordinarily hard to figure out, because there is evidence for both. 

There’s loads of dream imagery and signs of Vecna’s influence since Episode 1. This points to none of the episodes being real before 8. However, there are also moments from the characters and plot that just don’t make sense if they’re completely fake; for example, Robin giving gay relationship advice to Will. WHY AND HOW WOULD VECNA DO THAT??? LMAO??? This points to all of the episodes being real before 8.

That's the problem with the illusion theory – how can we possibly tell what is real? Well, this theory solves that problem.

ALL of it is real, and NONE of it is real. it's nerf or nothing

These episodes are a fake version of the real story, flipped upside down. Act 1.

C'mon, I'll show you Act 2!

THE REAL STORY OF SEASON 5

I noticed that the episode descriptions for Season 5 are pretty vague. So vague, in fact, that the first and last episodes could pretty much be swapped. Hey, wait a minute–

If you reverse the order of every episode, as they're listed on Google, they tell a very different story. This story makes genuine, logical sense. This is what's really going on.

The Overview

Don't worry – my explanation, evidence, original episode descriptions, the reversed order, the titles, etc are all below this overview!!!

It's 1986. After Vecna took over Hawkins in Season 4, the party planned to defeat him... but on November 6th, something went wrong. Vecna kidnapped Mike and brought him into a fake world.

[This is where Mike experiences the Season 5 we all saw – the "upside-down" story of Vecna's defeat, based on his memories of what happened in real-world Hawkins.]

[Since Season 4 took a long time to film, and was written in tandem with Season 5, it's possible that some of the "real" scenes were already filmed back then!]

Mike explores his new surroundings, Joyce wrestles with guilt over his disappearance.

To help find Mike/Vecna, they split into two groups. One group connects Will back to the hivemind, but it works a bit too well. El must find a way into Will's mind.

Meanwhile, tension arises when a group including Lucas and Robin searches Hawkins Lab in the Upside Down. They're caught, causing the military to tighten their grip on Hawkins. Meanwhile, Mike explores his new surroundings, Joyce wrestles with guilt*, and Jonathan + Nancy reach a crucial turning point.

[*Her guilt will probably come from Mike's disappearance, Will's hivemind trance – and maybe Jonathan's "turning point"]

Mike plans his escape from the fake world, while Lucas and Robin plan an escape from the military, and El comes face-to-face with the enemy (whoever that is).

Will is back, and because of his connection to the hivemind, he claims to know Vecna's next move, so they set a trap for him. Meanwhile, Mike fights to escape Vecna's mind – with Max! He confronts his secrets, leading him to escape. Nancy confronts a different secret – perhaps related to her "turning point".

Something about Will's... um... insight (read: possession)... enables Vecna to attack the Wheeler home, and whoever is inside. The trap wasn't for Vecna; it was for them.

El and Hopper go on a rescue mission (Probably Will, but could be for Kali, Mike, Nancy, or Jonathan too).

The gang evade the military and goes looking for Vecna in the Upside Down, but there's a threat closer to home. Something is happening to Will, and Vecna may not just be in the Upside Down.

Timeskip! It's now November, 1987. This is the real epilogue; not sunshine and rainbows, but honest and real.

So, how exactly did we get here?

STANDARD ORDER – ST5, Act 1

Well, here are the normal episode descriptions, for context.

THE CRAWL – November, 1987. The gang evades the military to scour the Upside Down for Vecna – but fails to notice a threat lurking closer to home.

THE VANISHING OF HOLLY WHEELER – After a vicious attack at the Wheeler home, Mike and Nancy confront the cost of secrecy, while El and Hopper embark on a rescue mission. 

THE TURNBOW TRAP – Will gains unique insight into Vecna’s next move, giving the crew an opportunity to set a trap. Holly explores her new surroundings. 

SORCERER – The military tightens its grip on the town. Mike, Lucas and Robin orchestrate a daring escape. El comes face-to-face with the enemy.

SHOCK JOCK – The gang hatches an electrifying plan to connect Will to the hive mind. Tensions flare during a search of the Upside Down’s Hawkins Lab. 

ESCAPE FROM CAMAZOTZ – As Holly and Max fight to escape Vecna’s mind, El must find a way into Will’s. Joyce wrestles with guilt. Jonathan and Nancy face a turning point. 

THE BRIDGE – On the anniversary of Will’s disappearance, the party reunites to prepare for a battle with world-altering complications. 

THE RIGHTSIDE UP – As Vecna prepares to destroy the world as we know it, the party must put everything on the line to defeat him once and for all. 

Doesn’t that sound vague to you? Almost like they would make sense in a different order?

UPSIDE DOWN ORDER – ST5, Act 2

Well, here are those same descriptions – flipped. I actually think there will be 12 Episodes total, but for clarity, I kept them separate here.

I reversed the order of everything, except for the lines about Holly – because her story is what actually happened to Mike, so it's already in the right order. I then replaced Holly's name with Mike's.

I also changed every episode title except The Crawl, which I’ve fully explained below!

THE CRAWL - As Vecna prepares to destroy the world as we know it, the party must put everything on the line to defeat him once and for all. 

THE VANISHING OF MIKE WHEELER – On the anniversary of Will’s disappearance, the party reunites to prepare for a battle with world-altering complications. 

*THE RIGHTSIDE UP – Jonathan and Nancy face a turning point. Joyce wrestles with guilt. As Mike explores his new surroundings, El must find a way into Will’s mind.

*SHOCK JOCK – The gang hatches an electrifying plan to connect Will to the hive mind. Tensions flare during a search of the Upside Down’s Hawkins Lab. 

*SORCERER – El comes face-to-face with the enemy. Mike, Lucas and Robin orchestrate a daring escape. The military tightens its grip on the town.

ESCAPE FROM THE RIGHTSIDE UP – Will gains unique insight into Vecna’s next move, giving the crew an opportunity to set a trap. Mike and Max fight to escape Vecna’s mind. 

THE PALADIN AND THE CLERIC – Preceding a vicious attack at the Wheeler home, Mike and Nancy confront the cost of secrecy, while El and Hopper embark on a rescue mission. 

*THE RAINBOW SHIP – The gang evades the military to scour the Upside Down for Vecna – but fails to notice a threat lurking closer to home. November, 1987.

* = switched, blue = replaced, all other text is simply in reverse order

Don't these descriptions work suspiciously well in their reversed order? Perhaps their vagueness was intentional.

I believe that in their new order, and with Mike swapped for Holly, these descriptions tell the real story.

Although, I think it's more likely they'll condense it into four longer ones, rather than putting out eight more one-hour episodes. I'll touch on this in Part 3.

Why these titles?

Below is an explanation of the new titles I chose for each revised description. You can skip this, but it provides some extra context.

The Crawl = The Crawl. Only The Crawl has been registered for copyright, so I’ve changed every title EXCEPT this episode. Also... when baby Steve got knocked on the head, he stopped CRAWLING in reverse, and started CRAWLING forwards instead. The episodes are now in the correct order.

The Vanishing of Mike Wheeler, because… duh. Also, "The Vanishing Of..." only reveals that it's Holly Wheeler after you watch the episode. Perhaps they did that for a reason... ;)

I swapped The Turnbow Trap with The Rightside Up, because this is the episode in which Mike finds himself trapped in his version of Camazotz. Except Mike wouldn’t name it after a book he hasn’t read. He would be much more likely to compare the fake world to the Upside Down. Therefore, it’s the Rightside Up! Here’s my theory that the Rightside Up is a place.

Similarly, I replaced Escape from Camazotz with Escape from the Rightside Up, because… duh. 

I simply swapped Shock Jock and Sorcerer. They both start with “S” and they’re both right next to each other. Interestingly, the official art for Sorcerer uses a frame from Shock Jock, and the official art from Shock Jock uses a frame from Sorcerer. Hmmm.

The Season 5 titles were leaked before they were announced, and the only incorrect leak was Episode 7 – The Paladin and the Cleric. So, that’s what I chose. Similar titles have been used throughout the series (The Flea and the Acrobat, The Monster and the Superhero) so it’s plausible. It matches Mike and Will's D&D characters... but it ALSO fits El and Hopper, who are a duo in this episode. Why? Mike's campaign from the epilogue. El is the mage of Saint Markovia, but in D&D lore, Saint Markovia is a cleric. Mike called Hopper a paladin in that same campaign.

Now, the final episode. I have literally no out-of-show evidence for the final episode’s title could be, so here’s my idea. As a replacement for The Turnbow Trap, I chose The Rainbow Ship, because of the strong rainbow themes throughout the show. The rainbow room from the lab, "rainbow, sunflower" etc, Holly’s association with rainbows, the rainbow El sees between the two waterfalls, and crucially, Will’s rainbow ship drawing. His drawing of Castle Byers became real, his drawings of Will the Wise became real, his drawings of the tunnels... and presumably, the rainbow ship, too.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY! “There upon a rainbow is the answer to a never-ending story.”

ALSO IMPORTANTLY! As @persistentmimicgrail pointed out, the USS Eldridge ship was part of project rainbow. RAINBOW SHIPPPPPPP~

Easter egg – a rainbow forms when water and light combine. Will is associated with light, while both Will and Mike are associated with water.

Also, I think it would be hilarious if the episode where Will + Mike get together is called The Rainbow Ship. COME ON!!! THAT WOULD BE SO FUNNY!!! If the Duffers don’t do this, it’s going straight to my ao3 account, that’s for sure.

MIKE WHEELER: the storyteller, or the Dungeon Master?

As well as being Mike the Brave, Mike used to be the Dungeon Master. The one in control of the story. Now, he’s merely the storyteller of Season 5, telling fake stories, trapped in a fake world built from memories, with no control at all. 

“The storyteller keeps telling stories. Stories inspired by his friends.” He hopes “all can know of their great bravery.” 

Isn’t that sad? Mike’s friends get to be brave, but the only thing Mike The Brave gets to do is tell their stories. Not his own. 

This reminds me heavily of Owen from I Saw The TV Glow (2024).

[SPOILERS!!!]

Owen is a heavily queercoded character trapped in a fake world, while the real world is presented as a TV show Owen and their friend are obsessed with.

Throughout the film, timeskips get larger and larger, and Owen slowly loses control of the narrative, going from the protagonist to a background character in their own life, no longer in the center of the frame. Owen's friend from the real world tries to help them escape, telling Owen that they must choose to give up their fake self to get back to reality. But Owen isn’t brave enough. Instead of choosing to escape, Owen runs away. Chooses conformity instead.

“There’s still time” for Owen to accept reality, but that time is quickly running out.

This is what Mike is going through. Being trapped in a fake world with altered memories. Starting as the protagonist, but fading into the background. Timeskips and time distortion. An ambiguous ending. Queerness. Repression. Conformity. Bravery. 

Why is it that the way Mike is written is incredibly similar to the main character of an explicitly queer film? A film about the difficult choice to end your “normal” self in order to keep your true, authentic self alive – and the deep, dreadful horror of living in queer repression after failing to do so?

This film isn’t even listed as inspiration for Stranger Things, yet Mike’s story mirrors Owen’s near-perfectly. How is that even possible? Because they’re about the same thing. Queerness and conformity.

“There is a story he can never tell. The story of the mage.” Cut to Will. “Or at least, not the real story.”

Mike is going to escape his own doomed narrative. He is going to take back control, confront his secrets, become the protagonist of his life again – the Dungeon Master of his own, personal game of D&D.

Why does it need to be Mike – not Holly?

Thanks for the question, @poisongardens!!

From a character perspective, I think it relates to how Mike sees himself. Mike sees his fears as childish and silly, so it makes sense he projected them onto a more "acceptable" replacement – his little sister. It's okay for Holly to be scared, but not Mike, right? He also thinks he's not important or brave enough to be the hero of his story, so he replaces his character with a different one.

From a writing perspective, I think the "bad ending" happened because the characters succumbed to their fears and insecurities; the "good ending" will be the result of bravery, love, non-conformity etc. So, Mike needs to be in control of his own story to achieve this, not Holly… meaning Mike must have something Holly doesn't.

This analysis gave a great explanation!!

Even though Holly and Mike live in the same house, their experiences are different. They both see their parents argue, but Holly sees them argue about her. They both have close best friends who are under Vecna's control (Will, Mary) but while Will is able to remember Mike, Mary doesn't, and even attacks her. Holly befriends Derek, but he's too scared to defend her when she's in trouble. Holly can talk to Mike, but he doesn't tell the full truth, and he's stuck in Camazotz too.

Holly is like Mike, but with less support/accessible love (similar to Henry vs. Will). Believing in herself unfortunately wasn't enough – because when she fell, no-one was there to catch her.

Mike's different though. He has people there to support him, who aren't stuck in conformity – and he has love that is accessible to him, but only if he's brave enough to seek it out.

How's it going to end?

Well, to reference the Truman Show – a film that is on the Stranger Things inspiration board – it starts with Mike walking up the stairs, and out that basement door.

The ending has already begun.

Thanks to @astrangerthingsblog, @warmglowhc, @atsadi, @thatgirlalt, @thebestofmyrmidons, @whispering-goat, @vecnapilled… and a bunch of other peeps I’ve probably left out by accident. Your theories and analyses inspired this one!

[z0mb1ib0y]

I’m incredibly compelled to believe conformitygate could be real based on evidence thus far.

Which is why it bothers me so much that people will dismiss it without considering. I want to think it’s not real, but absolutely nobody is providing substantial proof to argue against it—it all just boils down to condescension, calling the duffers stupid and theorists over thinkers.

So, I want everyone calling conformitygate theorists stupid, or delusional, or crazy, or psychotic, or every other weirdly nasty name people have come up with to actually properly refute conformitygate evidence for me:

People say the time spent filming, overall screentime, and budgeting ultimately doesn’t add up for the content we received. When compared to season 4, we have 6mo of filming vs 1yr. 13hrs total screentime vs 10hrs. 270mil vs 400-480 (round it to 440 to play it safe, each ep costed 50-60mil). Explain why it does add up.

They claimed to have studied bad and good endings immensely to understand what is often received well and what isn’t and avoid what isn’t. They even put emphasis on game of thrones specifically. They destiel’d mileven, GoT’d killing the mindflayer, GoT’d the documentary, and lord knows what else (my tv media consumption consists almost exclusively of bobs burgers, Rick and Morty, and niche queer shows that get cancelled before they get to have bad finales, so I can’t point out any parallels that haven’t been pointed out by others, and I’m probably not online enough to see everything). Explain how they studied bad finales specifically to avoid it, only to do what they did—especially GoT, right down to the documentary.

El’s entire storyline in season 5 contradicts her previous 4 season arc of self-discovery. She became a weapon and a monster. She snapped a persons neck without hesitation or reaction, she looked a man dead in the eye while forcing him to kill himself without missing a beat. That’s not a subtle change or accidental minor mischaracterisation, that’s a complete contradiction of the goal their character has worked towards for the past 4 seasons. Explain why her story this season contradicts her previous arcs so heavily.

The duffers are being accused of AI usage during scriptwriting, and using Ross’s ex-wife to give the show the quality it had (ignoring how offensive that is to the female writers on the show, one of whom was the writer of the play everyone adores), and yet they are doing very little to dispute these rumours. The interviews they did after Vol3 immediately turned them into laughingstocks, PR found dead in a ditch apparently. Explain why they’ve done almost nothing the shield themselves from the hellfire raining down upon them (that’s not an intentional pun).

The writing of stranger things has had its flaws here and there, like most shows or books do, but it’s always stuck to its core values (love defeats fear, protect outcasts/freaks). Explain why it did a complete 180 in season 5.

The lights are still flashing when el and Nancy arrive, and hol can still be heard screaming once they’re inside, so the time between the attack and el and Nancy getting inside will have been 45 seconds at most (being generous). In Hollys memory, Karen is lying on to floor, eyes open, chest not moving (they even accentuate this by panning down to her for a few seconds). Yet in E2, she’d managed to drag herself over to the counter and stand up and grab the phone. Explain why they made the choice to show that the demo was still in the house at the point that they showed up, and to show Karen unmoving in Hollys memory.

People claim the WYR question “be stuck in the upside down with your best friend, or live in paradise shackled to your worst nightmare” is far too reminiscent of what conformitygate is to be a random question. Explain why it is random.

The documentary has at least one undoubtedly scripted scene, another that’s been heavily speculated to be scripted. It managed to point out just about every flaw with the finale, focused heavily on the duffers essentially just being incompetent and everyone around them judging them (if it’s not real then this is actually just really funny honestly, totally lost respect from all their employees), and evidently showed us a previous draft that gave us a far better storyline. Explain why, despite the at least 1 scripted scene and the duffers being made to look like complete buffoons to the point where the GA was fired up over it, the documentary is still sincere (using the term loosely because we do already know at least part of it isn’t).

Will and mike have multiple wardrobe designs that parallel lovers whose memories of the other are taken:

Explain why it’s not intentional, or what the parallel is about if not that.

The images of the clown cake and circus tent show us that birthdaygate was (more than likely) real. Under the assumption people will argue the storyline was simply cut (I’ve seen different arguments as to why), explain why they would allow for bts to be posted that proves a well-known theory they are aware of was cut.

Barbs body was brought up prior to the release, saying it would be in S5. The actor was at the premiere. BTS images show her body in at least two locations: the church and the pool. Explain why they would talk about it, and allow for bts to be posted if it was cut.

People have pointed out that the leaks of the ending were suspicious. There were multiple high quality shots of Mike and hopper talking together, showing enough of the set to give a timeframe, immediately leading to the theory that el would die or fake her death. This was the biggest twist (twist being used loosely) of the series, and it was leaked with no attempt to quell it (as far as I’m aware, please correct me if they did try to snuff it out). Explain why it was so easy to leak the biggest twist of the series and why they didn’t try to keep it quiet.

Dnd games foreshadowing events in the show, yet vecna having a fakeout death (and noteably coming back missing an arm, cough cough) was never realised. Explain why that game wasn’t foreshadowing, despite the previously established rule.

Following up, the foreshadowing of the season 3 game in which Mike injured his arm and sacrificed himself—we see the beginning of the foreshadowing coming into the show when he hurt his arm in E4, only for the rest never to be carried out and his arm miraculously being okay afterward. Explain why the foreshadowing was suddenly abandoned, and why they put focus on mikes arm only for it to be okay.

The wsqk episodes evidently sync to the actual episodes, with multiple audio cues that heavily point toward the sync being intentional. Parts of the episodes are completely recontenxtualised by the music choices. Explain why it isn’t intentional, or why it doesn’t play into conformitygate.

The season has multiple parallels to the Truman show, some noteable ones being the lightbulb drawing framed over Truman vs the wormhole/upside down drawing framed over will, the eagle on the wsqk van vs the eagle on the boat Truman used to escape, wills epilogue outfit being reminiscent of Truman’s love interest (as referenced above), & more. Explain why these parallels are not intentional, or how they’re relevant in the show, just not to conformitygate.

Digdug foreshadowed the tunnels in season 2, the video game Derek plays has a false ending before you get to the real final boss. Explain what the game foreshadows if not a false ending, or why it doesn’t foreshadow anything.

They have multiple abandoned/incomplete (some foreshadowed) storylines or arcs, such as romantic development between Mike and Will, Wills forgotten birthday and his birthday being the same as Henry, the continued love overcomes fear arc that plays a part in each finale, patty newby, Henry’s trauma, mikes hero arc (and foreshadowed battle with Will, which leads me to believe should conformitygate be real, he’ll be the final boss), the time travel references and the UD being stuck on the day Will was taken, Will being revealed as vecnas builder, Wills connection to the hivemind. Some were introduced this season, which means forgetting due to time is not a valid argument. Explain why we have all these meticulously (byler, birthdaygate, time travel, patty/henrys trauma, love overcoming fear specifically are the ones I’m referring to as meticulous) set up arcs left suddenly abandoned.

Joyce puts on a play within a play, the fake “Oklahoma” play before the real play, saying that it’s a risk, but it’ll be worth it if they can pull it off. So the writers clearly are aware of fake-outs. Explain why Joyce’s play doesn’t work in favour of conformitygate.

We also have the “sad ending vs gay ending” script from Joyce’s play, with bylers colours, and the song not finishing in the credits (“you never know the ending until it’s sung all the way through”, credits finish on “we can be heroes”, right before the next lyric “we’re nothing, and nothing will help us”). Explain why they gave us a sad ending, don’t plan to give us a gay one, and why the song doesn’t finish on the credits.

Millie called season 5 “meta”, when we have not yet seen any meta content. Explain why she would call it meta.

Episodes 2-8 are yet to be copyrighted, episode 1 was registered after 5 days. Explain why they haven’t copyrighted them yet.

People have noted these potential “hints/clues” the ending:

- no watches show the time (I’ve gone through scenes frame by frame, it’s not a matter of bad lighting or quality)

- Jon’s camera does not show the date

- whatzit game in basement and cabin (killer is not dead trope)

- robin saying, “I am almost too superstitious to say this […] but I think the Hawkins curse has finally lifted”.

- Mike and Nancy being copies of their parents, when that is each their biggest fears

- gowns being orange, despite the fact that orange was closely associated with prisoners in the 80’s (and still is), and the gowns were green in Nancys book, but they were orange when Henry went there.

- Robin hoping she would double her audience by the end of the year (only if will can out-sorcerer the sorcerer and they don’t all die), and promising to take Vickie to enzos (if they make it out alive), neither evidently happen in the epilogue.

- Will being erased from the scene where his birthday was forgotten, and the small town boy album shapes in the background.

- the ticking leading into the epilogue (which immediately opens with another brick in the wall)

- wills imagined epilogue boyfriend wearing a similar jacket to mike and the same hair (the actor does not have this hairstyle, so it was changed to look like that)

- the engagement ring jopper used being the jancy ring

- el in a wig being the clip they used right after she said “the real me”, and her entire speech being directly contradicted by the arcs for their relationship in the previous 2 seasons

- Mike not saying I love you, nor initiating the kiss

- the “m” on mikes dnd book holding the same shape as the cave/spyglass

Explain why all of these are coincidences/how they work in the show in a way that doesn’t feed into conformitygate.

Im not saying conformitygate is 100% real, i don’t want to believe in it (not saying I don’t want it to be real, just don’t want to believe in it), but I am yet to see any compelling arguments against conformitygate. So I am genuinely inviting people to please refute these (without being condescending). I’m fully aware there’s a ton more, but I’m so tired and my neck hurts, and I’m yet to organise the evidence I’ve seen in a fashion that makes it easy to navigate.

And no, calling the duffers stupid as an actual argument doesn’t cut it. Especially when it comes to refuting the bad writing arguments, because other people were still involved, including Kate Trefy (I believe that’s her name, apologies if I got it wrong) who they deeply respect and admire. And that reminds me, please stop with the Divorcegate crap, it feels genuinely insulting to these women who worked on ST5—and Leigh too, who was better established in the industry than the duffers, and I’m sure would not let her husband take credit for her work for 10 years.

[bylerbananza]

This edit by “zpspv767” on TikTok does something to my soul and it scares me. It’s so complex and UGHHH it’s so GOODDDD!!! Idk how to explain it but I feel like it portrays Mike’s mind and what he’s feeling. And it’s also SO MUCH evidence in a 35 second video!! RAHHHH I JUST CANT TAKE IT 💚💚💚